TAC - Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads (2017)
Uploaded by
Theo VighTAC - Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads (2017)
Uploaded by
Theo VighI :1
> IJ
I~
Transportation Association of Canada
I
I
II I
I\ I \1
\\ I
I~ i
l
I
~
I
1
>: I
I
I
1
Geometric Design Guide
fo~ Canadian Roads
I
~UDIIU
__ SIB
4-----
/ June 2017
I
I
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 1 - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
June 2017
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
Transportation Association of Canada
2323 St. Laurent Blvd.
Ottawa, ON KlG 4J8
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-615-3
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) WSPI MMM Group Limited
Carl Clayton, Stantec Consulting (Co-Project Manager) 100 Commerce Valley Drive West
Geoff Millen, WSP I MMM Group Thornhill, ON L3T OAl
Jim Dowell, WSP I MMM Group
Jeff Ward, WSPIMMM 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
Design (overall design)
guidelines for freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural
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 veh icles, 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 I MMM 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 Roads, 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
Project Steering Committee
Eric Christiansen, Manitoba Infrastructure (Co-Chair)
John Hammer, Regional Municipa lity 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 Dobush 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 !'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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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, WSPIMMM 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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 for 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 th is Guide.
June 2017 v
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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 ................................................................................................................. l
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 Performance 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 Collisions ...... ...................................................................................... 15
1.3.2.5 Design Choices ....................................................................................................... 15
1.3.2.6 Road Safety Audits .......... ...................................................................................... 16
1.3.3 Environmental Impacts And Aesthetics ....... .. .. .. ... ..... ... .......... .. ... .. .. .... ... .. .......... .. .. .. .. .. .... ... 16
1.3.4 Financial Costs .. ... .... .. ............. .... .... ..... ... ........... ..... ... ..... .. .. ........... .... ...... ... ... ..................... .. 17
1.3.4.1 Capital Costs .......................................................................................................... 17
1.3.4.2 Maintenance Costs ................................................................................................ 17
1.3 .4.3 Vehicle Operating Costs ...................................................................................................... 17
June2017 ~i
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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 Report Summary ..................................................... 28
June 2017 ix
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
1
proven. Further research worldwide, the introduction of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 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 wel I 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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 relationsh ip 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 collis ion frequency and, where possible, severity.
The term "accident" is not used in this Gu ide, 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 . In such situations, designers must exercise particular diligence
and prudence to protect public safety and achieve defensible final design decisions.
1.1.S MANAGING DESIGN RISK
Managing risk requires that the decision maker take action to change the magnitude or chance of a loss
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 recogni ze is that the actions themselves are risky, and although our understanding
of their 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
Contingency Significant
Risks Risks
Low likelihood High likelihood
High impact High impact
Minor High Incidence
Risks Risks
Low likelihood High likelihood
Low impact Low impact
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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,
2
restoration, and rehabilitation . 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,
3
or processes. 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
4
unnecessary expenditure. Figure 1.1.2 illustrates the VE process.
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
• 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
5
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. LOS E 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
6
intersections, the designer should consult the Canadian Capacity Guide for Signalized lntersections and
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010)7.
10 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
2
injury
- -- -- --
collisions _
0
--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 I year]= 0.67 [collisions /million vehicle
kilometres] . At point Q, where AADT = 5,000, the collision rate is 0.81 collisions/million vehicle
9
kilometres. The variation of collision rate with traffic volume is shown on Figure 1.3.2.
12 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
total
collisions
0.6
0.4
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
annual average daily traffic
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 offunction 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
10
similar attributes and using statistical analysis, a best fit SPF model or equation can be determined. It
should be noted that the continuous nature of an SPF allows it to be represented by an equation, rather
than tabulated values.
11
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Highway Safety Manual (HSM)
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 if the 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
12
outdated SPFs will result in erroneous assumptions by the designer.
June 2017 13
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
30
freeway ; '
-...
ra (/)
Cl> c (/)
25 four+ lanes _, -'
;
;
.... ·······
=i°"·2 c 20
E~.2 _, ; ••••• ·····
freeway
-
~ 0 t5
-uCL>
I/)
C:·~
0 "C c
(/)
C> .....
2 10
15
;
;
;
.... •• • • • •
•••• • • •• four-lane, rural
four lanes
·- ::::i ·-
•• undivided
11>--
:: ~ ro 5 four-lane,
0 CLl
(,,) rural divided
0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000
annual average daily traffic
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
13
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
9
benefit of an investment in lane widening. Data can also be combined 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.
14
It should be noted 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
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
15
Highway Research Program project.
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
16
the Highway Safety Manua/ 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
"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
17
safety of road transportation facilities. A road safety audit is defined 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."
8
The objectives of a road safety audit1 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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 19
include fuel, oil and lubricants, tire wear, maintenance parts and labour, insurance, and some
June 2017 17
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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. For this
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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 long 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 1.4.2 shows 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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 "min imum 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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 for that 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
20
addressed needs to reflect the range of relevant legal, policy, and organizational practices.
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
21
the reason for the decision. 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
22
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
6. Stopping sight distance
June 2017 21
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
Vertical clearance
7.
8. 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
and impacts of
meeting design
parameters
y develop and
evaluate
alternatives y evaluate risk
~
monitor and
evaluate
in-service
performance
y document,
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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 - Is 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
24
speed urban roadways. 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
24
design exception process. 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 of features 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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.
25
Table 1.5.1: Key Design Element Mitigation Measures
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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 sever ity 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
28
process and a design standards/practice exception request summary.
June 2017 27
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
Figure 1.5.2: Sample Design Exception Process and Report Summary
Government
ofAlberta• DESIGN STANDARDS/ PRACTICE EXCEPTION
REQUEST FORM
Date:
Project:
Region :
Project Sponsor:
Consultant:
NOTE: complete, modify and/or provide additional information as required.
Project Stage
( ) Functional Planning ( ) Preliminary Design ( ) Detailed 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 ltvnicallv reauired for all oroiectsl
Proiect Descriotion
Hi<ihwav No. Control Section I
Km Posts From : To:
Len<ith of Project
ChainaQe (if applicable) From: To:
Chain Direction • South to North • West to East
Desi<in Desiqnation
Service Classification
Basic or Existing
Rioht-of-Wav
Existino Traffic Vol. AADT I ASDT
Projected Traffic Vol. AADT ASDT
( vears\ I
Design Vehicles Vehicle
Distribution
Desian Soeed Posted Soeed
Examp1 e of "
mformat1on require . d es1gn:
. d f or geometric
Cross-Section: Existing Width Width after
Overlav
3R/4R Current
(Suggested Min. Standards
Widthl
Backslooe Sideslooe
Ditch Width
Level of Service: Existina Proiected
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 of2
28 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
Governmen ~
of Alberta II 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 Freouencv
Collision Severity #Fatal #Injury #PDO
Breakdown
Other (Type):
Please specify
Other Criteria - Please Specify
Det ails and Supporting Documentation of Design Exception
Provide drawings, analysis, evaluations, cost estimates, ra tionale, justification , etc. and
supporting documentation as required .
Recommended : Recommended :
Project Sponsor/Date Reg ional 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, 2010 Page 2 of 2
June 2017 29
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
_kt~ DESIGN STANDARDS/PRACTICE
Government EXCEPTION REQUEST SUMMARY
I Title : Hwy 47:06, South Robb Intersection, Km . 6.94, Intersection Sight Distance
Memorandum (or Approval) Date: July 5, 2013
Design Exception Request Date: June 5, 2013
Region: North Central
Approval Status: Approved
Proiect Location
HiQhway I Control Section l Atkm I From km I To km J Existing AADT
47 I 6 I I 0 I 45.78 I 460
Proiect Tvoe IMark all that aooly with an Xl
Functional New
Plannino : Construction :
Reconstruction: Paving/Surfacing ; x
BridQe: Operations : Geotechnical : Environmental:
Other: Detailed Desion x
Summarv
Current intersection sight distance (ISD) 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 11 Okm/h
design speed would be difficult due to existing site constraints. Thus, it is recommended to
maintain the road profile and its 100km/h posted speed .
Rati onale for Aooroval/Reiection
Due to the topography and site constraints in the area , the consultant estimated that
improving the ISD and SDD would cost 5 million dollars. Th us, 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. W ithin that, 2 were non-animal collisions, and both were PDO.
The existing Type 3a intersection treatment exceeds the warranted Type 1a intersection
treatment.
Additional Mitiaation Reauired
Concealed intersection sign (WA-13) will be installed in advance of the intersection along
Hiohwav 47.
Ke Words
Vertica l curve, minimum K value, sa curve, intersection , intersection si ht distance
Photograph/Diagram
Page 1of3
30 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
At~ Government
DESIGN STANDARDS/PRACTICE
EXCEPTION REQUEST SUMMARY
Page 2 of 3
June 2017 31
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
At~
Government
DESIGN STANDARDS/PRACTICE
EXCEPTION REQUEST SUMMARY
:.";
I
Page 3 of 3
32 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
REFERENCES
1 AASHTO. 2010. Highway Safety Manual 1st 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, Rehabilitation 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 .org/aboutva.ph p
5 TRB. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual {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 Manual Safety
Performance Function Calibration Factors. NCH RP Project 20-07 /Task 332. Washington DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
11 AASHTO. 2010. Highway Safety Manual 1st edition, Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
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]. NCHRP Project 20-24(068). National Cooperative Research Program.
[Not active on November 2, 2016] http://www.usroadwaysafety.org/
16 AASHTO. 2010. Highway Safety Manual 1st edition, Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
17 TAC. 2001. Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide, Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada.
18 Ibid.
34 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 1- Design Philosophy
19 See, for example, NCHRP. 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. NCHRP Report 783,
Evaluation of the 13 Controlling 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
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 2 - DESIGN CONTROLS,
CLASS/FICA TION AND CONSISTENCY
June 2017
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
Transportation Association of Canada
401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive
Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-617-7
TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM
Title and Subtitle
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Report Date Coordinating Agency and Address ITRD No.
Transportation Association of Canada
June 2017
401-1111 Prince of Wales Dr.
Ottawa, ON K2C3T2
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, WSPIMMM Group
Thornhill, ON L3T OAl
Jim Dowell, WSPI MMM Group
Jeff Ward, WSPIMMM 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 human factors
Planning of Transport
research and practices for roadway geometric design . It replaces the 1999 edition of the Guide and
Infrastructure
subsequent revisions . The Guide provides guidance to planners and designers in developing design
Canada
solutions that meet the needs of a range of users while addressing the context of local conditions
Classification
and environments. Design guidelines for freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both
Design (overall design)
urban and rural locations are included as well as guidance for integrated bicycle and pedestrian
Design Speed
design.
Highway
The Guide is organized into ten chapters to cover the entire design process from design philosophy Human Factor
and roadway classification to design parameters and specific guidelines for the safe Layout
accommodation of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on linear road elements and at intersections. Specifications
The chapters are: Design Philosophy; Design Controls, Classification and Consistency; Alignment Textbook
and Lane Configuration; Cross Section Elements; Bicycle Integrated Design; Pedestrian Integrated Vehicle
Design; Roadside Design; Access; Intersections; and Interchanges. Visibility Distance
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency discusses how design controls such as
human factors, speed, design vehicles and sight lines influence geometric design . The chapte r also
includes guidance for classifying links in a road network to provide for a hierarchical and readily
understood road system that properly serves different purposes. The principles of providing
consistency in cross section, operating speed and driver workload are outlined in this chapter.
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 2- Design Controls, Classification and Consistency. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
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 I MMM 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 Roads, 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 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
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 l'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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
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 Dobush 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
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, WSPIMMM 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Foreword
BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE
In 1999 the Transportation Association of Canada relased 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 for 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 th is Guide.
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.
June 2017 v
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
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 2
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency discusses how design controls such as
human factors, speed, design vehicles and sight lines influence geometric design. The chapter also
includes guidance for classifying links in a road network to provide for a hierarchical and readily
understood road system that properly serves different purposes. The principles of providing consistency
in cross section, operating speed and driver workload are outlined in this chapter.
vi June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
CONTENTS
2.1 PART 1: DESIGN CONTROLS ................................................................................................................ 1
2.2 HUMAN FACTORS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO ROAD DESIGN ....................................................... 1
2.2.1 Background ... ..... ... .... .. .. ....... .... .. .. ... .. .... ... ........... ..... ... ..... .. .. ........... ... .. ..... ... .... .......... .......... ... . 1
2.2.2 Overview of Driver Expectancy .............. .... .. .. .................. .. .. .. .. .. .................... .. .. ... ................... 2
2.2.3 Overview of Perception Reaction Time ........ .................. .......... .............. .. .. .......... ...... .. .......... . 3
2.2.4 The Designer's Response .... ................... ........ ................... .......... ............ ....... ......... ......... ....... . 3
2.2.5 Human Factors and Design: Some Supporting Discussion .... .................... .. .. .. .. .. ................ .... 4
2.2.5.1 The "Design User" .... .. ............. .......... ............................... ....... .. ........................ ........ 4
2.2.5.2 Design User Capabilities and Limitations ........ .... .. .. .................... .. .. .. .. .. .................. .. 5
2.2.5.3 Visual Characteristics .................. .... .................. .... .. .... .................. ...... ...................... 5
2.2.5.4 Cognitive Abilities .... ... ........ .... .......... ..... ........ .... ............ .... .... ... .. ... ............ ... ..... ... .... . 8
2.2.5.5 Perception-Reaction Time .. ... .... ...... .. .... ........ ..... .... .... ....... ... .... .. ... ...... ..... .... .... .... ... 10
2.3 SPEED ................................................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.1 Introduction ................... ......... ..................... .. .. .... ............ .. ...... .. .. ... ................... ... .. .. ............. 11
2.3.2 Speed Related Terminology ...... .... .................. .. .. .. .... ........ .............. .. .. ...... ...... ................ ....... 11
2.3.3 Speed, Safety and Design ...... ................ .......... ................ ...... .. .. .................... .. .. .... ................ 12
2.3.4 Human Factors and Speed : Some Supporting Discussion .. .................... .... .. .. .................... .. . 13
2.3.4.1 Cues Drivers Use To Select Speed .. .... .. .. .. ........ .......... .. .... .. .. ...... .. .............. .. .. ......... 13
2.3.4.2 Peripheral Vision Information ........ .................. .......... .............. ..... ......... ...... .. ......... 14
2.3.4.3 Noise Level .. .. .... ..... ...... .. ........... ................ ........ .. .. ........... ................. ................ ...... 15
2.3.4.4 Speed Adaptation .... ... ........ .... ..... ..... ..... ........ .... .. .... .......... .... ... .. ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ... 15
2.3.4.5 Road Message ...... .. .. ............... ............ ............... ............ .......... ....... ........... .. .. ... ...... 15
2.3.4.6 Speed Limit .............. ... .... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... .... .. .... .... ... ... .... ... .. ... ... .. ..... ... .. ..... ... ... 15
2.3.4.7 Driver Workload and Speed .. .......... .. .. .............. .......... .................. .......... ................ 15
2.3.5 Limitations of Design Speed Approach ........ .................... .. .. .. .. .. .................... .. .. .... ................ 17
2.3.6 Design Domain: Design Speed Selection ...... .................... ...... ................ .. .. .......... ................. 18
2.3.6.1 General Application Heuristics ......... .... ... .. .... .... .......... ..... ... ..... .. ... .......... ... .. ... ..... ... 18
2.3.6.2 Rural Highways ........ ... ........ .... .......... ..... ........ .... .. .... .... ...... .... ... .. ... ... .. ..... ..... ..... ... ... 18
2.3.6.3 Urban Roadways .. .... .. ............. .......... ................ ............... ............... ................... ..... 21
2.3.6.4 Design Speed Choices for Rehabilitation Projects ...................... .. .. ...... ................ .. 22
2.3. 7 Design Domain: Target Speed Selection .... .... .................. .... .. .. .................... ...... .................... 22
2.4 DESIGN VEHICLES .............................................................................................................................. 23
2.4.1 Introduction ................... ......... ...... .. ......... ............ ................ ........ ... ................. ............. ......... 23
2.4.2 Vehicle Classifications .............. ... .. .... .... .............. .... .. ... .... .. ............. .... ...... ... ... .......... .. .... .... ... 23
June 2017 vii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.4.3 Vehicle Characteristics ....... ............... .... ...... ... .... ..... .. ... .... .. ............ .. ..... .......... .......... .. ... .. ...... 24
2.4.3.1 Length, Width, and Turning Radius .................. ... .. .. ........................ .. .. .. .................. 24
2.4.3.2 Vehicle Height .......... .. .... ......... ................... ....... ..................... .. ....... ................... ..... 33
2.4.3.3 Driver Eye Height ..... .. .. ............. .......... .. ... ............ .. .. .......... ...... ... .... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ...... 33
2.4.4 Vehicle Turning Paths ............. .. .. ......... .............. .. ... ............ .......... ................... ......... .. .. ... ...... 34
2.4.5 Selecting a Design Vehicle .. .................. ............. .. ... .......... ............ .................. .......... .. .. ......... 34
2.5 SIGHT DISTANCE ............................................................................................................................... 35
2.5.1 Introduction .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. .......... ... ............... .......... ..... ..... ... .. ... .......... .... ...... ... .... ................. ..... 35
2.5.2 Criteria Used In Calculating Sight Distance .... .. .. .. .. .......... ...... .......... .... .......... .. .. .. .................. 35
2.5.2.1 Object Height ............... ............ ................ ......... ..................... .. ......... ......... .. ...... ..... 36
2.5.2.2 Deceleration Rate ..... .. .. ...... .... .......... ... .. ... ..... .... .............. .. .. .. ... .. ... ............ .............. 37
2.5.3 Stopping Sight Distance .......... ............. .............. .. ... .......... .... .. .. .. .......... .. ... .... ....... ........... ...... 37
2.5.3.1 Stopping Sight Distance: Variations for Trucks ....... .. .. .. .... ...................... .. .. ......... .. .40
2.5.4 Passing Sight Distance ........ .. .. .. .. .. ........... ...... .. .. .. ... .. ..... .. ...... .. .. ........................ ... ...... .. ... .... .. 40
2.5.5 Decision Sight Distance ........... .. .. .. ........... .......... .. ... .. ..... .. .......................... ...... ......... .. .. ... .... .. 44
2.6 Part 2: DESIGN CLASSIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 46
2.6.1 lntroduction .. ......... ........ ......... .. .. .. .. ........... ........ ........................ ..... ................. ............. ... .. .... 46
2.6.2 Design Classification System ... .. .... ....... ..................... ....... ..................... .. ....... ................... ..... 46
2.6.3 Factors Considered In Classification ...................................... ................. ... .... ....... .. .. ............. 48
2.6.3.1 Land Use ..... .. .. ....... .... ... .. .. .. .... ... ........... .... .. .... ... .. .. ........... ... .. ..... ... .... ......... .. .... ... .... 48
2.6.3.2 Service Function ....... .. .... ........... .......... .. ... ............ .......... ................... ......... .. .. ... ...... 48
2.6.3.3 Traffic Volume .......... .. .. .. ........... .......... .. ... .. ....... .......................... ...... ....... ............... 49
2.6.3.4 Flow Characteristics ............... ................... .......... ............. .. ... .. .... .. .................... ...... 49
2.6.3.5 Operating Speed .. ................... ............ .. ... .......... ............ ................... .. .................... 49
2.6.3.6 Vehicle Type .... .......... ..... .... .... .............. .... ..... .... ............... .... .... .. ... ............. .. .... .... ... 50
2.6.3.7 Connections ............. .. .. .. .... .... ............ ................ ........... ................... ......... .............. 50
2.6.4 Characteristics of Classifications ..... ...... .......... .... ...... ... .... ............... ..... ... .. ... .......... .... ...... ... ... 51
2.7 Part 3: DESIGN CONSISTENCY .......................................................................................................... 55
2.7.1 lntroduction .. ......... ........ ......... .. .. .. .. ........... ............. .. .. ..... .. .. ................... ......... ............. ... .. .... 55
2.7.2 Cross Section Consistency .. ................... ............ .. ... .......... ............ ................. ........... .. .. ... ...... 55
2.7.3 Operating Speed Consistency ................ ............ .. ... .......... ............ ................. ........... .. .. ... ...... 56
2.7.3.1 Prediction of Operating Speeds .............. .......... .......... .. ...... .......... .......... .. .. .. .. ........ 57
2.7.4 Driver Workload Consistency ................ ............ .. ...... ...... ................... ......... ............. .. .. ......... 57
2.7.5 Safety and Consistency ........... .. .. ............. .......... .... ............. .. .. ...... .......... ... .... .. ...................... 58
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 61
viii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
TABLES
Table 2.4.1: Design Dimensions for Passenger Cars ................................................................................ 25
Table 2.4.2: Design Dimensions for Commercial Vehicles ....................................................................... 25
Table 2.4.3: Design Dimensions for Buses ............................................................................................... 26
Table 2.4.4: Minimum Design Turning Radii for Representative Trucks for 90° and 180° Turns ............ 27
Table 2.5.1: Object Height Design Domain .............................................................................................. 36
Table 2.5.2: Stopping Sight Distance on level roadways for Automobiles .............................................. 38
Table 2.5.3: Stopping Sight Distance on Grades ...................................................................................... 39
Table 2.5.4: Minimum Passing Sight Distance - 2004 AASHTO Methodology ........................................ 42
Table 2.5.5: Minimum Passing Sight Distance - 2006 MUTCDC (marking) Methodology ....................... 43
Table 2.5.6: Decision Sight Distance ........................................................................................................ 45
Table 2.6.1 Urban and Rural Design Classification in Canada ................................................................. 46
Table 2.6.2: Design Classification ............................................................................................................. 47
Table 2.6.3: Connections by Classification ............................................................................................... 50
Table 2.6.4: Characteristics of Rural Roads ............................................................................................. 53
Table 2.6.5: Characteristics of Urban Roads ............................................................................................ 54
FIGURES
Figure 2.2.1: Road Collision Contributory Factors ..................................................................................... 2
Figure 2.2.2: Three Segments of the Driver's Field of View ...................................................................... 6
Figure 2.2.3: The Relationship Between Viewing Distance and Image Size .............................................. 8
Figure 2.3.1: The Relationship Between Vehicle Speed and Risk of a Pedestrian Death in a Collision ... 13
Figure 2.3.2: View of Transverse Lines Treatment .................................................................................. 14
Figure 2.3.3: Perceived Risk of a Collision and Speed ............................................................................. 16
Figure 2.3.4: Operating Speed Approach for Design of Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadways ....................... 20
Figure 2.4.1: Passenger Car (P) Dimension .............................................................................................. 28
Figure 2.4.2: Light Single Unit (LSU) Truck Dimension ............................................................................ 28
Figure 2.4.3: Medium Single-Unit (MSU) Truck Dimension .................................................................... 29
Figure 2.4.4: Heavy Single-Unit (HSU) Truck Dimensions ........................................................................ 29
Figure 2.4.5: WB-19 Tractor-Semitrailer Dimensions .............................................................................. 30
Figure 2.4.6: WB-20 Tractor-Semitrailer Dimensions .............................................................................. 30
Figure 2.4.7: A-Train Double (ATD) Dimensions ...................................................................................... 31
June 2017 ix
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Figure 2.4.8: B-Train Double (BTD) Dimensions ............ ......................... ... .. .................... ....... ................. 31
Figure 2.4.9: Standard Single-Unit (B-12) Bus Dimensions .. ... ................. ........ ................. ...................... 32
Figure 2.4.10: Articulated Bus (A-BUS) Dimensions ........ ......................... ......................... ...... .................. 32
Figure 2.4.11: Intercity Bus (I-BUS) Dimensions ................. .. .. .............................................. ... .. ................ 33
Figure 2.5.1: Elements of Passing Sight Distance .................................................................................... 41
Figure 2.5.2: Required Passing Sight Distance for Passenger Cars and Trucks in Comparison
with 2004 AASHTO Criteria .............................................. ......................... ......................... . 44
Figure 2.6.1: Service Function ........... ...... ................... ... .......................................................................... 49
Figure 2.6.2: Relationship of Urban Road Classifications ................... ........ ................. ......................... ... 52
Figure 2.7 .1: Mean Collision Rate versus Mean Speed Difference between Geometric Elements ........ 59
Figure 2.7 .2: 3-year Collision Frequency versus Mean Speed Reduction between
Geometric Elements .. .. ................. .......... .. .. ................. ......................... ........ ................. ... .. 60
x June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2. DESIGN CONTROLS, CLASSIFICATION AND
CONSISTENCY
2.1 PART 1: DESIGN CONTROLS
The designer of the geometric dimensions and features of a road must recognize a series of design
controls. These controls are imposed by characteristics of and limitations on vehicle, driver, and
pedestrian and cyclist performance . Road user performance is influenced by human factors such as
expectancy - created by previous training and experience - and perception and reaction capabilities.
In turn, for example, these human characteristics, as well as the surrounding roadway characteristics will
influence the driver's choice of speed.
Larger vehicles such as trucks and buses occupy more space on the roadway and when turning. The
designer must therefore select design vehicles and understand their turning characteristics to be able to
design appropriate intersection and access configurations.
To react appropriately, all road users must be able to see far enough to allow time for perception of and
reaction to changing circumstances. Sight distance is therefore a fundamental geometric design control.
These sight distance requirements vary depending on the road user (drivers, cyclists and pedestrians)
and their vehicle characteristics (car, truck, bicycle).
This section begins with a brief introduction to relevant human factors considerations. This is followed
by a discussion on the effect of expected road user speed choices on geometric design, and a
subsequent review of the influence of different motor vehicle types on geometric design parameters.
The influence of speed choices on the design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities are discussed under
Chapter 5: Bicycle Integrated Design and Chapter 6: Pedestrian Integrated Design. This chapter closes
with a review of road user sight distance requirements.
2.2 HUMAN FACTORS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO ROAD DESIGN
2.2.1 BACKGROUND
Roads are built for use by all people including pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and drivers.
Consequently human traits should be considered in design. First, there are certain human abilities that
determine how far we can see, how quickly we react, and how information is perceived and processed.
It is important to remember that these traits vary from person to person and from situation to situation .
For example, a value such as reaction time should not be thought of as fixed, even though a fixed value
is assumed for design purposes. Second, road users adapt to perceived and anticipated conditions.
Factors that contribute to the occurrence of road collisions can be broken down into three broad
categories: human factors, road environment factors, and vehicle factors. As shown in Figure 2.2.1, in
95% of all collisions, human factors play some contributory role. In about 28% of cases, road
environment factors may be present. Only in approximately 8% of instances do vehicle factors such as a
1
mechanical failure, contribute to the collision.
June 2017 1
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
28°/o
road
(4 + 24)
67°/o 95°/o
human factors
(67 + 24 + 4)
8°/o
vehicle
(4 + 4)
Figure 2.2.1: Road Collision Contributory Factors
In the figure above, the circles overlap and the percentages exceed 100% because there are multiple
contributors to crash causation, and it is often the presence of these multiple levels of risk that create
the situation where the event occurs. The numbers within circles provide a breakdown of each collision
risk factor (i.e., human factors, road, vehicle). Clearly, the human factor is a usual contributor. By
developing a better understanding of the role of human factors in collision causation, road designers
may be able to better adapt their designs to driver, pedestrian, and cyclist needs, and thus reduce the
road safety risks faced by all road users.
In essence, the reason human factors are of significant interest in the road design process is that there is
a close link between how roads are built and how people use them. However, as with all human
abilities, neither perception nor anticipation is perfect. If perceptual clues are clear and consistent, the
task of adaptation is made easier and the response of drivers will be more appropriate and uniform. For
roadway design this translates into two foundational principles:
• It is important to design a roadway so that it conforms to what drivers expect from such a
roadway based on previous experience (driver expectancy).
• It is important to provide drivers with sufficient time to detect, identify, and react to hazards in
the roadway (driver perception and reaction).
2.2.2 OVERVIEW OF DRIVER EXPECTANCY
Prior driver experiences are critical in reducing reaction time and engendering an appropriate response
when a new driving task is imposed. These experiences develop, over time, into a set of expectancies,
which allow for anticipation and forward planning, and enable drivers to respond to common situations
in predictable and successful ways. If these expectancies are violated, problems are likely to occur,
either as a result of a wrong decision or of an inordinately long reaction time.
2
Two types of driver expectancies have been identified. The first type is long term expectancies that
drivers have developed based on past experience, upbringing, culture, and learning. The second type is
short term expectancies that drivers formulate from site-specific practices and situations encountered in
transit. The combined effects of these expectancies are :
2 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
• Drivers tend to anticipate upcoming situations and events that are common to the road they
are travelling.
• The more predictable the road feature, the less likely will be the chance for errors.
• Drivers experience difficulty when they are confronted with the unexpected.
• Drivers, in the absence of counter-evidence, assume that they will only have to react to
standard situations.
• The road and its environment upstream of a site create an expectation of downstream
conditions.
• Drivers are more likely to experience problems in transition areas and locations with
inconsistent design or operation.
• Expectancies are associated with all levels of driving performance and all aspects of the driving
situation. This includes expectancies relative to speed, path, direction, roadway, environment,
geometric design, traffic operations, and traffic control devices.
2.2.3 OVERVIEW OF PERCEPTION REACTION TIME
It takes time to process information. The term perception and reaction time (often abbreviated as PRT)
is used to describe the period between the occurrence or appearance of a signal (usually a visual
stimulus) and the initiation of the driver's physical reaction to it. A complex, unexpected decision with
several alternatives yields a considerably longer reaction time than a simple, anticipated decision. Long
processing times also decrease the time available to attend to other information and thus compound
the chances for error.
Perception and reaction time is considered to comprise four elements:
• Detection: the use of visual capabilities to see a visual target (e.g. signal or hazard)
• Identification: the driver identifies the signal and thus understands the stimulus
• Decision: the driver decides what action to take in response to the stimulus (e.g., to apply the
brakes, turn the steering wheel, etc.)
• Response: during which the driver initiates the action decided upon. The time to complete the
chosen action (e.g., stopping the vehicle) is not included.
A PRT value of 2.5 seconds has been used for many years as being inclusive of most drivers in most
situations. Studies indicate that this value is a reasonable estimate of the upper end of perception-
reaction time for unalerted drivers, who may be affected by fatigue or age or alcohol, responding to a
3
clearly visible hazard within the line of sight. Perception-reaction time in an unusually complex
highway design situation, or to hazards seen off the line of sight, or to hazards poorly contrasted with
the background or to situations which are not judged to be of an urgent nature, may be longer. More
detail is provided in Section 2.2.5.5.
2.2.4 THE DESIGNER'S RESPONSE
A driver's performance is likely to be error-free provided that the driver receives information in the
expected form and that events occur in accordance with that information. However, when the
June 2017 3
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
information does not match the driver's expectations, the driver's reaction may be inappropriate and
errors resulting in incidents and collisions are much more likely to occur.
Expectancies, as described in Section 2.2.2, reduce perception and reaction times because a driver
responds through familiarity and habit. However, different drivers will have different perception and
reaction times because of individual characteristics such as experience, skill, age, degree of alertness,
motivation, risk-taking behaviour, etc. These are not under the control of the road designer, but the
designer must recognize that these variations exist, and design for as wide a range of driver abilities as
possible.
It is very important, therefore, for the designer to realize that driver behaviour is largely governed by
habit, experience, and expectation, and that any design or operation which violates these considerations
4
is likely to be less safe. Designers should therefore strive to satisfy the following criteria :
• Driver's expectations are recognized, and unexpected, unusual or inconsistent design or
operational situations avoided or minimized (e.g., avoid situations where a freeway exit is
provided on the left side because this is unusual and calls for unfamiliar behaviour)
• Predictable behaviour is encouraged through famil iarity and habit (e.g., there should be a
limited range of intersection design formats, each appropriate to a given situation, and similar
designs should be used in similar situations)
• Consistency of design and driver behaviour is maintained from element to element (e.g., avoid
significant changes in design speed along a roadway)
• The information which is provided should decrease the driver's uncertainty, not increase it
(e.g., avoid presenting several alternatives to the driver at the same time)
• Clear sight lines and adequate sight distances are provided to allow time for decision making
and, wherever possible, margins are allowed for error and recovery.
2.2.5 HUMAN FACTORS AND DESIGN: SOME SUPPORTING DISCUSSION
2.2.5.1 The "Design User"
Different road users (vehicle, cyclists and pedestrians) have different performance capabilities and
design needs. Such differences and needs can be categorized in terms of the "type" of user being
considered for design purposes. When contemplating geometric design challenges, designers consider
different "design users" in the same way they consider different "design vehicles". In many instances,
road agency policies specify the road users to be accommodated on their roadways and intersections.
Design users may include a wide range of drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and users of other non-motorized
forms of transportation. They will also represent a range of people, from those who are young and
inexperienced, to those who are older, those with challenges resulting from failing sensory and cognitive
faculties, and physical disabilities. The ir trip purposes may also differ, from those who are
driving/cycling/walking for pleasure to those who are commuting, from those who are in a hurry, to
those who are not. Perhaps most importantly, design users will include those who are familiar and those
who are unfamiliar with the roadway. All of these design user classifications must be considered in
design.
4 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.2.5.2 Design User Capabilities and Limitations
From the discussion in Section 2.2.2 above, "design users" have a wide range of capabilities and
limitations. The better the designer understands these, the greater the likelihood that the design will
reduce collision risk. Design user characteristics are discussed under the following three major headings:
• Visual characteristics
• Cognitive abilities
• Perception-reaction time characteristics
2.2.5.3 Visual Characteristics
Four human visual characteristics are of interest to geometric designers:
• The useful field of view available to human beings
• Visual search characteristics and their influence on the driving task
• The effect of contrast sensitivity on detection
• Perception of closing velocities
Each of these characteristics is discussed beginning below.
• Field of View
The visual field of human eyes is large : approximately 55° above the horizontal, 70° below the
horizontal, go 0 to the left and go 0 to the right. However, only a small area of the visual field, known as
the fovea, allows accurate vision.
The lower-resolution visual field outside the area of foveal vision is referred to as peripheral vision.
Although visual acuity is progressively reduced as the angle off the line of sight increases, targets of
interest can be detected in the low-resolution peripheral vision. Once detected, the eyes shift so that
the target is seen using the high-resolution foveal vision. Targets that drivers need to detect in their
peripheral vision may include vehicles on an intersecting path, cyclists, pedestrians, signs, and signals.
Targets that attract attention in peripheral vision are areas with high information content (e.g.,
concentrations of signs, cars and people), objects that differ greatly from their backgrounds in terms of
brightness, color, texture, etc., objects of large size, and objects that are moving or flashing. With
respect to motion, humans are hardwired to detect motion in peripheral vision as a defensive
mechanism, and cannot easily resist looking towards a moving object, particularly if that movement
occurs in a relatively still background. With respect to lighted displays, they will be most likely to attract
drivers' attention at night, when contrast with the background is greater than during the day. This
potential for distraction highlights the need for careful consideration of roadside advertising.
Target detection in peripheral vision is also dependent on demands placed on the driver. The more
demanding the task (e.g. driving through a shopping area as compared to a residential area), the
narrower the "visual cone of awareness" or the "useful field of view" and the less likely is the driver to
detect peripheral targets. In general, the more strongly our attention is focused in one area, the less we
notice and the slower we are to respond to other areas. Figure 2.2.2 illustrates three segments of the
driver's field of view, foveal, useful and peripheral. The driver can physically see information over a 180°
area, but is not aware of it while driving, unless motivated to direct his or her attention there. As shown
in the figure, targets on or near the driver's line of sight are seen in high resolution within the central
June 2017 5
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2-4° of the field of view and are the driver's primary (foveal) focus. While carrying out the driving task,
the driver is also aware of information seen peripherally, within 10-15° off the line of sight, that is,
5
within the central 20-30°.
Foveal
Vision
2-4°
._. l!Jseful Field of View
Peripheral
Vision
Figure 2.2.2: Three Segments of the Driver's Field of View
• Human Visual Search Characteristics
The driving task requires active search of the rapidly changing road scene, which results in little time to
collect and absorb road information. Studies using specialized cameras that record driver-eye
movements have revealed how drivers distribute their attention amongst the various driving sub-tasks,
and how drivers can only allocate very brief periods of time (fixations) to any one target while moving.
On average, drivers make about three fixations per second. The length of an eye fixation on a particular
subject varies from 1/10 of a second for a simple task such as checking lane position to 2 seconds for
6
reading a complex guide sign. By understanding where drivers fixate and their visual search patterns
while performing a particular driving task, information can be placed in the most effective location and
format.
The visual search pattern changes when a driver is negotiating a horizontal curve as opposed to driving
on a tangent. On tangent sections, drivers can gather both path and lateral position information by
looking straight ahead. During curve negotiation, visual demand is greatly increased, as the location of
information about heading is displaced (to the left or to the right) from information about lane position.
Eye movement studies show that drivers change their search behavior several seconds prior to the start
of the curve. These findings may suggest that advisory curve signs be placed just prior to the beginning
7
of the approach zone to account for visual search limitations.
Other road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, also have a visual search task. Pedestrians at
intersections can be assumed to be conducting a visual search if the head is turned toward the direction
from which a vehicle would be approaching, prior to entering the vehicle path, and within three seconds
of entering the vehicle path . The visual search varies with respect to the three types of threats: vehicles
from behind, from the side, and ahead. Vehicles coming from behind require the greatest head
6 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
movement and are searched for the least. These searches are conducted by only about 30% of
pedestrians. Between 8 and 25% of pedestrians at signalized downtown intersections do not look for
8
threats at all . Intersection design should not assume pedestrians will be aware of threats.
• Contrast Sensitivity and Detection
Driver licensing authorities set requirements for driver visual acuity, the ability to resolve small details at
a distance. Contrast sensitivity is equally important, but it is not measured. Contrast sensitivity is the
ability to detect small differences in luminance or brightness between an object and the background.
The lower the level of ambient light, the more contrast is required to see an object (e.g., a curb, debris
on the road, a pedestrian against a background of foliage or asphalt). With age, contrast sensitivity
declines. Thus good retro-reflectivity for signs and markings at night is particularly important for older
drivers.
Drivers with normal visual acuity (20/20), but poor contrast sensitivity may have to get very close to a
low-contrast target before detecting it. Experimental studies suggest that the majority of unalert drivers
travelling faster than 50 km/h will not see a pedestrian in dark clothes in time to stop. Design choices,
such as design speed, provision of appropriate pedestrian and bicycle facilities and lighting, should
consider this limitation.
• Perception of Closing Velocity
While a driver may respond too late to an unexpected situation (e.g., a stopped or very slow-moving
vehicle without brake lights), reaction time is not the only issue. When speed differentials are large,
drivers have a perceptual difficulty in accurately assessing closing speeds with other vehicles, and in
distinguishing a relatively safe situation in which one is slowly catching up, from a more dangerous
situation in which one is rapidly catching up to another vehicle. One of the main cues to determining
the rapidity with which one is closing on another vehicle is the apparent change in the size of the rear of
the vehicle ahead . At a distance, the apparent size of the rear ofthe vehicle is small. As the driver
approaches, the angle created at the eye gets gradually larger and larger. As indicated in Figure 2.2.3,
9
this is a very non-linear cue, making the judgment of the rate of closing velocity difficult. This limitation
can lead to rear-end crashes when drivers are stopped in a through lane to turn, or if they are queued
behind a turning vehicle. Design choices, such as design speed and provision of turn lanes, can assist in
addressing this limitation.
June 2017 7
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
... .'~
' .
8x-.-- - - - - - - - - - - -
.,.. ••>
,
- -
QJ
N
Vi
QJ 4x
Ol
"'
.§
2x
lx
320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40
Viewing Distance (m)
Figure 2.2.3: The Relationship Between Viewing Distance and Image Size
2.2.5.4 Cognitive Abilities
The phrase "cognitive abilities" refers to our abilities as human beings to process visual and other
information that we are rece iving, understand the data received, and take appropriate action. This
section deals with three topics:
• Attention and information processing
• Driver mental workload
• Driver expectations
These are discussed below.
• Attention and Information Processing
Driving can be a challenging task because our visual and information processing capacities are easily
over-extended. These capacities evolved in the context of walking and running speeds, which typically
do not exceed on the order of 5 m/s. With the advent of automobiles, drivers are moving through space
at speeds up to 20 m/s in urban areas and 35 m/s or more on highways.
Human attention and abilities in information processing are limited. These limitations can create
difficulties because driving requires the division of attention between control tasks (e.g., staying in the
lane), guidance tasks (e.g., obeying traffic signals, avoiding other road users), and navigational tasks
(e.g., looking for landmarks and street name signs). In addition to these tasks, drivers may also be
exposed to internal vehicle distractions such as cell phones, computers and GPS devices. While attention
can be switched rapidly from one task to another, humans only attend well to one task at a time,
especially if that task requires conscious attention. This is why it is important to design roads so that
drivers are not overloaded in more than one task at a time, for example having to change lanes due to a
lane drop while negotiating a curve.
8 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Furthermore, humans can only extract a small proportion of the available information from the road
scene. It has been estimated that out of over 1 billion bits per second of information directed at the
sensory system, only 16 bits per second are consciously recognized (the answer to a single yes/no
question provides 1 bit of information). In short, the human information processing system is essentially
10
a single channel system with limited capacity. Given the limitations in driver information processing,
drivers only notice a limited number of the available items to be seen. Designs should provide positive
guidance and be self-reinforcing and not rely on single features, such as signage or pavement markings,
to be the only source of information for drivers. For example, a single STOP sign is not a sufficient cue to
the need to stop at a rural intersection when the driver has travelled a long distance without the need to
stop. In addition to a STOP sign, good sight distance to the intersection pavement and cross traffic, a
STOP Ahead sign or an overhead flasher will assist the driver in detecting the need to stop.
• Driver Mental Workload
Because our attentional and information processing resources are limited, designers should consider
how driver mental workload changes along a section of roadway. Workload depends on the resources
the driver brings to the driving task as well as the resources demanded. A task, such as changing lanes to
get to an exit in a short weaving section, will be easier for a familiar and experienced driver, who is
prepared for it, than for an unfamiliar or inexperienced driver. Mental workload is increased when the
task is difficult (such as negotiating a sharp curve), there is time pressure (merging onto a freeway using
a short acceleration lane), or there is a high information load (reading guide signs with many
destinations). Designers should avoid designs that result in high workload with more than one task at a
time (an intersection on a curve, a lane drop on a curve, lane changes while reading guide signs, or a
railroad crossing near a stop sign) .
• Driver Expectations
Expectation is a powerful determinant of accuracy and reaction time. For example, as we enter a dark
room that we have never entered before, we expect the light switch to be about shoulder height and
near the edge of the door. We also expect to move it up to turn it on. If it is placed as expected, and
operates as expected, we can locate it and turn the light on quickly. If it is not placed as expected - say
at waist height - and operates differently than expected, our response time will be considerably longer
and there will be an error in our initial movements. Similarly, drivers will respond quickly and accurately
when the road environment corresponds to their expectations. When drivers are surprised because
their expectations are violated, slowed responses and errors occur.
Designing in a manner that meets driver expectations is particularly important when drivers are
unfamiliar with the roadway. This is because drivers expect that common driving situations will be
designed in the "usual way". When this expectancy is violated, the potential for driver error and an
inappropriate driver reaction increases substantially.
For example, based on experience, drivers expect freeway exits to be on the right. As a result, drivers
may anticipate their exit on the right, and move into that lane. If the exit is on the left, the driver may
suddenly slow, stop, or make a series of rapid lane changes to the left in order to avoid going past their
exit. Such actions have a significant potential to cause a collision, or result in inappropriate evasive
maneuvers by other vehicles.
Expectations can include both short-term and long-term expectancies. Short-term expectations arise
over the course of a journey, for example, curves on this road are gentle. Long-term expectations arise
over years of experience, for example, that freeway exits are on the right.
June 2017 9
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
We can process information faster and more accurately if it corresponds with previous experience and
expectations. When road designers adhere to driver expectations, drivers know what to expect and how
to respond rapidly. Violations of driver expectations should be avoided as they can lead to increased
reaction times and a greater likelihood of driver errors. These, in turn, may lead to a higher risk of
collisions.
2.2.5.5 Perception-Reaction Time
Driver perception-reaction time refers to the process of detecting the presence of a target, recognizing it
as something requiring action, and then doing what is necessary to initiate appropriate action: for
instance, in the case of a need to stop, moving the foot from the accelerator to the brake. There are four
stages of perception-reaction time: detection, identification, decision, and response. The detection
period starts when a hazard enters the driver's field of view and ends when the driver becomes
consciously aware that something is present. Identification refers to the process of acquiring enough
information to inform the decision-making process. Next the driver must decide what action, if any, is
11
appropriate. Finally, in the response phase the driver initiates the intended action.
The figure often used for driver perception-reaction time in accident reconstruction is 1.5 seconds, while
the figure typically used in design is 2.5 seconds. In fact, perception-reaction time is dependent on many
factors including stimulus salience (e.g., size, contrast, motion, and exposure time), background
complexity, number of response choices, expectancy, and more. In choosing an appropriate perception-
reaction time, it is important to consider these features.
The value of 1.5 seconds is the 90th percentile perception-reaction time for young subjects, measured
as they drove over the crest of a hill during the daytime and braked to avoid an obstacle partially
12
blocking their lane. This value is an appropriate estimate for the perception -reaction time to a clearly
seen hazard in the direct line of sight for a reasonably alert and attentive driver. Hazards may be in the
line of sight, but too small or too poorly contrasted with the background to be detected. This is
especially true at night. Until the hazard is detectable to the driver, the perception-response time
interval cannot be considered to have started. When hazards are seen off the line of sight by more than
13
about 15 degrees, drivers take longer to respond and are more likely to fail to detect them.
Drivers in experiments are likely unusually alert. Drivers on the road may not always be so. Olson
reviewed the impacts of alcohol, other drugs and fatigue on perception-reaction time. The largest
increases noted in mean values were 45-65%. A 50% increase in the 90th percentile perception-
response time is 2.3 seconds, very close to the present value used for design of 2.5 seconds. Given the
long experience of highway designers with the 2.5 second value, it was recommended that it be
14
retained. While the 1.5 perception-reaction time is used in accident reconstruction to judge driver
fault, 2.5 seconds is a more appropriate value to assume by designers who wish to include a wide range
of typical drivers.
The perception-reaction times discussed above are relevant to emergency stops in a stopping sight
distance scenario. Perception-reaction times to initiate other actions, where there is less urgency, and
where geometry is complex, are longer. An example is perception-reaction time in a decision sight
scenario where drivers must respond to complex situations involving signs and markings warning of lane
15
drops or splits ahead. In an on-road study perception-reaction time was measured between the point
that the physical gore was in view to the experimenter and the point that drivers initiated a lane change.
Based only on subjects (approximately 50%) who signaled their detection of the need to change lanes
only after the gore became visible (i.e. not in response to advance signs or markings), mean perception-
reaction time was 10.5 sec. The 85th percentile perception-reaction time was estimated to be about
10 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
20 sec. Since only 50% of drivers waited to respond until the physical gore was visible, the mean value of
10.5 sec actually encompasses the majority (about 75%) of subjects. The mean value for movement time
16
to complete the lane change was an additional 4.6 seconds.
In summary, 2.5 seconds is an appropriate estimate for the perception-reaction time to a clearly seen
hazard in the direct line of sight for a stopping sight distance scenario . This value includes a wide range
of typical drivers. In other situations, involving decision sight distance or passing sight distance, for
example, where there is less urgency, and/or where geometry is complex, perception-reaction times will
17 18
be much longer. For a detailed discussion of perception-response time see Olson and Campbell et al.
2.3 SPEED
2.3.1 INTRODUCTION
One of the first requirements in developing a new geometric design is to establish the appropriate
design speed to use for design. The design speed to be adopted, which is typically based in some way on
the anticipated operating speed, directly influences the principal parameters used in road design, which
19
include :
• Active transportation elements
• Horizontal alignment
• Superelevation
• Vertical alignment
• Stopping sight distance
• Passing sight distance
• Lane width
• Shoulder width
• Roadside elements.
For rehabilitation and restoration projects, designers should consider the potential increase in vehicle
operating speeds that may result from a change in the driver's perception of the road since some of the
existing geometric features may not conform to the potential higher operating speeds.
2.3.2 SPEED RELATED TERMINOLOGY
The speed that vehicles travel on a roadway can be quantified using a variety of measures. For the
20
purpose of this guide, the key terms used are listed below.
• Posted speed : Posted speed is a speed limitation introduced for reason of safety, economy,
traffic control, and government regulatory policy. It is aimed at encouraging drivers to travel at
an appropriate speed for surrounding conditions.
1
• Operating speed: Operating speed refers to the 85 h percentile speed of vehicles at a time
when traffic volumes are low, and drivers are free to choose the speed at which they travel.
June 2017 11
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
1
• Running speed: The average or 85 h percentile speed of all vehicles along a specific roadway as
determined by the distance and the running times between two selected points.
• Design speed: Design speed is the speed set for the design of those geometric features of the
roadway that affect vehicle operation. In general, design speed should not be less than the
intended operating speed.
• Desired speed: Desired speed, in this Guide, refers to the operating speed that drivers will
adopt on the less constrained 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. In effect, desired speed is the operating speed that drivers build up to
and are then happy to settle at.
• Target Speed: Target speed is generally applicable only to the urban situation . It is the speed at
which the designer intends for traffic to operate. The concept of target speed arises from a
design philosophy in which the physical roadway design is used to "enforce" operating speeds.
This philosophy could be considered as a speed management approach in which the objective
is not simply to reduce speeds, but to provide a roadway planned and designed in such a way
that an appropriate speed is obtained. In this way, a "consistent" or "self-explaining" look for
the road of interest can be achieved. In some cases this is referred to as a self-explaining or
self-enforcing road, in which roads are designed for a specific purpose or function. In the US,
this approach is sometimes used in conjunction with context sensitive design solutions.
2.3.3 SPEED, SAFETY AND DESIGN
The speed of vehicles on a roadway may depend on several factors including:
• Vehicle operating capabilities
• Driver capability, behaviour, and comfort
• Physical characteristics of the road
• Roadway surroundings (e.g. urban versus rural)
• Weather
• Roadway conditions
• Presence of other vehicles
• Presence of active transportation users (pedestrians, cyclist, etc.)
• Posted speed limits.
The effects of these conditions are usually combined although, under varying circumstances, one or
other of the factors may govern.
The speed of vehicles on a roadway has a significant bearing on safety, particularly in terms of the
severity of collisions. Figure 2.3.1 illustrates this relationship with respect to vehicle/pedestrian
21
collisions.
12 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
100%
c:-
::> 75%
"C'
Qj
~
Qj
l/l
.....
0
50%
~
a:
25%
Impact Speed (km/ h)
Figure 2.3.1: The Relationship Between Vehicle Speed and Risk of a
Pedestrian Death in a Collision
The relationship of speed to the probability of a collision is not as evident since coll isions are complex
events that can seldom be attributed to a single factor. Collision rate is more directly affected by speed
variations than by speed, given that the probability of conflicts is lower when all vehicles are travelling at
the same speed . This has led to the introduction of minimum speed limits for some applications.
The designer needs to be cognizant of the general effects of speed on safety. Collision frequency will be
reduced on roads that do not require drivers to make large speed adjustments and that promote
uniformity of speeds. Collision severity will increase with speed. More severe collisions not only increase
the cost to individuals and society, but result in more collisions being reported, showing an apparent
increase in collision rate. A design choice that promotes speed is not necessarily bad since road users
value the time savings. However, anticipation of the increase in speed may call for other design
improvements to compensate for the expected increase in collision severity.
In designing a road, the features and dimensions chosen must be appropriate for the travel speed. While
this is a simple concept, its interpretation is complex, because the relationship between road design and
speed is a circular one. While the designer shapes elements of the road by the anticipated speed at
which they are intended to be used, the speed at which they will be used depends to some extent on
their chosen design. In this, the design of roads differs from the design of most other engineered
systems.
2.3.4 HUMAN FACTORS AND SPEED: SOME SUPPORTING DISCUSSION
2.3.4.1 Cues Drivers Use To Select Speed
When they are not constrained by heavy traffic, drivers use a number of cues to select speed. Although
speed limits are posted and vehicles are equipped with speedometers, drivers do not look at their
speedometers frequently. Moreover, in situations where geometry forces a driver to change speed,
drivers' workload increases, and they look at the speedometer even less. 22 This means that drivers are
June 2017 13
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
very dependent on cues other than just the posted speed when deciding how fast to travel. These cues
include:
• Peripheral vision information
• Noise level
• Speed adaptation effects
• Road message
• Driver workload.
To induce drivers to slow down it is important to understand the perceptual cues they use to determine
speed, and how driver workload affects speed. Each of these cues is described below.
2.3.4.2 Peripheral Vision Information
It is the streaming of information in peripheral vision or "optical flow" that most influences drivers'
estimates of speed. Consequently, if peripheral stimuli are close by rather than far away, then drivers
will feel they are going faster. In one study, drivers were asked to drive at 97 km/h {60 mph) with the
speedometer covered. In an open-road situation, the average speed was 92 km/h (57 mph), whereas
23
along a tree-lined route, the average speed was 85 km/h (53 mph). The trees close by provided
peripheral stimulation, which gave the driver a sense of higher speed.
The faster it is that elements such as lane markings, trees, and/or telephone poles move past, the faster
the driver perceives his or her speed to be. Various types of lane markings that use these principles to
2425
influence drivers to slow down, have been developed for speed management purposes. Figure 2.3.2
shows an example of such markings. With respect to lateral lane markings, they resulted in a decrease
1
up to 6 km/h in average speed and 8 km/h in 85 h percentile speed, and were least effective at sites
26
where most drivers were local drivers.
Figure 2.3.2: View of Transverse Lines Treatment
14 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.3.4.3 Noise Level
Noise level is also an important cue to speed. There have been several studies of the speed estimation
impact of noise presence (e.g., rough pavement) and absence (e.g., putting earmuffs on drivers). The
results have shown that drivers underestimate how fast they are going when sound cues are absent.
Thus smoothing the road surface by repaving is likely to result in slightly higher speeds.
2.3.4.4 Speed Adaptation
Speed adaptation is a driver's underestimation of their actual speed after leaving a high speed highway.
This adaptation effect lasts up to 5 or 6 minutes after leaving a freeway and can occur after as little as 5
seconds of high speed operation.
2.3.4.5 Road Message
Other cues used by drivers are those related to the "road message". Wide lanes, wide paved shoulders,
large clear zones, and high mast lights give the message that high speed travel is appropriate. With
respect to perceptual cues created by landscaping, studies have shown this can result in somewhat
27
lower speeds, as long as the elements creating the friction are within a few metres of the edge of the
28
travelled lane. With respect to sidewalk presence, in a study of 51 road sections (urban, rural,
suburban and transition), most of which had posted speeds of 50 km/h, Bella lite found that sidewalk
29
presence, building setback, and occupation density predicted 48% of the variance in speed.
2.3.4.6 Speed Limit
Isolated speed limit changes, especially on high speed roads, are unlikely to be very effective. A U.S.
study measured operating speeds at 98 sites in several states, before and after changes in posted speed.
30
Increases or decreases ranged from 5 to 15 mph (8-24 km/h). In all cases, only the posted speed was
changed. No other change was made to the road environment, nor was enforcement increased. The
posted speed changes had minimal effects on speed. At some sites, speed did not even change in the
same direction as the change in posted speed.
Drivers take time to adjust to changes in the speed limit. A study of eight freeway-to-highway transitions
found that speed limit reductions need to be a substantial distance upstream of the first signalized
31
intersection (2.5 to 3 km vs 300 m) to affect speed. This and later studies of transition zones have
shown that speed limit signs accompanied by changes in the road message, such as reducing the cross
section, introducing curvature, changing the nature of the median, are more effective at reducing speed
32 33
and improving crash experience than a speed limit sign alone.
2.3.4.7 Driver Workload and Speed
Decreasing curvature, sight distance and lane width result in increased driver workload, as do increased
presence of pedestrians, and bicyclists. In response to increased workload, speed goes down, whether
the speed limit changes or not. The demands of the roadway geometry strongly influence driver
perception of risk and, in turn, driver speed. An on-road study compared driver speed with estimated
risk of a crash. Figure 2.3.3 shows the relationship between risk perception and speed, and various
34
geometric elements and control devices. These relationships were obtained from a study that
compared driver speed with estimated risk of a crash. The study first measured driver speed on a
particular section of roadway. Drivers were then asked to ride as passengers on that same section of
roadway and make continuous estimates of the risk of a crash. In general, the more risky the driver
June 2017 15
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
perceived the road to be, the lower the speed. Drivers lowered the ir speeds on sharp curves, and areas
with limited sight distance or w ith crest vertical curves, but not when crossing intersections where the
objective risk of a crash was actually higher.
CREST
SHAR P +
RI GHT RIGHT LEFT LEFT RIGHT
CREST CU RVE CU RVE CREST CU RVE CU RVE CURVE
130-
120-
110-
:2
e
~
100-
'O
Q) 90-
Q)
CL
If)
80-
0
Cl 70-
c
~ 60-
""'
If)
·;:
50-
40-
30-
SIDE ROADS SIDE
ROAD
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 metres
t
SI DE ROAD
t
CURVE
t
SIDE ROAD
t
SPEED LI MIT
t
STOP SIGN
WARN ING SIGN WARNING SIGN SIGN
SIGN
- subjective rating of ri sk - speed
Figure 2.3.3: Perceived Risk of a Collision and Speed
Thus it is the increased demand on the driver from the geometry of the road rather than the actual
crash risk which strongly influences driver perception of risk, and in turn, driver speed choice.
Experimental studies have concluded that driver mental and visual workload increases on curves, and
increases with increasing sharpness. Operational studies show a strong correlation between curve
characteristics and speed. Speed can be predicted well {80% of variance) simply using variables such as
35
curve radius, curve length, and curve deflection angle.
Additional evidence of the power of the road message and the effect of task difficulty on speed comes
from a Canadian report on non-enforcement methods of speed control. The research study involved 30
sites, all of which had a 50 km/h speed limit. Ten of the sites had considerable activity on the side of the
road, such as parking and heavy pedestrian and bicycle activity. At these sites, the 85 1h percentile speed
was 50 km/h, which was the posted speed limit. The other 20 sites were uncluttered, open-road
situations. At these sites, the 85 1h percentile speed was 62 km/h. 36 Given that the speed limits were
identical, the 12 km/h difference is substantial and illustrates the effectiveness of the road message on
influencing speeds.
16 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.3.5 LIMITATIONS OF DESIGN SPEED APPROACH
As noted in Section 2.2.4, consistency of design is fundamental to good driver performance, based on
satisfying the driver's expectations. Design consistency exists when the geometric features of a
continuous section of road are consistent with the operational characteristics as perceived by the driver.
The traditional approach to achieving design consistency has been established through the application
of the design speed process. Once selected, the design speed is used to determine values for the
geometric design elements from appropriate design domains.
The design speed concept in itself does not ensure sufficient coordination among individual geometric
features to ensure consistency. It controls only the minimum value of the maximum speeds for the
individual features along an alignment. For example, a road with an 80 km/h design speed could have
only one curve with a design speed of 80 km/h and all other features with design speeds of 110 km/h or
greater. As a result, operating speeds approaching the critical curve are likely to exceed the 80 km/h
design speed. Such an alignment would comply with an 80 km/h design speed, but it might violate a
driver's expectancy and result in undesirable operating speeds. The subject of design consistency is
discussed further in Chapter 2 - Part 3.
• For horizontal alignments, design speed applies only to curves, not to the tangents that
connect those curves. However, the length of a tangent can help control the upper range of
37
speeds on a curve. The maximum operating speed on a tangent, especially a long one, can
often significantly exceed the design speed of the horizontal curves at either end of the
tangent.
• At the beginning of this section we noted that design speed should not be less than intended
operating speed. This is not always easily accomplished, since drivers normally adjust speed
according to their desired speed, the speed limit of the facility, traffic volumes, and perceived
alignment hazards, among other things. The perception of hazard presented by the alignment
may vary along a road designed with a constant design speed leading to an adopted speed that
8
could vary accordingly and might exceed the design speed. A report3 on studies in Australia
1
and the US concluded that 85 h percentile operating speeds consistently exceeded design
speeds where those design speeds were less than 100 km/h at horizontal curves on rural two-
lane highways. In other words, drivers expect to be able to drive at 100 km/h on two-lane
highways. Such expectations must be anticipated and accounted for in the design. As noted
earlier, the subject of design consistency- and methods for its assessment - is discussed
further in Chapter 2 - Part 3 of this Guide.
• Different alignment elements may have quite different levels of perceived hazard. Entering a
horizontal curve too fast will almost certainly result in loss of control, so drivers adjust their
speed accordingly. However, appropriate adjustments to alignment elements will not
necessarily occur. For example, while drivers slow in wet weather, they do not adjust their
39
speeds sufficiently, leading to a much higher rate of crashes in wet weather.
• The design speed concept could prevent inconsistent operating speeds if drivers could be
presumed to know the design speed of the road and choose an operating speed less than or
equal to that design speed, even though they may be comfortable at higher speeds along most
of the alignment. That presumption is unreasonable, even if the posted speed is set at the
design speed. Therefore, the design speed concept does not provide a systematic mechanism
for preventing geometric inconsistencies.
June 2017 17
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
To help overcome weaknesses in the use of design speed to design individual geometric elements,
speed profiles are used. A speed profile is a graphical depiction (which can be modelled) showing how
the operating speed varies along a length of road. This profile facilitates an examination of the design to
identify undesirably large differentials in the operating speed between successive geometric elements
(e.g., a curve following a long tangent).
For an existing road being considered for improvement, actual operating speeds can be measured to
create a speed profile, but interpretation of the profile can be difficult, depending on the complexity of
geometric and other features which may cause drivers to change speed. For a new road, some
prediction of operating speeds is needed to create a speed profile model, and a methodology for doing
so is outlined in Chapter 2 - Part 3.
2.3.6 DESIGN DOMAIN: DESIGN SPEED SELECTION
2.3.6.1 General Application Heuristics
The following factors influence the choice of design speed and are presented in the form of guidelines
only.
• Design speed should be greater than or equal to operating speed. A design speed equal to the
operating speed may be warranted by such factors as low traffic volumes, mountainous terrain,
economic considerations, and urban environments.
• The overall range in design speeds is 20 km/h to 130 km/h and the design speed increments are
10 km/h.
• A lower design speed should not be automatically assumed for a secondary rural highway or
low-volume primary rural highway, where the terrain and speed environment are such that
drivers are likely to travel at higher speeds.
2.3.6.2 Rural Highways
Two-Lane Locals, Collectors, and Arterials
The following operating-speed-based approach is recommended for use by designers seeking to
establish appropriate design speeds on rural two-lane, two-way highways. This approach is illustrated in
Figure 2.3.4 and consists of the following steps:
• Select a nominal (trial) design speed.
• Select the design parameters for vertical and horizontal alignment and other highway
geometric elements.
• Develop a trial alignment.
• Estimate the 85th percentile speeds on the trial alignment. (See Chapter 2 - Part 3)
• Check consistency; does the estimated speed match the design speed?
• If it does finalize the design.
• If the estimated speeds do not match the design speed, can the alignment be modified? If so,
develop a new trial alignment.
18 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
• If the alignment cannot be modified, select another nominal (trial) design speed and repeat the
process.
This approach is cons istent with basic design consistency principles.
Commonly used design speeds for primary rural arterial two-lane highways in Canada vary between 100
and 120 km/h in rolling and level terrain . In mountainous terrain, commonly used design speeds are 80-
100 km/h. A design speed equal to the posted speed of 90-100 km/h is the normal practice for
secondary highways in some jurisdictions. Similarly, a design speed of 80 km/h and a posted speed of 80
km/h is the normal practice for rural municipal roads in some jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions prefer to
base design speed on the operating speed which may be 110 km/h in a rural environment.
June 2017 19
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Select Design Speed
1 r
~ Select Design Parameters for Highway
~
Geometric Elements
,,
N0 ..
~
Trial alignment
Yes
Estimate 851h Percentile Speed
...
H
- Can the Alignment be
Modified + No
Check consistency - Does Estimated
Speed Match Design Speed?
•
Yes
+
Satisfactory Alignment Final
Design
Figure 2.3.4: Operating Speed Approach for Design of Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadways
20 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Divided Arterials, Expressways, and Freeways
A design speed of 110, 120 or 130 km/h should be used for rural divided arterials and freeways as
defined in Table 2.6.2.
2.3.6.3 Urban Roadways
General Application Heuristics for Urban Roadways
• In the urban environment, all users, rather than just the motorists, should be taken into
consideration when selecting the design elements that affect speed along a street. Users other
than motorists include pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit riders.
• A direct relationship between posted speed and design speed is particularly valid for new street
facilities in the upper range of the street classification system (e.g., freeways, expressways,
major arterials).
• Where the urban street design is a retrofit, the speed (design speeds, target speed, etc.) of
streets in the urban environment is often an iterative process in which the selection is
influenced by the attainable geometric features. Providing as high a design speed as practical is
not the primary objective. Rather, selection of the most appropriate speed should be made on
the basis of the intended service function and the needs of all expected users (vehicles, cyclists
and pedestrians).
• The choice of speed (design speed, target speed, etc.) will be influenced by the constraints of
economics, social impacts, environmental controls, and aesthetics.
• The speed (design speed, target speed, etc.) selected should be consistent with all road user
expectations along that particular urban roadway. Prevailing conditions that should be
considered in this regard include adjacent land-use, intersection spacing, access conditions, and
vulnerable road user activity.
Locals and Collectors
• Choosing too high a design speed for an urban local or collector street can induce drivers to
trave l beyond the speed that is consistent with their surroundings and poses significant risks to
vulnerable road users (e .g., pedestrians, cyclists) . As shown in Figure 2.3.1 the risk of serious
injury or fatality for a pedestrian struck at 30 km/h is 9%; at 40 km/h it rises to 22%.
• Low speeds (design speed, target speed) are appropriate for streets with lower vehicle mobility
requi rements, frequent access, and pedestrian and cyclist activity. Local and collector streets
must be designed with the vulne rable road user in mind.
• The designer's choice of speed (design speed, target speed) for local and collector streets must
consider the role and presence of the vulnerable road user. The conventional approach to road
design includes design speed choices of 30-50 km/h for local roads and 50-80 km/h for
collector roads.
Arterials
• There are important differences between the criteria applicable to low and high-speed designs .
In general, because of these distinct differences, the upper limit for low-speed design is 70
km/h and the lower limit for high-speed design is 80 km/h .
June 2017 21
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
• Urban arterials generally have design speeds ranging from 50 to 100 km/h. The design speed
selected for an urban arterial will depend largely on the spacing of signalized intersections, the
selected type of median cross section, the presence or absence of curb and gutter along the
outside edges of the traveled way, the amount and type of access to the street and how
pedestrians and cyclists are accommodated.
Expressways and Freeways
• Commonly used design speeds for urban freeways in Canada vary between 90 km/h and 120
km/h.
2.3.6.4 Design Speed Choices for Rehabilitation Projects
Identifying the design speed is one of the initial steps in the rehabilitation project design process.
Rehabilitation projects are often referred to as 3R/4R projects (restoration, rehabilitation, resurfacing,
and reconstruction) - a term that refers to the various levels of rehabilitation that are embraced by the
more general term "rehabilitation." The Canadian Guide to 3R/4R: Identifying Cost Effective Geometric
Improvements for Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Projects 40 notes that
there is often a poor relationship between the operating speed (85 1h percentile speed), the original
design speed, and the posted speed. In many cases, in particular with older roads that have evolved over
time, a design speed may never have been established or is not known. For 3R/4R projects, the design
speed should reflect the actual operating speed, not necessarily the existing posted speed, since drivers
are more apt to accept a lower speed limit where a difficult condition is obvious than where there is no
apparent reason for it. In most cases, drivers adjust their speeds to physical limitations and traffic.
The recommended practice for 3R/4R projects is to define the design speed as the operating speed on a
roadway. Desirably, the operating speed should be measured for each project and the operational
design speed procedure shown in Figure 2.3.4 followed. Where this is not practical, system wide typical
values, for specific roadway classifications and other influencing characteristics such as roadway
geometry, terrain and adjacent land use can be utilized. In some cases, due to policy or the desire to
promote corridor continuity, for example, it may be desirable to define the 3R/4R design speed as a
41 42
target speed rather than an operating speed.
43
Selection of design speed on this basis is part of context sensitive design or design for ambient
44 45 46
conditions.
2.3.7 DESIGN DOMAIN: TARGET SPEED SELECTION
The target speed approach to design is generally used in urban design situations where accommodation
of vulnerable users is a higher priority. Because each design situation and its context are unique, it is not
realistic to set out generalized heuristics for the use of target speed. Rather, the intent of the target
speed approach is to allow designers a degree of flexibility that they do not receive from the application
of the design speed approach. Unless a matter of policy, this means that use of the target speed
approach will generally have to be justified through a design exception process as outlined in Chapter.
22 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.4 DESIGN VEHICLES
2.4.1 INTRODUCTION
The physical characteristics of vehicles and the proportions of the various sizes of vehicles using a road
define several geometric design elements including intersections, special vehicle parking, site access
configurations, and specialised applications such as underground transit, trucking, and parking facilities.
It is necessary to identify all vehicle types using the facility and to select a representative design vehicle
whose turning dimensions (i.e., dimensions affecting tracking or turning behaviour), and other
characteristics (e.g., height of eye, overall length and performance characteristics) are then used to
establish the relevant parameters for geometric design.
Design vehicle categories are established by examining all vehicle types, selecting general class groups
on the basis of use and turning behaviour, and defining representative size vehicles within each
classification . The dimensions used to represent design vehicles are not averages or maxima, nor are
they legal limiting dimensions. They are characteristic of those vehicles on the roads that form the bulk
of the fleet that are approaching maximum permissible dimensions. In addition to current fleets, future
trends in vehicle design have been considered. Design vehicles for roadside design are discussed in
Chapter 7.
Previous versions of this Guide were based on typical design vehicles which remained unchanged since
1965. The range of vehicle types and their operating characteristics have changed significantly since
then. The vehicle size regulations have also gone through substantial revisions during this period, which
has generally resulted in larger trucks on the roads.
Accordingly, TAC commissioned a research study in 1996, to report on proposed new vehicle classes and
characteristics. Vehicle classes and characteristics set out in this Guide are those identified in the TAC
47
report.
2.4.2 VEHICLE CLASSIFICATIONS
Three general classes of vehicles have been selected, namely passenger cars, trucks, and buses. The
passenger car class includes compacts and subcompacts, all light vehicles, and all light delivery trucks
(e.g., vans and pickups). The truck class includes single-unit trucks, truck tractor-semitrailer
combinations, and trucks or truck tractors with semitrailers in combination with full trailers. Buses
include single unit buses, articulated buses, and intercity buses.
In establishing the design dimensions for the various vehicle classes, this Guide focuses on vehicles in
regular operation only. The following four categories of special vehicles are therefore excluded in the
determination of specific design dimensions:
• Long load trucks with independently steerable rear bogies (e.g., large fire ladder trucks) are
very rare. While their turning characteristics are different, they are expected to perform within
the envelope of common large trucks.
• Vehicles such as long combination vehicles (LCVs) and long load logging trucks commonly
operate in many jurisdictions. In some circumstance it may be appropriate to use these trucks
as the design vehicle.
• Towed recreational vehicles cover a broad range of dimensions. Establishing representative
dimensions for such vehicles would be very difficult, given their wide range of dimensions and
June 2017 23
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
local variations. A legally configured recreational trailer is expected to behave as any other
trailer in the turn.
• Large trucks with tandem or triple steering axles in front (e.g., large concrete trucks, large
mobile cranes) are very rare. Turning characteristics for such vehicles can be obtained directly
from manufacturers.
Typical dimensions for some of these special vehicles are summarised in Appendix A of the TAC research
48
report, but designers should obtain manufacturers data for specific vehicles.
Within the three general classes, eleven different design vehicles have been selected as being
representative of the Canadian fleet. These are:
• Passenger cars (P)
• Light single-unit trucks (LSU)
• Medium single-unit trucks (MSU)
• Heavy single-unit trucks (HSU)
• WB-19 tractor semitrailers (WB-19)
• WB-20 tractor semitrailers (WB-20)
• A-train doubles (ATD)
• B-train doubles (BTD)
• Standard single-unit buses (B-12)
• Articulated buses (A-BUS)
• Intercity buses (I-BUS) .
Other vehicles not discussed in this Guide are long combination vehicles including Rocky Mountain
double, triple trailer, and Turnpike doubles.
2.4.3 VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS
2.4.3.1 Length, Width, and Turning Radius
For the eleven different classifications of vehicles, the typical dimensions were determined and are
shown in Table 2.4.1 to 2.4.4. The dimensions are measured as shown in Figures 2.4.1 to 2.4.11.
24 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Table 2.4.1: Design Dimensions for Passenger Cars
Dimension (m)
Length 5.6
Front overhang 1.1
Rear overhang 1.3
Wheelbase 3.2
Minimum turning radius 6.3
Width 2.0
Table 2.4.2: Design Dimensions for Commercial Vehicles
1 Tractors- 1
Single-unit trucks 1 Doubles
Semitrailers
Light Medium Heavy WB-19 WB-20 A-train B-train
Length (m) 6.4 10.0 11.5 20.7 22.7 24.5 25.0
Front Overhang (m) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0 .8
Rear Overhang (m) 2.2 2.7 2.3 1.7 3.3 1.5 1.3
WBl (m) 3.4 6.5 8.4 6.2 6.2 5.1 6.1
WB2 (m) - - - 12.0 12.4 6.9 9.0
WB3 (m) - - - - - 6.9 7.0
2 3
WB4 (m) - - - - - 3.3 0.8
4
Width (m) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6
Minimum turning radius - see Table 2.4.4
Notes : 1. These dimensions are subject to change across provincial, national and international
boundaries. Designers should check appropriate regulations for the intended facility, as well as
the trucking industry, to ensure dimensions reflect the current regulatory environment.
2. Includes 1.2 m from the rear effective axle to the hitch point and 2.1 m from the hitch point to
the lead effective axle of the following unit
Maximum dimension allowed without permit. Statistical data not available.
3.
June 2017 25
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Table 2.4.3: Design Dimensions for Buses
Single-unit buses Articulated buses Intercity buses
Length (m) 12.2 - 12.7 18.3 14.0
Front Overhang (m) 2.2-2 .9 3.2 1.8
Rear Overhang (m) 2.8-3.2 3.0 4.0
WBl (m) 7.2 5.5 8.2
1
S (m) - 1.8 -
2
T (m) - 4.8 -
Minimum turning radius 12.9 13.1 13.9
3
Width w/o mirrors 2.4-2.6 2.4 2.4
Notes : 1. Distance from rear end of axle to the hitch point.
2. Distance from the hitch point to the lead effective axle of the following unit.
3. Mirror dimensions can add substantially to the width of the design vehicle.
Designers should check fleet information with local transit agencies to ensure all
dimensions are representative of the local fleet.
26 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Table 2.4.4: Minimum Design Turning Radii for Representative Trucks for 90° and 180° Turns
Minimum Turning Radius (m)
Truck Type Wheelbase Centre of Axle Outside Front Wheel
Light SU 3.4 5.3 6.3
Medium SU 6.5 10.1 11.1
Heavy SU 8.4 13.1 14.1
Tractor Unit 6.2 9.6 10.7
Minimum Turning Radius (m)
Truck Type Degree of Turn Centre of Axle Outside Front Wheel
WB-19 90 9.6 10.7
180 12.8 14.0
WB-20 90 9.6 10.7
180 13.1 14.3
A-train 90 11.2 10.7
180 9.6 12.3
B-train 90 12.5 10.7
180 9.6 13.6
Notes : Data from this table should be used to develop the swept path for the design vehicle,
for use in geometric design.
Vehicle widths are not expected to increase beyond the current maximum of 2.6 m in the foreseeable
future. Over-dimensional (wide) loads are quite common in some of the western provinces. However,
these vehicles should continue to be treated as special vehicles.
June 2017 27
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
length
5.6
front rear
overhang wheelbase overhang
1.1 3.2 1.3
Note: Figure is not to scale.
Figure 2.4.1: Passenger Car (P) Dimension
length
6.4
0
0
rear
wheelbase overhang
0.8 3.4 2.2
Note: Dimensions are in metres .
Figure not to scale.
Figure 2.4.2: Light Single Unit (LSU) Truck Dimension
28 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
length
10.0
wheelbase
overhang 6.5 2.7
0.8 Notes: Figure not to scale.
Figure 2.4.3: Medium Single-Unit (MSU) Truck Dimension
length
11.5
wheelbase
8.4 rear
overhang
0.8 Notes: Dimensions are in metres. 2.3
Figure not to scale.
Figure 2.4.4: Heavy Single-Unit (HSU) Truck Dimensions
June 2017 29
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
len th
20.7
wheelbase2
wheelbase1
12.0
rear
front 6.2 overhang
overhang1
0.8
Notes: All dimensions are in metres. 11.7
Fiig ure not to scale .
Note: Fifth wheel offset set to zero to yield the maximum swept path in a turn.
Figure 2.4.5: WB-19 Tractor-Semitrailer Dimensions
length
22.7
wheelbase2
wheelbase1 12.4
6.2 rear
overhang
front
overhang 3.3
Notes: All dimensions are in metres.
0.8 Figure not to scalle .
Note: F,ifth wheel offset set to zero to yield the maximum swept path in a turn .
Figure 2.4.6: WB-20 Tractor-Semitrailer Dimensions
30 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
len th
24.5
wheelbase1
6.9 6.9
5.1
wheelbase4 rear
Front overhang
Overhang 1.2 2.1 1.5
0.8 Notes: A11 dimensions are in metres.
1
figure not to scale.
Note: Fifth wheel offset set to zero to yield the maximum swept path in a turn .
Figure 2.4.7: A-Train Double (ATD) Dimensions
length
25.0
wheellbase1
6. 1
9.0 7.0
wheelbase4 rear
front overhang
overhang 0.8
1.3
0.8 Notes: All dimensions are in metres.
Figure not to scale .
Note ; Fifth wheel offset set to zero to yield the maximum swept path in a turn.
Figure 2.4.8: B-Train Double (BTD) Dimensions
June 2017 31
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
r~------~e2_ng.t2_h _______ r
front overhang wheelbase rear overhang
2.2 7.2 2.8
Notes: Dimensions are in metres.
Figure not to scale.
Figure 2.4.9: Standard Single-Unit (B-12) Bus Dimensions
l length
18.3 r
front rear
overhang wheelbase s T overhang
3.2 5.5 1.8 4.8 3.0
Notes:
=
1. S Distance from the rear effective axle to the hitch point
2. T =Distance from the hitch point to the lead effective axle of the following unit.
Dimensions are in metres. Figure not to scale.
Figure 2.4.10: Articulated Bus (A-BUS) Dimensions
32 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
length
14.0
r
11
rear
overhang wheelbase overhang
1.8 8.2 4.0
Notes: Dimensions are in metres .
Figure not to scale.
Figure 2.4.11: Intercity Bus (I-BUS) Dimensions
2.4.3.2 Vehicle Height
The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Memorandum of Understanding on lnterprovincial Weights and
Dimensions, limits the maximum vehicle height to 4.15 m. Trucks up to about 4.25 m are currently
allowed in some western provinces. These over-height vehicles however, are not likely to influence
current regulations as this would imply significant infrastructure costs.
2.4.3.3 Driver Eye Height
When determining sight distance, the passenger car is normally considered the critical vehicle since all
other design vehicle classes position the driver at a greater height above the roadway. Research
49
indicates that more than 90% of all passenger car driver eye heights exceed 1.08 m and is appropriate
for design.
For buses and single unit vehicles the driver's eye height is 1.8 m above the roadway. For large trucks
and truck trailer combinations, NCH RP 400 suggests that a driver eye height of 2.3 mis appropriate for
50
design.
June 2017 33
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.4.4 VEHICLE TURNING PATHS
The designer must ensure that designed geometrics will accommodate the swept path of the selected
design vehicle as it turns. The swept path is established by the outer trace of the front overhang and the
path of the inner rear wheel. This turn assumes that the outer front wheel follows the circular arc
defining the minimum turning radius as determined by the vehicle steering mechanism, and as set out in
Table 2.4.1, 2.4.3, and 2.4.4.
In applying these dimensions to the derivation of swept paths, the following assumptions are made:
• The turning movements critical to the design of roadway facilities are done at low speeds
(15 km/h or less) and are discussed in detail in Chapter 9. Past experience and comparative
tests have shown that at low speeds, the turning behaviour of vehicles is mainly determined by
their geometric characteristics. Effects of friction and dynamics can be safely ignored.
• Groups of evenly spaced axles mounted on a rigid bogie act in the turn as a single axle placed at
the centre of the group for the purpose of measuring critical turning dimensions.
• Lift axles (permissible in some jurisdictions) are assumed lifted in the turn, with turning
behaviour being determined by the remaining (fixed) axles.
• The dimensions define the turning envelope of vehicles in forward motion cannot be used for
the backing motion.
A computer tracking program is useful to determine the minimum radius possible for greater or lesser
angles of turn. The tractor radius of turn must be set so that the swept path of the inside rear-most
trailer axle never reaches the centre of turn of the tractor, where all forward motion would stop. Based
on empirical evidence, a minimum distance of 3 m between the swept path and centre of turn seems
appropriate to maintain reasonable forward motion on the inside rear tire. The maximum 180° radii in
Table 2.4.4 were established using this criterion.
2.4.5 SELECTING A DESIGN VEHICLE
The selection of the appropriate design vehicle is a key element in good intersection design practice. The
passenger car is appropriate as a design vehicle only where the traffic stream is almost exclusively
comprised of passenger vehicles (e.g., an intersection of two local residential roads). However, it is good
practice to check the ability of the intersection to accommodate the occasional delivery truck, fire truck,
garbage truck, or moving van. Encroachments into the opposing travel lane may be tolerated for the
occasional turning truck at a low volume intersection.
For residential collectors intersecting with other collectors or arterials, single unit trucks or buses are
typical design vehicles chosen for effective intersection design.
For most major intersections along arterial roads or within commercial areas, it is common practice to
accommodate the minimum turning paths of a type of semitrailer truck. The type of tractor semitrailer
combination design vehicle is chosen in consideration of the largest truck type occurring with some
frequency in the turning traffic streams. It is good practice to investigate the impact that may result
from the occasional larger design vehicle.
Many municipalities designate specific arterials and other major roads as truck routes. The intersection
of two truck routes, or intersections where trucks must turn to remain on a truck route, are designed to
accommodate the largest tractor semitrailer combination expected to be prevalent in the turning traffic
34 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
stream. Where local residential roads intersect truck routes or arterials, the intersections are often
specifically designed not to accommodate trucks easily, thereby discouraging trucks from travelling
through the residential area.
In industrial areas, large tractor-trailer combination trucks are prevalent along all roads, including locals.
Thus, all industrial intersections are designed to accommodate the turning movements of these large
vehicles. Two- and three-centred curves are common for the curb returns at industrial intersections.
Raised channelizing islands are typically omitted within industrial areas in recognition of low pedestrian
volumes and other considerations such as right-of-way and construction costs. The absence of raised
islands also provides more maneuvering area for the turning movements of large trucks.
2.5 SIGHT DISTANCE
2.5.1 INTRODUCTION
The ability to see ahead is of critical importance in the safe and efficient operation of a vehicle. Motor
vehicles are operated by drivers who have significant differences in their level of experience, ability, and
training. Sufficient sight distance must be provided to allow for drivers of all skill and training levels to
stop or maneuver around obstacles on the roadway surface and make safe turns.
Depending on the specific circumstances, the designer may use different measurements of sight
distance, including: stopping sight distance, passing sight distance, and decision sight distance. Each of
these is described in detail in subsequent sections of this chapter. Intersection sight distance is
addressed in Chapter 9.
In many applications, one of these types of sight distance will govern, and the designer need satisfy only
one requirement. In other cases, such as vertical alignment design, a designer must optimise the design
to achieve a satisfactory balance between provision of passing opportunities in some locations and
adequate stopping sight distances in others. Where an intersection unavoidably falls on a crest curve,
the designer sometimes needs to consider the interaction between stopping, decision, and intersection
sight distances to achieve a suitable design.
2.5.2 CRITERIA USED IN CALCULATING SIGHT DISTANCE
Several variables are used by the designer when determining sight distance required for different
applications. These are:
• Perception-reaction time (see Section 2.2.5.5)
• Driver eye height (see Section 2.4.3.3)
• Vehicle operating speed (see Section 2.3.2)
• Object height
• Deceleration rate.
The last two variables are discussed below.
June 2017 35
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.5.2.1 Object Height
In calculating sight distance, the designer must consider the type of object that is likely to be
encountered on the roadway, which a driver will have to avoid by stopping or maneuvering. Because of
the potential variation in object type, selection of object height has significantly more impact on sight
distance requirements than, for example, driver eye height.
Table 2.5.1 presents commonly used object heights for various design scenarios.
Table 2.5.1: Object Height Design Domain
Object Height (m) Applicability
0.00 Stopping sight distance for:
• Risk of road washouts
• Pavement markings in critical locations
0.15 Stopping sight distance for:
• Risk of fallen trees or rocks
• Risk of log or construction debris fallen from truck
• Risk of fallen person
Decision sight distance for most applications (see Section 2.5.5)
0.38 Stopping sight distance for:
• Vehicle tail or brake light from 1999 TAC Geometric Design Guide for
Canadian Roads
• This value can be used if a more conservative approach is required .
0.60 Stopping sight distance for:
• Vehicle tail or brake light
• Research indicates that 95% of tail light heights and 90% of headlight
heights exceed this value.
• This value has been used in this guide to determine stopping sight
distance requirements outlined in Tables 2.5.2 and 2.5.3
1.30 Passing sight distance for:
• Top of car*
* Note: Some jurisdictions use an object height of 1.15 m for the top of a car, based on the premise
that a driver needs to see at least 150 mm of the vehicle to discern its presence. This is supported by a
study of driver visual capabilities which suggested that a high contrast object 150 mm high is the
minimum height detectable at AASHTO stopping sight distances, and that drivers do not have the
capability to recognize objects that are less than 300 mm in height, regardless of contrast, at or beyond
51
minimum stopping sight distances. This practice is not widely used.
In applying object heights less than 0.15 m the following points should be considered.
36 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
• The frequency of collisions occurring as a result of vehicles striking objects less than 0.15 min
52
height has been shown to be very low.
• As discussed above, a driver's ability to discern small objects at a distance is limited.
• In general, a driver must see at least the top 0.15 m of an object in order to detect its presence.
• If such an object is of limited lateral size {e.g., a rock) a driver may well be able to take evasive
action rather than stop, particularly on a roadway with low traffic volumes.
• Evasion might not be possible if the object were a fallen tree, but in many parts of the country
this is an unlikely hazard since trees are not present or because local jurisdictions do not allow
trees to remain close to the roadway. In areas where logging trucks are present, the designer
should consider the possibility of a log falling onto the roadway from a truck.
The designer should adopt an object height based on the probability of a particular object occurring on
the roadway, as shown on Table 2.5.1. If fallen trees or rocks are a real risk, an object height of 0.15 m is
recommended. Otherwise, for stopping sight distance, a tail light height of 0.60 m is recommended. For
passing sight distance, an object height of 1.30 m will allow the driver to discern the top of an oncoming
typical car. A zero object height is recommended where road washouts are a serious risk, for example on
approaches to bridges and culverts in mountainous areas. It is only recommended for pavement
markings in critical situations such as at intersections or interchanges, as the driver's ability to discern
the markings cannot be relied upon, and traffic signs should be used instead.
2.5.2.2 Deceleration Rate
2
Approximately 90 percent of all drivers decelerate at rates greater than 3.4 m/s • Such deceleration is
within a driver's capability to stay within their lane and maintain steering control during the braking
2
maneuver on wet surfaces. Therefore 3.4 m/s is a comfortable deceleration for most drivers and is
53
recommended as the deceleration threshold for determining stopping sight distance.
Most vehicle braking systems and the tire-pavement friction levels of most roadways are capable of
2
providing a deceleration rate of at least 3.4 m/s . Also, the friction available on most wet pavement
surfaces and the capabilities of most vehicle braking systems can provide braking friction that exceeds
this deceleration rate.
2.5.3 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
Braking distance is the distance that it takes to stop a vehicle once the brakes have been applied. On a
level roadway this distance can be determined using the following formula:
v2 (2 .5.1)
db= 0.039
a
Where:
db= Braking distance {m)
v = Design speed (km/h)
2
a= Deceleration rate (m/s )
June 2017 37
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Stopping sight distance is the sum of the distance travelled during the perception and reaction time and
the braking distance.
v2 (2 .s .2)
SSD = 0.278Vt + 0.039 - -
a
Where:
SSD = Stopping sight distance (m)
t = Brake reaction time, 2.5 s
v= Design speed (km/h)
2
a= Deceleration rate (m/s )
Table 2.5.2 gives the minimum stopping sight distances on level grade, on wet pavement, for a range of
design speeds. These values are used for vertical curve design, intersection geometry and the placement
of traffic control devices. The stopping sight distances quoted in Table 2.5.2 may need to be increased
for a variety of reasons related to grade and vehicle type as noted below.
Table 2.5.2: Stopping Sight Distance on level roadways for Automobiles 54
Stopping sight distance
Design speed Brake reaction Braking distance
(km/h) distance (m) on level (m)
Calculated (m) Design (m)
20 13.9 4.6 18.5 20
30 20.9 10.3 31.2 35
40 27 .8 18.4 46.2 so
so 34.8 28.7 63.5 65
60 41.7 41.3 83 .0 85
70 48.7 S6.2 104.9 lOS
80 SS.6 73.4 129.0 130
90 62.6 92.9 lSS.5 160
100 69.5 114.7 184.2 18S
110 76.5 138.8 21S.3 220
120 83 .4 16S.2 248.6 2SO
130 90.4 193.8 284.2 28S
.L
Note. Brake reaction distance predicated on a time of 2.5 s, deceleration rate of 3.4 m/s used to determine
calculated sight distance.
38 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
The Effect of Grade
Braking distances will increase on downgrades and decrease on upgrades. When the roadway is on a
grade, formula 2.5.1 for braking distance is modified as follows:
y2 (2 .5.3)
=
254 [(a/9.81) + G]
Where:
db= Braking distance (m)
V= Design speed (km/h)
2
a= Deceleration rate (m/s )
G= Grade (m/m) (G is positive if vehicles uphill and negative if downhill)
It has been noted that many drivers, particularly those in automobiles, do not compensate completely
(i.e., by acceleration or deceleration) for the changes in speed caused by grade. It should also be noted
that in many cases the sight distance available on downgrades is greater than on upgrades, which can
help to provide the necessary corrections for grade. The following Table 2.5.3 summarizes the stopping
sight distances on grades for a variety of design speeds.
55
Table 2.5.3: Stopping Sight Distance on Grades
Stopping Sight Distance (m)
Design Speed
Downgrades (%) Upgrades(%)
(km/h)
3 6 9 3 6 9
20 20 20 20 19 18 18
30 32 35 35 31 30 29
40 50 50 53 45 44 43
50 66 70 74 61 59 58
60 87 92 97 80 77 75
70 110 116 124 100 97 93
80 136 144 154 123 118 114
90 164 174 187 148 141 136
100 194 207 223 174 167 160
110 227 243 262 203 194 186
120 263 281 304 234 223 214
130 302 323 350 267 254 243
June 2017 39
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.5.3.1 Stopping Sight Distance: Variations for Trucks
The stopping sight distance outlined in Tables 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 are based on passenger car operations
and do not explicitly consider design for truck operations. In general trucks need longer stopping sight
distances for a given speed than passenger vehicles. However, one balancing factor is that a truck driver
can generally see further than a passenger car driver due to an eye height advantage. As a result, a
separate stopping sight distances for trucks are not generally used in highway design.
In some instances the higher eye height is not an advantage or maybe a disadvantage - for example,
trucks have no advantage when a sightline obstruction is located on inside of a horizontal curve. Also,
trucks are at a disadvantage on sag vertical curves where visibility is "cut off' by an overpass and at the
end of long downgrades. In these situations it is desirable to provide stopping sight distances that
exceed the values in Tables 2.5.2 and 2.5.3.
2.5.4 PASSING SIGHT DISTANCE
Passing sight distance is used for rural two-lane roads to allow drivers to pass slower traffic by using the
opposing lane. The driver of the passing vehicle must be able to see far enough ahead to complete the
maneuver without interfering with traffic in the opposing lane.
Passing sight distance should be based on the length needed to complete a passing maneuver as shown
in Figure 2.5.1, which divides the required sight distance into four elements.
• d1 - Initial maneuver distance. The initial maneuver period consists of a perception and reaction
time and the time it takes for the passing driver to move the vehicle from a trailing position to a
position of encroachment into the opposing lane of traffic.
• d2 - Distance travelled while the passing vehicle occupies the opposing lane.
• d3 Clearance length. The distance between the opposing vehicle and the passing vehicle at the
end of the passing vehicle's maneuver. Observed distances vary from 30 m to 90 m, depending
on design speed.
• d4 - Distance travelled by the opposing vehicle after being seen by the passing vehicle. The
opposing vehicle is assumed to be travelling at the same speed as the passing vehicle, therefore
this distance is equal to two-thirds of d 2.
40 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
first phase opposing vehicle appears
passing vehicle when passing vehicle ~
__ -:[.l reaches point A B J
·······-···-···EE-:~:::--;;:-&::!:: ='.'.=r.:r···-·······-··-····-···-·······-··········--···-···-·-·-··-···---···-··-···-······i;: ~------------------------·
second phase d, 1/3d2
...
~,___- -~----
d,
6
Figure 2.5.1: Elements of Passing Sight Distances
Certain assumptions about driver behaviour are made when computing passing sight distance.
• The vehicle being passed travels at a uniform speed.
• The passing vehicle has reduced speed and trails the overtaken vehicle as it enters a passing
section.
• The driver of the passing vehicle requires a short period of time to determine that there is a
clear passing section ahead and begin the passing maneuver.
• Passing is accomplished under a delayed start and a hurried return to the original lane while
facing traffic. The passing vehicle accelerates during the maneuver, to a speed 15 km/h higher
than that of the passed vehicle.
• There will be a suitable distance between the vehicle completing the passing maneuver and the
oncoming vehicles.
Two methodologies exist to calculate passing sight distance. The first (design) is based on the 2004
AASHTO methodology using an eye height of 1.08 m and an object height of 1.3 m in conjunction with
the design speed. It assumes that the driver can safely complete the pass if an oncoming vehicle appears
at the end of Phase 1 (d 1+ d2 /3) in Figure 2.5.1. The second methodology (Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Canada-MUTCDC) is based on the assumption that a driver can safely abort the
passing maneuver if an oncoming vehicle appears at the end of Phase 1.
Table 2.5.4 summarizes the minimum passing sight distances for the AASHTO (design) methodology,
57
which utilizes design speed.
June 2017 41
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Table 2.5.4: Minimum Passing Sight Distance - adapted from 2004 AASHTO Methodology
Design Assumed Speeds (km/h) Minimum passing
Speed sight distance
Passed Passing
(km/h) (m, rounded)
vehicle vehicle
30 29 44 220
40 36 51 290
50 44 59 350
60 51 66 410
70 59 74 490
80 65 80 550
90 73 88 610
100 79 94 680
110 85 100 730
120 91 106 800
130 97 112 860
Table 2.5.5 below summarizes the minimum passing sight distances for the MUTCDC (marking)
methodology, which utilizes the higher of the operating or posted speed. These distances are based on
the models for a passenger car passing a passenger car. Designers should make allowances if there are a
58
number of larger vehicles (e.g., long combination vehicles) on the roadway.
42 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Table 2.5.5: Minimum Passing Sight Distance - 2006 MUTCDC (marking) Methodology
Higher of Operating or Minimum passing sight
Posted Speed (km/h) distance (m, rounded)
so 160
60 200
70 240
80 275
90 330
100 400
110 475
120 565
The minimum passing sight distances based on the AASHTO (design) methodology were derived from
59
field studies carried out between 1938 and 1941. The derivation of the MUTCDC (marking)
methodology values is uncertain, but is believed to be based on the 1940 AASHTO policy on no-passing
zones. This policy represents a subjective compromise between distances computed for flying passes
60
and for delayed passes. As such, it does not represent any particular passing situation. Subsequent
61 62
studies showed that values published by AASHTO in 2004 were generally too conservative for
modern drivers and vehicles. As a result, the AASHTO passing sight distance model was significantly
modified in their 2011 guide, but this model has not been adopted by TAC.
Harwood et al suggest that required passing sight distance is successively longer for a passenger car
passing a passenger car, a passenger car passing a truck, a truck passing a passenger car, and a truck
passing a truck, but that all of these required distances are less than those given as "minimums" by
63
AASHTO. A comparison of these requirements is shown in Figure 2.5.2.
June 2017 43
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
900
800
I<l>
700
(.)
c
~ 600
en
'i5
E
Cl 500
"Cii
Cl
c
"Cii 400
en
ro
c..
"'O
~ 300
·s
CT
~
200
100
o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
design or running speed (km/h)
Figure 2.5.2: Required Passing Sight Distance for Passenger Cars and Trucks
in Comparison with 2004 AASHTO Criteria
64
In a review of research findings, it was noted that collisions involving a passing maneuver amounted to
only about 2% of all collisions on two-lane rural roads. However, the proportion of fatal and
65
incapacitating collisions was found to be almost 6%. AASHTO findings suggest that significant numbers
of drivers may avoid passing maneuvers on two-lane roads, particularly where trucks are involved.
However, drivers who refuse to pass other vehicles, even where adequate sight distance exists, may
frustrate other, more confident drivers, who may then attempt unsafe passing maneuvers.
To address the general lack of correlated data between collision occurrence and passing sight distance,
the designer should seek opportunities to introduce passing lanes (see Chapter 3 for passing lane
66
warrants) on two-lane roads, particularly where the terrain limits sight distance. A report on a review
67
and evaluation of research studies concluded that passing and climbing lane installations reduce
collision rates by 25% compared to untreated two-lane sections. Such facilities also provide safer passing
opportunities for drivers who are uncomfortable using the opposing traffic lane and for those who are
frustrated by them, particularly when few passing opportunities exist due to terrain or traffic volume.
2.5.5 DECISION SIGHT DISTANCE
Stopping sight distance allows alert, competent drivers to come to a quick stop under ordinary
circumstances. This distance is usually inadequate when drivers must make complex decisions, when
information is difficult to find, when information is unusual, or when unusual maneuvers are required.
44 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Limiting the sight distance to the stopping sight distance may preclude drivers from performing unusual,
evasive maneuvers. Similarly, stopping sight distance may not provide drivers with enough visibility to
allow them to piece together warning signals and decide on a course of action. Because decision sight
distance allows drivers to maneuver their vehicles or vary their operating speed rather than stop,
decision sight distance is much greater than stopping sight distance for a given design speed.
Designers should use decision sight distance wherever information may be perceived incorrectly,
decisions are required, or control actions are required. Examples of situations where it could be
desirable to provide decision sight distance include:
• Complex interchanges and intersections
• Locations where unusual or unexpected maneuvers occur
• Locations where significant changes to the roadway cross section are made
• Areas where there are multiple demands on the driver's decision-making capabilities from road
elements, traffic control devices, advertising, traffic, etc.
• Construction zones
Table 2.5.6 shows the range of values for decision sight distance. The decision sight distance increases
with the complexity of the evasive action that is taken by the driver and with the complexity of the
surroundings. The values for decision sight distance given in the table were developed from empirical
data. When using these sight distances, the designer should consider eye and object heights appropriate
for specific applications. Refer to Section 2.4.3.3 Driver Eye Height and Section 2.5.2.1 Object Height for
additional information.
68
Table 2.5.6: Decision Sight Distance
Decision Sight Distance for Avoidance Maneuver (m}
Design Speed (km/h}
A B c D E
so 75 160 145 160 200
60 95 205 175 205 235
70 125 250 200 240 275
80 155 300 230 275 315
90 185 360 275 320 360
100 225 415 315 365 405
110 265 455 335 390 435
120+ 305 505 375 415 470
June 2017 45
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
PART 2: DESIGN CLASSIFICATION
2.5.6 INTRODUCTION
A road network is composed of various road types, each of which performs a particular service in
facilitating vehicular travel between points of trip origin and destination, and provides access to
property.
Road classification is the orderly grouping of roads into systems according to the type of service they
provide to the public. When a road system is properly classified, the characteristics of each road are
readily understood . Classification assists in establishing the geometric design features for each group of
roads, consistent with the short and long term operational needs of that particular group.
A road classification system establishes a hierarchy of roads that provides for the gradation in function
from access to mobility.
Road systems operate most efficiently and safely if each class of road is designed to serve its intended
purpose. The range of characteristics associated with each classification can also be used to effectively
assess the actual operating conditions of an existing road. Comparisons can be drawn between actual
and intended purposes to assess the need for modifications to preserve the safety and operational
integrity of the road link.
2.5.7 DESIGN CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
69
The design classification system used in this Guide:
• Separates roads on the basis of differences in traffic service and land service, which makes the
classification adaptable for both planning and design purposes.
• Separates different types of roads on the basis of design features.
• Separates different types of roads on the basis of operational needs associated primarily with
adjacent land use.
• Can be related to jurisdictional road classifications in use.
• Is suitable for all areas in Canada.
The design classification system has ten primary divisions as follows:
Table 2.6.1: Urban and Rural Design Classification in Canada
Rural (R) Urban (U)
Lane/Alley
Local (L) Local (L)
Collector (C) Collector (C)
Arterial (A) Arteria l (A)
Expressway (E)
Freeway (F) Freeway (F)
46 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
As well as referring to jurisd ictional boundaries and features of typical cross sections, the terms "rural"
and "urban" relate to the predominant characteristics of the adjacent land.
For geometric design purposes, it is necessary to subdivide each of these divisions because different
roads providing the same service may require markedly different geometric design standards. For a
given road, geometric design elements are affected by whether the roadway is divided (D) or undivided
(U). This, therefore, forms the first subdivision of classification.
Design speed (see Part 1 of this Chapter) is the final subdivision in the road classification system . The
resulting design designation system contains 63 classifications of road, as shown in Table 2.6.2. It is
noted that lanes are not included, because their function is primarily for access, not mobility.
Table 2.6.2: Design Classification
Design Speed Classification
(km/h) Local Collector Arterial Expressway Freeway
50 RLU50
60 RLU60 RCU60
70 RLU70 RCU70
RCD70
80 RLU80 RCU80 RAU80
RCD80 RAD80
90 RLU80 RCU90 RAU90
RCD90 RAD90
Rural 100 RLU100 RCU100 RAU100
RCD100 RAD100 RFD100
110 RLU110 RCU110 RAU110
RCD110 RAD110 RFD110
120 RAU120
RAD120 RFD120
130 RAU130
RAD130 RFD130
30 ULU30
40 ULU40
50 ULU50 UCU50 UAU50
UCD50 UAD50
60 UCU60 UAU60
UCD60 UAD60
70 UCU70 UAU70
Urban
UCD70 UAD70
80 UCU80 UAU80
UCD80 UAD80 UED80 UFD80
90 UAD90 UED90 UFD90
100 UAD100 UED100 UFD100
110 UED110 UFD110
120 UFD120 UFD120
June 2017 47
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.5.8 FACTORS CONSIDERED IN CLASSIFICATION
The first step in any road planning, design or administration study is to designate each facility as a
freeway, expressway, arterial, collector, local road, or lane. To identify the classification to which any
road belongs, the service function and traffic characteristics should be considered. The important
characteristics and their relation to the different classifications of roads are described in this section.
Combined, these factors make it possible to identify the classification to which any road belongs,
although it must be recognized that this is not a precise process.
2.5.8.1 Land Use
The nature of adjacent land use is an important factor in the classification of roads. The intensity of
access needs changes with land use, and the roads within the network must be appropriately classified
and designed to meet the varying needs. Additionally, the geometric requirements for roads in a rural
setting are different from those of urban roads in residential, industrial, or commercial areas. This
conclusion can be partly attributed to the types of vehicular traffic prevalent in the traffic stream of
each different land use. However, it is also important to recognize that roads in urban areas are
designed to achieve many objectives other than the provision of vehicular access. These objectives
include minimizing unnecessary vehicular traffic, accommodating pedestrian and bicycle activity, and
providing space for social activities that enhance the quality of life in neighbourhoods. Similarly, in rural
areas, there may be a need to accommodate locally prevalent vehicles such as agricultural equipment or
logging trucks.
Changes in land use resulting from rezoning and redevelopment may create the need to alter the
classification of a particular road. Geometric changes may be desirable to better meet the vehicular,
pedestrian, and other requirements associated with the altered land use.
2.5.8.2 Service Function
All roads provide either service to traffic, access to land, or both. Freeways, expressways, and arterials
primarily provide for the movement of through traffic and in general are not intended to provide direct
land access. Local roads and public lanes are used almost exclusively for access. Collectors are used for
both. The relative importance of the service functions of traffic movement and land access is illustrated
70
in Figure 2.6.1.
48 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
unrestricted
access
I
c increasing use
0
uc for access
purposes
-:::J
( /)
(/)
Q)
()
decreasing
degree of
access control
()
ro
complete
access control
I .....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~
_ _ _______,_______,
no through increasing proportion of little local
traffic through traffic, increasing speed traffic
movement function
Figure 2.6.1: Service Function
2.5.8.3 Traffic Volume
High volumes of traffic are carried by freeways, expressways, and arterials, while low volumes are
associated with collectors and locals. However, the volume range for each classification is wide and
overlaps that of other classifications.
2.5.8.4 Flow Characteristics
In general, the desired characteristics of traffic flow determine the classification of a road. For example,
roads primarily serving traffic movements, such as freeways and rural arterials, are expected to have
uninterrupted traffic flow characteristics. The flow on local roads that provide full land service is
restricted by traffic crossing, entering, and leaving the roadway, by parked vehicles, and in urban areas
by pedestrians.
Traffic interruptions in an urban area may be frequent due to closely spaced intersections, various traffic
controls and pedestrian crossings.
2.5.8.5 Operating Speed
Operating speeds will vary on roads of the same classification depending on the type and condition of
the surface, intensity of adjacent land development, access to the roadway, vehicle types, and traffic
flow controls. Operating speeds generally increase from locals to collectors, arterials, and freeways.
June 2017 49
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.5.8.6 Vehicle Type
The proportion of passenger cars, buses, and trucks using a roadway is generally dependent on the
purposes of the roadway and the surrounding land use, and is therefore, related to the road
classification . Local roads are used predominantly by passenger cars and small trucks, while freeways
and arterials generally carry a higher proportion of commercial vehicles. Local or collector roads in
industrial subdivisions are exceptions to this rule.
The classification sub-groups for collectors, locals, and public lanes have been established to reflect the
operational needs of the varying of vehicle types within rural, urban, residential, industrial, and
commercial areas. Vehicle types have a significant influence on urban road design. The road design
process must consider requirements of vehicle types such as transit buses, fire trucks, and solid waste
collection trucks.
2.5.8.7 Connections
In an ideal road system, public lanes connect with locals, locals with collectors, collectors with arterials,
and arterials with expressways and freeways. It is preferable to minimize the interconnection of public
lanes w ith collectors, of locals with arterials, and of collectors with expressways and freeways. Locals
rarely, if ever, connect with freeways, and such applications should be strongly discouraged.
Connections by classification are summarized in Table 2.6.3.
Table 2.6.3: Connections by Classification
Normally connects with
Groups
Public
Local Collector Arterial Expressway Freeway
Lane
Public Lane y y
Local y y y
Collector y y y
Arterial y y y y
Expressway y y y
Freeway y y y
50 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.5.9 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLASSIFICATIONS
The principal characteristics of each of the six groups of road classifications are described by the
following figure and tables. Figure 2.6.2 illustrates the desirable interrelationship of the urban road
classification groups. Note that this diagram excludes dedicated networks such as transit corridors and
separate bikeways and trails.
June 2017 51
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Major Arterial
Minor
Arterial
Local
Freeway
Major Arterial
Collector
Expressway
Ii(/ Freeway
N Minor Arterial
N Public lane
/f:(/ Expressway N Collector 0 Signalized Intersection
or Roundabout
J+f Major Arterial N Local • Cul-de sac
Figure 2.6.2: Relationship of Urban Road Classifications
52 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Tables 2.6.4 and 2.6.5 provide summaries of the typical characteristics of the various groups and sub-
groups for rural and urban roads respectively.
Table 2.6.4: Characteristics of Rural Roads
Rural Locals Rural Collectors Rural Arterials Rural Freeways
traffic movement traffic movement traffic movement
service function secondary and land access of primary optimum mobility
consideration equal importance consideration
traffic movement land access
land access
land service and land access of secondary no access primary
consideration
equal importance consideration
traffic volume
vehicles per day <lOOOAADT <5000 AADT <12 000 AADT >8000 AADT
(typically)
free flow (grade
flow uninterrupted flow
interrupted flow interrupted flow separated) major
characteristics except at signals
intersections
design speed
(km/h) so -110 60 -110 80 -130 100 - 130
average running
speed (km/h)
50-90 50-90 60 -100 70 -110
(free flow
conditions)
predominantly
passenger cars, light all types, up to 30%
all types, up to 20% all types, up to 20%
vehicle type to medium trucks trucks in the 3 t to
trucks heavy trucks
and occasional 5 t range
heavy trucks
normal locals locals collectors arterials
connections collectors collectors arterials arterials freeways freeways
June 2017 53
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Table 2.6.5: Characteristics of Urban Roads
Public Lanes locals Collectors Arterials
Expressways Freeways
Industrial/ Industrial/
Residential Commercial Residential Residential Minor Major
Commercial Commercial
traffic traffic
traffic
traffic service traffic movement not a traffic movement secondary traffic movement and land movement movement optimum
movement
function consideration consideration access of equal impo rtance primary primary mobility
major
considera tion consideration
land service I traffic move ment and land some access rigid access
land access only function land access primary function no access no access
access access of equal importance control con trol
traffic volume
1,000- 5,000- 10,000-
(veh/day) <500 <l,000 <l,000 <3,000 <8,000 >10,000 >20,000
12,000 20,000 30,000
(typical)
uninterrupted free-flow
flow uninterr upted flow except at
interrupted flo w interrupted flow interrupted flow flow except at (grade
characteristics signals and crosswalks
signals separated)
design speed
30-40 30-50 50-80 50-70 60-100 80-110 80 - 120
(km/h)
average running
speeds (km/h) 20-30 20-40 30- 70 40-60 50-90 60-90 70-110
(off-peak)
passenge r passenger passenger
all types up all types up to all types up to
vehicle type and service all types and service all types and service all types all types
to 20% trucks 20% trucks 20% trucks
ve hicles ve hicles veh icles
arterials, arterials,
desirable collectors, arterials,
public lanes, locals public lanes, locals, collectors locals, collectors, arterials expressways, expressways,
connections expressways, freeways
freeways freeways
express and local buses express buses express buses
transit service not permitted generally avoided permitted
permitted only only
accommodation no restrictions or specia l no restrictions or special No restrict io ns; s pecial
special facilities considered prohibited prohibited
of cyclists facilities facilities facilities considered
sidewalks sidewalks sidewalks
sidewalks sidewalks may be provided,
accommodation pedestrians permitted, no normally on provided provided pedestrians pedestrians
provided sepa ration for traffic lanes
of pedestrians special facilities one or both where where prohibited prohibited
both sides preferred
sides required required
prohibited or
parking no restrictions or restrictions few restrictions other than peak hour
some restrictions peak hour prohibited prohibited
(typically) one side only peak hour restric tions
restrictions
min. 1,600
intersection as needed 60 60 200 400 800 (between
1
spacing(m) interchanges)
right-of-way
2 3 3 3
width (m) 6-10 15-22 20-24 20 -45 >45 >60
(typically)
Notes: 1 More information about intersection spacing is provided in Chapter 9- Intersections.
Rights-of-way 20 m in width applicable to retrofit conditions only.
Wider rights-of-way are often required to accommodate other facilities such as utilities, noise mitigation implications, bikeways and landscaping. For
new streets, the immediate provision of wider rights-of-way may be considered to accommodate such facilities.
54 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.7 PART 3: DESIGN CONSISTENCY
2.7.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2 - Part 1 describes how driver reactions are determined in large measure by how well their
expectancies are satisfied. Suggestions are made about how designers should respond to
reduce/eliminate uncertainty or the unexpected for drivers. An important component of this response is
design consistency. The more consistent road designs are over a wide geographic area, the more
effective the designer's contribution will be to reducing collision occurrence.
Many different classes of roads are required to serve different purposes, as described in Chapter 2 -
Part 2. Furthermore, terrain conditions across Canada vary widely from one region to another, requiring
different approaches to design. However, the aim of Canadian designers must be to achieve consistency
in design of each classification of road and in each type of terrain, regardless of location. This objective is
a primary justification for the existence of this guide.
In this chapter, three principles are suggested by which a designer can evaluate consistency of a road
design:
• Cross section consistency
• Operating speed consistency
• Driver workload consistency
However, the most valuable tool for evaluating design consistency is actual collision experience, which
should, for any existing facility, be used as a basis for the design consistency review.
When inconsistencies cannot be avoided (e.g., isolated locations, high construction cost, land use
restrictions, severe environmental impacts), drivers should be given advance warning and visual cues to
alert them to the inconsistency.
Designers should note that the research on which these consistency measures are based, deal only with
two-lane rural highways. The same principles however, can be applied to other classes of roads.
The same research has also provided valuable guidance to designers regarding the potential road safety
performance implications of design consistency considerations. These are summarized in Section 6.5.
2.7.2 CROSS SECTION CONSISTENCY
For a given classification of road in given terrain conditions, cross section elements should ideally be the
same everywhere, but certainly on any specific road.
Once cross section dimensions (e.g., lane and shoulder widths, clear zone configurations) have been
established, they should be consistently applied. So too should other features of the cross section, such
as marker posts and roadside barriers.
A situation to be avoided is the creation of incompatibilities between the road cross section and its
horizontal and vertical alignments. In the case of road improvement, for example, upgrading cross
section elements without corresponding upgrading of alignment can result in an erroneous and
potentially hazardous illusion. This can result in the driver choosing to operate at speeds exceeding the
critical alignment conditions.
June 2017 SS
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Sometimes, a sudden change in cross section configurations is unavoidable. One example of this would
be where a narrow two-lane road is being reconstructed to four lanes in stages. Staging may be required
because of constraints such as funding or property acquisition, but this approach can result in a sudden
change in cross section, where a newly constructed section ends and the original road cross section is
encountered.
Another example cou Id occur through signalized intersections, where the number of traffic lanes is
increased or decreased over a comparatively short section of road, for operational and/or capacity
reasons. A similar situation can also exist where a temporary construction detour is introduced with
narrower cross section dimensions than the preceding section of road.
Other examples that violate driver's expectancy involve tangential exits and narrow bridges. A tangential
exit at the point of curve may cause a driver to be 'pulled-off' the road by following the straight road
alignment into the exit. A similar situation is a tangential roadside feature (e.g., utility poles) that causes
the driver to inadvertently follow the roadside feature.
Narrow bridges, where the width of the preceding section of road is not reduced, also represent an
expectancy violation for the driver. This is especially true when the bridges are located on curves or dips,
where they are difficult to perceive.
In these circumstances, the designer should do everything possible to mitigate the impact of the
unexpected features or realign the road to eliminate the inconsistency. For example, cross section
change should be introduced gradually, with tapers as long as practically possible, and advance signing
should be used to warn approaching drivers of what to expect.
2.7.3 OPERATING SPEED CONSISTENCY
The safety of a road is closely linked to variations in the speed of vehicles travelling on it. There are two
kinds of variations:
• Individual drivers vary their operating speeds to adjust to features encountered along the road,
such as curves, intersections, and accesses in the alignment. The greater and more frequent are
the speed variations, the higher is the probability of collision.
• Drivers travelling substantially slower or faster than the average traffic speed have a higher risk
of being involved in collisions.
A designer can therefore enhance the safety of a road by producing a design that encourages operating
speed uniformity.
As noted in the discussion of speed profiles in Section 2.3.5, simple application of the design speed
concept does not prevent inconsistencies in geometric design. Traditional North American design
methods have merely ensured that all design elements meet or exceed minimum standards, but have
not necessarily ensured operating speed consistency between elements.
Practices used in Europe and Australia have supplemented the design speed concept with methods of
identifying and quantifying geometric inconsistencies in horizontal alignments of rural two-lane
highways. In addition, recent research work in Canada and the United States has addressed design
consistency for combined (horizontal and vertical) alignments. The focus of this work is on two-lane
rural highways. For more information on operating speed consistency refer to the TAC Applied Human
71
Factors in Road Safety Guide.
56 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
2.7.3.1 Prediction of Operating Speeds
In order to establish consistency of highway alignment design for a proposed new road, it is necessary to
predict operating speeds associated with different geometric elements, including isolated horizontal and
vertical curves, and horizontal-vertical curve combinations. The most technically robust methodology for
examining operating speed consistency is the U.S. Federal Highway Administration Interactive Highway
Safety Design Model (IHSDM). This toolset includes a design consistency module for estimating expected
operating speeds on combined horizontal and vertical alignments. The module estimates two
measurements:
• The expected difference between estimated 85 1h percentile speeds along the highway and the
design speeds of the highway:
Rating Criterion
Good I Vas - vd I ~ 10km/h
Fair 10 km/h< I Vas -Vd I ~ 20 km/h
Poor I Vas - vd I > 20km/h
1
Where Vd =design speed, Vas= 85 h percentile speed
• The expected reduction in estimated 85 1h percentile speeds between successive alignments
elements (e.g. from an approach tangent to its succeeding horizontal curve):
Rating Criterion
Good I Vas; - Vas;+1 I ~ 10km/h
Fair 10 km/h< I Vas; - Vas;+1 I ~ 20 km/h
Poor I Vas; - Vas;+1 I > 20km/h
Where V85i = 8S h percentile speed of element i, Vas;+ 1 =8S
1 1
h percentile speed of element i+ 1
The intended use of these measures is to highlight locations where additional attention and evaluation
may be warranted.
2.7.4 DRIVER WORKLOAD CONSISTENCY
Driver workload represents the demands that the road places on a driver. If the workload a driver
experiences drops too low or rises too high, the collision rate can increase. If workload is too low (e.g.,
long straight, flat stretches in a rural setting), drivers may become bored or tired. Their responses to
unexpected situations may then be inappropriate or slow. At the other end of the scale, drivers may
June 2017 57
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
become confused by situations that require very high workload (e.g., fast-moving, heavy traffic in an
urban setting that presents a plethora of signs and advertisements, construction work zones). In these
situations drivers may overlook or misinterpret an unexpected occurrence and either not respond until
too late or respond inappropriately.
Driver workload quantifies the importance of each feature along a roadway as well as the features'
effects in combination. Consistent road geometry allows a driver to predict the correct path while using
very little visual information processing, thus allowing attention to be dedicated to navigation and
obstacle avoidance.
Some general principles have been established that should be considered when an unusual design
feature or combination of features is being contemplated. 72 Abrupt increases in driver workload
increase collision potential. Such increases can be caused by:
• The criticality of the feature being approached (an intersection or lane drop is more critical
than a change in shoulder width, for example)
• Limited sight distance on the feature
• Dissimilarity of the feature to the previous feature (that might cause surprise to the driver)
• Large percentages of drivers unfamiliar with the road (for example, on a major arterial as
opposed to a local road)
• A high demand on the driver's attention after a period of lesser demand (for example, a sharp
curve at the end of a long stretch of straight road).
Various methods have been proposed by which driver workload can be used to evaluate design
73
consistency; however, research has yet to mature to the point where any one method can be
considered sufficiently robust for application in the design environment.
2.7.5 SAFETY AND CONSISTENCY
As noted in Part 1, there is evidence that the risk of a collision is lowest near the average speed of traffic
and increases for vehicles travelling much faster or slower. While this is true in relation to the general
distribution of speeds in a stream of traffic, it has also been found to apply when there is a variation in
speed caused by the effects of reduction in speed from one geometric design element to the next.
This particular form of speed variation may be experienced in situations such as the transition from a
tangent to a curve, or between curves. In the first of the design consistency research projects previously
mentioned, researchers found that the mean collision rate increased in direct proportion to the mean
74
speed difference caused by the transition from one geometric element to the other. The results are
noted in Figure 2.7.1.
58 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
/
/
v
/
/v
5
~
8
ffi
Q)
E
2
1 ,/
v
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mean speed reduction (km/h)
Figure 2.7.1: Mean Collision Rate versus Mean Speed Difference
between Geometric Elements
75
The numerical values in Figure 2.7.1 should be used with caution because of the database used. The
figure should not be interpreted to mean that collision rates decrease as speed decreases. However, the
principles show the effect of a lack of horizontal alignment consistency on increasing collision potential.
76 77
In the second research study mentioned earlier, researchers found that the number of collisions that
occurred on a horizontal curve in a three year period increased exponentially with the increase in the
78
speed reduction (SR) caused by the transition from one geometric element to the next.
The collision rate also increased in direct proportion to the exposure, M. The exposure was defined as
the product of curve length (m) and AADT (veh/day) during a three-year period, a common exposure
measure for road sections. The exposure is expressed in terms of mill ions of vehicle-kilometres of travel.
The results of Figure 2.7.2 show that the predicted collision experience is clearly sensitive to speed
79
reduction on a horizontal curve. This sensitivity lends support to the use of speed reduction estimates
as a design consistency measure.
June 2017 59
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
Y=exp(-0.8571) M exp(o.0780 SR)
E
"'C
0
·~
c..
ro<ll 30
>-
(V)
ctl
Cl
c
'§
"'C
20
en
c
0
~
0(.)
0 10
(ij
.0
E
:::J
c
speed reduction (km/h) , SR
M = million vehicle-kilometres of travel during a 3 year period
Figure 2.7.2: 3-year Collision Frequency versus Mean Speed Reduction
between Geometric Elements
Similar caveats apply to Figure 2.7.2 as are noted for Figure 2.7.1 including the fact that the numerical
values must be used with caution because of the database used . Wherever possible, designers should
use local data.
60 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
REFERENCES
1 Adapted from New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority, 1996. Road Whys (kit) speeding module
presenter's booklet Regret is Such a Short Distance . See also: National Highway Traffic Safety
Commission. July 2008. National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, Washington, DC : Federal
Highway Administration. The latter source generally supports the earlier findings.
2 Alexander, G.J. and Lunenfeld, H. May 1986. Driver Expectancy in Highway Design and Traffic
Operations. FHWA-T0-86-1. Washington, DC : Federal Highway Administration .
3 See Olson, P.L., Cleveland, D.E., Fancher, P.S., and Schneider, L.W., 1984. NCHRP Report 270: Parameters
Affecting Stopping Sight Distance Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies of the National Academies.
4 Ogden, K.W . 1996. Safer Roads -A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing
Co ..
5 Drawing by Thomas Smahel, 2016, Human Factors North.
6 Rockwell, T.H. 1987. "Spare visual capacity in driving- revisited." 1987. In Vision in Vehicles-II :
Procedings of the Second International Conference on Vision in Vehicles, Nottingham, U.K. 14-17
September, 1987. Amsterdam, North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers ..
7 Shinar, D., McDowell, E., and Rockwell, T.H. 1977. "Eye movements in curve negotiation." Human
Factors, 19(1), pp. 63-71.
8 Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J., Van Houten, J., and Retting, R. 1997. " Using auditory pedestrian signals to
reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts." Transportation Research Record, 1578, pp . 20-22.
9 Olson, P.L. and Farber, E. 2003. Forensic Aspects of Driver Perception and Response, Second Edition.
Tucson: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company.
10 Grandjean, E. 1983. Fitting the Task to the Man: A textbook of Occupational Ergonomics. Taylor &
Francis Ltd ., London. See also: Kantowitz, B.H. and Sorkin, R.D. 1988. Human Factors: Understanding
People-system Relationships. New York: Wiley & Sons.
11 Olson, P.L. and Farber, E. 2003. Forensic Aspects of Driver Perception and Response, Second Edition.
Tucson : Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company.
12 Olson, P.L., Cleveland, D.E., Fancher, P.S ., and Schneider, L.W., 1984. NCHRP Project 1508: Parameters
Affecting Stopping Sight Distance (Report No. UMTRl-84-15, University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
13 Cohen, A.S . 1987. "The latency of simple reaction on highways: A field study." Public Health Reviews, 15.
pp . 291-310.
14 Ibid.
15 McGee, H.W ., Moore, W ., Knapp, B.G., and Sanders, J.H. 1978. Decision sight distance for highway
design and traffic control requirements. Report FHWA-RD-78-78. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration .
16 Campbell, J.L., Lichty, M.G., Brown, J.L., Richard, C.M ., Graving, J.S., Graham, J., O'Laughlin, M., Torbic,
D., and Harwood, D.W. 2012. NCHRP Report 600: Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems, Second
Edition. Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
June 2017 61
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
17 Smiley, A., Olson, P.L (editors). 2015. Chapter 5: Driver Perception-Response Time, in Human Factors in
Traffic Safety, Third Edition. Tucson: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc.
18 Campbell, J.L., Lichty, M.G., Brown, J.L., Richard, C.M., Graving, J.S., Graham, J., O'Laughlin, M., Torbic,
D., and Harwood, D.W. 2012. NCH RP Report 600: Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems: Second
Edition. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
19 AustRoads. 2010. Guide to Road Design: Part 3 - Geometric Design. Sydney: AustRoads.
20 Adapted from: AustRoads. 2010. Guide to Road Design: Part 3 - Geometric Design. Sydney: AustRoads.
21 Adapted from: Brian C. Tefft. AAA Foundation, Washington DC. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of
Severe Injury or Death [online]. September 2011. [Viewed October 21, 2016]
https://www .aaafou ndation .org/sites/ defa u lt/files/2011Pedestria n RiskVsSpeed. pdf
22 Parma, K., Fitzpatrick, K., and Krammes, R. 1998. Predicting speed on tangents using alignment indices.
Report No. 990124. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
23 Shinar, D., McDowell, E., and Rockwell, T.H. 1974. Report EES 4288: Improving driver performance on
curves in rural highways through perceptual changes. Ohio State University Engineering Experiment
Station.
24 Katz, B.J., Duke, D.E., and Rakha, H.A. 2006. Design and evaluation of peripheral transverse bars to
reduce vehicle speed. Presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C. Also see full report, Pavement Markings for Speed Reduction, [online]. December
2004. [Viewed October 21, 2016] http ://www.pooledfund.org/document/download/412
25 Godley, S., Fildes, B., Triggs, T., and Brown, L. 1999. Perceptual countermeasures: Experimental
research. Rep. No. CR182. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Commonwealth Department of
Transport and Regional Services.
26 Katz, B.J., Duke, D.E., and Rakha, H.A. 2006. "Design and evaluation of peripheral transverse bars to
reduce vehicle speed." Paper presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
27 Shinar, D., McDowell, E., and Rockwell, T.H. 1974. Report EES 4288: Improving driver performance on
curves in rural highways through perceptual changes. Ohio State University Engineering Experiment
Station.
28 Godley, S., Fildes, B., Triggs, T., and Brown, L. 1999. Rep. No. CR182, Perceptual countermeasures:
Experimental Research. Canberra. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Commonwealth Department of
Transport and Regional Services.
29 Bella lite, L. 2004a. Evaluation de /'impact du profit en travers sur /es vitesses pratiquees au sein des
traversees des petites agglomerations [Assessment of the impact of cross-sectional profiles on speeds
used by drivers when travelling through small towns]. Ministry of Transportation of Quebec. Also,
Bella lite, L. 2004b. L'influence des abords de la route sur la vitesse des conducteurs [The influence of the
roadside on driver speed]. Presented at the 14th Annual Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety
Conference, Ottawa.
30 Parker, M.R.Jr. 1997. Effects of raising and lowering speed limits on selected roadway sections. Rep. No.
FHWA-RD-92-084. Washington DC. Federal Highway Administration.
31 Smiley, A., McGirr, V., and Hassall, R. 2002. Review of freeway to highway transitions and speed-
reducing countermeasures for the Highway 7 Carleton Place transition. Toronto: Ministry of
Transportation, Ontario.
62 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
32 Robinson, J. and Smiley, A. 2006. Highway 7 transition: Road safety and human factors review. In 4 Lane
Freeway to 4 Lane Urban Arterial Transition and Risk Management. Report to the Ministry of
Transportation in Ontario by McCorm ick Rankin Corporation.
33 Darren J. Torbic, D.J ., Gilmore, D.K., Bauer, K.M ., Bokenkroger, K.D., Harwood, D.W., Lucas, L.M., Frazier,
R.J ., Kinzel, C.S., Petree, D.L., Forsberg, M.D. 2012. NCH RP Report 737: Design Guidance for High Speed
to Low Speed Transition Zones for Rural Highways. Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies.
34 Adapted from: Lerner, N., Williams, A., and Sedney, C. 1988. Risk Perception in Highway Driving.
Washington, DC : Federal Highway Administration.
35 Figure adapted from: Lamm, R. and Choueiri, E.M. 1987. "Recommendations for evaluating horizontal
design consistency based on investigations in the State of New York." Transportation Research Record
1122, pp. 68-78. See also, Krammes, R.A., Brackett, R.Q., Shafer, M.A., Ottesen, J.L., Anderson, l.B., Fink,
K.L., Collins, K.M., Pendleton, O.J., Messer, C.J. January 1995. Horizontal Alignment Design Consistency
for Rural Two Lane Highways. Report FHWA-RD-94-034. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
36 Persaud, B., Parker, M.R., Knowles, V., Wilde, G., and IBI Group. 1997. Safety, speed and speed
management: A Canadian review. File No. ASF 3261-280, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation.
Ottawa: Transport Canada .
37 Pol us, A., Fitzpatrick, K., and Fambro, D.B. 2000. "Predicting operating speeds on tangent sections of
two-lane rural highways." Transportation Research Record, 1737. pp. 50-57 . Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
38 Krammes, R.A., Brackett, R.Q., Shafer, M.A., Ottesen, J.L., Anderson, l.B., Fink, K.L., Collins, K.M.,
Pendleton, O.J ., Messer, C.J. January 1995. Horizontal Alignment Design Consistency for Rural Two Lane
Highways. Report FHWA-RD-94-034. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration .
39 Andrey, J., Hambly, D., Mills, B., and Afrin, S. April 2013. "Insights into driver adaptation to inclement
weather in Canada." Journal of Transport Geography 25 . pp. 192-203.
40 Clayton, C. and Ibrahim, A. 2001. Canadian Guide to 3R/4R: Identifying Cost Effective Geometric
Improvements for Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Projects. Ottawa, ON :
Transportation Association of Canada.
41 Ibid.
42 AASHTO. 1997. Highway Safety Design and Operations Guide. Washington, DC: American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
43 Kassoff, H. December 2001. "Contextual Highway Design: Time to be Mainstreamed" /TE Journal 71, pp
30-31.
44 AASHTO. 1998. "Thinking Beyond the Pavement." AASHTO Quarterly Magazine 11(3), pp . 27-34. See
also, NCH RP, 2002, Report 480: A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
45 FHWA. 1997. Flexibility in Highway Design. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
46 TRB. 1987. Beyond the Green Book: Proceedings of the National Conference on Future Improvements to
and Supplemental Guidance for AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
June 2017 63
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
47 LeMoal, G. 1997. Design Vehicle Dimensions for Use in Geometric Design , Ottawa, ON: Transportation
Association of Canada .
48 Ibid.
49 Fambro, D.B ., Fitzpatrick, K., and Koppa, R.J. 1997. NCHRP Report 400: Determination of stopping sight
distances. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies .
50 Ibid .
51 Ibid.
52 Woods, D.L., January 1989. Sensitivity Analysis of the Factors Affecting Roadway Vertical Curve Design.
Presented at 68th Annual Meeting of TRB. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies.
53 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6 th Edition. Washington, D.C. :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3.3.
54 AASHTO. 2011. "Table 3-1: Stopping Sight Distance on Level Roadways," A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, 6 th Edition. Washington, D.C. : American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, p. 3.4.
55 AASHTO. 2011. "Table 3-2: Stopping Sight Distance on Grades," A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, 6 th Edition. Washington, D.C. : American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, p. 3.5.
56 AASHTO. 2001. " Exhibit 3-4: Elements of Passing Sight Distance for Two-Lane Highways" A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 4 th Edition . Washington, D.C. : American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 119.
57 Adapted from AASHTO . 2004 . "Exhibit 3-7: Passing Sight Distance for Design ofTwo-Lane Highways" A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5 th Edition. Washington, D.C. : American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 124.
58 lntus Road Safety Engineering Inc. 2006. Passing Sight Distance Design and Marking Study. Project No.
T8080-04-0338. Ottawa : Transport Canada .
59 AASHTO. 2001. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 4 th Edition. Washington, D.C. :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 119.
60 Harwood, D. W ., Gilmore, D. K., Richard, K. R., Dunn, J.M. and Sun, C. 2008. NCH RP Report 605: Passing
Sight Distance Criteria. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
61 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6 th Edition. Washington, D.C. :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-9.
62 Harwood, D. W ., Gilmore, D. K., Richard, K. R., Dunn, J. M. and Sun, C. 2008. NCHRP Report 605: Passing
Sight Distance Criteria. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
63 Harwood, D.W. and Glennon, J.C. 1989. " Passing Sight Distance for Passenger Cars and Trucks."
Transportation Research Record 1208. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies.
64 Sanderson, R.W. 1996. "The Need for Cost-Effective Guidelines to Enhance Truck Safety." In Cost
Effectiveness Through Innovation: Proceedings of the 1996 TAC Annual Conference, Charlottetown,
Prince Edward Island. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
64 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 2 - Design Controls, Classification and Consistency
65 AASHTO. 2001. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 4 th Edition. Washington, D.C. :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
66 Sanderson, R.W. 1996. "The Need for Cost-Effective Guidelines to Enhance Truck Safety." In Cost
Effectiveness Through Innovation : Proceedings of the 1996 TAC Annual Conference, Charlottetown,
Prince Edward Island. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada ..
67 ADI Limited. 1989 [unpublished] . Passing Maneuvers and Passing Lanes: Design, Operational & Safety
Evaluations. Ottawa : Transport Canada Safety Directorate.
68 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. "Table 1.2.5.7" in Geometric Design Guide for Canadian
Roads, adapted from A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Washington, DC : American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
69 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
70 Adapted from Committee on Urban Arterial Systems of the Urban Transportation Division, 1981. A
Guide to Urban Arterial Systems. Washington, DC: American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 263 .
71 Forbes, G., Dewar, R., Hanscom, F., and Alexander, G. 2013. Applied Human Factors in Road Safety
Guide. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
72 Ibid., pp. 181-207.
73 Ibid., pp. 165-180.
74 Glennon, J. and Harwood, D. 1978. " Highway Design Consistency and Systematic Design Related to
Highway Safety." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
681. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 77-88.
75 Graph illustrates reduction in speed from one geometric element to the next (e.g. tangent to curve). This
example is intended to display trends in the research only. Source: Pol us, A. and Dagan, D. 1987.
" Models for Evaluating the Consistency of Highway Alignment" in Transportation Research Record 1122,
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 47-56.
76 Fitzpatrick, K., Elefteriadou L., Harwood, D.W., Collins J.W., McFadden J., Anderson l.B., Krammes, R.A.,
Irizarry, N., Parma, K.D., Bauer, K.M ., and Passetti, K. August 2000 . Speed Prediction for Two-lane Rural
Highways. Report FHWA-RD-99-171. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies.
77 Anderson, l.B., Bauer, K., Harwood, D., and Fitzpatrick, K. 1999. " Relationship to Safety of Geometric
Design Consistency Measures for Rural Two-Lane Highways. " Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 1658. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, pp. 43-51.
78 National Research Council (U.S.). TRB. 1987. Special Report 214. Designing Safer Roads: Practices for
Resurfacing, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation . Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies.
79 This example is intended to display trends in the research only. This information should be used with
caution.
June 2017 65
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 3 - ALIGNMENT AND
LANE CONFIGURATION
June 2017
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
Transportation Association of Canada
401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive
Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-619-1
TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM
Title and Subtitle
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
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, WSP I MMM Group Thornhill, ON L3T OAl
Jim Dowell, WSP I MMM 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 human
Planning of Transport
factors research and practices for roadway geometric design. It replaces the 1999 edition
Infrastructure
of the Guide and subsequent revisions. The Guide provides guidance to planners and
Alignment
designers in developing design solutions that meet the needs of a range of users while
Bend (road)
addressing the context of local conditions and environments. Design guidelines for
Canada
freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural locations are
Classification
included as well as guidance for integrated bicycle and pedestrian design.
Design (overall design)
The Guide is organized into ten chapters to cover the entire design process from design Highway
philosophy and roadway classification to design parameters and specific guidelines for Horizontal
the safe accommodation of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on linear road elements Layout
and at intersections. The chapters are: Design Philosophy; Design Controls, Classification Longitudinal Profile
and Consistency; Alignment and Lane Configuration; Cross Section Elements; Bicycle Specifications
Integrated Design; Pedestrian Integrated Design; Roadside Design; Access; Intersections; Textbook
and Interchanges. Traffic lane
Transverse Profile
Chapter 3 -Alignment and Lane Configuration focuses on the design procedures and
Vertical
domains associated with horizontal and vertical alignment, the coordination of these
two design elements and related issues including: cross slopes, lane widening, balance
and continuity and specialized traffic lanes such as truck climbing lanes, passing lanes
and truck escape ramps.
Supplementary Information
Index is available at www.tac-atc.ca
Chiu, M., Clayton, C., Millen, G. et al. 2017. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 3 -Alignment and Lane
Configuration. Ottawa, ON : Transportation Association of Canada .
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
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 I MMM 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 ofTAC staff are also
appreciated.
A substantial portion of this Guide includes the contents adapted from the 1999 Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads, 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 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
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 ofTransportation Ontario
Prince Edward Island Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy
Ministere des Transports, de la Mobilite durable et de l'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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Project Steering Committee
Eric Christiansen, Manitoba Infrastructure (Co-Chair)
John Hammer, Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Co-Chair)
Ke ith 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 Dobush 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 ofTransportation and Infrastructure
Sandra Majkic, Transportation Association of Canada (Project Manager)
June 2017 iii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
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, WSPIMMM 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Foreword
BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE
In 1999 the Transportation Association of Canada relased 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 for 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 th is Guide.
June 2017 v
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
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 3
Chapter 3 -Alignment and Lane Configuration focuses on the design procedures and domains
associated with horizontal and vertical alignment, the coordination of these two design elements and
related issues including: cross slopes, lane widening, balance and continuity and specialized traffic lanes
such as truck climbing lanes, passing lanes and truck escape ramps.
vi June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
CONTENTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
3.1.1 The Importance of Alignment and Lane Configuration Design .............................................. l
3.1.2 Focus of this Chapter ............................................................................................................. 1
3.1.3 Design Focus ........................................................................................................................... 1
3.1.4 Alignment and Lane Configuration Design Guidelines: Format ............................................. 2
3.1.5 Chapter Outline ...................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT .......................................................................................................2
3.2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 2
3.2.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2
3.2.1.2 Horizontal Alignment: Design Domain Controls ...................................................... 2
3.2.1.3 Horizontal Alignment: Design Elements .................................................................. 3
3.2.2 Circular Curves ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.2.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4
3.2.2.2 Human Factors Consideration on Curves ................................................................ 4
3.2.2.3 Speed-Radius Relationship: Technical Foundation Element ................................... 6
3.2.2.4 Maximum Superelevation: Design Domain ............................................................. 7
3.2.2.5 Lateral Friction: Technical Foundation Element ...................................................... 9
3.2.2.6 Minimum Radius: Design Domain ......................................................................... 12
3.2.2.7 Distribution of "E" And "F" Over a Range of Curves: Design Domain ................... 15
3.2.3 Spiral Curves ......................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 25
3.2.3.2 Overview: Technical Foundation ........................................................................... 25
3.2.3.3 The Spiral Parameter: Technical Foundation ........................................................ 26
3.2.3.4 Spiral Parameter: Design Domain Quantitative Aids ............................................ 29
3.2.3.5 Spiral Parameter: Design Domain Application Heuristics ..................................... 30
3.2.4 Development of Superelevation .......................................................................................... 31
3.2.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 31
3.2.4.2 Length of Superelevation Development: Technical Foundation ........................... 31
3.2.4.3 Superelevation Development: Rural and High Speed Urban
Roads: Design Domain ...........................................................................................31
3.2.4.4 Superelevation Development: Low Speed Urban Roads: Design Domain ............ 31
3.2.4.5 Superelevation Development: Design Domain General Application Heuristics ... 33
3.2.4.6 Methods of Developing Superelevation: Best Practices ....................................... 34
3.2.5 Lane Widening on Curves ..................................................................................................... 38
3.2.5.1 lntroduction ........................................................................................................... 38
3.2.5.2 Derivation of Design Values: Technical Foundation .............................................. 38
3.2.5.3 Lane Widening: Design Domain ............................................................................ 40
3.2.5.4 Application of Widening On Curves: Best Practices .............................................. 43
June 2017 vii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.2.6 Horizontal Alignment: Design Domain Additional Application Heuristics .......... ................. 44
3.2.6.1 General Application .... ................. ... .... .................. ..... .................... ... ..... ................ 44
3.2.6.2 Horizontal Alignment and Latera l Clearances: Technical Foundation .................. 47
3.2.6.3 Horizontal Alignment and Lateral Clearances: Design Domain
Quantitative Aids ...................... ................. .. .... ........................ .................... ... ....... 47
3.2.6.4 Horizontal Alignment and Lateral Clearances: Application Heuristics .............. .. .. 50
3.2.6.5 Horizontal Alignment for Urban Retrofits: Best Practices ....... ......................... ..... 50
3.2. 7 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ........... ..... ............................... .. ................. .. .. .. ......................... 52
3.2.7.1 General ........... .... ............. .... .. .... ........................ ... ................. ... .... .................. ..... .. 52
3.2.7.2 Safety on Horizontal Curves ...... .................. ...... ................... .... ............................. 52
3.3 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ...........................................................................................................53
3.3 .1 Overview ................... ..................... .. ........................ ... ..... ................. ...... ................... .. ........ 53
3.3.1.1 lntroduction ........................... ................................................... ............................. 53
3.3.1.2 Vertical Alignment: Design Elements ..... .. ....... ......................... ................ .. .... ....... 53
3.3 .2 Grades ................ .. ..... ....................... ............................................. ..... .................... ....... ....... 53
3.3.2.1 Introduction ............. .. ................................................ .. .. ....................... .. ............... 53
3.3.2.2 Vehicle Operation on Grades: Technical Foundation Element ............. ........ ........ 53
3.3 .2.3 Maximum Grade: Design Domain Quantitative Aids ... ... .... ................. .. .... ........... 54
3.3.2.4 Maximum Grade: Design Domain Application Heuristics .. ................. ... .... ........... 54
3.3 .2.5 Minimum Grades : Design Domain Application Heuristics ..................... .... ........... 55
3.3.3 Vertical Curves ............................................................................ .......................... ... ............ 56
3.3.3.1 Introduction ........... ... ...................... ......................... ..... .................... ... ... ............... 56
3.3.3.2 Crest Vertical Curves: Technical Foundation Element ... ................ ... .. ... ............... 57
3.3.3.3 Crest Vertical Curves: Design Domain Quantitative Aid ..................... ... ............... 59
3.3.3.4 Sag Vertical Curves: Technical Foundation Element .. .................. ..... .. .. ................ 60
3.3.3.5 For Illuminated Roadways ......... .. .......................................................................... 62
3.3.4 Sight Distance at Underpasses ................ ... .... .................. ..... ... ................. ... .... .................. .. 63
3.3.5 Vertical Alignment: Design Domain Additional Application Heuristics ................................ 65
3.3.5.1 Vertical Alignment Principles : Application Heuristics .............. ........ ................. .... 65
3.3.5 .2 Drainage : Application Heuristics .......................... ......................... ........ ................ 66
3.3.5 .3 Snow: Application Heuristics .............................. ......................... ........ ................. . 67
3.3.5 .4 Intersections and Driveways: Application Heuristics ................. .. .... ... .................. 67
3.3.5 .5 Vertical Clearances : Application Heuristics ...... ......................... ......................... ... 68
3.3.6 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ........... ....... ... .. ... ................. .. .... ....................... .... ................. .. .. 71
3.3.6.1 General ......... .. .... ............. ............ ................... ... ...................... ......................... ..... 71
3.3.6.2 Collision Frequency on Vertical Alignment .... ... .... .................. ......................... ..... 71
3.4 COORDINATION AND AESTHETICS .......................................................................................... 71
3.4.1 Introduction ............... ....... ............. ..... ....... .................. .... ..................... .. ............................. 71
3.4.2 Alignment Coordination: Technical Foundation .............. ... ................. ... .... .................. ..... .. 72
viii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.4.3 Alignment Coordination: Design Domain Application Heuristics ........................................ 72
3.4.4 Alignment Coordination: Best Practices .............................................................................. 73
3.5 CROSS-SLOPE ........................................................................................................................ 87
3.5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 87
3.5.2 Cross-Slopes and Traffic Operations: Application Heuristics ............................................... 87
3.5.3 Cross-Slopes and Drainage ................................................................................................... 88
3.5.3.1 Design Domain: Quantitative Aid .......................................................................... 88
3.5.3.2 Design Domain: Application Heuristics ................................................................. 88
3.5.4 Cross-Slope Arrangements: Application Heuristics .............................................................. 89
3.5.5 Cross-Slope Changes: Application Heuristics ....................................................................... 92
3.6 BASIC LANES AND LANE BALANCE ..........................................................................................94
3.6.1 Basic Lanes ........................................................................................................................... 94
3.6.1.1 Technical Foundation ............................................................................................ 94
3.6.1.2 Application Heuristics ............................................................................................ 95
3.6.2 Lane Balance ........................................................................................................................ 96
3.6.2.1 Technical Foundation ............................................................................................ 96
3.6.2.2 Application Heuristics ............................................................................................ 96
3.6.3 Coordination of Lane Balance and Basic Lanes .................................................................... 97
3.6.3.1 Technical Foundation ............................................................................................ 97
3.6.3.2 Application Heuristics ............................................................................................ 98
3.6.4 Express Collector Systems: Best Practices ........................................................................... 99
3.7 LANE AND ROUTE CONTINUITY AND WEAVING .................................................................... 101
3.7.1 Lane Continuity .................................................................................................................. 101
3.7.1.1 Technical Foundation .......................................................................................... 101
3.7.1.2 Best Practices ...................................................................................................... 101
3.7.2 Route Continuity ................................................................................................................ 103
3.7.2.1 Technical Foundation .......................................................................................... 103
3.7.2.2 Best Practices ...................................................................................................... 103
3.7.3 Weaving ............................................................................................................................. 105
3.7.3.1 Technical Foundation .......................................................................................... 105
3.7.3.2 Road safety and Human Factors considerations ................................................. 107
3.7.3.3 Best Practices ...................................................................................................... 109
3.8 TRUCK CLIMBING LANES ...................................................................................................... 110
3.8.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 110
3.8.2 Grades and Operations: Technical Foundation .................................................................. 111
June 2017 ix
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.8.3 Best Practices: Warrants .................................................................................................... 118
3.8.3.1 General ................................................................................................................ 118
3.8.3.2 Warrants for Two-Lane Roads ............................................................................. 119
3.8.3.3 Warrants for Multi lane Roads ............................................................................. 120
3.8.4 Application Heuristics ........................................................................................................ 120
3.8.5 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ............................................................................................... 124
3.8.5.1 Collision Frequency on Truck Climbing and Passing Lanes ................................. 124
3.9 PASSING LANES ................................................................................................................... 125
3.9.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 125
3.9.2 Technical Foundation ......................................................................................................... 125
3.9.3 Best Practices: Warrants .................................................................................................... 127
3.9.4 Application Heuristics ........................................................................................................ 128
3.9.4.1 System Considerations ........................................................................................ 128
3.9.4.2 Design Considerations ......................................................................................... 130
3.9.4.3 Location ............................................................................................................... 131
3.9.4.4 Length .................................................................................................................. 133
3.9.4.5 Width ................................................................................................................... 134
3.9.4.6 Signing and Lane Marking ................................................................................... 134
3.10 TRUCK ESCAPE RAMPS ......................................................................................................... 134
3.10.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 134
3.10.2 Best Practices: Warrants .................................................................................................... 136
3.10.3 Types: Best Practices .......................................................................................................... 137
3.10.4 Location: Best Practices ..................................................................................................... 139
3.10.5 Application Heuristics ........................................................................................................ 140
3.10.5.1 Length .................................................................................................................. 140
3.10.5.2 Layout .................................................................................................................. 141
3.10.6 Details of Bed: Design Elements ........................................................................................ 142
3.10.6.1 Cross Section ....................................................................................................... 142
3.10.6.2 Materials .............................................................................................................. 142
3.10.6.3 Drainage .............................................................................................................. 143
3.10.7 Signing, Delineation, Illumination, Maintenance ............................................................... 143
3.10.8 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ............................................................................................... 144
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 145
x June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
TABLES
Table 3.2.1: Maximum Lateral Friction for Rural and High-Speed Urban Design .................................. 11
Table 3.2.2: Maximum Lateral Friction for Low Speed Urban Design .................................................... 12
Table 3.2.3: Minimum Radii for Limiting Values of e and f for Rural and High
Speed Urban Roadways ...................................................................................................... 13
Table 3.2.4: Minimum Radii for Urban Designs ..................................................................................... 14
Table 3.2.5: Superelevation and Minimum Spiral Parameters, emax= 0.04 m/m ................................... 17
Table 3.2.6: Superelevation and Minimum Spiral Parameters, emax = 0.06 m/m .................................. 18
Table 3.2.7: Superelevation and Minimum Spiral Parameters, emax =0.08 m/m .................................. 19
Table 3.2.8: Superelevation Rate for Urban Design, emax = 0.04 m/m ................................................... 23
Table 3.2.9: Superelevation Rate for Urban Design, emax = 0.06 m/m ................................................... 24
Table 3.2.10: Maximum Relative Slope Between Outer Edge of Pavement and Centerline
of Two-Lane Roadway ........................................................................................................ 28
Table 3.2.11: Adjustment Factors for Number of Lanes Rotated (metric) ............................................... 29
Table 3.2.12: Length of Superelevation Runoff for Two-Lane Crowned Urban Roadways ...................... 32
Table 3.2.13: Length of Superelevation Runoff for Four-Lane, Undivided Crowned
Urban Roadways, or Two-Lane Urban Roadways without Crown ..................................... 33
Table 3.2.14: Pavement Widening Values on Curves for Heavy SU Trucks ............................................. 41
Table 3.2.15: Pavement Widening Values on Curves for WB-20 ............................................................. 41
Table 3.2.16: Pavement Widening Values on Curves for B-Train ............................................................ 42
Table 3.3.1: Maximum Gradients ........................................................................................................... 55
Table 3.3.2: K Factors to Provide Stopping Sight Distance on Crest Vertical Curves ............................. 59
Table 3.3.3: K Factors to Provide Passing Sight Distance on Crest Vertical Curves ............................... 60
Table 3.3.4: K Factors to Provide Minimum Stopping Sight Distance on Sag Vertical Curves ............... 62
Table 3.3.5: K Factors to Provide Minimum Stopping Sight Distance on Sag Vertical Curves
Based on Comfort Control .................................................................................................. 63
Table 3.5.1: Pavement Cross-Slope for Resurfacing .............................................................................. 92
Table 3.5.2: Maximum Relative Slope between Outer Edge of Pavement and Centreline
of Two-Lane Roadway ........................................................................................................ 93
Table 3.5.3: Design Values for Rate of Change of Cross-Slope for Single-Lane Turning Roads ............. 93
Table 3.7.1: Lane Change Times and Distances at Operating Speed of 120 km/h ............................... 108
Table 3.8.1: Lengths of Grade for 15 km/h Speed Reduction .............................................................. 118
Table 3.9.1: Typical Passing Lane Spacing ............................................................................................ 129
Table 3.10.1: Values for Rolling Resistance ............................................................................................ 136
June 2017 xi
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
FIGURES
Figure 3.2.1: Dynamics of Vehicle on Circular Curve ................................................................................. 6
Figure 3.2.2: Overturning Moment of Circular Curve ............................................................................. 10
Figure 3.2.3: Distribution of Superelevation and Lateral Friction ........................................................... 15
Figure 3.2.4: Relationship of Speed, Radius and Superelevation for Low Speed (<70 km/h)
Urban Design ...................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.2.5: Alternative Method of Distribution of Superelevation and Lateral Friction ...................... 22
Figure 3.2.6: Basis of Spira I Parameter Design Values ............................................................................ 26
Figure 3.2.7: Three Methods of Superelevation Development on Two-Lane Crowned Roadways ....... 35
Figure 3.2.8: Three Methods of Superelevation Development on Divided Roadways .......................... 37
Figure 3.2.9: Relationship of Off-Tracking Components and Associated Formulae ................................ 39
Figure 3.2.10: Diagram Illustrating Components for Determining Lateral Clearance .............................. 48
Figure 3.2.11: Lateral Clearance for Stopping Sight Distance ................................................................... 49
Figure 3.2.12: Lateral Clearance for Passing Sight Distance ...................................................................... 51
Figure 3.3.1: Sight Distance on Crest Vertical Curve ............................................................................... 58
Figure 3.3.2: Stopping Sight Distance on Sag Vertical Curve ................................................................... 61
Figure 3.3.3: Sight Distance at Underpass ............................................................................................... 64
Figure 3.3.4: Airway Clearance ................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 3.4.1: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 75
Figure 3.4.2: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 76
Figure 3.4.3: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 77
Figure 3.4.4: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 78
Figure 3.4.5: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 79
Figure 3.4.6: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 80
Figure 3.4.7: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 81
Figure 3.4.8: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 82
Figure 3.4.9: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 83
Figure 3.4.10: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 84
Figure 3.4.11: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 85
Figure 3.4.12: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics ............................... 86
Figure 3.5.1: False Grading and Cross-Slopes .......................................................................................... 89
Figure 3.5.2: Application of Cross-slope on Various Types of Roads ...................................................... 91
Figure 3.5.3: Maximum Algebraic Difference in Pavement Cross-Slope of Adjacent Traffic Lanes ....... 94
xii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Figure 3.6.1: Schematic of Basic Number of Lanes ................................................................................. 95
Figure 3.6.2: Typical Examples of Lane Balance ...................................................................................... 97
Figure 3.6.3: Coordination of Lane Balance and Basic Lanes .................................................................. 99
Figure 3.6.4: Typical Express Collector System ...................................................................................... 100
Figure 3.7.1: Examples of Lane Continuity ............................................................................................ 102
Figure 3.7.2: Illustration of Route Continuity ........................................................................................ 104
Figure 3.7.3: Types of Weaving Sections ............................................................................................... 106
Figure 3.7.4: Solutions for Undesirable Weaving .................................................................................. 109
Figure 3.7.5: Method of Measuring Weaving Lengths .......................................................................... 110
Figure 3.8.1: Collision Involvement Rate for Trucks .............................................................................. 113
Figure 3.8.2: Performance Curves for Heavy Trucks, 120 g/W, Decelerations and Accelerations ....... 115
Figure 3.8.3: Performance Curves for Heavy Trucks, 180 g/W, Decelerations and Accelerations ....... 116
Figure 3.8.4: Performance Curves for Heavy Trucks, 200 g/W, Decelerations and Accelerations ....... 117
Figure 3.8.5: Performance curve for heavy trucks 120 g/W, Deceleration with
110 km/h entering speed ................................................................................................. 118
Figure 3.8.6: Climbing Lanes Overlapping on Crest Curve .................................................................... 122
Figure 3.8.7: Climbing Lane Design Example ......................................................................................... 123
Figure 3.9.1: Typical Passing Lane Layout ............................................................................................. 126
Figure 3.9.2: Typical Traffic Simulation Output of Percent Following and Correlation with LOS ......... 128
Figure 3.9.3: Alternative Configurations for Passing Lanes ................................................................... 130
Figure 3.10.1: Forces Acting on Vehicle in Motion .................................................................................. 135
Figure 3.10.2: Basic Types of Designs of Truck Escape Ramps ................................................................ 138
Figure 3.10.3: Typical Layout of Truck Escape Ramp ............................................................................... 142
Figure 3.10.4: Typical Cross Section of Truck Escape Ramp .................................................................... 143
June 2017 xiii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3. ALIGNMENT AND LANE CONFIGURATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF ALIGNMENT AND LANE CONFIGURATION DESIGN
Designers should not underestimate the importance of careful and effective alignment and lane
configuration design. Focus on road user needs. The driver guidance task is simplified if both alignment
and lane configuration design are consistent with driver expectations based on previous experience on
both the same and similar roads. Horizontal and vertical curvature, the steepness of grades, and other
key elements of the design should be a) relatively constant upon a given facility, b) accord with the
character of similar roads and surrounding terrain and c) ensure that required sightlines are provided.
Significant differences or sudden changes in the alignment and cross sectional characteristics of a road
should be avoided.
Road design that uses consistent alignment and lane configuration reduces the information processing
workload for the driver. While in motion, drivers are continually processing visual information from the
roadway. Studies in which drivers' eye movements are recorded show that drivers are reluctant to look
1
away from the roadway for more than 2 seconds at a time, and when they do so, naturalistic studies
2
show that crash risk increases by a factor of 2. The lower the visual demand of the roadway, the lower
the workload is for the driver. As discussed in a U.S. FHWA study of design consistency for two lane
rural roads: "A consistent roadway geometry allows a driver to accurately predict the correct path while
using minimal visual information processing capacity, thus allowing attention or capacity to be
3
dedicated to obstacle avoidance and navigation ." Accurate prediction depends on sight distance and on
the driver's expectancies. Crashes, roadway-based geometric inconsistency (which by definition does
not meet driver expectations), and driver workload have been shown to be strongly related to each
4 5 6
other.
3.1.2 FOCUS OF THIS CHAPTER
This chapter focuses on the design procedures and domains dealing with horizontal alignment, vertical
alignment, the coordination of these two critical design elements, and a number of directly related
issues including cross-slopes, lane widening, lane balance and continuity, and the use of specialized
traffic lanes. Subsequent chapters deal more directly with cross sectional issues (Chapter 4) and
roadside design (Chapter 7).
3.1.3 DESIGN FOCUS
The focus of the design measures outlined in this chapter is one of consistency and meeting the needs of
all road users (vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians). In the context of providing safe and efficient facilities
for the travelling public, the designer's primary goal in developing the alignment design must be to
provide a road which provides strong and consistent positive guidance to the motorist, thus reducing
the possibility of both on-road collisions and departures from the roadway.
June 2017 1
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.1.4 ALIGNMENT AND LANE CONFIGURATION DESIGN GUIDELINES: FORMAT
The guidelines in this chapter are presented in a consistent format. While not all topics are amenable to
identical treatment, each major section generally consists of the following elements:
• A discussion of the theoretical and/or empirical basis for the topic.
• A review of design considerations, and where applicable, discussion of the appropriate
design domain.
• Worked examples as appropriate.
• Cross references to other relevant topics in this Guide, as well as key external references
to which designers may refer for additional guidance.
3.1.S CHAPTER OUTLINE
This chapter begins with a comprehensive discussion of the design of horizontal and vertical alignments
in which the basic design considerations, domain and procedures are set out in detail. The need and
procedures for ensuring effective coordination of these critical elements is then reviewed.
This chapter then turns to related detailed design elements, initially setting out the approach to the
provision of cross-slopes, and subsequently covering a series of lane-related issues including: lane
widening on curves, basic lane and lane balance considerations, and design factors related to lane and
route continuity and weaving.
Special use lanes are discussed in the final three sections of this chapter, which review in turn the
warrants and design approaches for: truck climbing lanes, passing lanes, and truck escape ramps.
3.2 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
3.2.1 OVERVIEW
3.2.1.1 Introduction
Horizontal alignment is the configuration of the roadway as seen in plan and generally consists of
tangent sections, circular curves, and in most instances spiral transitions. In developing the alignment
the designer must establish the proper relationship between the curvature of the roadway and a set of
horizontal alignment controls with the objective of providing for safe continuous operation at a desired
operating speed under the general conditions for that roadway.
Although both horizontal and vertical alignment are important, deficiencies in the horizontal alignment
tend to be more critical if design dimensions cannot be attained since they will usually lead to some
reduction in the posted speed on the facility, thus introducing inconsistencies which the driver must
deal with. With vertical alignment deficiencies, the posted speed is not usually lowered unless they
occur at hazardous locations such as intersections.
3.2.1.2 Horizontal Alignment: Design Domain Controls
The horizontal alignment is a relatively permanent feature of a roadway and is generally difficult and
expensive to modify after its construction. It is thus critical that the designer be aware of and account
for a number of key factors which can have a significant influence in defining the boundaries of the
2 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
design domain for the various elements of horizontal alignment. A number of these controls are
discussed in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 and are not be covered here, except for the following items which
have specific relevance to horizontal alignment design:
1. Driver expectation is a prime consideration in horizontal alignment design. The careful selection
and coordination of the various alignment components can do much to promote safety for the
travelling public. Roadway features should be selected so as to reflect driver expectations.
Driver expectations are based on immediate past experience and on observations of the
roadway, terrain, environment and traffic conditions. Designs that fail to meet these
expectations, such as abrupt changes in alignment might surprise the driver and precipitate
hazardous conditions. Additional information on design consistency can be found in Chapter 2.
2. Design speed is of primary importance as a design control on rural and high-speed urban roads;
however it usually takes a lesser role in the case of lower classification urban roads where users
other than motorists must be taken into consideration. Further information regarding speed
considerations in design is provided in Chapter 2.
3. Topography, available property and environmental features can also play a role. Severe terrain,
sensitive environmental features or geotechnical conditions will often impose limitations on the
specific location of a road thus influencing design domain limits. Flat terrain might have little
direct influence on horizontal alignment features, but could have significant influence on
drainage design, particularly with respect to vertical alignment. Such interactions between
design elements must be borne in mind by designers seeking to optimize the configuration of
the roadway and reinforce the need for careful and considered judgement on their parts - aided
wherever possible by quantitative evaluation methods.
4. Climatic conditions may have a bearing on a number of geometric features. In the case of
horizontal alignment, climate might influence the selection of a route on one side of a valley or
ridge as a result of the need to minimize exposure to open terrain which is subject to blowing
snow. Such a need could result in very specific design domain constraints. The need to avoid
known avalanche areas is a good example of another possible climatic constraint.
5. Traffic volume and vehicle mix must be taken into account in the design, and all available
information should be considered. Current and projected traffic volumes are usually stated in
terms of average annual daily traffic (AADT) or design hour volume (DHV) . Seasonal variations
might be relevant, particularly on roads likely to have a high proportion of recreational traffic.
For traffic travelling at any given speed, the better the roadway alignment, the more traffic it
can carry.
6. The location of existing major utilities, which are difficult and costly to relocate, is another
common design control - particularly in congested urban areas. Both surface and underground
utilities can have an influence on selecting the horizontal alignment for roadway improvements.
7. For guidance on specific horizontal alignment requirements for the design for bicycle facilities
please refer to Chapter 5.
3.2.1.3 Horizontal Alignment: Design Elements
The design of the horizontal alignment generally requires the specification of particular dimensional
parameters for the following elements:
June 2017 3
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
• Circular curves;
• Spiral curves; and
• Development of superelevation .
Each of these areas is discussed in more detail below. The discussion of horizontal alignment design
concludes with a section providing a set of general design domain application heuristics and another
discussing the quantitative prediction of safety performance relative to the horizontal alignment
characteristics of any given facility.
3.2.2 CIRCULAR CURVES
3.2.2.1 Introduction
The discussions which follow present two distinct types of discussion: one dealing with technical
foundation elements which underlie the design domain specifications for particular design elements of
horizontal alignment; and another dealing with the specific design elements themselves. To help users
of the Guide follow the discussions in a logical sequence, the two types of material are interwoven. In
some instances, where technical foundation elements may assume a range of values, a design domain is
specified for these as well. The following elements are discussed in the following sequence in this
section:
• Human factors considerations on curves
• Speed radius relationships: technical foundation element
• Maximum superelevation: design domain
• Lateral friction issues: technical foundation element
• Minimum radius: design domain
• Distribution of superelevation and lateral friction over a range of curves: design domain
• Stopping sight distance on horizontal curves: design domain.
3.2.2.2 Human Factors Consideration on Curves
Run-off-road crashes on curves
Fatal run-off-road collisions are often associated with curved road segments, rural roads, high-speed-
7
limit roadways, adverse weather and alcohol use. Data from fatal and non-fatal passenger vehicle
collisions that occurred between 2005 and 2007 were collected in the U.S. National Motor Vehicle Crash
8
Causation Survey (NMVCCS). The collisions were assigned weights in order to provide national
estimates. Among the run-off-road, single-vehicle collisions 95.1% of the critical reasons for the collision
were driver-related including:
• Driver performance (e.g., over-compensation, poor directional control) - 27.7%
• Driver decision (e.g., speed too fast for curve or for conditions) - 25.4%
• Critical non-performance (e.g., sleeping, medical issues, other physical impairment) - 22.5%
• Recognition errors (e.g., internal, external distractions) -19.8%
Only 1% of the critical reasons were attributed to vehicle failures. The most influential factors associated
with a collisions were that the driver was inattentive, fatigued or in a hurry.
Curves are a major location for run-off-road crashes. Crash rates on curves are three times those on
9
tangent sections, and run-off-road crashes are four times more prevalent on curves than on tangents.
4 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Driver Workload in Curves
Studies of driver eye movements indicate that curves are visually demanding. On a tangent section,
drivers can maintain appropriate lane position and heading angle by looking straight ahead and using
10
peripheral vision to detect lane markings. On a curve, the current position and the future position in
the lane are visually separated, and drivers must look in both locations, thus increasing visual demand.
A U.S. FHWA study using a simulator, test track and public roads examined visual demand in relation to
alignment. In this study, drivers wearing temporarily occluding glasses used a button press to command
brief looks at the road. A strong relationship was found between the inverse of curve radius and visual
demand (time spent looking at the roadway). In other words, driver workload is higher for tighter
curves. This visual demand starts to increase about 100 m before the curve and peaks just after the
11
beginning of the curve. The demand at the curve exit was lower than the demand at curve entry.
Driver Speed and Path on Curves
Studies consistently show that there are more crashes on curves than on straight sections of
12 13 14
roadway. Curves contribute to a high percentage of both run-off-road and lane changing crashes.
Run-off-road crashes are much more frequent on curves than are head-on crashes. In part this is no
doubt because centreline encroachments only lead to a head-on collision if an oncoming vehicle is
present. In absence of an oncoming vehicle, they can lead to a run-off-road collision on the far side of
the roadway.
Crashes are more common on right curves than on left curves. Run-off-road crashes to the left on right
curves are the most frequent run-off-road collision type. Run-off-road crashes to the outside of curves
increase with the degree of curvature.
Underestimation of Curvature
Unfamiliar drivers approaching a curve have a variety of information sources with which to judge the
appropriate entry speed. One of the cues on which drivers rely is curve deflection angle. Laboratory
research has "repeatedly demonstrated that people underestimate curvature the smaller the visible
15
portion of the curve." Laboratory research also shows that drivers have a tendency to incorrectly
perceive curvature for small radius curves. When drivers were presented with static perspective, driver's
eye views of the approach to computer-generated curves, and asked to use a direction indicator to
represent the exit direction of the curve, they underestimated the direction change for the curves of the
16
smallest radii (here 330 m). Such underestimation could lead to inappropriately high speeds.
17
In a driving simulator study, participants were also found to underestimate curvature. A wide range of
curves, from "gentle" curves (400 - 450 m) to "very severe" curves (26 to 80 m) were used. Severe and
very severe curves were underestimated, as was the risk associated with these curves. Further, drivers
tended to understeer when asked to mimic the movement that would be necessary to accurately
negotiate the curve. Although a curve warning sign decreased estimated risk it did not improve ability to
mimic the correct steering maneuver.
Expectancy and Curvature
When unfamiliar drivers are surprised because their expectations are violated, slowed responses and
18
errors occur. A violation of driver expectancy may occur when such a driver traverses a road with wide
radius curves and then, in the absence of significant advance warning, encounters a very tight radius
curve.
June 2017 5
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
A violation of driver expectancy may also occur when a driver has been on a long tangent and
encounters an intersecting roadway, which is the continuation of that tangent, while the main road
curves. Such situations occur when roads are re-constructed, sometimes leaving cues as to the road
path, which are deceptive for unfamiliar drivers. The US Federal Highway Administration's A User's
Guide to Positive Guidance states that:
"a line of utility poles, trees or railroad tracks running parallel and adjacent a long section of
tangent roadway creates an expectancy that the condition continues on indefinitely ... When the
highway then curves away from poles or a tangential roadway begins at the point of curve, a
hazardous condition is created for the driver" and "run-off-the-road accidents are likely to
occur." 19
3.2.2.3 Speed-Radius Relationship: Technical Foundation Element
As a vehicle travels around a circular curve at a constant speed it experiences radial acceleration which
acts towards the centre of the circle. The centripetal force providing this radial acceleration is the lateral
friction between the vehicle tires and the roadway surface. If the roadway is superelevated, the lateral
friction is supplemented by a component of the force of gravity, due to the weight of the vehicle. The
dynamics of a vehicle travelling on a superelevated circular curve of constant radius at a constant speed
20
are illustrated in Figure 3.2.1.
w weight of vehicle
M mass of vehicle
p centripetal force (horizontal}
friction force between tires and roadway surface
(parallel to roadway surface)
a: angle of superelevation ( tan a: = e )
v speed of vehicle
w R radius of curve
Figure 3.2.1: Dynamics of Vehicle on Circular Curve
The relationship between radius, speed, superelevation, and the lateral friction factor can be expressed
mathematically by:
v2 (3.2.1)
e+f= - - - - -
127R
Where:
e= Pavement superelevation, the value of e being
positive in the pavement slopes towards the centre
of the curve.
f= The lateral friction force factor between the vehicle
tire and the roadway pavement. Note that this
friction is lateral or side friction and is different
from the longitudinal friction factor used to
determine stopping distance.
V= Speed of vehicle (km/h)
R= Radius of curve (m)
6 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
In a condition where f = 0, the entire resistance to centrifugal force is provided by superelevation. This
might occur on a large radius curve with slow moving vehicles under icy conditions. If e, V and Rare such
that the pavement and tires cannot supply enough lateral friction, the vehicle will lose stability and start
to slide sideways.
3.2.2.4 Maximum Superelevation: Design Domain
Overview
The maximum rate of superelevation that can be applied in road design is controlled by a number of
factors:
• Climatic conditions (frequency of snow and icing)
• Terrain (flat, rolling, or mountainous)
• Type of environment (rural or urban)
• Frequency of slow-moving vehicles
• Maintenance.
Normal maximum values used in Canada are 0.04 m/m, 0.06 m/m and 0.08 m/m depending on
environment and the degree of surface icing that is likely to occur. In rural areas, higher values of
maximum superelevation may be used in more favourable conditions, whereas in areas where surface
icing occurs, lower values should be applied.
Rural Areas: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
In rural areas a maximum superelevation rate of 0.06 m/m is more widely accepted than a maximum
superelevation of 0.08 m/m because:
1. Adoption of the 0.06 m/m maximum results in better horizontal alignment in cases where
minimum radii are used. Use of the minimum radii based on 0.08 m/m maximum superelevation
can result in sharp curves not consistent with driver expectations in a rural environment. Use of
isolated sharp curves in a generally smooth rural alignment is not recommended.
2. Use of the 0.06 m/m maximum superelevation table is expected to improve operational
characteristics for vehicles travelling at lower speeds during adverse weather conditions, or for
other reasons, while not adversely affecting higher speed vehicles. This is especially important
for roads located where winter conditions prevail several months of the year.
3. The minimum horizontal radius should be compensated on steep downgrades to enhance road
safety. On steep downgrades the minimum curve radius should be increased by 10% for each 1%
increase in grade over 3%.
R (min on grade)*= R(min) (l+(G-3)/10) {3.2.2)
Where:
G= Grade(%)
R (min)= Values in Tables 3.2.5, 3.2.6
and 3.2.7
R= Radius (m)
Example:
Design speed = 100 km/h, e = 0.06, G = 6%
June 2017 7
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
e =pavement superelevation (m/m)
R(min) = 440 m (Table 3.2.6)
R(min) * = 440 (1+(6-3)/10) = 572 m or 570 m (rounded for design)
Urban Areas: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
In urban areas maximum superelevation values cover the range from 0.02 m/m to 0.08 m/m to ensure
proper drainage of the roadway. Values commonly used for maximum superelevation are:
1. Locals - generally normal crown used.
2. Collectors - used occasionally with maximum rates of 0.02 m/m or 0.04 m/m.
3. Minor arterials - 0.04 m/m to 0.06 m/m.
4. Major arterials - 0.06 m/m .
5. Expressways and freeways - 0.06 m/m to 0.08 m/m.
6. Interchange ramps - 0.06 m/m to 0 .08 m/m .
Urban Areas: Design Domain Application Heuristics
1. In urban areas maximum superelevation values tend to be lower since vehicles travelling at slow
speeds or moving away from a stopped position might experience side-slip on higher
superelevation . Maximum superelevation in urban areas is typically 0 .06 m/m.
2. A maximum superelevation rate of 0.04 m/m may also be used for an urban roadway system,
and is appropriate where surface icing and interrupted flow is expected.
3. The maximum superelevation rates of 0.04 m/m and 0.06 m/m are generally applicable for
design of new roads in the upper range of the classification system and where little or no
physical constraints exist.
4. Superelevation is generally not applied on local roads.
5. On collector roads superelevation is used occasionally and typically where beneficial in matching
adjacent topography. Maximum superelevation rates in these cases are in the range of 0.02
m/m (reverse crown) to 0.04 m/m.
6. In some jurisdictions, higher superelevation values are used for ramps on urban freeways than
on other urban roads to provide additional safety since freeway ramps, particularly off-ramps
tend to be over-driven more often and side-slip is less likely to occur since winter maintenance
may be at a higher level at these locations.
7. Superelevation rates in excess of 0.04 m/m are not recommended where curved alignments
pass through existing or possible future intersection areas. In urban retrofit situations, it is often
difficult or undesirable to provide any superelevation at all due to physical constraints. In these
cases, the designer has to carefully assess the relationships of design speed, curvature, crossfall
and lateral friction in choosing the optimum design solution.
8. Acceptable maximum superelevation rates are often established as a matter of policy and vary
between jurisdictions based on local conditions. As an example, some jurisdictions use a
maximum super-elevation rate of 0.08 m/m for higher classification roads such as expressways.
In the interests of maintaining consistency in design in any particular area where the
8 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
responsibility for roads is divided between jurisdictions, it is desirable to maintain consistent
maximum superelevation. In selecting maximum superelevation, therefore, reference should be
made to values used by other road authorities in the area.
3.2.2.5 Lateral Friction: Technical Foundation Element
The lateral friction factor f is the ratio of the lateral friction force and the component of the weight of
the vehicle perpendicular to the pavement. This force is applied to the vehicle at the tires and is toward
the centre of the curve producing radial acceleration. Figure 3.2.1 illustrates lateral friction.
The upper limit of the friction factor is that at which skidding is about to occur. Because roadway curves
are designed to avoid skidding conditions with a margin of safety, the lateral friction factors for design
should be substantially less than the coefficient of friction of impending skid. This is because on a given
curve some vehicles travelling at speeds in excess of design speed can be expected and some vehicles
changing lanes and overtaking will be following a path of smaller radius than the control line.
The friction factor at which skidding is imminent depends on a number of factors, among which the
most important are the speed of the vehicle, the type and condition of the roadway surface, and the
type and condition of the tires. Different observers have recorded different maximum rates at the same
speeds for similar composition pavements, and logically so, because of the inherent differences in
pavement texture, weather conditions and tire condition. Wet or icy pavements will provide less friction
than dry ones and the presence of oil, mud, tire rubber and grit will also reduce friction. General studies
show that the maximum lateral friction factors developed between new tires and wet concrete
pavements range from about 0.5 at 30 km/h to approximately 0.35 at 100 km/h. For normal wet
concrete pavement and smooth tires the value is about 0.35 at 70 km/h. In all cases the studies show a
decrease in friction values for an increase in speed.
Curves are not designed on the basis of the maximum available lateral friction factor. The proportion of
the lateral friction factor that is used with comfort and safety by the vast majority of drivers is the
maximum value for design. Values that relate to pavements that are glazed, bleeding, or otherwise
lacking in reasonable skid-resistant properties should not control design, because these conditions are
avoidable and geometric design is based on acceptable surface conditions attainable at reasonable cost.
The centripetal force acting toward the centre of the circle at the roadway surface generates an equal
centrifugal force acting on the vehicle at the centre of gravity outwards from the centre of the circle,
illustrated in Figure 3.2.2. These two equal and opposite forces produce a moment which tends to
overturn the vehicle.
June 2017 9
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
21
Figure 3.2.2: Overturning Moment of Circular Curve
In selecting maximum allowable lateral friction factors for design, one criterion is the point at which the
overturning is sufficient to cause the driver to experience a feeling of discomfort and cause him to react
instinctively to avoid higher speed. This happens at higher speeds when the centripetal force required to
maintain the vehicle on the curve is supplied largely by lateral friction rather than superelevation and
the driver experiences discomfort. The speed on a curve, at which discomfort due to the overturning
moment is evident to the driver, can be accepted as a design control for the maximum allowable
amount of side friction. At lower, non-uniform running speeds, which are typical in urban areas, drivers
are more tolerant of discomfort, thus allowing an increased amount of lateral friction for use in design
of horizontal curves.
The ball-bank indicator has in the past been widely used by research groups, local agencies and highway
departments as a uniform measure for the point of discomfort to set safe speeds on curves . It consists
of a steel ball in a sealed glass tube . The ball is free to roll except for the damping effect of the liquid in
the tube. Its simplicity of construction and operation has led to widespread acceptance as a guide for
determination of safe speeds. With such a device mounted in a vehicle in motion, the ball-bank reading
at any time is indicative of the combined effect of the body roll angle, the centrifugal force angle, and
the superelevation angle.
The centrifugal force developed as a vehicle travels at uniform speed on a curve causes the ball to roll
out to a fixed angle position. A correction must be made for that portion of the force taken up in the
small body roll angle.
In a series of pioneering tests in 1940 it was concluded that safe speeds on curves were indicated by
ball-bank readings of 14° for speeds of 30 km/h or less, 12° for speeds of 40 km/h to 50 km/h and 10° for
22
speeds of 55 km/h to 80 km/h. These ball-bank readings are indicative of lateral friction factors of
0.21, 0.18 and 0.15 respectively, for the test body roll angles and provide ample margin of safety against
skidding.
From later tests, a maximum lateral friction factor of 0.16 for speeds up to 100 km/h was
recommended. For higher speeds this factor was to be reduced on an incremental basis. Speed studies
on the Pennsylvania Turnpike led to a conclusion that the side friction factor should not exceed 0.10 for
23
design speeds of 110 km/h and higher.
10 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
24
More recent research suggests that the above-noted ball-bank readings should be increased to reflect
current vehicle dynamics and improvements in tire technology. Ball-bank readings of 20° for speeds
below 50 km/h, 16° for speeds of 50 to 65 km/h and 12° for speeds over 65 km/h would better reflect
average curve speeds. It should be recognized that other factors affect and act to control driver speed at
conditions of high friction demand. Swerving becomes perceptible, drift angle increases, and increased
steering effort is required to avoid involuntary lane line violation. Under these conditions the cone of
vision narrows and is accompanied by an increasing sense of concentration and intensity considered
undesirable by most drivers. These factors are more apparent to a driver under open road conditions.
Where practical, the maximum friction factor values selected should be conservative for dry pavements
and provide a margin of safety for operating on pavements that are wet. The need for providing skid-
resistant pavement surfacing for these conditions cannot be over-emphasized because superimposed on
the frictional demands dictated by roadway geometry are those often made by driving maneuvers such
as braking, sudden lane changes, and minor changes in direction within the lane. In these short term
maneuvers the discomfort threshold is not penetrated immediately and, consequently, high friction
demand can exist but not be perceived in time for compensation by a comfortable speed reduction.
Lateral Friction: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
25
Lateral friction values adopted for rural and high speed urban design are given in Table 3.2.1.
Table 3.2.1: Maximum Lateral Friction for Rural and High-Speed Urban Design
Maximum Lateral Friction for
Design Speed
Rural and High Speed Urban
(km/h)
Design
40 0.17
50 0.16
60 0.15
70 0.15
80 0.14
90 0.13
100 0.12
110 0.10
120 0.09
130 0.08
It is generally recognized that on low speed (30 to 60 km/h) urban roads, drivers have developed a
higher threshold of discomfort through conditioning, and are willing to accept more lateral friction than
in rural or high speed(> 70 km/h) urban conditions. The centripetal force producing radial acceleration
is supplied largely by lateral friction and the values adopted for design of low speed urban streets are
higher than those for rural and high speed urban conditions. They are based on a tolerable degree of
June 2017 11
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
discomfort and provide a reasonable margin of safety against skidding under normal driving conditions
26
in the urban environments. Values are presented in Table 3.2.2.
Table 3.2.2: Maximum Lateral Friction for Low Speed Urban Design
Maximum Lateral
Design Speed
Friction for Low
(km/h}
Speed Urban Design
30 0.31
40 0.25
50 0.21
60 0.18
3.2.2.6 Minimum Radius: Design Domain
Overview
The minimum allowable radius for any design speed depends on the maximum rate of superelevation
and the lateral friction coefficient between the pavement and vehicle tires. This relationship is
expressed by:
v2 (3.2.3)
Rmin =
127(emax + f max}
Where:
Rmin = Minimum radius of curve
emax = Maximum pavement superelevation
fmax = Maximum lateral friction
V = Speed of vehicle (km/h)
For rural and urban high speed superelevation applications there is generally reasonable opportunity to
provide the desirable amount of superelevation . In rural areas the constraints are usually minimal, while
on high speed urban roadways the designer has reasonable flexibility in establishing suitable
superelevation. This is because in the design of new streets, particularly those with design speeds of 70
km/h or more and through generally undeveloped areas, the designer typically has greater flexib ility in
establishing suitable horizontal and vertical alignments and associated superelevation rates. Often it is
possible to regrade adjacent properties to match superelevated sections, ensuring appropriate drainage
patterns and intersection profiles.
Rural and High Speed Urban Applications: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
For rural and high speed urban applications the minimum radius is calculated using a maximum
superelevation rate of either 0.04 m/m, 0.06 m/m or 0.08 m/m for a range of design speeds from 40
km/h to 130 km/h and lateral friction factors from Table 3.2.1. These calculated values are shown in
Table 3.2.3.
12 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.2.3: Minimum Radii for Limiting Values of e and f for Rural and
27
High Speed Urban Roadways
Design Design Minimum Minimum
emax
Speed Value for e+f Radius (m) Radius for
(m/m)
(km/h} f (calculated) Design (m)
40 0.04 0.17 0.21 60 60
so 0.04 0.16 0.20 98 100
60 0.04 O.lS 0.19 149 lSO
70 0.04 O.lS 0.19 203 200
80 0.04 0.14 0.18 280 280
90 0.04 0.13 0.17 37S 380
100 0.04 0.12 0.16 492 490
40 0.06 0.17 0.23 SS SS
so 0.06 0.16 0.22 89 90
60 0.06 O.lS 0.21 13S 130
70 0.06 O.lS 0.21 184 190
80 0.06 0.14 0.20 2S2 2SO
90 0.06 0.13 0.19 336 340
100 0.06 0.12 0.18 437 440
110 0.06 0.10 0.16 S9S 600
120 0.06 0.09 O.lS 7S6 7SO
130 0.06 0.08 0.14 9Sl 9SO
40 0.08 0.17 0.2S so so
so 0.08 0.16 0.24 82 80
60 0.08 O.lS 0.23 123 120
70 0.08 O.lS 0.23 168 170
80 0.08 0.14 0.22 229 230
90 0.08 0.13 0.21 304 300
100 0.08 0.12 0.20 394 390
110 0.08 0.10 0.18 S29 S30
120 0.08 0.09 0.17 667 670
130 0.08 0.08 0.16 832 830
low Speed Urban Applications: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
For low speed urban conditions and where a street is to be upgraded through a developed urban area, it
is often not desirable or possible to utilize superelevation rates typical of high speed design as previously
discussed. Other design considerations such as drainage may be more important than driver discomfort.
Existing physical controls, right of way constraints, intersections, driveways, on-street parking, and
economic considerations have a strong influence on design elements, including design speed and
June 2017 13
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
superelevation. In some cases, design speed may not be an initial design control, but rather a result of
the other controls or considerations influencing the horizontal alignment and superelevation.
Moreover, in low speed urban conditions, drivers are accustomed to a greater level of discomfort while
traversing curves. Hence, increased lateral friction factors resulting from lower superelevation rates or
no superelevation at all, are permissible. In these cases, the maximum lateral friction factors as defined
by Table 3.2.2 are used in calculating minimum radii.
To allow for the fact that in low speed urban designs various limits for maximum permissible
superelevation may exist, the minimum radius is provided for a number of commonly used rates of
superelevation.
Table 3.2.4 provides rounded design values for minimum radii for low speed urban design, 30 km/h to
60 km/h, normally representative of retrofit conditions. Minimum radii are stated for normal crown
(-0.02 m/m, or adverse superelevation), reverse crown (0.02 m/m superelevation) and maximum
superelevation rates of 0.04 and 0.06 m/m . Table 3.2.4 also provides a summary of the minimum radii
for a range of high design speeds, 70 km/h to 100 km/h, associated with maximum superelevation
values of 0.04 m/m and 0.06 m/m. The values are the same as the high speed urban values in Table
3.2.3.
28
Table 3.2.4: Minimum Radii for Urban Designs
Minimum Radius (m)
Crown Section Superelevated Section
Design Speed 34
4 Reverse '
(km/h) Normal {+0.02 m/m) Maximum Rate
(-0.02
m/m) emax emax +0.04 +0.06
+0.04 +0.06 (m/m) (m/m)
30 420 30 40 20 20
1 40 660 65 80 45 40
Low Speed
so 950 115 135 80 75
60 1290 185 220 130 120
70 1680 290 330 200 190
2 80 2130 400 450 280 250
High Speed
90 2620 530 600 380 340
100 3180 690 770 490 440
Notes: 1. Values for design speeds 30 to 60 km/h based on low speed design and
maximum lateral friction coefficients in Table 3.2.2.
2. Values for design speeds 70 to 100 km/h based on high speed design and
maximum lateral friction coefficients in Table 3.2.1.
3. Lateral friction coefficients distributed proportional to the inverse of
radius, resulting in different minimum radius values at reverse crown for emax
+0.04 and emax +0.06. The methodology for distributing "e" and "f" is described
in more detail in the following section .
4. To determine the minimum radius for normal and reverse crown, the (e+f) value
must be obtained from the alternative method as discussed under Urban
Roadways: Design Domain Quantitative Aids and illustrated in Figure 3.2.5.
14 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.2.2.7 Distribution of "E" And "F" Over a Range of Curves: Design Domain
Overview
There are a number of methods of distributing e and f over a range of curves flatter than the minimum
29
radius for a given design speed. The various methods are well documented in AASHTO. The choice of
methods is the result of the latitude available to the designer in the distribution of superelevation (e)
and lateral friction (f) .
Rural and High Speed Urban Applications: Design Domain Technical Foundation
For rural and high speed urban roadways the method used for distributing e and f is referred to as
"Method 5" in the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets cited above. The form
of distribution is based on the relationship shown in solid in Figure 3.2.3.
- - - Methods
- - - Method2
0.20
e max = 0.08
design speed = 50 km/h
0.15
0
Q)
0.10
/
/
0.05 /
/
/
-----~---_/
0.00 ~---+-+------+-----+-----t--------<
0.000 0.0025 0.0050 0.0075 0.0100 0.0125 reciprocal of radius (m- 1)
0.0025
400 200 100 80 metres
500
Figure 3.2.3: Distribution of Superelevation and Lateral Friction
June 2017 15
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
As the radius decreases from 450 m to 80 m, the superelevation increases rapidly in the high radius
vicinity to almost maximum superelevation in the middle range and less rapidly in the lower radius
vicinity. Conversely the lateral friction factor increases slowly in the higher radius range and more
rapidly in the smaller radius range. This reflects the relationship:
v2 (3.2.4)
e +f =
127R
in which for a given design speed, V is constant. For example, in Figure 3.2.3, for V = 50 km/h the
expression becomes:
19.69 (3.2.5)
e+f= - - - -
R
The distribution of e and f described above favours the overdriving characteristics that occur on flat to
intermediate curves. The problem of overdriving on such curves is alleviated because superelevation
provides nearly all centripetal force required if the vehicle is travelling at average running speed and
considerable lateral friction is available for higher speeds. The distribution shown in Figure 3.2.3
represents a practical distribution over the range of radii.
An alternative distribution in which superelevation is not applied in the higher radius range is shown
with a dashed line in Figure 3.2.3. Superelevation of 0.02 m/m is maintained until all available lateral
friction is utilized beyond which the lateral friction is kept constant and superelevation is increased
rapidly to maximum. This form of distribution is referred to as "Method 2" in AASHTO and is used in
some urban areas. This method is particularly advantageous on low speed urban streets where, because
of various constraints, superelevation frequently cannot be provided.
Rural and High Speed Urban Applications: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
Based on the described distribution method (Method 5), the recommended superelevation rate for
various radii from 7000 m to the minimum radius, for each design speed and for superelevation rates of
0.04 m/m, 0.06 m/m, and 0.08 m/m have been developed. Also included are the spiral parameters
applicable to rural and high speed urban roadways (spiral parameters will be addressed later in this
section). These values are illustrated in Tables 3.2.5 to 3.2.7 and are based on relationships prepared by
30
Ministry of Transportation Ontario(MTO).
Urban Roadways: Design Domain Technical Foundation
Tables 3.2.5 to 3.2.7 indicating the amount of superelevation for various radii are based on relatively
low lateral friction values which give high superelevation rates. These superelevation rates and spiral
parameters are appropriate for rural roadways and higher speed urban roadways where intersections
are widely spaced and access is restricted. For other urban situations higher rates of superelevation are
often not attainable due to constraints such as access requirements, elevations of the adjacent
properties, drainage considerations, the profiles of intersecting streets and limiting slopes on boulevards
and sidewalks.
An alternative method for selecting superelevation rates under low speed urban design conditions is to
use higher lateral friction values, thereby reducing the superelevation requirements. These
superelevation rates are illustrated in Figure 3.2.4 and generally apply to roadways through intersection
areas where design constraints are numerous and limiting superelevation offers operational advantages
for turning or crossing traffic. Drivers are generally accustomed to using more lateral friction when
maneuvering through intersections.
16 June 2017
c::s n
:r
G\
tD
ID Q,J 0
N ~ 3
0
.... .., ....
tD tD
...
...i
Design
-I
II.I
5!:
""'-·
'c
n
Speed 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 tD )> tD
(km/h)
w ~!!!.
:I (IQ
A A A A A A A i-.1 3 :I
Radius e 2 4 e 2 4 e 2 4 e 2 4 e 2 4 e 2 4 e 2 4 ~ tD ~
(m) lane lane lane lane lane lane lane lane lane lane lane lane lane lane VI :I
..+ -·
c..
7000 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC c Q,J tD
"C
5000
4000
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
...
tD
tD
c..
:I
r-
...
0-
n
Q,J Q,J
3000 NC NC NC NC NC NC RC 410 410 ii)" :I :I
< tD
2000 NC NC NC NC RC 300 300 RC 315 315 RC 335 335
,...
II.I nc..
Q,J
1500
1200
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
RC
240
215
240
215
RC
RC
260
230
260
230
RC
0.021
275
245
275
245
0.022
0.026
290
260
290
260
s· 0:I
:!'I :I
-·
Q,J
:J
(IQ
1000 NC NC RC 180 180 RC 200 200 0.02 210 210 0.025 225 225 _0.030 _ _?32_ 235 II.I ~
:J
c.., 0
900 NC NC RC 175 175 RC 190 190 0.021 200 200 0.027 210 210 0.032 225 225 Q,J
800 NC NC RC 165 165 RC 180 180 0.023 190 190 0.029 200 200 0.034 210 210
Q. ~ c..
700 NC RC 140 140 RC 150 150 0.02 165 165 0.026 17S 17S 0.032 18S 185 0.036 200 200 s: -·"'
0
600 NC RC 130 130 RC 140 140
- -- -- :;· :I
-0.023
- - lSS - -lSS - 0.029 16S 16S 0.03S 17S 17S 0.039 190 190
3·
soo NC RC 120 120 0.021 130
- -- -130- 0.026 140 140 0.033 lSO lSO 0.038 160 160 0.040 190 190
c
400 RC 95 9S RC 105 lOS 0.025 115 115 0.031 125 125 0.037 135 135 0.040 160 160 0.040 190 190
350 RC 90 90
-----
0.02 100 100 0.027 110 110 0.033 120 120 0.039 135 13S 0.040 160 160 min R = 490 3
VI
300 ~- ~ ___?O_ 0.023 90 90 0.031 100 100 0.036 110 110 0.040 13S 13S min R = 380
250 RC 7S 7S 0.026 85 85 0.034 90 90 0.038 110 110 0.040 135 13S ...
"2.
!!:!..
220 RC 70 70 0.029 80 80 0.036 90 90 0.039 110 110 min R = 280
200 0.021 65 65 0.031 7S 7S 0.038 90 90 0.040 110 110 "'tJ
180 0.023 65 6S 0.033 70 70 0.039 90 90 0.040 110 110 ...
II.I
II.I
160 0.025 60 60 0.035 70 70 0.040 90 90 min R = 200 3
140 0.028 55 5S 0.037 70 70 0.040 90 90 ,...
tD
120
100
0.031
0.034
so
50
5S
50
0.039
0.040
70
70
70
70
min R = lSO Notes : e = superelevation
A =spiral parameter in metres ~
...
tD
90 0.036 50 50 0.040 70 70 NC = normal cross section tD
80 O.Q38 so 50 min R = 100 RC = remove adverse crown and superelevate at normal rate .,3
)(
70 0.040 so so Spiral length, L = A2 I Radius II
0
60 0.040 so so emax = 0.04 Spiral parameters are minimum and higher values may be used
0
0.040 50 50 For 6 lane pavement: above the dashed line use 4 lane values , below the dashed ::.
min R = 60 line , use 4 lane values x 1.15.
3
.........
A divided road havirg a median less than 3 m wide may be treated
as a single pavement. 3w
....
1q
....
...i
....
00
i
11>
!J-J
In
!"'
!J:I
VI
Design
Speed 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 s::
(km / h) "Cl
I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A ..,.
11>
11>
1a~e 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e la~e la~e
Radius e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4
(m) I lane I lane I lane I lane I lane I lane I lane I lane I lane I la:e lane
[
7000
5000
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC 555 555
RC
RC 580 580
RC
RC
710
600
710
600 ,...
CJ
4COO
3000
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
RC 390 390
RC
RC
475
410
475
410
RC
0.022
495
430
495
RC
430
0.024
515
4SO
515
450
0.023
0.036
540
465
S40
465
c;·
:J
2000 NC NC NC RC 27S 275 RC 300 300 0.023300 300 0.026 335 335 0.029 350 350
0.034 365 365 0.04 380 380
CJ
1500 NC NC RC 225 225 RC 250 250 0.024 250 250 0.029 270 270 0.032 290 290 0.036 305 0.042
305 315 315 ~9- ~ _ E> _
1200 NC NC RC 200 200 0.023 22S 225 0.028 225 225 0.033 240 24C O.D38 260 260 _(CO~ _27_Q_ _27_Q_ _(CO~ _282___ _29_Q_ 0.055 295 320
:J
Q.
1000 NC NC 170 170 0.021 175 175 0.027 200 200 0.032 200 200 0.037 225 225 0.043 235 235 0.048 245 255 0.054 260 280 0.058 280 300
900
800
NC
NC
NC
RC
150
150
150
150
0.023
0.025
175
160
0.029
0.03 1
175
160
200
17S
200
175
0.034
0.036
200
175
200
175
0.039
0.042
-----
200
200
200
200
0.045
0.048
225
210
225
215
0.051
0.054
235
220
250
240
0.058
0.06
250
2SO
270
260
0.06 280
min R = 950
300 s:
:;·
700
600
NC
NC 120 120
0.021
0.024
140
125
140
125
0.027
0.030
150
140
150
140
0.034
0.037
175
175
- 150 lso
175
175
0.039
0.042
o"Ji46 -
175
175
150 1ffi
175
175
0.045
0.048
185
175
195
185
0.051
0.054
200
190
210
200
0.058
0.06
220
220
235
220
0.06 250
min R = 750
260
3·
500 RC 100 100 0.027 120 120 0.034
-----
125 125 1-0Ji41 f- 0.052 160 175 0.059 190 190 0.06 220 220 s::
min R = 600
400
350
0.023
0.025
90
90
90
90
0.031
0.034
100
100
100
100
0.038
0.041
115
110
120
115
0.045
0.048
140
12S
150
135
0.051
0.054
135
125
150
140
0.057
0.059
160
160
165
160
0.060 190
min R =440
190
3
300 .QJ!.2~~~0- - o.CITT - 90 loO 0.044 100 110 0.051 120 125 0.057 125 135 0.060 160 VI
"Cl
250 0.031 75 80 0.040 85 90 0.048 90 100 0.055 120 125 0.060 125 125 min R = 340
::;· n
220 0.034 70 80 0.043 80 90 0.050 90 100 0.057 110 120 0.060 125 125 CJ :::r
11.J Cl
200 0.036 70 75 0.045 75 90 0.052 8S 100 0.059 110 110 min R = 250
75 70 0.060 Notes
"ti "C tD
180 O.D38 60 0.047 90 0.054 85 90 110 110 CJ .... 0
160 0.040 60 75 0.049 70 85 0.056 8S 90 min R = 190
Ql ~ 3
w ~
14C 0.043 60 75 0.052 65 80 0.059 8S 90
120 0.046 60 70 0.055 65 75 0.060 3
100 0.049 so 65 0.058 65 70 min R = 130
11> I :::::!.
,... )> t'I
so
90
80
0.051
0.054 so
60
60
0.060
0.060
65
65
70
70 ~ = tDc
~
"' OQ
70 0.056 so 60 minR=90 :I "'
60 0.059 so 60 emax = 0.06 11> 3 o'Q"
3 ID :I
0.059 50 60 single pavemert.
~ a Cl
min R =55
II
0
.
Ill
c.. c..
:I
tD
=·
0
en o
I"'" -
11.J
:I ...
m n
3
......_ n Ill
3 0 :I
~ a[
ciQ' iii"
i:
::I c :I
ID
N ~ 6'
....'-I
0
0-· 11.J
c..
:I "'
c::s n
:r
G\
tD
ID QI 0
N ~ 3
0
.... .., ....
tD tD
...
...i -I
Q)
2::
""'-·
'c
n
11> )> tD
w ~!!!.
:I (IQ
N 3 :I
Design ~ tD ~
Speed 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 VI :I
.... -·
a.
(km/h)
s:: QI tD
I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A "Cl
..,.
11> a.
:I
...
0-
1a~e I 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e 1a~e
Radius e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4 e 3&4
(m) I lane lane I lane I lan e I lane I lan e I lane I lane I lane I lan e 11> r-
QI
n
QI
7000 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC RC RC 710 710 ii) :I :I
5000 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC RC 555 555 RC 580 580 0.021 600 600 < tD QI
4000
3000
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC RC
NC
390 400
RC
RC
480
410
480
410
RC
0.023
495
430
495
430
0.021
O.D28
515
450
515
450
0.026
0.033
540
465
540
465
....
Q)
c;·
nc..
0:I -·
QI
2000 NC NC NC RC 270 270 0.021 300 300 0.026 300 300 0.026 335 335 0.033 350 350 0.040 365 365 0.047 380 380 :J :!'I :I
1500 225 225 0.021 255 255 0.027 250 250 0.032 270 275 0.033 290 290 0.036 305 305 0.050- 3lS 330- - 0.058 - 330 365 (IQ
NC NC RC Q) ~
1200 NC NC RC 200 200 0.026 220 220 0.032 225 225 0.038 240 240 0.040 260 260 0.050 270 285 0.059 285 320 0.067 295 350 :J
c.., 0
QI
1000 NC RC 170 170 0.023 175 175 0.029 200 200 0.036 200 200 ~~_B5_2~ 0.047 240 240 0.057 250 280 0.066 260 310 0.074 280 340 Q.
~ a.
900 NC RC 150 150 0.025 175 175 0.032 180 180 0.03~200 ~~ 0.046 200 220 0.051 225 240 0.062 235 275 0.071 250 300 0.078 280 330
s: -·"'
0
800
700
NC
NC
0.020
0.023
150
140
150
140
0.027
0.030
160
150
160
150
0.035
0.038
175
165
175
165
0.042
0.046
175
175
195
190
0.049
0.053
200
185
220
200
0.055
0.061
210
200
235
230
0.066
0.072
220
220
270
260
0.075
0.079
250
250
295
285
0.080
0.080
280
280
330
300
:;· :I
600 RC 120 120 0.026 125 125 0.034
0.039
140 140
1------
0.042 150
235 0.048 140 150
160 0.050 165 185 0.058 175 200 0.067 190 225 0.077 220 250 0.080 250 285 min R = 830 3·
500 0.021 100 100 t0.030 120
------
120 125 0.056 150 175 0.064 160 200 0.073 190 215 0.080 220 250 min R = 670 s::
400
350
0.025
O.D28
90
90
90
90
O.D35
O.D38
100
100
110
105
0.045
0.049
115
110
125
125
0.054
0.058
125
120
150
150
0.063
0.067
135
125
165
160
0.071
O.D75
160
160
185
175
0.080
0.08
190
190
200
200
min R = 530
3
300 0.031 80 90 0.042 90 100 0.053 100 120 0.063 120 140 0.072 125 150 0.080 160 175 min R = 390
VI
250
-----
0.035 75 85 0.047 85 100 0.059 100 120 0.069 110 135 0.078 125 150 0.080 160 175 "'2.
..,.
220 0.039
0.041
70
70
80 0.051
0.054
80 100 0.062
0.065
95 110 0.073 110 125 0.080
min
125
R = 230
150 min R = 300
2!.
200 80 80 100 90 110 O.D75 110 125
0.044 0.057
"ti
180 65 80 75 95 0.068 90 105 O.D78 110 120 Notes: e = SllJerelevation
160 0.047 65 80 0.060 75 90 0.072 85 100 0.080 110 120 A =spiral parameter in metres
..,.
Q)
Q)
140 0.051 65 75 0.064 70 90 0.076 85 100 min R = 170 NC = normal cross section
120 0.055 60 75 0.069 70 85 0.080 85 95 =
RC remove adverse crown and superelevate at normal rate 3
100 0.061 55 70 0.074 65 80 0.080 85 95 =
Spiral length, L A2 / Radius ....
11>
90 0.064 55 70 0.077 65 80 min R = 120 Spiral parameters are minimLm ard tigher values may be used ..,.
11>
80 0.067 55 65 0.080 65 75 For 6 lane pavement: above the dashed line use 4 lane vah.es, below the dashed
~
70 0.071 50 60 0.080 65 75 line, use 4 lane values x 1.15.
11>
60 0.075 50 60 minR=80 emax = 0.08 A divided road having a median less than 3 m wide may be .,3
50 0.080 50 60 treated as a single pavement )(
0.080 50 60 II
min R = 50 0
0
00
3
.......
3w
w
1q
....
ID
PRINTED BY: Cloud Creus <cloud@creus.ca>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
600
500
400
300
250
E'
200
150
- 60 kn111
f::: 0. 18
Q)
c:::::l r---. ,._ .
--
-(.)
0
I/)
::::l
100
90
90
~
n1n1
-- ----- f::: 0. ?1
'6
ro
..... 70
60 I"'-......_
140 ,,_
50
f= 0. 25
40
30
25 - 30 km11
f= 0. 31
20
15
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
rate of superelevation (m/m)
Figure 3.2.4: Relationship of Speed, Radius and Superelevation
34
for Low Speed {<70 km/h) Urban Design
Note: Lateral friction factors are maximum values for low speed (<70 km/h) urban design.
20 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Urban Roadways: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
Figure 3.2.5 illustrates an alternative method for urban use for applying superelevation over a range of
radii. This method, for urban conditions, is based on retaining normal crown until a lateral friction factor
of 0.05 is required, at which point reverse crown is introduced. This friction factor is approximately
equivalent to roadway icing conditions. An assumed operating speed of 10 km/h above design speed is
used in the derivations to introduce the safety factor for overdriving or adverse pavement conditions.
Figure 3.2.5 illustrates the derivation of these values for a design speed of SO km/h, and maximum
superelevation values of 0.04 m/m and 0.06 m/m.
For this alternative design method the minimum radius in reverse crown is determined by distributing
the lateral friction coefficients in a rate proportional to the inverse of the radius. The linear distribution
occurs between the lateral friction coefficient at the inverse of the minimum radius for normal crown,
calculated as noted above, and the maximum lateral friction coefficient of the inverse of the minimum
radius corresponding to full superelevation. Because a unique minimum radius corresponds to each of
the two full superelevation rates, +0.04 m/m and +0.06 m/m, the proportional distribution produces
different values for minimum radius at reverse crown.
This alternative method provides superelevation rates between the rural and urban high speed values,
and the low speed urban values described earlier. Tables 3.2.4, 3.2.8 and 3.2.9 reflect this alternative
design method for selecting superelevations over a range of radii from 20 m to 7000 m. This provides
the designer with a consistent means of selecting superelevation applicable to most urban conditions.
Table 4 was discussed earlier under minimum radius, and Tables 3.2.8 and 3.2.9 provide superelevation
rates for varying speeds and radii using the urban method described above. Table 3.2.8 is for an, emax of
0.04 m/m and Table 9 is for an emax of 0.06 m/m . Minimum radii values at full superelevation for design
speeds of 30 to 60 km/h are based on low speed design and the maximum lateral friction coefficients in
Table 3.2.1.
This alternative design method utilizes lateral friction factors at all intermediate rates of curvature that
are much lower than the friction coefficient at maximum superelevation/minimum radii, and those
coefficients which form the basis of Figure 3.2.5.
June 2017 21
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
V = 50 km/h
e max = 0.04 & 0.06 m/m
R
vz
127 (e+f)
0.20
+
Q)
.....
N
N c::)
0 c::) II
II x
x C1l
0 "'
E 't-
E
Q) .....
0.10
reverse crow
(0
0
c::)
'<!"
0 II
c::) x
reverse crown 0.02 m/m II
C1l
E
x Q)
-<:::::=-----
0.0• 1---"l'--___,I--~~~~----?""""-~-...,.,,.,..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+---+~~~~~~
@ Q)
"'E
500-..:::-..:::-..:::--=>- 200 135 115 100 t70 radius (m)
i-..;;...........- .'!fo;o .0050 .0074 .0087 .0100 0~~ 5 ~~O 0140 1 I radiu s
norm~
crow~'
_ _ m/m. ~ . . d" f
minimum ra 1us or minimum radius
0 02
normal crown , 950 m for this speed
Example:
design speed = 50 km/h
assumed operating speed= 50 + 10 = 60 km/h
@normal crown (e = -0.02) and f = 0.05
2
60
Rmin= 127 (0.05 - 0.02) :::: 950 m
35
Figure 3.2.5: Alternative Method of Distribution of Superelevation and Lateral Friction
22 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.2.8: Superelevation Rate for Urban Design, emax =0.04 m/m 36
R:adius Design Speed ,(1kmlh)
60
.,
(m) 30 40 50 70 80 90 100
7000 NC NC NC NC NC NC NG NC
5000
4000
3000
l
NC
l
NC
NC
RC
2000 If NIG RC RC
1500 flC RC
1200 RC
1000 '.
900
800 1. NC
RC
,r
,,
700 NC RC
600 '. RC RC 0.027
I
500 NC 0 .0.22 0.039
400 FC RC 0 .036 Min R=490
u
350 0.026 Min R=380
300 .. RC 0.035
250 0.027 Min R .. 280
200 RC 0.040
180 0.021 Min R"'200
160 0.027
140 ' -
0.035
120 RC Min R=130
100 0 ..026
90 0.032
80 1. 0..039
70 RC Miin H=80 em.,,;= 0.04 m/m
60 0.022 NC= normal crown (-0.02 m/m )
50 0.03.2 RC = reverse crown {+0.02 mJm}
40 '. Mir11 R=45
30 R.C
20 0.040
Min R=20
mir!. radius
for normal 420 660 950 1290 1680 2130 2620 3180
crown
min. radius
for reverse 30 65 115 185 290 400 530 690
crown
June 2017 23
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.2.9: Superelevation Rate for Urban Design, emax =0.06 m/m 37
Radius Desi gn Speed (km/h)
(m) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
7000 NC NC NC NC N!C NC NC NC
l l '
5000
4000 NC
3000 NC NC !RC
2000 p NC RC RC
11500 NC RC
11 200 RC
moo ' -
900 NC ''
800 RC RC
700 NC
., ,. 0.025
600 '. RC '
' RC 0.035
500 NC RC 0_030 Q_04-8
400 RC '. 0 .026 0.045 Min R =440
350
300 ,. RC
0 .025
0 .035
0 .045
0.056
M in R;;; 340
250 RC 0.036 Min R"'250
200 0 . 024 0.053
180 0 .030 Min R=190
160 q: 0.037
140 RC 0.046
12.0 0.026 Min R=120
100
90 ' . 0.036
0.043
80 RC 0.052
70 0.024 Min R=75 erna.x =0.06 m/m
60 0.032 NC = normal crown (-0.02 m/m)
50 f -
0.044 RC = reverse crown (+ 0.02 m/m)
40 RC Min R,,,40
30 0.030
20 0.056
Min R=20
min. ra dius
for normal 420 660 '9 50 1290 1680 2130 2fi20 3180
crown
min. radi us
for reverse 40 80 135 220 330 450 600 770
crowin
24 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.2.3 SPIRAL CURVES
3.2.3.1 Introduction
A spiral curve is a curve with a constantly varying radius . The purpose of a spiral curve is to provide
smooth transition and a natural driving path between a tangent and a circular curve.
Because spiral curves provide a natural path for the motorist to follow, centrifugal forces increase and
decrease gradually as the vehicle enters and leaves the circular portion of the curve. This minimizes
encroachment upon adjoining traffic lanes, promotes speed uniformity, and increases safety.
A spiral curve provides a convenient and desirable arrangement for developing superelevation runoff. A
change from normal crown to a fully superelevated cross section is applied along the spiral curve length.
Where the pavement section is widened around a circular curve, the spiral facilitates the transition
width. Spiral curves also enhance the roadway appearance because there are no noticeable breaks in
the alignment.
On rural roads, spiral curves should be utilized on new construction if the circular curves are
superelevated. Some exceptions can be made with curves substantially flatter than the minimum
required for the design speed. Also, when appropriate, simple curves may be used on existing paved
roads to avoid the need to make minor realignments.
On urban roads, the incorporation of spiral curves into horizontal main line alignment design is normally
limited to major arterials, expressways and freeways, where higher design speeds are used. Spiral curves
are typically only applied to roadways with design speeds of 70 km/h and higher, and where
superelevation of the circular curves is desirable.
Spiral curves are also used in the design of interchange ramps. Where these roadway facilities have
curbs, the use of spiral curves allows vehicles to negotiate the alignment at a constant offset from the
curb, thus increasing driver comfort. For low speed urban design and retrofit situations, spiral curves are
not typically used.
3.2.3.2 Overview: Technical Foundation
The spiral form most commonly used for road design is the clothoid which, expressed mathematically,
has the relationship where R varies with the reciprocal of L, where R is the radius of curve at a distance L
from the beginning of spiral ( Ra 1/L ).
A2 = RL (3.2.6)
Where:
A is a constant called the spiral
parameter and has units of
length.
All clothoid spirals are the same shape and vary only in their size. The spiral parameter is a measure of
the flatness of the spiral, the larger the parameter the flatter the spiral.
A spiral curve in which one end of the spiral has a radius of infinity is referred to as a simple spiral and
one in which the radii at both ends are less than infinity is referred to as a segmental spiral. An example
of a segmental spiral is a spiral between two circular curves of different radii but in the same direction. A
June 2017 25
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
simple spiral is designated by its parameter and its end radius. A segmental spiral is designated by its
parameter and its two end radii.
3.2.3.3 The Spiral Parameter: Technical Foundation
Spiral parameters can be developed based on three criteria:
• The maximum permissible rate of change of centripetal acceleration (which expresses
comfort)
• Superelevation runoff
• Aesthetics.
Figure 3.2.6 illustrates the conceptual results ofthese means of deriving the spiral parameter, and the
basis for each of these methodologies is discussed in depth following this figure.
The minimum spiral requirement for design is the highest of the three values and for the smaller radii
the comfort criterion controls, for the next larger set of radii the relative slope criterion controls, and for
the larger radii the aesthetic criterion controls.
minimum spiral parameter demand governed by
comfort, superelevation and aesthetic criteria in
relation to curve radii for a given design speed
parameter based on comfort
//
.//
/
radius (m) - - -
38
Figure 3.2.6: Basis of Spiral Parameter Design Values
Spiral Parameter Based on Comfort
A vehicle travelling along a circular curve experiences centripetal acceleration. As the vehicle is moving
from a tangent direction to a circular curve path, the radius of curvature decreases from infinity to that
of the circular curve. During this time the centripetal acceleration is increasing from zero to a constant.
The rate of change of acceleration is high if the transition length is short and low if it is long. The rate of
change of centripetal acceleration is a measure of discomfort to the vehicle occupants. If the transition
26 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
length is short the vehicle occupants will experience a jerk. Lower values of acceleration and
corresponding long transition are preferred.
One of the purposes of the spiral is to provide a length over which the driver can effect a change in
curvature of the travelled path so as to position the vehicle centrally within the lane. For comfort
therefore the spiral curve should provide sufficient length to allow a smooth increase in radial
acceleration.
(3.2.7)
Centripetal acceleration is:
R
Where:
R= radius (m)
v= speed (m/s)
Rate of change of centripetal acceleration is:
v2 (3.2.8)
c= - -
Rt
Where t is travel time (s)
L (3.2.9)
t= - -
v
Where Lis the length of curve (m)
v3 (3.2.10)
c= ---,;r-
(3.2.11)
If A is stated in metres, speed v in kilometres per hour and c in metres per second cubed, the expression
becomes:
0.1464vi.s (3.2.12)
A = ~~---,,....,,....~~
Co.s
Tolerable rate of change of centripetal acceleration varies between drivers. As a basis of design, the
3
value used to provide minimum acceptable comfort is 0.6 m/s . The expression then becomes:
0.1464vi. 5 (3.2.13)
A= 5
0.6°
(3.2.14)
A= 0.189vi. 5
Using the above expression, the minimum spiral parameter based on comfort can be calculated for each
design speed. It may be noted that the spiral parameter is independent of the radius. This is illustrated
in Figure 3.2.6 by the comfort line parallel to the abscissa.
June 2017 27
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Spiral Parameter Based on Relative Slope
For superelevation runoff, the relative slope is defined as the slope of the outer edge of a pavement in
relation to the profile control line (e.g., centreline of two-lane roadway). The maximum permissible
value varies with design speed, and is shown in Table 3.2.10.
Table 3.2.10: Maximum Relative Slope between Outer Edge of Pavement
and Centerline of Two-Lane Roadway
Design Speed (km/h) Relative Slope (%)
40 0.70
so 0.65
60 0.60
70 0.55
80 0.51
90 0.47
100 0.44
110 0.41
120 0.38
130 0.36
The AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets provides the following methodology
39
for determining the minimum length of superelevation runoff. Minimum length of runoff (L,), is given
by the equation :
L, = [ ((wn1)ed)/~] bw (3.2.15)
Where :
L, = Minimum length of superelevation
runoff (m)
w= width of one traffic lane (m)
ni = Number of lanes rotated
ed = Design superelevation (%)
bw = Adjustment factor for number of
lanes rotated (See Table 3.2.11)
l::i. = Maximum relative gradient (%)
(See Table 3.2.10)
The AASHTO guidance indicates that this equation can be used directly for undivided roads where the
cross section is rotated about the centerline and n1 is equal to one-ha If the number of lanes in the cross
section. More generally, this equation can be used for rotation about any pavement reference line
provided that the rotated pavement width (wn 1 ) has a common superelevation rate and is rotated as a
plane. The following adjustment factors are provided for undivided roads .
28 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.2.11: Adjustment Factors for Number of Lanes Rotated (metric)
Length increase Relative
Number of Lanes Rotated, Adjustment factor,*
to One Lane Rotated,
ni bw
( = nibw)
1 1.00 1.0
1.5 0 .83 1.25
2 0 .75 1.5
2.5 0 .70 1.75
3 0.67 2.0
3.5 0 .64 2.25
m
one lane rotated two lanes rotated three lanes rotated
lane
normal section
lane
Lb ~ normal section normal section
lane 1
I
c::::::::= :::::::::i
1rotated
I lane
er: ct:: rotated
For divided highways, runoff lengths determined using the methodology outlined above are generally
rotated
considered minimums and the use of longer values is desirable.
For a given speed and radius, superelevation and relative slope are known and minimum lengths can be
calculated . From minimum length and radius, the minimum spiral parameter can be calculated, using
the expression:
2
A = RL (3.2.16)
Spiral Parameter Based on Aesthetics
Short spiral transition curves are visually unpleasant. It is generally accepted that the length of a
transition curve should be such that the driving time is at least 2 s. For a given radius and speed,
therefore, the minimum length and minimum spiral parameter can be calculated using the expression:
2
A = 0.56RV (3 .2.7)
3.2.3.4 Spiral Parameter: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
Quantitative expressions of the design domain for the spiral parameter are given in Tables 3.2.5
through 3.2.7 in Section 3.2.2.7 for a range of design speeds. Designers should note the following
application heuristics in using these tables:
1. For any particular design speed and radius, the highest value of spiral parameter as determined
by the methodologies discussed in the previous section is used for these calculations.
June 2017 29
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
2. The design values in the tables are minimums; higher values should be used wherever possible
in the interests of safety, comfort and aesthetics.
3. In design it is convenient to select values so that the radius is a standard value and A/Risa
40
rational number as this permits spiral properties to be read directly from tables.
4. Spiral values should match the curve radius, not the design speed.
3.2.3.5 Spiral Parameter: Design Domain Application Heuristics
The application of spiral curves in horizontal alignment is a complex design problem that has many
variations. A number of design domain application heuristics dealing with some of the more common
instances are provided below.
1. A circular curve with simple spirals at both ends each having the same parameter value is
referred to as a symmetrical curve. This condition represents the most common practice for
spiraled curves.
2. Unsymmetrical curves are common at interchange ramps and loops and represent the case
noted in #1 above, but with different parameter values for the spirals at each end.
3. Successive circular curves with different radii but in the same direction are best joined by a
spiral curve. Where this occurs, the "joining spiral" is referred to as a segmental spiral. The
minimum spiral parameter to be used is found by referring to Tables 3.2.5, 3.2.6 and 3.2.7 and
using the smaller of the two radii.
4. In some instances, successive circular curves with different radii may connect directly to one
another if the difference in radii is not too large. See Section 3.2.6 for additional guidance in this
regard.
5. Circular, non-successive curves in the same direction joined by a short length of tangent should
normally be joined instead by a spiral. The use of tangents to achieve such connections results in
what is commonly referred to as a "broken back" curve. It is only justified when some other
consideration, for example, property constraints or construction cost, outweighs the visual
disadvantages. The term "short tangent" is very subjective and there are several definitions for
this term. One suggests that a short tangent length may be regarded as one which allows a
driver on the first curve to see at least some part of the following curve. Another definition
suggests a broken back curve occurs when the tangent length (m) is less than four times the
design speed. If possible a more desirable solution to a broken back curve is to eliminate the
short tangent and insert an appropriate circular curve or better yet a segmental spiral curve.
6. A change of direction from one tangent to another may be accomplished by successive spiral
curves without a length of circular curve between them. Such a transition curve is referred to as
symmetrical where the two spiral parameters are the same, and unsymmetrical where they are
different. The minimum permissible spiral parameter to be used in such a situation is the
minimum for the design as shown in Tables 3.2.5, 3.2.6 and 3.2.7.
7. A reversal in curvature direction may be accomplished through successive simple spiral curves
without a length of tangent between them. The spiral parameters should be at least the
minimum for the design speed. However, the alignment will have an improved appearance if the
minimum spiral parameter values are exceeded or if a length of tangent is inserted between the
two spirals. Superelevation is applied as described in Section 3.2.4 and will be zero where the
30 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
two spirals meet. Drainage in this vicinity is affected laterally, and therefore, a reverse spiral
coincident with flat longitudinal grades is not recommended .
8. Although it is desirable to use lengths of spiral curves that are longer than minimal, caution
should be used when using long spirals (large parameters) on flat grades that may produce large
pavement areas with little positive drainage.
3.2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF SUPERELEVATION
3.2.4.1 Introduction
The determination of maximum superelevation rates was discussed in Section 3.2.2. This subsection
supplements that discussion with a review of the development lengths required to effect the change of
cross-slope from one of a normal roadway (i.e. for a tangent section) to that of a fully superelevated
cross section on a circular curve.
3.2.4.2 Length of Superelevation Development: Technical Foundation
The total length required to develop superelevation is called the overall length of superelevation
development. It consists of two main elements:
1. Superelevation runoff: the length of roadway needed to accomplish a change in cross-slope
from a section with adverse crown removed to a fully superelevated section.
2. Tangent runout: the length of roadway required to accomplish the change in cross- slope from a
normal crown section to a section with adverse crown removed.
3.2.4.3 Superelevation Development: Rural and High Speed Urban Roads: Design Domain
For rural and high speed urban roads the length of spirals and therefore the lengths of superelevation
runoff are determined from Tables 3.2.5 to 3.2.7. These are regarded as desirable lengths of
superelevation runoff. The length of tangent runout for rural and high speed urban conditions is
generally based on a 1:400 slope.
3.2.4.4 Superelevation Development: Low Speed Urban Roads: Design Domain
On urban roads with design speeds less than 80 km/h the length of tangent runout is normally based on
the same slope as the superelevation runoff. In the case of higher speed facilities, a 1:400 slope similar
to that for rural roads and high speed urban roads is used .
On lower speed urban roads there are generally more constraints to the development of superelevation
than there are on rural and urban high speed roads. The development of superelevation along low
speed urban roads is often influenced by a number of factors unique to the urban environment,
including:
• The need to maintain minimum longitudinal grades for proper drainage along gutters;
• The need to avoid a combination of minimum longitudinal drainage along gutters and
reduced cross-slope;
• The location of catch basins in relation to driveways and sidewalk ramps; and
• The need to match elevations of existing adjacent development.
June 2017 31
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
In consideration of these factors, designers may find it necessary to adjust the desirable superelevation
runoff lengths, as normally determined by the "A" (spiral parameter) values in Tables 3.2.5 to 3.2.7.
To accommodate the need for shorter lengths of superelevation runoff on low speed urban roads,
alternative tables for lengths of superelevation runoff are provided. Table 3.2.12 provides a length of
superelevation runoff for two-lane crowned urban roadways and Table 3.2.13 provides the length of
superelevation runoff for four-lane, undivided crowned urban roadways, or two-lane urban roadways
with a single cross-slope.
41
Table 3.2.12: Length of Superelevation Runoff for Two-Lane Crowned Urban Roadways
Superelevation Rate
Length of Runoff (Ls)(m)
(mm)
Design Speed (km/h)
40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110
3.7 m lanes
0.02 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18
0.04 22 23 2S 27 29 32 34 37
0.06 32 3S 37 41 44 48 Sl SS
3.S m lanes
0.02 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17
0.04 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 3S
0.06 30 33 3S 39 42 4S 48 S2
Minimum length
(m) for appearance
22 28 34 39 4S so S6 62
Notes: 1. Values above the heavy lines are less than the minimum lengths based on an
appearance criterion .
2. For four-lane roadways, use Table 3.2 .13
3. For six-lane roadways, increase lengths by a factor 2.0
32 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.2.13: Length of Superelevation Runoff for Four-Lane, Undivided Crowned
42
Urban Roadways, or Two-Lane Urban Roadways without Crown
Superelevation Rate
Length of Runoff (Ls)(m)
(mm)
Design Speed (km/h)
40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110
3.7 m lanes
0.02 16 17 19 21 22 24 26 27
0.04 32 35 37 41 44 48 51 55
0.06 48 52 56 61 66 71 76 82
3.5 m lanes
0.02 15 17 18 20 21 23 24 26
0.04 30 33 35 39 42 45 48 52
0.06 45 49 53 58 62 67 72 77
Minimum length
(m) for appearance 22 28 34 39 45 50 56 62
Notes: 1. Values above the heavy lines are less than the minimum lengths based on an
appearance criterion.
2. For four-lane crowned roadways, use Table 3.2.12
3. For six-lane crowned roadways, increase lengths by a factor 1.33
The above tables are based on using the maximum relative slope values provided in Table 3.2.11, rather
than the recommended minimum length for appearance purposes. As a suggested practice, minimum
lengths required to maintain an acceptable general appearance and to avoid abrupt grade changes, are
provided along the bottom of the tables and represent the distance travelled in 2 seconds at the design
speed. The heavy line within the tables separates the lengths that are below and above the
recommended design minimum lengths.
3.2.4.5 Superelevation Development: Design Domain General Application Heuristics
1. On urban roads with design speeds less than 80 km/h the length of tangent runout is normally
based on the same slope as the superelevation runoff. In the case of higher speed facilities, a
1:400 slope similar to that for rural roads and high speed urban roads is used.
2. In the design of superelevation runoff for both rural and urban roads ensure that the edge
profiles are smooth and without abrupt changes in grade. Short vertical curves or spline curves
from 20 m to 40 m long can be used. Designers should be aware that this will often result in
runoff lengths longer than the minimum suggested in the tables.
3. For added safety and comfort, the superelevation runoff should be applied uniformly over a
length adequate for the likely operating speeds.
4. To be pleasing in appearance the runoff pavement edges should not be distorted as the driver
views them. Spiral lengths as discussed in Section 3.2.3 are based on these criteria. For this
reason when a spiral curve is used, the superelevation runoff is usually applied over the whole
of the spiral length and the adverse crown is completely removed by the beginning of the spiral.
For curves without spirals, the superelevation runoff is applied over a length equivalent to the
June 2017 33
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
spiral length. In this case the superelevation runoff is located so that 60% of the runoff occurs on
the tangent approach and 40% on the curve.
3.2.4.6 Methods of Developing Superelevation: Best Practices
Two-lane Roadways with Normal Crown
Figure 3.2.7 illustrates the three methods of attaining superelevation on two-lane normal crowned
roadways, as described below. On curves where adverse crown is desired, but where the superelevation
required does not exceed the crown slope, the superelevation should be equal to the crown slope.
Information on attaining superelevation on non-crowned two-lane roadways can be obtained by
referring to the divided roadway examples.
• Method 1 - The pavement is revolved about the centreline.
• Method 2 - The pavement is revolved about the inside edge.
• Method 3 - The pavement is revolved about the outside edge.
Method 1 is applicable to two-lane and four- lane undivided roadways. Method 2 and Method 3 are
applicable to two-lane undivided roadways and four-lane divided roadways.
Method 2 is applicable if the design is required to match physical features on the roadside, to facilitate
drainage or on divided highways where the median shoulder is on the inside of the curve.
As previously discussed, the length of tangent runout is normally based on a slope of 1:400. However, in
the case of low speed urban facilities the tangent runout can be made steeper, to match the slope of the
superelevation runoff.
34 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
overall length of superelevation development see 3.2.4
_
no_r_
m_al_,__ __t_
an_g_e_
nt_r_
un_o_ut_ _ T-+.s_._ _ _ _s_u_p_er_e_
le_va_ti_o_
n _ru_n_
off_(L_s_) _ __ _,_'S_._C_. _ fully
crown I see 3.2.4 S~T. see 3.2.3 & 3.2.4 I C.S. superelevated
I
for spiral curve Ls = length of spiral
c = smoothing curve
T.S. = tangent to spiral
S.T. =spiral to tangent
superelevation runoff see 3.2.4
S.C. = spiral to curve
tangent runout 60% 40%
C.S. - curve to spiral
see 3.2.4
T.C. =tangent to curve
-----------------------------------~~ C.T. =curve to tangent
forsimplecurve ~ ~-~
f- 0 -------.::..:
outside edge
m~~d1 i cl~~~~
J T.C. no spiral
~--~-+-..=-.=,-:,--:;,;-~-~-=-=-=-=--=-~-:::-4:=_-~--~-~-:_::-:_::-..=-~-=---~-60o/oi- - 4001~ ---
'e
-t--- <t profile
~~l_e_ inside edge
I I full I c of pavement
normal adverse crown crown
crown removed rate superelevation
I I ..... 1 ~ <tcontrol
profile
-7"--::;;io1i.::----------~-,..-----4~""',..----------"I,..--
pavement revolved about
centreline
outside edge
of pavement
method 2 !e actual
I ! . ---------------r--- <t profile
---1--------------- ___ __ t___ T.C. nospiral Ie
inside edge
I I I 60% 40% I of pavement
4- -+-- ~ { inside edge
I I profile control
pavement revolved about
inside edge
method 3
. ! I I
---t--------------- ~°";do odgo
I - - - - - - __ ' 60% 40% • of pavement
I' 1-------- ---- I• t I
acua
, I --r--<t profile
! i i inside edge
I
j I of pavement
I ' · outside edge
I I' 'K "K profile control
pavement revolved about
outside edge
Figure 3.2.7: Three Methods of Superelevation Development
43
on Two-Lane Crowned Roadways
June 2017 35
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Divided Roadways
In superelevating two-lane roadways with a normal crown Method 1 is the most widely used approach
in design because the required change in elevation of the edge of pavement is made with less distortion
than with the other methods. Where Method 1 would adversely affect drainage, profiles of barriers or
retaining walls, then either Method 2 or Method 3 is chosen. Either edge of the travelled lane can then
be used for rotation.
In developing superelevation on divided roadways incorporating a median in the cross section, and a
one-way cross-slope on each half, there are three typical methods for superelevation runoff design. The
three methods are described below and are illustrated in Figure 3.2.8. If each half of the divided
roadway is crowned, then the methods of attaining superelevation as described for two- lane crowned
roadways apply.
• Method A: The entire pavement and the median is superelevated in a plane section.
• Method B: The median pavement edges or median curbs are held at the same elevation and
the two sections of the divided roadway are rotated about the median edges.
• Method C: The two sections of the roadway are created independently with respect to profile
and runoff, resulting in a median with a varying cross- slope.
Method A is typically used when the median is narrow, less than 3.0 m, and the superelevation rates are
moderate. With these conditions, the relative elevations of the high and low pavement edges or curbs
are often not difficult to fit into a restricted right of way. Moreover, at intersections with median
openings, the single plane created provides an undistorted surface for crossing and turning vehicles. In
Method A, the superelevation is typically attained by either rotating about the median centre, or
rotating about one of the two median edges of the divided roadway, and adjusting the other median
edge to create the plane section.
Method B can be applied to any median width, both raised and depressed, and is common for widths in
the range of 4.0 to 6.0 m in level terrain . By maintaining the median edges at the same elevation, the
relative elevation difference between the outside pavement edges or curbs is kept to a reasonable level
and can be typically accommodated within the normal right-of-way width. In Method B, the two
pavements are rotated about the median edges of pavement. Where there is a possibility of a future
widening of a four-lane divided roadway to a six-lane divided roadway by adding lanes to the inside edge
of each roadway, superelevation should be developed by rotating about the inside edge of the future
pavement.
Method C is typically preferred for divided streets with wide medians or in areas where the right of
way has a significant slope in a direction opposite to the desired superelevation. Method C is also utilized
when methods A or B cannot be implemented due to physical or economic controls. In this method, the
two roadway sections of the divided street are designed independently, and their relative elevations
are generally a function of the topography and the median geometry. However, for aesthetic and
appearance reasons, the interrelationship of the median edges are carefully examined to ensure that
no unsightly distortions occur. Where the median edge grade differences are significant in relation to the
width, a concrete median barrier arrangement may be implemented to accommodate the elevation
differences created in the median area.
36 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
overall length of superelevation development
method A
tangent
1~~~~~· >--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--< u)
spiral length (Ls) u
runout superelevation runoff length
outside edge(2)
median edge(2)
median edge(1)
profile control
outside edge(1)
I
I I I
- - L--..,- - - - ---•--.......,- - - - - - ~ -' -.......;.,- - - - - - - - - ___,
overall length of superelevation development
method B
tangent spiral length (Ls) c_j
~~~~~~~--f--r~~~~~~~~~~~~----41 u:i
runout ~ superelevation runoff length 1_
_
~
outside edge(2)
median edges
normal crown
_______ __-
axis of rotation
60% Ls 40% Ls -
<1> l median edge
profile control
- ------- no spiral <ll
outside edges 1 outside edge(1)
- ~---- - - - - - - --- ~ -- - -
I
-~~---- - - - - - -~~
I
'
overall length of superelevation development
method C
tangent spiral length (Ls) u
l0_
~1
runout superelevat1on runoff length _
-~-=~~~.,-~~o-u~ts~id~e~e~dg-e-::(2)
c_j . . <ll profile control
i--: ax1 s of rotat1on(2) median edge(2)
- 60% Ls 40% Ls - me 1an e e 1)
no spiral axis of rotation(1) profile contro1(1)
<ll
outside edge(1)
I
I I I ~I
- - - t::~= = = = == = = ~::l ~===~I::~=======- :::0
Note: Smoothing curve may be a calculated vertical curve or drawn with a spline.
T.S. =tangent to spiral point S.C. = spiral to curve point
T.C. =tangent to curve point nc = normal crown
Figure 3.2.8: Three Methods of Superelevation Development
44
on Divided Roadways
June 2017 37
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.2.5 LANE WIDENING ON CURVES
3.2.5.1 Introduction
Pavement widening on curves is provided to accommodate the off-tracking characteristics of vehicles on
45
curves. This section deals with lane widening on open roads. Lane widening is more prevalent at
intersections and interchange ramps, and such widening is outlined in Chapter 9 and Chapter 10.
Vehicles travelling on a curve occupy a greater width of roadway than they do on tangent sections as a
result of the rear wheels tracking inside the front wheel path. The amount of this increase in roadway
occupation is dependent on the curve radius and the length and type of vehicle. For the range of radii
used on open roads, this additional amount is negligible for passenger cars. However, for trucks it is
significant and some road authorities provide an additional width of pavement to ensure adequate
clearance between opposing trucks on curves.
Maintaining a vehicle centrally located on the lane is more difficult on a curve than on a tangent section.
To compensate for this, additional clearance is provided on curves to reduce driver apprehension,
should a vehicle deviate from the centre of its lane. This amount is dependent on the vehicle speed and
curve radius.
The amount of widening required is the difference between the width required when two trucks meet
on the curve and the approach width. The need for widening was more critical on the older roads with
narrower lanes and sharper curvature, even though the speeds were lower. Today's roadways with
wider lanes and gentler alignment have less need for widening despite the higher speeds. However, for
some conditions of speed, curvature and width, widening remains desirable. Pavement widening should
not be confused with partially paved shoulders which are not intended for normal travel.
3.2.5.2 Derivation of Design Values: Technical Foundation
The amount of off-tracking depends on the radius, superelevation, speed, and the length and type of
vehicle. On a curve with no superelevation and slow speeds, the off-tracking may follow normal off-
tracking theory and be calculated for any combination of radius and wheel base. On a superelevated
section, the rear wheels may off-track more or less than the calculated values depending on the speed
and friction forces. With excessive speeds the rear wheels may even track outside the front wheels, an
extreme situation. The off-tracking and the resultant difficulties of steering should be allowed for by
widening as required, but the amount cannot be determined as positively as that for simple off-tracking.
The required width of pavement on a curve has several components related to operation on curves.
These components are:
• U is the track width for each vehicle meeting or passing. This is the sum of the track width on
tangent and the amount of off-tracking. The off-tracking depends on the radius, the number of
articulation points, and the lengths of wheel bases.
• C is the lateral clearance per vehicle. The clearance allowance depends on the lane width
• Z is the width allowance for difficulty of driving on curve and variation of operation of drivers.
Varies with speed and radius.
• F is the width of front overhang of vehicle in inner lane. Depends on the radius of the curve,
extent of overhang, and the wheel base of the unit. For tractor-trailer combinations, only the
wheel base of the tractor unit is used.
38 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
The relationship of the above components on a roadway layout and the associated formulae are
illustrated in Figure 3.2.9.
--==========--
~--"'-'-
II ~~~~(~>- ___ _
W= We-Wt (3.2.18) u =u + R - .JR L L~
2
- (3.2.20)
where : W =amount of widening , metres where: U = track width on curve, metres
We= pavement width on curve u = track width on tangent
Wt= pavement width on tangent R = curve radius
L; = wheel base of design vehicle
We= N( U + C) + (N -1)FA + Z (3.2.19) between consecutive axles
where : U =vehicle track width on curve , metres (or sets of tandem axles)
C =lateral clearance per vehicle in articulation points
0.46 m for 6.6 m wide pavements
0.61 m for 6.0 m wide pavements FA =.J R2 + A(2L +A) - R (3.2.21)
0.76 m for 7.0 m wide pavements
0.91 m for 7.4 m wide pavements _0.1046V
Z - .JR (3 .2.22)
Z =
additional clearance (metres) to
compensate for difficulty of driving where : V = design speed of roadway, km/h
on curves A= front overhang , metres
FA= width of front overhang, metres L = wheelbase of single unit
=
N number of lanes or tractor, metres
46
Figure 3.2.9: Relationship of Off-Tracking Components and Associated Formulae
June 2017 39
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.2.5.3 Lane Widening: Design Domain
Quantitative Aids
Values for pavement widening on two lane roads for three types of vehicles are indicated in Tables
47
3.2.14, 3.2.15 and 3.2.16.
Application Heuristics
1. The vehicles included are: a heavy single- unit truck, WB-20 tractor-semi-trailer, and a B-Train.
Pavement widening values for other TAC vehicle types do not appear warranted in view of the
fact that widening is less common on modern roads and the fact that there is variance in the
actual off- tracking, depending on operations and road conditions. If necessary, adjustments
based on judgement can be made to tabulated values to accommodate other classes of vehicles.
2. The range of values for curve widening extends to curve radii corresponding to approximately
20 km/h less than the design speed indicated. This provides widening values for conditions
where the overall design speed and operating speed are known to exceed the operating speed
of an isolated curve, as determined by its geometry.
3. Widening involves additional cost and this can be significant in retrofit situations. Another
consideration is that little is gained from a small amount of widening. Therefore,
notwithstanding the calculated values in the tables, it may be desirable in some instances to
exclude minor widening requirements up to 0.3 to 0.5 m.
40 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.2.14: Pavement Widening Values Table 3.2.15: Pavement Widening Values
on Curves for Heavy SU Trucks on Curves for WB-20
'-5: ~ ~~· 'l"'"-!~6::!
b ~Cl· QC::-E;I
e~ P: ~~C"'! U=! ~C!'~~lt-:
'"""'~ .;ii;i-t;1c;:-i;iQ .... ..-...- ....
=~
'¥:11;1-
• . ""! . ~Lf!f'.::~ ~ ~ ~ ·-=
c;:ii:;)· Qi:;!-~Ql;l- ..-...-,,.. N
Cl i::::.:: ~~ ""'!C°',! id: '!C!~~~L~o:!!:?Ci:!
q;i Q Q'i:J'QQ'i:IQQ . . - - - ....... r.'J
~
.,... Q
c:: "":Pl!~~~
O~QQ;;,:I
:::: i::::.:: "":~ ~"=(: "°!
..... ~ i:;iii:;:l• (;.li;:;cr&;I
June 2017 41
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.2.16: Pavement Widening Values on Curves for B-Train
c .,... ¥" ·r:o.i m· -:".I 1.c--:il Cl:"'~ m
.,:. u::i
r... Qi;j-i;:;i i;aiQi;:;i .....:...: .~ l;'f ~
ei o ... ~ cr::i~aJ . .,.. U>.mNl..._ W
l.p Q Q: ·Q c;:i-::i i;i. . ~ ~... cj ..,j eo-::
El o- - t-.1~..... - -.:r .... - L!l -d' w
L:I ~Q .f:i .:S~ci p.;,.;,..;N.r:o.,ieo-::i..;
~ ""-: 'l"'"M'~ "'~~
.... 0 0 0 co -
c::i ~~ ·!O;! "": .:"'.!~~C"?:"l!r!~ :"!"'='.
l,[I oo-o coi;:.10 ........ .,... N;n
42 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Warrants: Best Practices
The need for widening the pavement on a curve is dependent upon one truck meeting another on a
curve, the frequency of which is dependent on truck volumes and distribution, curve radius and design
speed. Failure to provide widening on a curve will result in a higher degree of concentration required by
the driver and possible reduction in speed.
On a curvilinear section of road in which the majority of the alignment is on curve, the probability that
two trucks will meet on a curve is greater than the case where most of the alignment is on tangent.
However, the probability that two trucks will meet on any particular curve is independent of the
configuration of the alignment on either side of the curve. The need for pavement widening on a curve
is not dependent on the frequency of curves.
For two-lane roads where the number of trucks in both directions is less than 15/h, pavement widening
is not required. Where the number of trucks is 15/h or more, pavement widening is desirable.
Theoretically, widening of a four-lane undivided road should consist of the additional clearance required
for the difficulty of negotiating the curve (Z) plus twice that required for the physical occupation of the
roadway. Since the additional clearance is required to compensate for opposing vehicles only, this
component need not be included twice for a four-lane road where some of the vehicles are travelling in
the same direction. The possibility of trucks occupying all lanes at a given location on a curve is so
remote that the absence of the small amount of widening required to compensate for the physical
roadway occupation of the extra vehicles is not significant.
Where there is a requirement for pavement widening on undivided roads, suggested values for
widening are given in Tables 3.2.14, 3.2.15 and 3.2.16 for three standard design vehicles for design
speeds of 50 km/h to 130 km/h. These tables are not intended for divided roads or ramps.
On divided roads vehicles only encounter other vehicles moving in the same direction. The relative
speeds are such that the additional clearance (Z) is not required. Furthermore, due to the relatively flat
curves utilized on roads of this type, the effects of vehicular off-tracking are usually sufficiently small to
be insignificant. Pavement widening on divided roads therefore is not required.
Ramp lane widths for channelized intersections and interchange ramps are based on vehicle off-tracking
and clearance requirements similar to the pavement widening considerations for open roads. However,
due to the relatively small radius curves associated with this type of design, the width requirements are
considerably larger. Ramp widths are addressed in Chapter 9 and Chapter 10.
3.2.5.4 Application of Widening On Curves: Best Practices
For new construction and reconstruction projects curve widening is applied by adding half of the total
requirement to each side of the roadway. Equal division of the widening is not practical, however, with
values which are not a multiple of 0.2 m. A preferred treatment is to round the total widening value to a
higher value which is a multiple of 0.2 m. The normal shoulder width is maintained over the length of
curve widening.
An exception to the minimum shoulder width requirement may be considered in the application of
resurfacing and curve widening to roads with low traffic volumes. An acceptable and cost-effective
design alternative to roadway widening is to utilize part of the shoulder width to achieve the curve
widening.
June 2017 43
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Pavement widening may be warranted on several successive horizontal curves so that a significant
length of roadway has a continuous variation in pavement width . In such a situation the provision of a
wider pavement over the total section of road is considered . The amount of widening is representative
of the required widening on individual curves and not necessarily the widening required by the smallest
radius curve. Alternatively, less widening could be applied over the total section with additional
widening on the smaller radius curves.
Each application is assessed independently considering how closely the warrants are met, the length of
the road section under consideration, the frequency of curves and the amount of widening required for
each curve. A uniform pavement width is desirable but may not always be economically practical.
Curve widening should be attained gradually to make the whole pavement fully usable and pavement
markings should coincide with the widening. Preferably, widening should be attained over the
superelevation runoff length, or over the spiral length. On un-spiralled curves, widening should be
applied on the inside of the pavement only. On spiralled curves the widening can be applied on the
inside or equally between the inside and the outside. For the latter, extension of the outer- edge
tangent avoids a slight reverse curve on the outer edge. All transition ends should be rounded to avoid
an angular break at the pavement edge.
3.2.6 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT: DESIGN DOMAIN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION HEURISTICS
3.2.6.1 General Application
The following application heuristics generally apply to both rural and urban roads. A differentiation
between rural and urban is made in several instances where necessary.
1. Alignment should be as directional as possible but consistent with the topography and with
preserving developed properties and community values. The emphasis on accommodating
traffic increases with the road classification hierarchy. A flowing line that conforms generally to
natural contours is desirable and in general the number of short curves should be kept to a
minimum. Although aesthetic qualities of curving alignment are important, passing
necessitates long tangents on two-lane rural roads with passing sight distance on as great a
percentage of the road as possible.
2. Minimum radii should be avoided wherever possible . This represents the limiting condition.
Instead the designer should attempt to use generally flat curves, retaining the minimum
for the most critical conditions.
3. For small deflection angles, curves should be sufficiently long to avoid the appearance of a kink.
However, horizontal curves are not necessary for deflection angles up to 0°30'. See Figure 3.4.S
for an illustration of deflection angle and appearance of two different lengths of curve.
4. On lower classification rural roads, and intermediate class urban roads, a minimum guide is
that curves should be at least 150 m long for a central angle of 5°, and the minimum length
0
should be increased 30 m for each l decrease in the central angle. The minimum length of
48
horizontal curve on main rural and urban roads should be 3 times the design speed or L =
3(V), and on high speed rural and urban controlled access facilities that use flat curvature,
a desirable length for aesthetic reasons should double the minimum length or L = 6(V) .
44 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
5. On lower speed urban roads, such as collectors and locals, the selection of horizontal curves is
usually governed by property, cost and other constraints, and long curves are often not
attainable. Curve lengths as low as 30 to 60 m are not uncommon.
6. While short curve lengths are to be avoided, there are also practical limits to the increase of
curve lengths. On two-lane roadways the curve lengths have to be balanced with the need to
maximize passing opportunities. On both two-lane and multilane unlit roadways, extremely
long curves can be problematic because the motorist should not be expected to negotiate a
curve for an uncomfortable length of time, and especially in blowing snow or during fog when
49
visibility can be low.
7. In determining curve lengths, where spirals are applied, 50% of the spiral length is regarded as
part of the curve.
8. Consistent alignment should always be sought. Sharp curves at the end of long tangents
should be avoided. Also avoid sudden changes from areas of flat curvature to areas of sharp
curvature. Gradual introduction to sharp curves is desirable to allow the driver time to adjust
speed to the new condition.
9. Avoid sharp curves on high fills. In the absence of physical objects above the roadway it is
difficult for drivers to perceive the road ahead, and the driver may have difficulty estimating
the extent of the radius and fail to adjust to the conditions. Any vehicle out of control on a
high fill is in an extremely hazardous position.
10. Use caution when using compound curves. Curves with large differences in radius introduce
the same problem as a tangent approach to a sharp curve. When a sharp curve follows a flat
curve the radius of the flatter curve should generally not be more than 50 percent greater
than the radius of the sharper curve. A ratio of 1:1.25 is more desirable on high speed roads
where the speeds are at or near the maximum for the curvature. If a ratio problem exists a
several step compound curve can offer a solution, and even more desirable is an appropriate
length of segmental spiral curve.
11. Abrupt reversals in alignment should be avoided. When reverse curves are too close together
it is difficult to superelevate them adequately and this fact in turn can result in hazardous and
erratic operation. A reversal in alignment can be suitably designed by including back to back
spirals of sufficient length between the two curves to allow for superelevation runoff.
12. Avoid broken back curves (having short tangent between two curves in the same direction).
Except on circumferential roadways, most drivers do not expect succeeding curves to be in the
same direction. In addition, broken back curves are not pleasing in appearance. See Section
3.2.3 for additional information on broken back curves, including definitions and possible
solutions.
13. Where it is necessary to change the width of medians, roadways and shoulders, it is desirable
to make the transitions on horizontal curves in order to provide a smooth pleasing transition.
14. Where feasible a curve beginning or ending near a structure should be located so that
superelevation does not occur on the structure. A more desirable solution provides for
additional tangent between the end of the superelevation runoff and the start of the
structure. Curved bridges should be avoided because they are more susceptible to icing than
the approach roadways.
June 2017 45
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
15. To avoid the appearance of distortion and to enhance driver guidance, the horizontal
alignment should be carefully coordinated with the vertical alignment. This is described more
fully in Section 3.4.
16. Intersections are points of conflict and potential hazard. It is important that the alignment of
the intersecting roads permit drivers to discern and readily make the maneuvers necessary to
pass through the intersection with safety while minimizing interference between vehicles. To
this end, the practice of placing intersections on horizontal curves should be avoided
whenever practicable.
17. At many places, site conditions establish definite alignment and grade limitations on the
intersecting roads. However, it is often possible to modify the alignment and grades to better
suit traffic conditions and reduce hazards, particularly on rural highways.
18. For safety and economy reasons it is desirable that intersecting roads meet at, or nearly at,
right angles. Experience has clearly shown that the practice of realigning roads to increase the
angle of intersection has proved beneficial. Some deviation from this approach is acceptable,
angles between 70° and 110° for instance, produce only a small reduction in visibility which
often does not warrant realignment.
19. The intersection of roads on sharp curves is not recommended because of undesirable
operational features. This aspect of design is discussed more fully in Chapter 9.
20. Approval from Transport Canada may be required, in accordance with the Notice of Railway
Works Regulations for the installation or alteration of federally regulated railway crossings for
public use. Additionally, all federally regulated crossings should comply with Transport
Canada's Grade Crossings Regulations {GCR) and Grade Crossings Standards (GCS).
21. The presence of a railway crossing influences the horizontal alignment of a road. Crossings are
made as nearly as possible at right angles to provide maximum sight distance along the track
in both directions from both approaches. If the crossing angle is less than 70° or greater than
110°, it is appropriate to realign the roadway or to enhance the safety of the grade crossing by
adding warning systems. In addition, it is preferable to have the road alignment on tangent for
at least 30 m either side of the track for low speed roadways, and for a distance at least equal
to stopping sight distance on higher speed roads. Refer to Section 9.5 in Chapter 9 for
additional guidance.
22. Where these dimensions cannot be achieved, the elements of the design which affect safe
operation are normally closely examined. These include the possible incorporation of a
warning systems at the grade crossing, and in the case of curved roadway alignments, the
impact of the reduced cross-slope or no superelevation where the road surface matches the
track grade. The best solution is to avoid crossing a railway with a curved road since the cross
section of the roadway at the crossing has to match the profile of the railway track and,
therefore, the appropriate superelevation for the curve cannot normally be applied.
23. In all cases, it is desirable to design the horizontal and vertical geometry of the roadway
approaches in a smooth and continuous manner, thereby allowing motorists to shift their
attention from the roadway to the railway approaches.
24. When undertaking the preliminary design of a grade crossing for a major road across a busy
railway, it is desirable to consider the requirements of a possible future grade separation.
These requirements include access to adjacent properties, right of way and drainage.
25. Urban traffic calming elements should not be placed on horizontal curves.
46 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.2.6.2 Horizontal Alignment and Lateral Clearances: Technical Foundation
The minimum clearance from the centreline of the inside lane to an obstruction is an important
consideration to ensure that adequate sight distance on a horizontal curve is available. Refer to Section
2.5 in Chapter 2 for a discussion on stopping sight distance. The formula for calculating the required
lateral clearance is:
(90 * S) ] (3.2.23)
C = R [1- COS
nR
Where:
C= Lateral clearance (m)
R= Radius (m)
S= Stopping sight distance (m)
n= Pi
The formula for clearances applies only to circular curves longer than the sight distance and when both
the vehicle and sight obstructions are located within the limits of the simple horizontal curve.
Otherwise, the results will be approximate only and it would be advisable to check the design either by a
graphical procedure or a computational method.
3.2.6.3 Horizontal Alignment and Lateral Clearances: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
Figures 3.2.10 and 3.2.11 show the application of the formula described above. Note that R is
dimensioned to the centreline of the inside lane. The parameter 'S' in Figure 3.2.10 is based on the
stopping sight distance from Table 2.5.3 in Chapter 2.
June 2017 47
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
~ sightdistance(S) ~
Figure 3.2.10: Diagram Illustrating Components for Determining Lateral Clearance so
48 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
10000
\
\
\\
\ .\
\\\\
\'~\~
\~' ~ ...I
Min. Radius
=
when e 8%
IQ)
1000 \ \ \. .......... .......... ...... I
c \ \ \. ... '- .......... ........ -.......r
ro . . ............
_J \\ \.
\\ \. ............ "'-.. "' ' .............
.
. . . . .. ...... .. ....
........ .
""'""" ""-
Q)
"O
·;;;
-
..!: \ \ '\. "'-...
'\. "-. "'-. ....... .... .. . . ..
... .. . . .. .... ......
.. v= 130km/h
s - 285 m
0
Q)
.£
~
c
''\"' ~ ~ ....... . . . . - . . . . ...... -
...
.. .
~ V ILU
s = 250
u
Q)
ci ,\ ""~ ~' .... - . . ..
.. . . .
. . . . .... . .... . ....
....
" .... v= 110
s = 220
v= 100
~~·-.
s = 185
.. .... . ....
\\ '
"'
:::J ....
'6
ro . .. . . ...
v= 90
s = 160
O::'.
. ...... . ....
.. . .. ....
100 -. v= 80
s- 130
\. "'- .. . . . . - ...
\..
-. . - . .. - - . .. ....
''\. -. . .
..
. . ..
... v= 70
s = 105
'I ..
-1&" ..
.. ..
.. .. .
.. . .
.. ...
.. . . -
. -. . .
.. . . .
. . .. v= 60
s = 85
I . ... ...
.. . . . ... .
I . v 40 v= 50
s = 50 m s = 65
L Min. Rad ius
when e 8% =
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
Lateral Clearance , C, Centreline Inside Lane to Sight Obstruction (m)
51
Figure 3.2.11: Lateral Clearance for Stopping Sight Distance
June 2017 49
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
The formula in Section 3.2.6.2 is also applicable to calculating the required lateral clearance to allow
adequate passing sight distance around a curve on a two- lane roadway. In this case, Sis the required
passing sight distance from Table 2.5.4 in Chapter 2. Figure 3.2.12 shows the application of the above
formula for this problem.
3.2.6.4 Horizontal Alignment and Lateral Clearances: Application Heuristics
1. The criterion for measuring sight distance on horizontal curves define that the driver's eye and
the object to be seen are in the centre of the inside lane. The sight distance is measured along the
centre of the inside lane and the corresponding minimum lateral clearance at the mid-point
can be calculated.
2. Where standard typical sections for earth cut are used, minimum stopping sight distance is
usually available even for minimum radii. Remedial action may be required to provide minimum
stopping sight distance in the case of rock cuts, realigned or reconstructed roads that pass close
to buildings, parapets on overpass ramps and closed abutment bridges on underpass ramps.
3. Minimum stopping sight distance is required along the entire length of a roadway. Exceptions
may be made only in rare cases where the cost of such provision is excessive and reduction in
normal operation is feasible.
3.2.6.5 Horizontal Alignment for Urban Retrofits: Best Practices
In retrofit situations, it is often not possible to provide the desired horizontal alignment features that
are a normal part of a new roadway design. Where these conditions occur, the designer should
investigate innovative means of adjusting the horizontal alignments to provide the best possible design
given the prevailing circumstances. In doing so however, the designer must consider safety explicitly -
preferably in the context of a realistic benefit cost analysis procedure.
Examples of the types of adjustments that can normally be more easi ly accommodated in this regard
are:
• Varying boulevard, border and median widths to improve radii on circular curves.
• Utilizing more of the available lateral friction, within allowable limits, in horizontal curve and
superelevation design.
• Compounding simple curves or using transition curves (segmental spirals) between curves to
avoid conflicts with physical controls or right-of-way constra ints.
• Introducing small horizontal deflections through intersection areas where sight distances are
adequatei a theoretical simple curve can be calculated to approximate the vehicular travel
path required through the intersection and thereby assess the acceptability of the angle of
deflection in relation to the expected operating speeds.
50 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
9
C = R [ 1 - Cos ( ~: ) J 3 2 24
< · · )
where:
S = passing sight distance (m)
C = clearance (m)
R = radius (m)
30 000
20 000
V=130 km/h S=855 m
V=120 km/h S=792 m
10 000 f------!~--3\d-~-3iii::~.+311~~+:--- V=11 O km/h S=728 m
V=100 km/h S=670 m
-g V=90 km/h S=605 m
V=80 km/h S=541 m
Q)
c
~ 5000
~ 4000
"iii V=50 km/h S=345 m
.!:: 3000
Q)
.!:: 2000
~
cQ)
0
ti 1000
I/) 900
::::i 800
'6 700
~ 600
500
400
300
200
0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0
N C'l "<!" l!) CO I'- 00 O">O 0
N
C = clearance from centreline of inside lane to sight obstruction (m)
52
Figure 3.2.12: Lateral Clearance for Passing Sight Distance
June 2017 51
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.2.7 EXPLICIT EVALUATION OF SAFETY
3.2.7.1 General
Superelevation is introduced on horizontal curves in order to provide the centripetal force acting upon
the vehicle to direct it towards the inside of the curve. Factors influencing the degree of superelevation
required for safe operation are design speed and pavement surface friction. Section 3.2.2 explains the
interaction of these factors in more detail.
The safe operation of streets in the urban environment is influenced by a large number of complex
factors including horizontal and vertical alignments, sight distance, speed, driveways, traffic control,
cross section elements, intersection design elements, presence of pedestrians, road conditions, vehicle
condition and driver condition. To enhance safe operation, the designer pays close attention to the
geometric design elements which have a direct relationship to safety, such as those affecting sight
distance. Another primary objective is to minimize the number of decisions to be made by the driver at
any one time, and where required, make the choices and travel paths obvious. Design characteristics
which are near minimum or maximum values are avoided where feasible, particularly in combination
with one another.
3.2.7.2 Safety on Horizontal Curves
The safety of a horizontal curve is determined by factors "internal" to it (e.g. radius, transition curve,
superelevation, curve widening) and factors "external" to it (such as the length of the preceding
tangents or preceding curve density). s3
Research shows consistently that curve collision frequency increases with the decrease in radius of
curve. The AASHTO Highway Safety Manual contains collision modification factors for horizontal
curvature on rural two-lane two-way roadways, freeways, speed-change lanes and ramp segment.
The following equation provides an example of a CMF for horizontal curves. This example is applicable
to rural two-lane two-way roadways only. s4
80.2 (3.2.25)
0.962 Le + - --.- -R-- - 0.012 S
CMFHc= 3 28
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
0. 962 Le
Where :
CMFHc= Collision modification factor for horizontal curve
Le= Horizontal curve length including spiral transitions (km)
R= Radius of curvature (m)
S= Spiral indicator: 1 if spirals used or 0 if spirals absent
In applying this equation, if the radius of curvature (R) is less than 30 metres, R is set to 30 metre. If the
length of curve (Le) is less than 30 metres, Le is set to 30 metres. Also, if the CMF is less than 1.0, the
value of the CMF is set equal to 1.0.
Similar relationships between collision frequency and radius have been found on multi-lane undivided
and divided highways. However, estimation equations are not available at this time. The 2014
supplement to the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual includes CMF for horizontal curvature on freeways
and speed-change lanes.ss
52 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.3 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
3.3.1 OVERVIEW
3.3.1.1 Introduction
Vertical alignment consists of straight line grades (tangents or gradients) and the vertical curves used to
connect them. There are two types of vertical curves, crest curves which occur on hills, and sag curves
which occur in valleys. In general, the design of these curves is based on comfort or visibility criteria and
a parabolic function is used to define them.
Safe stopping sight distances should be provided on all vertical curves; however the distance
requirements for safe passing usually preclude the provision of safe passing sight distance on crest
vertical curves. On sag curves, the vertical acceleration which can be tolerated in comfort is often the
critical design parameter.
The designer must also ensure that adequate night-time visibility is provided by taking into account the
upper limit of vehicle headlight illumination where no other source of lighting is provided. Successive
short vertical curves should be avoided, particularly on straight sections of road, and particular attention
should be paid to drainage on long, shallow, sag curves.
3.3.1.2 Vertical Alignment: Design Elements
The discussions which follow present two distinct types of discussion: one dealing with technical
foundation elements which underlie the design domain specifications for particular design elements of
vertical alignment; and another dealing with the specific design elements themselves. To help users of
the Guide follow the discussions in a logical sequence, the two types of material are interwoven. In
some instances, where technical foundation elements may assume a range of values, a design domain is
specified for these as well. The following elements are discussed in the following sequence in this
section:
• Grades
• Vertical curves
• Design domain application heuristics in vertical alignment design
• The explicit evaluation of safety.
3.3.2 GRADES
3.3.2.1 Introduction
The grade along a roadway is expressed as a percentage; that is rise or fall in metres over a horizontal
length of lOOm. Grades are positive if rising in the direction of increasing chainage and negative if falling
in the direction of increasing chainage.
3.3.2.2 Vehicle Operation on Grades: Technical Foundation Element
Passenger Cars
It is generally accepted that passenger cars readily negotiate grades as steep as 4 to 5% without
appreciable loss of speed except for cars with high mass/power ratios including some compact and
June 2017 53
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
subcompact cars. A 3% upgrade has only a negligible effect on a vehicles speed, but the effect increases
with higher traffic volumes. Generally speeds on down grades are higher than on level terrain.
Heavy Vehicles
The effect of grades on truck speeds is much more pronounced than on speeds of passenger cars. On
level grades, truck speeds approximate passenger car speeds. On down grades, truck speeds are about
5% higher than on level terrain. In some cases, on long down grades, trucking companies mandate
slower speeds, to help prevent runaway trucks. On up-grades there is a large variance in truck speeds
depending on the severity and the length of grade as well as the mass/power ratio of the vehicle. This is
addressed in more detail in Section 3.8 on truck climbing lanes.
Buses, especially articulated buses, do not have the traction to climb steep grades in winter urban
conditions.
3.3.2.3 Maximum Grade: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
Although the relationship between design speeds and maximum grade is relatively subjective,
reasonable guides for maximum grade have been developed. The guidelines for maximum gradients are
given in Table 3.3.1.
3.3.2.4 Maximum Grade: Design Domain Application Heuristics
1. The range of values shown in Table 3.3.1 recognizes that maximum grade selected for design
varies with topography and the general financial capability of the road authority to fund the
capital works . For lower classification urban roads, land use is an additional consideration and
land use is incorporated into the guidelines for urban local and urban undivided collectors.
2. The values shown may be adjusted to suit local and economic conditions. Maximum gradients
by classification and land use are often a matter of policy, and as a result, vary from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction. Normally, the local policy is established at a senior engineering and planning
level. In any event, in adjusting these figures, designers should ensure that they explicitly
consider the impact of such alternative maximum grade values on safety.
3. Where possible, gradients lower than the maximum values shown should be used.
4. Maximum values should only be exceeded after a careful assessment of safety, cost, property
and environmental implications.
5. The choice of maximum gradient may have a bearing on related design features; for example,
whether or not a truck climbing lane or escape lane is required.
6. While Table 3.3.1 provides general guidance, the designer should be aware that the factors that
should be considered in establishing the maximum grade for a section of roadway include:
• Road classification
• Traffic operation
• Terrain
• Climatic conditions
• Length of grade
• Costs
• Property
54 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
• Environmental considerations
• In urban areas, adjacent land use
• Vehicle type such as articulated buses that suffer from lack of traction in winter
• The presence of intersections.
7. Maximum grades of 3% to 5% are considered appropriate for design speeds of 100 km/h and
higher. This may have to be modified in regions with severe topography such as mountainous
terrain, deep river valleys, and large rock outcrops.
8. Maximum grades of 7% to 12% are appropriate for design speeds of 50 km/h and lower. If only
the more important roadways are considered, 7% or 8% would be a representative maximum
grade for a design speed of 50 km/h.
9. Control grades for other speeds between 50 km/h and 100 km/h are intermediate between the
above extremes.
56
Table 3.3.1: Maximum Gradients
Design Speed (km/h) 30/40/50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120/130
Topography R M R M R M R M R M R M R M R M
RLU 7 11 7 11 6 9 6 8 5 7 5 7 - - - -
RCU - - 6 10 6 9 5 8 5 7 5 7 - - - -
RCD - - - - 6 9 5 8 5 7 5 7 - - - -
RAU - - - - - - 4 7 4 6 3 6 3 6 3 5
RAD - - - - - - 4 7 4 6 3 6 3 5 3 5
RFD - - - - - - - - - - 3 5 3 5 3 5
ULU-Residential 8 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ULU-lndustrial-Commercial 6 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UCU - Residential 8 12 7 11 7 10 - - - - - - - - - -
UCU-lndustrial-Commercial 6 12 6 11 6 9 6 8 - - - - - - - -
UCO 6 10 6 9 5 8 5 7 - - - - - - - -
UAU 6 10 6 6 5 8 5 7 - - - - - - - -
UAD - - 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 5 - - - -
UED - - - - - - 5 6 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 5
UFO - - - - - - - - 4 5 3 5 3 5 3 5
Notes: 1. Short grades less than 150 min length, and one-way downgrades may be 1% higher
on urban roads, and 2% higher on low volume rural roads
2. R refers to rolling topography
3. M refers to mountainous topography.
3.3.2.5 Minimum Grades: Design Domain Application Heuristics
Rural Roadways
1. On uncurbed roadways, level grades are generally acceptable provided the roadway is
adequately crowned, snow does not interfere with surface drainage, and ditches have positive
drainage. Roadway crown is discussed in Section 3.5. Refer to Chapter 4. for guidelines for the
design of roadside open ditches and to relevant dra inage publications.
June 2017 55
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Curbed Roadways (generally in urban areas)
1. To ensure adequate drainage, curbed roadways typically have a minimum longitudinal grade of
0.50% or 0.60%, depending on local policy.
2. In certain rare design cases, when no other alternative is feasible, a grade of 0.40% may be used
as an absolute minimum preferably in combination with highly stable soils and rigid pavements.
3. For retrofit projects, longitudinal grades below the normal minimum of 0.50% or 0.60% may be
considered where flatter grades allow the retention, rather than the removal, of existing
pavements.
4. The minimum gradients outlined are suitable for normal conditions of rainfall and drainage
outlet spacing. Where less than the normal minimum gradient is utilized, the lengths of such
grades should be limited to short distances, and their location and frequency become important
considerations. In special cases, hydraulic analysis is required to determine the extent of water
spread on the adjacent travel lane. False grading, (where the pavement grade is not parallel to
the top of curb), to ensure adequate drainage is an effective means of maintaining minimum
grades in flat, highly constrained areas. False grading is addressed in Section 3.5.
5. At intersections, minimum gradients are particularly important to avoid operational safety
concerns related to ponding or icing conditions.
6. Ensuring positive drainage is a key element in the grading designs of curb returns and the large
paved surfaces of intersection areas. Suggested guidelines include a minimum gradient of 0.6%
along curb returns, and a minimum of 1.0% combined crossfall and longitudinal gradient within
the limits of an intersection. Further information on intersection drainage considerations is
contained in Chapter 9.
7. For gravelled roadways or public lanes, a longitudinal grade of 0.8% or more is desirable to
ensure adequate surface drainage, unless parallel ditches are provided. A grade of 0.5% may be
used as an absolute minimum.
Drainage Around Curves
1. Avoid areas of level grades around curves if there is possibility of raised medians being installed
in the future. The installation of such a median as part of a road rehabilitation or widening
project may preclude the possibility of providing drainage in the median. Superelevated
sections of pavement that drain towards a depressed median, and utilize longitudinal grade in
the median, may require longitudinal grade on the pavement for drainage, if the median is
subsequently raised.
3.3.3 VERTICAL CURVES
3.3.3.1 Introduction
The function of a vertical curve is to provide a smooth transition between adjacent grades. The form of
curve used for vertical curves is a skewed parabola, positioned so that basic measurements can be made
horizontally and vertically. Curves are described as crest or sag depending on their orientation.
One ofthe properties ofthe parabola is that the rate of change of grade with respect to length is
constant. For this reason sight distance available to a driver travelling on a crest curve is constant
throughout the length of the curve. This is one of the reasons for the use of the parabola for vertical
56 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
curves. A second advantage of the parabolic curve is that its calculation is much simpler than a circular
or other curve that might be considered.
Since the rate of change of grade is constant with respect to length, this property is used to designate
the size of the curve. The length of a section of curve measured horizontally over which there is a
change of grade of 1% is a constant for the curve and is referred to as the K value. For example, a K
value of 90 means a horizontal distance of 90m is required for every one percent gradient change. K is a
measure of the flatness of a curve, the larger the K value the flatter the curve, in the same way that
radius is a measure of the flatness of a circular curve. For crest curves K is negative, and for sag curves K
is positive.
K=L/A (3.3.1)
Where:
L= Horizontal length of vertical curve (m)
A= Algebraic difference of grade lines(%)
K= Coefficient as described above
In certain situations, because of critical clearance or other controls, the use of unsymmetrical vertical
curves may be required. Because their use is infrequent, the derivation and use of the appropriate
formulae have not been included in the following section. For use in such limited instances, refer to
unsymmetrical curve data found in a number of highway engineering texts.
3.3.3.2 Crest Vertical Curves: Technical Foundation Element
Crest vertical curves have to be flat enough to provide the required sight distances (various sight
distances are outlined in Chapter 2. The most common sight distances that have to be considered in the
design of vertical curves are:
• Stopping sight distance
• Passing sight distance
• Decision sight distance
57
• Non-striping sight distance.
At the instant an object comes into view on a crest curve, (the height of object depends on the type of
sight distance under consideration) the line of sight from the drivers eye to the top of the object is
tangential to the curve. To ensure that the required sight distance is provided, the curve should be
sufficiently flat so that the distance from the driver to the object is at least equal to the required sight
distance. Figure 3.3.1 illustrates the relationship between the sight distance (stopping, passing, or
decision), length of vertical curve, height of object, height of eye, and the algebraic difference in grades.
June 2017 57
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
crest curves
-<-- A
_....s ------
L = length of vertical curve, metres
S = minimum sight distance, metres
L>S
h 1= height of driver's eys, 1.08 m
h2 = height of object, described in following section
A= algebraic difference in grades, percent
K = _h_
A
58
Figure 3.3.1: Sight Distance on Crest Vertical Curve
For curves where the length of curve exceeds the sight distance, K is given by the expression:
K= S2 (3.3 .2)
2
200 (vh1 + vh2)
Where:
S= Sight distance (either stopping,
passing, or decision sight distance
(m)
hi= He~htofdrive(seye(m)
h2 = Height of object (m)
For curves where the length of curve is less than the sight distance, K is given by the expression:
2S (3.3.3)
K=
A
Where :
S= Sight distance (either stopping, passing, or decision
sight distance (m)
hi= He~htofdrive(seye(m)
h2 = Height of object (m)
A= Algebraic difference in grades{%)
In calculating K values for various sight distances, the height of driver's eye ranges from 1.05 m
(conservative value) to 1.08 m (recommended value) for passenger vehicles, and the height of object is
as outlined below. These values are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
• For stopping sight distance the most common object a vehicle has to stop for is another vehicle
ahead on the road, the height of tail light is used. Tail light heights ranging from 0.38 m to 0.6
m are discussed in Chapter 2. For the purposes of the crest vertical curve discussion below, a
tail light height of 0.6 m has been used. Other heights of objects can be used if necessary.
• For decision sight distance the more common height of object is 0.15 m, although other
heights, such as zero for pavement markings, are not uncommon.
58 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
• For passing sight distance the height of object is 1.30 m, which represents the height of the
opposing vehicle.
3.3.3.3 Crest Vertical Curves: Design Domain Quantitative Aid
Based on the above most commonly used heights of object, and on sight distances from Table 3.3.2 and
Table 2.5.4 in Chapter 2 the K values for stopping sight distance are provided in Table 3.3.2 {l.08 m
driver eye height and 0.6 m tail light height) and for passing sight distance the K values are provided in
Table 3.3.3 {l.08 m driver eye height and 1.30 m object height). The decision sight distance K values are
not included because the vertical curvature depends on the height of object which is variable
(depending on what the driver has to see).
The calculated K values are based on the length of curve exceeding the sight distance and they can be
used without significant error when the length of curve is less than the sight distance. Appreciable
differences occur only where A is small and little or no additional cost is involved in obtaining longer
vertical curves.
On undivided roads non-striping sight distance is used to determine when no-passing pavement
59
markings are required . It is desirable to provide passing sight distance wherever possible but non-
striping sight distance is generally adequate for safe passing maneuvers.
Non-striping sight distance is less than passing sight distance, at each design speed. Passing maneuvers
can be completed in less than the full passing sight distance because of the timing of oncoming vehicles.
60
Table 3.3.2: K Factors to Provide Stopping Sight Distance on Crest Vertical Curves
Rate of Vertical
Design Speed Stopping Sight
Curvature Ka
(km/h} Distance (m)
Calculated Design
20 20 0.6 1
30 3S 1.9 2
40 so 3.8 4
so 6S 6.4 7
60 8S 11.0 11
70 lOS 16.8 17
80 130 2S.7 26
90 160 38.9 39
100 18S S2.0 S2
110 220 73.6 74
120 2SO 9S.O 9S
130 28S 123.4 124
Note : • Rate of vertical curvature, K, is the length of curve (m) per
percent algebraic difference intersecting grades (A), K = L/A.
June 2017 59
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.3.3: K Factors to Provide Passing Sight Distance on Crest Vertical Curves
Design Minimum Passing Rate of Vertical
Speed Sight Distance Curvature (K)
(km/h) (m) Rounded
30 220 so
40 290 90
50 350 130
60 410 175
70 490 255
80 550 320
90 610 390
100 680 485
110 730 560
120 800 675
130 860 780
Note: These are minimum values; use higher K factors whenever
practical.
In order to maximize passing opportunities, K values for crest vertical curves should be chosen to
achieve at least non-striping sight distance. Designers should strive to achieve 75% or greater passing
opportunities over the length of road. For example, for a design speed of llOkm/h, the non-striping
sight distance is 475m, as described in the M UTCDC. 61 This corresponds to a K value of~ 250.
From the earlier formula:
2 (3.3.4)
K= 5
200 (vh1 + vh2) 2
(3.3 .5)
2
K=475 I [200 * (vl.15+ vl.15) 2 ] =245
3.3.3.4 Sag Vertical Curves: Technical Foundation Element
For Non-Illuminated Roadways
To provide adequate stopping sight distance on a sag vertical curve, the sag curve must be sufficiently
flat for a vehicles headlight beams to illuminate the road ahead at least for the minimum stopping sight
distance. Figure 3.3.2 illustrates this relationship. The height of the headlight beam is taken to be 0.6 m
and the angle of the light beam upward from the plane of the vehicle is taken to be 1°. From these
criteria, minimum values corresponding to minimum stopping sight distances can be derived.
There is a shortcoming with the derivation because with low beams the length of visible roadway is
significantly restricted and at higher speeds a vehicle's headlights may not be strong enough to
illuminate the entire stopping sight distance. Studies of the distance at which drivers can see un-
reflectorized objects (e.g. pedestrians in dark clothing) indicate that on low beam headlights, with no
street lighting, the majority of drivers not expecting to encounter something on the roadway, cannot see
far enough away to stop from speeds above 55 km/h for low contrast objects and above 75 km/h for
62
high contrast objects (see Section 2.2.5.6 in Chapter 2 for additional details). Until this matter is fully
60 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
re-examined, the methodology will be repeated in this Guide because it is the only information
available.
sag curves
10
-
A
s
L
L length of vertical curve in metres 1° angle of light beam upward from plane of vehicle
S minimum stopping distance in metres A algebraic difference in grades, percent
L>S K= _b_
h3 height of head lamps, 0.6 m A
Figure 3.3.2: Stopping Sight Distance on Sag Vertical Curve
Where stopping sight distance is equal to or less than the curve length, K is given by the expression:
52 (3.3.6)
K=--------
200(h3 +Stan a)
Where:
S= Stopping sight distance (m)
h3 = Height of headlights (0.6 m)
a= Upward angle of headlight beam (1° used)
When the minimum stopping sight distance exceeds the length of curve, K is given by the expression:
(3.3.7)
K=~ 200(h 3 +Stan a)
A2
A
Where:
S= Stopping sight distance (m)
h3 = Height of headlights (0.6 m)
a= Upward angle of headlight beam (1° used)
A= Algebraic difference in grades {%)
Sag Vertical Curves: Design Domain Quantitative Aids
Based on the curve relationship described above and the stopping sight distance from Table 2.5.2 in
Chapter 2 the K values for sag curves for non-illuminated roadways are provided in Table 3.3.4. 63
June 2017 61
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.3.4: K Factors to Provide Minimum Stopping Sight Distance on Sag Vertical Curves
Stopping Rate of Vertical
Design
Sight Curvature K"
Speed
Distance
(km/h} Calculated Design
(m)
20 20 2.1 3
30 35 5.1 6
40 50 8.5 9
50 65 12.2 13
60 85 17.3 18
70 105 22.6 23
80 130 29.4 30
90 160 37.6 38
100 185 44.6 45
110 220 54.4 55
120 250 62.8 63
130 285 72.7 73
Note: a Rate of vertical curvature, K, is the length of
curve (m) per percent algebraic difference intersecting
grades (A), K= L/A .
3.3.3.5 For Illuminated Roadways
Where good street lighting prevails, such as in urban conditions, the headlight criterion does not apply
since the driver is able to see further ahead than the headlights illuminate. Under these conditions,
sharper curves can be introduced and comfort becomes the criterion that limits values. Passenger
comfort is expressed mathematically in terms of radial acceleration at the bottom of the sag curve. The
2
maximum acceptable radial acceleration is taken to be 0.3m/s • Corresponding minimum K values are
calculated based on the following expression:
K= v
2
/ 395 (3.3.8)
Where:
V= design speed (km/h)
64
Values for sag curvature based on the comfort criterion are shown in Table 3.3.5.
62 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.3.5: K Factors to Provide Minimum Stopping Sight Distance on
Sag Vertical Curves Based on Comfort Control
Design Assumed Rate of Sag Vertical Curvature (K)
Speed Operating Speed Comfort Control
(km/h} (km/h} Calculated Rounded
30 30 2.3 2
40 40 4.1 4
50 47-50 5.6-6.3 5-6
60 55-60 7.7-9.1 8-9
70 63-70 10.0-12.4 10-12
80 70-80 12.4-16.2 12-16
90 77-90 15.0-20.5 15-20
100 85-100 18.3-25.3 18-25
110 91-110 21.0-30.6 21-30
120 98-120 24.3-36.4 24-36
130 105-130 27.9-42.8 28-43
These K values for sag curves are useful in urban situations such as underpasses where it is often
necessary for property and access reasons to depart from original ground elevations for as short a
distance as possible. Minimum values are normally exceeded where feasible, in consideration of
possible power failures and other malfunctions to the street lighting systems. Designing sag vertical
curves along curved roadways for decision sight distance is normally not feasible due to the inherent flat
grades and resultant surface drainage problems.
3.3.4 SIGHT DISTANCE AT UNDERPASSES
While not a frequent design problem, the sight distance at underpasses may be restricted due to the
overpass structure or signs hanging below the bottom of the overpass structure restricting the line of
sight. The sight distance through a grade separation should be equal to or greater than the min imum
stopping sight distance. Figure 3.3.3 illustrates the sight distance from an eye height of h 1 to an object
height of h2 with an underpass clearance of C.
June 2017 63
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
L/2 L/2
Figure 3.3.3: Sight Distance at Underpass
Case 1 is for a sight distance greater than the length of the vertical curve (S>L) and Case 2 is for a sight
distance less than the length of the vertical curve (S<L):
Case 1 (S>L)
L = 25- [800*(C - (hi+ h2) I 2)] /A (3.3.9)
Where:
L= Length of vertical curve (m)
S= Sight distance (m)
A= Algebraic difference in grades (%)
C= Vertical clearance (m)
hi= Height of eye (m)
h 2= Height of object (m)
Case 1 (S<L)
2
L = A*S I [800* (C- (hi+ h2) I 2)] (3.3.10)
Where:
L= Length of vertical curve (m)
S= Sight distance (m)
A= Algebraic difference in grades (%)
C= Vertical clearance (m)
hi= Height of eye (m)
h2= Height of object (m)
64 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Using an eye height of 2.4 m for a truck driver (typically the critical vehicle due to the driver height) and
an object height of 0.6 m for the tail lights of a vehicle, the following equations can be derived :
Case 1 (S>L)
L=2S-[800*(C-1.5)]/A (3.3 .11)
Case 2 (S<L)
2
L=A *S /[800 * (C- 1.5)] (3.3 .12)
These formulas are applicable to the typical situation where the structure is located over the centre of
the vertical curve. Where it is not, the formulas may underestimate the length of the available sight
65
distance. The simplified equations outlined above will vary depending on the driver eye height and
object height used. Refer to Section 2.5 for additional guidance on appropriate eye height and object
height values.
3.3.5 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT: DESIGN DOMAIN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION HEURISTICS
3.3.5.1 Vertical Alignment Principles: Application Heuristics
The following principles generally apply to both rural and urban roads . A differentiation between rural
and urban is made in several instances where necessary for clarity.
1. On rural and high speed urban roads a smooth grade line with gradual changes, consistent with
the class of road and the character of the terrain, is preferable to an alignment with numerous
breaks and short lengths of grade. On lower speed curbed urban roadways drainage design
often controls the grade design.
2. Vertical curves applied to small changes of gradient require K values significantly greater than
the minimum as shown in Tables 20 and 21. The minimum length in metres should desirably not
be less than the design speed in kilometres per hour. For example, if the design speed is 100
km/h, the vertical curve length is at least 100 m.
3. Vertical alignment, having a series of successive relatively sharp crest and sag curves creating a
"roller coaster" or "hidden dip" type of profile is not recommended . Hidden dips can be a safety
concern, particularly at night. Such profiles generally occur on relatively straight horizontal
alignment where the roadway profile closely follows a rolling natural ground line. Such
roadways are unpleasant aesthetically and more difficult to drive. This type of profile is avoided
by the use of horizontal curves or by more gradual grades.
4. A broken back grade line (two vertical curves in the same direction separated by a short section
of tangent grade) is not desirable, particularly in sags where a full view of the profile is possible.
This effect is very noticeable on divided roadways with open median sections.
5. Curves of different K values adjacent to each other (either in the same direction or opposite
directions) w ith no tangent between them are acceptable provided the required sight distances
are met.
6. An at-grade intersection occurring on a roadway with moderate to steep grades, should
desirably have reduced gradient through the intersection, desirably less than 3%. Such a profile
change is beneficial for vehicles making turns and stops, and serves to reduce potential hazards.
June 2017 65
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
7. In sections with curbs the minimum longitudinal grade is 0.5%. Within superelevated transition
areas, it might sometimes be virtually impossible to provide this minimum grade. In such cases,
the longitudinal grade length below 0.5% should be kept as short as possible. Additional
information on minimum grades and dra inage is provided in Section 3.3.2.
8. A superelevation transition occurring on a vertical curve requires special attention in order to
ensure that the required minimum curvature is maintained across the entire width of pavement.
The lane edge profile on the opposite side of the roadway from the control line may have
sharper curvature due to the change in superelevation rate required by the superelevation
transition. It is, therefore, necessary to check both edge profiles and to adjust the desired
minimum vertical curvature.
9. Undulating grade lines, with substantial lengths of down grade, require careful review of
operations. Such profiles permit heavy trucks to operate at higher overall speeds than is
possible when an upgrade is not preceded by a down grade. However, this could encourage
excessive speed of trucks and conflicts with other traffic.
10. On long grades it may be preferable to place steepest grade at the bottom and decrease the
grades near the top of the ascent or to break the sustained grade by short intervals of flatter
grade instead of a uniform sustained grade that might be only slightly below the allowable
66
maximum. This is particularly applicable to low design speed roads and streets.
11. To ensure a smooth grade line on high speed routes a minimum spacing of 300 m between
vertical points of intersection is desirable.
12. The design of vertical alignment should not be carried out in isolation but should have a proper
relationship with the horizontal alignment. This is discussed in Section 3.4.
3.3.5.2 Drainage: Application Heuristics
1. Where uncurbed sections are used and drainage is effected by side ditches, there is no limiting
minimum value for gradient or limiting upper value for vertical curves.
2. On curbed sections where storm water drains longitudinally in gutters and is collected by catch
basins, vertical alignment is affected by drainage requirements. Minimum gradients are
discussed in Section 3.3.2.
3. The profile of existing or planned stormwater piping is an important consideration in setting
urban roadway grades. Storm sewer pipes typically have minimum depths to prevent freezing.
These requirements are considered in setting catch basin elevations.
4. Where the storm sewer system is not sufficiently deep to drain the streets by gravity flow, lift
stations are an alternative. However, lift stations are generally considered undesirable due to
the high costs associated with installation, operation and maintenance. Malfunctions at the lift
station during a rain storm can also have a major detrimental impact on the street system and
the adjacent developments.
5. On flat crest and sag curves, storm water might run sufficiently slowly so as to spread onto the
adjacent travelled lane. There is a level point at the crest of a vertical curve, but generally no
difficulty with drainage on curbed pavements is experienced if the curve is sharp enough so that
the minimum gradient of 0.35% is reached at a point about 15 m from the crest. This
corresponds to a K value of 43 . Where a crest K value greater than 43 is used, additional
66 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
facilities such as the application of more frequent catch basins are required to assure proper
pavement drainage near the crest of the curve.
6. For sag vertical curves the same criterion for crest curves applies, that is, the minimum grade of
0.35% is reached within 15 m of the level point. Sag vertical curves normally occur in fill
sections. In general, sag curves should be avoided in cut sections since they require unusual and
costly drainage treatments.
7. False grading the gutter to provide positive drainage is a common design technique and is
described in more detail in Section 3.5.3.
8. Long spiral curves on low gradients could produce flat areas with correspondingly poor
drainage, and are to be avoided.
9. Bridges at the bottom of sag curves are to be avoided where possible, since bridges tend to
freeze more readily and storm water tends to collect on sag curves.
3.3.5.3 Snow: Application Heuristics
1. Snow drifting on roadways in areas of heavy snow accumulation can become a serious hazard to
traffic.
2. Where the prevailing wind during a snow fall is lateral, snow will tend to accumulate in cut
sections and other areas of depression. In such cases, the effect can be significantly mitigated by
designing the profile so as to avoid cut sections in favour of fill. It is desirable to set the profile
0.7 to 1.0 m above surrounding land.
3. Where this is not possible for other reasons, the back slopes need to be flattened to 7:1 or
flatter to avoid drifting, and other features of the cross section such as the presence of trees and
other obstacles should be examined.
4. Roads with open terrain on the windward side are exposed to drifting snow resulting in possible
whiteout conditions and large snowbanks from snow plowing. An alternative horizontal
alignment which shelters a road from this exposure is preferred. Such shelter may be woodlands
or topographical features. Scale model simulation of drifting snow may be utilized to relocate
the optimum alignment.
3.3.5.4 Intersections and Driveways: Application Heuristics
1. Intersections are areas of conflict and potential hazard. Desirably, the grades of the intersecting
roads allow drivers to recognize the necessary maneuvers to proceed through the intersection
with safety and with minimum interference between vehicles. To this end, gradients as low as
practicable are preferable.
2. Combinations of grade lines that make vehicle control difficult are to be avoided at
intersections. The vertical alignments through intersections should be designed in consideration
of the stopping and starting actions required and to favour the principal traffic flows.
3. It is desirable to avoid substantial grade changes at intersections, but it is not always feasible.
Adequate sight distance is required along both roads and across the corners. For guidance on
vertical grades at rail crossings refer to Chapter 9.
June 2017 67
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
4. At all intersections where there are Yield or Stop signs, the gradients of the intersecting roads
are made as flat as practicable on those sections that are to be used as storage space for
stopped vehicles. However, a 1% minimum gradient is desirable to allow for reduction in cross-
slope without impairing drainage. Flattening roadway cross-slopes to about 1% is often useful in
avoiding abrupt changes in grade where roadways intersect. This is discussed more fully in
Chapter 9. Intersections controlled by signals or which might be at some future date, are
generally flat.
5. Many vehicle operators are unable to judge the increase or decrease in stopping or acceleration
distance necessary due to steep grades. Their normal deductions and reactions thus may be in
error at a critical time. Accordingly, grades in excess of 3% on intersecting roadways are to be
avoided, where possible.
6. The grade and cross sections on the intersection legs are adjusted for a distance back from the
intersection proper to provide a smooth junction and proper drainage. Normally the grade of
the major road is carried through the intersection and that of the crossing road adjusted to it.
This requires transition of the crown of the minor road to an inclined cross section at its junction
with the major road. Changes from one cross-slope to another are gradual.
7. Intersections of a minor road crossing a multilane divided road with a narrow median and
superelevated curve are avoided whenever possible because of the difficulty in adjusting grades
to provide a suitable crossing. Grades of separate turning roadways are designed to suit the
cross-slopes and grades of the intersection legs.
8. The vertical alignment of a new street is normally set in consideration of the grades of existing
or possible future driveways. For local streets, strong consideration is given to adjusting the
street profile to provide desirable driveway grades. For the higher street classifications, more
emphasis is placed on the design characteristics of the roadway with less consideration to
optimizing driveway grades. The cross-slope of a roadway is rarely adjusted to suit the
elevations of a driveway, unless the driveway handles high traffic volumes, in which case the
cross-slope adjustment guidelines applicable to intersection areas may be suitable.
9. In retrofit situations, re-grading of private properties is often necessary to achieve appropriate
vertical alignment conditions for both the street and the driveway.
3.3.5.5 Vertical Clearances: Application Heuristics
Roads
1. Vertical clearance requirements vary between the provinces and local jurisdictions.
2. Vertical clearances for local roads and non-truck routes may be less than that required for the
remainder of the road system.
3. The minimum vertical clearance, as measured from the roadway surface to the underside of the
structure (for example bridge or sign gantry) is applicable to the entire roadway width, including
the shoulders.
4. Minimum vertical clearance for vehicular bridges is 5.0 mover travelled lanes and shoulders.
68 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
5. When setting the profile for a roadway beneath a bridge structure, designers should consider
increasing the vertical clearance by 100 to 200 mm above the minimum value to make provision
for future overlays of the roadway surface.
6. To account for truck trailers with long wheelbases, additional vertical clearance should be
considered when minimum sag vertical curves are used for underpass roadways.
7. On existing roads that are being resurfaced or reconstructed the minimum structure clearance is
4.5 m. Where only the minimum vertical clearance exists beneath a bridge structure and the
roadway requires resurfacing, the surface is normally milled and replaced, rather than overlaid.
Railways
1. Minimum vertical clearance over railways is 6.858 m (22.5 feet) measured from base of rail.
2. The minimum vertical clearance where ballast lifts are contemplated is 7.163 m {23.5 feet)
measured from base of rail elevation to the underside of the overpass structure.
3. In all cases, it is good practice to confirm the specific clearance requirements with the pertinent
railway company, as well as with the appropriate federal and provincial agencies, before designs
are finalized.
Overhead Utilities
1. The vertical clearance requirements for roadways crossing beneath overhead utilities vary with
the different agencies. In the case of overhead power lines, the clearance varies with the voltage
of the conductors. The clearance requirements in each case should be confirmed with the
controlling agency.
Pedestrian Overpasses
1. Normally, the minimum vertical clearance for a pedestrian overpass structure is set at 5.3 m or
0.3 m greater than the clearance of any existing vehicular overpass structure along that same
route. This lessens the chances of it being struck by a high load - an important consideration -
since a pedestrian overpass, being a relatively light structure, is generally unable to absorb
severe impact and is more likely to collapse in such an event. The increased vertical clearance
reduces the probability of damage to the structure and improves the level of safety for
pedestrians using the structure.
Bikeways
1. For bikeways, the minimum vertical clearance should be 2.5 m.
2. It is desirable to allow up to 3.6 m of vertical clearance in order to provide an enhanced design
and permit access for typical service vehicles.
3. Bicyclists may occasionally use the sidewalk, even where not legally permitted, but if it can be
determined that they will, then similar vertical clearance should be provided.
4. If it can be clearly determined that cyclists will not use the pedestrian sidewalk, minimum
clearances in accordance with the National or Provincial Building Codes could be employed.
5. Further information on bikeways is provided in Chapter 5.
June 2017 69
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Sidewalks
1. Minimum clearances in accordance with the national or provincial building codes should be
provided.
2. Bicyclists may occasionally use the sidewalk, even where not legally permitted, and if it can be
determined that they will, then similar vertical clearances to those recommended for bikeways
should be provided.
3. Further information on sidewalks is provided in Chapter 6.
Waterways
1. Over non-navigable waterways, bridges and open footing culverts, the vertical clearance
between the lowest point of the soffit and the design high water level shall be sufficient to
prevent damage to the structure by the action of flow water, ice flows, ice jams or debris.
2. For navigable waterways, navigational clearance is dependent on the type of vessel using the
waterway and should be determined individually.
3. Clearances should also conform to the requirements of the Navigable Waters Protection Act of
Canada.
Airways
1. Vertical clearance to airways is as indicated in Figure 3.3.4.
2. Lighting poles should be contained within the clearance envelope.
3. The dimensions are for preliminary design. Specific dimensions should be approved by the
designated Transport Canada representative.
runway
lamp standard
transitional surface slope 7: 1
~ <t.I
I
runway strip
Figure 3.3.4: Airway Clearance 67
70 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.3.6 EXPLICIT EVALUATION OF SAFETY
3.3.6.1 General
Vertical alignment design has a significant impact on safety in areas where vehicles are required to
frequently stop and start. Excessive grades in intersection areas and at driveways can contribute
significantly to collision frequencies during wet or icy conditions. Efforts are normally made to provide
as flat a grade as practicable in these critical areas, while meeting the minimum slopes needed for
adequate surface drainage.
3.3.6.2 Collision Frequency on Vertical Alignment
The vertical profile of the roadway can have an effect on safety performance. Guidance contained in the
AASHTO Highway Safety Manual for vertical grades on rural two-lane two-way highways in Utah
68
suggests the following collision modification factors:
• Level grade (:5 3%) CMF = 1.00
• Moderate grade {3% <grade :5 6%) CMF = 1.10
• Steep terrain(> 6%) CMF = 1.16
As a rural two-lane two-way highway is an upgrade for one direction of travel and a downgrade for the
other, the sign of the grade(+ or-) is irrelevant. These CMF's are applied to total roadway collisions on
the entire grade segment from one point of vertical intersection (VPI) to the next.
3.4 COORDINATION AND AESTHETICS
3.4.1 INTRODUCTION
The visual aspect of the road as viewed by the driver and passenger is considered to be an important
feature of geometric design. The provision of visual comfort helps make driving a more relaxing
experience resulting in better and safer traffic operation. Features which are aesthetically disturbing to
the motorist are to be avoided. An unsightly road is a blight on the landscape whereas an aesthetically
pleasing facility can become an asset, enhancing the area through which it passes.
To produce an aesthetically pleasing facility the designer requires an appreciation of the relationship
between the road and its surroundings. Some specific principles to be considered include:
• Blending of the road with the surrounding topography
• Developing independent alignments for each roadway of a divided facility when right of way
permits
• Continuous curvilinear design rather than long-tangent, short-curve design
• Integration of horizontal and vertical alignment
• Implementation of designs with visually pleasing structures, retaining walls and landscaping.
In many cases the above principles can be achieved at an acceptable extra cost. In cases where
additional cost is a factor, the benefits are assessed against expenditure. In considering the costs and
benefits of design trade-offs of this sort, the designer should ensure that safety related factors are
considered explicitly. In addition, many of the basic elements of design coordination contribute to the
design consistency aspects of road design, and should thus be considered in that context as well. The
issue of design consistency is discussed in Chapter 2.
June 2017 71
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Examples of good and poor application of the above principles are illustrated in Figures 3.4.1 to 3.4.12.
Each photograph or perspective sketch has a brief comment describing the significant visual qualities.
3.4.2 ALIGNMENT COORDINATION: TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
The principal guides for horizontal and vertical alignment are set out in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. A section of
road might be designed to meet these guides, yet the end result could be a facility exhibiting numerous
unsatisfactory or displeasing characteristics. Horizontal and vertical alignments are permanent design
elements for which thorough study is warranted. It is extremely difficult and costly to correct alignment
deficiencies after the road is constructed. On freeways there are numerous controls such as multilevel
structures and costly right of way. On most arterial streets heavy development takes place along the
property lines, which makes it impractical to change the alignment in the future. Thus, compromises in
alignment designs must be weighed carefully. Any initial savings may be more than offset by the
economic loss to the public in the form of accidents and delays.
It is difficult to discuss the combination of horizontal alignment and profile without reference to the
broader subject of location. The subjects are mutually interrelated and what may be said about one
generally is applicable to the other. It is assumed here that the general location has been fixed and that
the problem remaining is the specific design and harmonizing of the vertical and horizontal lines, such
that the finished road or street will be an economical, pleasant, and collision-free facility on which to
travel. The physical controls or influences that act singularly or in combination to determine the type of
alignment are the character of road justified by the traffic, topography, and subsurface conditions,
existing cultural development, likely future developments, and location of the terminals. An initial
design speed is established when determining the general location, but as design proceeds to more
detailed alignment and profile it assumes greater importance, and the speed chosen for design acts to
keep all elements of design in balance. The final design speed chosen may be different from the initial
design speed. Design speed determines limiting values for many elements such as curvature and sight
distance and influences many other elements such as width, clearance, and maximum gradient; all are
discussed in the preceding parts of this chapter.
Horizontal and vertical alignments should not be designed independently. They complement each other,
and poorly designed combinations can spoil the good points and aggravate the deficiencies of each.
Horizontal and vertical alignments are among the more important of the permanent design elements of
the road. Excellence in their design and in the design of their combination increase usefulness and
safety, encourage uniform speed, and improve appearance.
During the location stage and the design phase of a facility, the finished roadway is viewed in three
dimensions and the consequences of various combinations of horizontal and vertical alignment on the
utility, safety and appearance of the completed project are considered.
3.4.3 ALIGNMENT COORDINATION: DESIGN DOMAIN APPLICATION HEURISTICS
A number of application heuristics which can assist the designer in preparing well-coordinated and
aesthetic plans are offered below.
1. Curvature and grades should be in proper balance. Tangent alignment or flat curvature at the
expense of steep or long grades and excessive curvature with flat grades are both poor design. A
logical design that offers the most in safety, capacity, ease and uniformity of operation, and
pleasing appearance within the practical limits of terrain and area traversed is a compromise
between the two extremes.
72 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
2. Vertical curvature superimposed on horizontal curvature, or vice versa, generally results in a
more pleasing facility, but it should be analyzed for effect on traffic. Successive changes in a
profile not in combination with horizontal curvature may result in a series of humps visible to
the driver for some distance, an undesirable condition as previously discussed. The use of
horizontal and vertical alignments in combination, however, may also result in certain
undesirable arrangements, as discussed later in this section.
3. Sharp horizontal curvature should not be introduced at or near the top of a pronounced crest
vertical curve. This condition is undesirable in that the driver cannot perceive the horizontal
change in alignment, especially at night when the headlight beams go straight ahead into space.
The difficulty of this arrangement is avoided if the horizontal curvature leads the vertical
curvature, i.e., the horizontal curve is made longer than the vertical curve. Suitable design can
also be made by using design values well above the minimums for the design speed.
4. Somewhat allied to the above, sharp horizontal curvature should not be introduced at or near
the low point of a pronounced sag vertical curve . Because the road ahead is foreshortened, any
significant horizontal curvature assumes an undesirable distorted appearance. Further, vehicular
speeds, particularly of trucks, often are high at the bottom of grades, and erratic operation may
result, especially at night.
5. On two-lane roads and streets the need for safe passing sections at frequent intervals and for an
appreciable percentage of the length of the road often supersedes the general desirability for
combination of horizontal and vertical alignment. In these cases it is necessary to work toward
long tangent sections to secure sufficient passing sight distance in design.
6. Horizontal and vertical alignments should be made as flat as feasible at intersections where
sight distance along both roads or streets is important and vehicles may have to slow or stop.
7. On divided roads, variation in width of median and the use of separate horizontal and vertical
alignments should be considered to derive design and operational advantage of one-way roads.
Where traffic justifies provision of four lanes, a superior design without additional cost generally
results from the concept and logical design basis of one-way roads.
8. In residential areas the alignment should be designed to minimize nuisance factors to the
neighborhood. Generally, a depressed facility makes a roadway less visible and less noisy to
adjacent residents. Minor horizontal adjustments can sometimes to be made to increase the
buffer zone between the roadway and residential neighborhoods.
9. The horizontal and vertical alignments should be designed to enhance attractive scenic views of
the natural and man-made environment. The road should head into, rather than away from
those views that are outstanding. The road should fall towards those features of interest at a
low elevation, and it should rise towards those features best seen from below or silhouetted
against the sky.
3.4.4 ALIGNMENT COORDINATION: BEST PRACTICES
Coordination of horizontal and vertical alignment should not be left to chance but should begin with
preliminary design, during which stage adjustments can readily be made. Although a specific order of
study for all roads cannot be stated, a general procedure applicable to most facilities can be outlined.
June 2017 73
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
1. The designer should use working drawings of a size, scale, and arrangement so that the designer
can study long, continuous stretches of roadway in both plan and profile and visualize the whole
in three dimensions.
2. To assist in this visualization there also are computer programs available which allow designers
to view proposed vertical and horizontal alignments in three dimensions.
3. After study of the horizontal and vertical alignment in preliminary form, adjustments in each, or
both, can be made jointly to obtain the desired coordination. At this stage the designer should
not be concerned with line calculations other than known major controls. The study should be
made largely on the basis of a graphical or computer analysis.
4. For the selected design speed the values for controlling curvature, gradient, sight distance, and
superelevation runoff length should be available and checked graphically or with a computer or
CADD system. All aspects of terrain, traffic operation, and appearance can be considered and
the horizontal and vertical lines adjusted and coordinated before the preparation of
construction plans to large scale are started.
5. The coordination of horizontal and vertical alignment from the viewpoint of appearance usually
can be accomplished visually on the preliminary working drawings or with the assistance of
computer programs which have been developed for such purposes. Generally, these methods
result in a satisfactory product when done by an experienced designer.
6. This means of analysis may be supplemented by models, sketches or images generated by a
computer at locations where the effect of certain combinations of line and grade are
questionable.
7. For curbed roadways the effects of superelevation transitions on gutter line profiles needs to be
examined. This can be particularly significant when flat grades are involved and can result in
local depressions. Slight shifts in profiles in relation to horizontal curves can sometimes
eliminate the problem.
The above procedure must be modified for the design of local roads as compared with higher road
classifications. The alignment of any local road, whether new or for reconstruction, is governed by
existing or likely future developments along it.
74 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
To more fully appreciate the value of good design, it is desirable to observe a few examples of discontinuous
alignment where how it looks was considered unimportant. A continuous curve, beginning at the bottom of
the picture and ending where the right lane disappears, would have been a much superior design.
These contrasting photographs illustrate vividly the difference between long tangent-short curve design
vs continuous curvilinear alignment. The top view gives one the impression the designer laid out each
segment of roadway on a separate sheet of plan paper without regard to the continuity of the entire road.
The other roadway (bottom) flows with the natural contours of the terrain with a minimum of sudden
change in alignment or grade.
69
Figure 3.4.1: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment coordination and Aesthetics
June 2017 75
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Alignment should be as directional as possible, but should be consistent with the topography. A flowing
line that generally conforms to the natural contours is aesthetically preferable to one with long tangents
that slashes through the terrain. The construction scars can be kept to a minimum and natural slopes
and plant growth can be preserved.
Because of straight alignment, one can often see a long distance ahead . When this happens, it is almost
impossible to avoid a roller-coaster appearance. Also, any median width changes are difficult to conceal.
Observe the width change just above the grade separation structure.
Figure 3.4.2: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
76 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
The roller-coaster or the hidden-dip type of profile should be avoided. In general, such profiles
occur on relatively straight, horizontal alignment where the road profile closely follows a rolling
natural ground line. They are unpleasant aesthetically and hazardous. The vertical alignment,
which attempts to match the rather minor humps and hollows, is not in scale with the more
liberal horizontal alignment.
This example of curvilinear alignment enables the driver to scan the surrounding landscape
without turning their head for a better view (Region of Waterloo).
Figure 3.4.3: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
June 2017 77
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
,
···---......,-~.......
-..........
'--,___
This drawing illustrates the effect of superimposing a short vertical curve on a relatively long horizontal
curve. To eliminate the appearance of a settlement of the roadway, it is necessary to increase the
length of vertical curve to that nearly of the horizontal curve.
The sagging effect is clearly evident in this picture.
Figure 3.4.4: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
78 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
-
- -- 4
-
4 1
For small deflection angles, curves should be sufficiently long to avoid the appearance of a kink.
This view gives the feeling that the designer did not plan very far ahead. To avoid this, the length of curve
should be proportional to the maximum distance from which one views the curve.
Figure 3.4.5: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
June 2017 79
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
_::_"!'.:'.~ E tr
Fl; ~
One effect of perspective viewing is that distant objects seem nearer than they really are. The circular
curve consequently appears to diverge from the tangent rather rapidly and the curve no longer seems
continuous. This gives the impression the designer was unable to make the curve meet the tangent
properly. To remedy this situation, the use of long spirals is suggested and is illustrated in the upper
picture.
The horizontal curve does not appear to be tangent to the straight alignment. In fact, it visually jerks away
from the tangent alignment. The left-hand roadway does, however, give the driver a good clue that the
road continues to the left and does not merely fade away.
Figure 3.4.6: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
80 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
A long spiral beginning at the first entrance at the bottom of the hill and ending near the position of the
truck would have improved the appearance of this curve.
-- -~~---.
·:.::-·-..
Short vertical curvature at the end of a long horizontal curve will usually produce a warped appearance.
This situation can be improved by using a longer vertical curve than otherwise would be needed.
Figure 3.4.7: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
June 2017 81
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Roadway disappears behind short vertical crest curve (Region of Waterloo).
Sag curve near the end of the horizontal curve makes the horizontal curve appear too sharp. A flatter
vertical curve would have been desirable.
Figure 3.4.8: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
82 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
When the relatively short vertical curve in the upper picture is viewed from some distance, the
transition from downgrade to upgrade appears rather abrupt. The alternatives to this design are
longer curves and/or curvilinear alignment to shorten the long look ahead .
The vertical curve at the bottom of the hill appears too short when viewed from a distance.
Figure 3.4.9: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
June 2017 83
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Well balanced design with good view of alignment ahead (Region of Waterloo).
Well defined exit ramp.
Figure 3.4.10: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
84 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Because the vertical curve is too short, the left edge of the pavement forms a Vat the bottom of
the hill.
Good design with adequately long horizontal and vertical curves.
Figure 3.4.11: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
June 2017 85
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
The broken-back vertical alignment with small grade changes. This type of design destroys the flowing
continuity of a high-speed roadway. Note the jerk in horizontal alignment.
Confusing disappearing exit, crest curve should have been flatter.
Figure 3.4.12: Examples of Good and Poor Alignment Coordination and Aesthetics
86 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.5 CROSS-SLOPE
3.5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section addresses cross-slopes on the tangent of through lanes, as well as the cross-slopes on other
lane arrangements such as climbing lanes and passing lanes which are covered later in this chapter.
Cross-slopes for ramps and turning roadways at interchanges and intersections are covered in Chapter 9
and Chapter 10. Shoulder cross-slopes are covered under cross sections. The cross-slope on curves, that
is, the superelevation and superelevation runoff, is outlined in Section 3.2.
The rate of cross-slope is an important design element on both tangent and curves. On tangent sections
of roadways, cross-slope is normally applied to drain stormwater to the side of the road. The cross-slope
largely depends on the quality of the roadway surface. In selecting the roadway surface type, the
following factors are considered:
1. ability of the surface to retain its shape for the expected traffic volumes and load;
2. ability of the surface to drain stormwater; and
3. effect of the surface type on driver behaviour.
Higher quality surfaces retain their shape better and provide for easier steering. Lower quality surfaces
have a tendency to settle and ravel and require greater steering effort to maintain a correct path.
3.5.2 CROSS-SLOPES AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS: APPLICATION HEURISTICS
1. Cross-slopes up to 2% are barely perceptible but slopes steeper than 2% are noticeable and
affect steering. With steeper slopes there is a tendency of vehicles to drift towards the low edge
of the travelled way.
2. Besides requiring conscious steering, slopes steeper than 2% may encourage skidding when
vehicles brake on icy or wet pavements, and even on dry pavements when stops are made
under emergency conditions. These effects are accentuated when there are strong cross winds,
and especially intermittent cross winds such as occur in rolling or mountainous terrain with
alternate cut and fill sections, or in areas alternatively forested and cleared.
3. On high speed, hard surfaced roadways, cross-slopes higher than 2% with a central crown are
not desirable. This is because in a passing maneuver, drivers must cross and re-cross the crown
line and negotiate a total rollover or crossover slope change of more than 4%. The reverse path
of travel causes a reversal in the direction of centrifugal force, which is further exaggerated by
the effect of reversing cross-slope. Trucks with high body loads crossing the crown line may be
caused to sway, at which time control may be difficult.
4. The detrimental effects of crossing the crown line are more noticeable in Portland cement
concrete roadways because these roadways retain their rigid shape as compared to asphalt
roadways where the central crown tends to be somewhat flattened and therefore rounded .
Strong cross winds also contribute to the effect of crossing the crown line .
5. Although with high quality surfaces the cross-slopes would normally be limited to 1.5 to 2%,
steeper slopes are required for various reasons such as; lower quality surfaces, constrained
urban areas, and areas with drainage concerns.
June 2017 87
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
6. When steeper cross-slopes are necessary a trade-off is made between the need for the steeper
cross-slopes versus the operational disadvantages of the steeper slopes.
7. On lower quality surfaces, steeper slopes are required to maintain acceptable drainage even
though travel speeds may still be relatively high.
8. In constrained urban areas, steeper slopes are sometimes necessary, and cross-slopes may be
up to 3%.
9. Cross-slopes greater than 3% may create operational problems and safety concerns where on
street parking and bike lanes are permitted or where pedestrians and persons with disabilities
cross. Drainage considerations are further addressed in Section 3.5.3.
When there is a change of cross-slope it is important that the rate of change is gradual enough so that it
is not visually abrupt, relative to the speed being driven. Cross-slope change is further described in
Section 3.5.5.
3.5.3 CROSS-SLOPES AND DRAINAGE
3.5.3.1 Design Domain: Quantitative Aid
Roadway surface cross-slopes should be adequate to provide proper drainage. Generally, the lower the
quality of roadway surface, the steeper is the rate of cross-slope required in order to ensure drainage.
Normally cross-slopes range from 1.5% to 2.0% for high quality pavements, from 2.0% to 3.0% for
intermediate quality pavements, and 2.0% to 4.0% for low quality roadway surfaces.
The minimum cross-slopes for the most common surface types are:
• Portland cement concrete 1.5%
• Asphalt pavement 2.0%
• Asphalt surface treatment 2.0%- 4.0%
• Gravel or crushed stone 3.0% - 4.0%
• Earth 4.0%
3.5.3.2 Design Domain: Application Heuristics
1. In areas of intense rainfall it may be necessary, even on rural, high quality paved roadways, to
increase the cross-slope to 2.5% in spite of the operational concerns.
2. When three or more lanes are provided in each direction, the outer lane should receive greater
slope; however, the maximum cross-slope should be limited to 4%. The use of this maximum
cross-slope should be limited to the conditions outlined. Note that roadside elements close to
the roadway could be hit by large vehicles check clearances, due to steep cross-slopes.
3. In urban areas a steeper cross-slope is often desirable in order to minimize ponding and
splashing. An upper limit of 3.0% is not uncommon.
4. For flat sag vertical curves, false grading the gutter to promote positive drainage by increasing
the cross-slope is a common design technique. False grading of gutters consists of the
incorporation of gutter profiles which are not parallel to the control profile of the roadway. In
one example, the roadway centreline of an und ivided road is designed with the appropriate K
values. The curb and gutter profiles are false graded to provide minimum longitudinal grades to
88 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
the catch basin. Figure 3.5.1 provides an illustration of this method. The result is an increased
cross-slope on the roadway in the vicinity of the catch basin, while reducing safety concerns
related to inadequate cross drainage on the roadways.
5. It may also be advantageous to false grade gutters, in relation to the pavement crown line or the
top of curb, to provide adequate drainage. Curb heights typically vary between lOOmm and
200mm to achieve the false grading. The result may be a varying slope on the pavement surface.
Provided that the cross-slope on a tangent road section does not exceed about 3%, the benefits
of the false grading typically outweigh the disadvantages associated with varying cross-slopes
and curb heights, if the longitudinal drainage can be improved. Varying the curb height typically
requires hand construction which may be more costly.
-------
- --- - - -----1
-
-0.55~%]---o-l--0
+ .50%
1
gutter 0
gutter profile catchbasin
not parallel to location
centreline near
catch basin
Note: Minimum longitudinal gutter grades of 0.30% are acceptable.
Figure 3.5.1: False Grading and Cross-Slopes
3.5.4 CROSS-SLOPE ARRANGEMENTS: APPLICATION HEURISTICS
The direction of the cross-slopes, or the cross-slope arrangements for various classes of roads, are
described below and illustrated in Figure 3.5.2. The rate of cross-slope in each case depends on the type
of surface as noted earlier, as well as, if relevant, on the width of roadways and drainage considerations.
On tangent sections of roadway, cross-slope is normally applied to drain storm water to the side of the
roadway. On two-lane roads the pavement is normally crowned at the centreline and the pavement
slopes down to each edge.
On four-lane undivided roads and four-lane divided roads with a flush median, the crown is normally
placed in the centre of the pavement or median, and cross-slope to each pavement edge is 0.02 m/m.
On a four-lane divided road with a depressed median, a crown may be placed at the centre of each
roadway with a cross-slope of 0.02 m/m to each edge, or both lanes may drain away from the median.
These alternates are illustrated in Figure 3.5.2 (four lane divided, alternates A and B). The advantages of
the crown are storm water drains to both sides of the roadway and it facilitates the treatment of the
roadway with de-icing chemicals which are spread in a narrow strip about the crown line, allowing the
June 2017 89
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
action of traffic and cross-slope to further spread the chemicals across the entire pavement. If the road
eventually requires expansion to six lanes by adding two lanes in the median, the additional lanes will
slope toward the median. The advantages of both lanes draining away from the median is the reduction
in median drainage provision.
If a four-lane divided road is to be expanded to six lanes within a short period of time of initial
construction, it is normally designed for six lanes and built without the median lanes initially. In this case
both lanes of each roadway slope toward the outer edge.
For six-lane divided roads, the crown for each roadway is applied to either edge of the centre lane, in
which case one or two lanes drain toward the median. With two lanes draining toward the median, at
locations where an auxiliary lane is added, two lanes are draining in each direction. This location of the
crown is also convenient for an initial stage of four-lane divided. If the six-lane cross section is to be a
stage of an eight-lane cross section, a crown located at the common edge of the median and centre lane
is preferred to avoid three lanes draining toward the median. The above is illustrated in Figure 3.5.2 (six-
lane divided, alternates A and B).
Cross-slope on auxiliary lanes is the same as that of the adjacent through lane. For further details on
roadway cross-slopes and cross-slopes applied to shoulders, refer to Chapter 4.
At intersections where two roads on tangent intersect, normal cross-slope is maintained on the major
road, and cross-slope on the minor road is run out on the approaches to the intersection to match the
profile of the major road. This treatment is typical of intersections controlled by a stop sign on the minor
road. In the case of an intersection where the two roads are of equal importance, or where the
intersection is signalized, the normal cross-slope is run out on all four approaches so that the cross-slope
on each road matches the profile of the crossing road. Simply put, the pavements are warped to
maintain smooth profiles for traffic on both roads. This topic is dealt with in more detail in Chapter 9.
90 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
two-lane undivided
four-lane undivided
four-lane divided with narrow
raised median
-- -- --
four-lane divided with wide depressed median (a)
--
four-lane divided with wide depressed median (b)
six-lane divided (a)
-- -- --
six-lane divided (b)
--
eight-lane divided
70
Figure 3.5.2: Application of Cross-slope on Various Types of Roads
June 2017 91
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
For roadways on structures, the cross-slope is a minimum of 0.02 m/m.
For resurfacing, design guidelines and acceptable limits are provided in Table 3.5.1 for pavement cross-
71
slope related to design speed.
Table 3.5.1: Pavement Cross-Slope for Resurfacing
Cross-Slope (m/m)
Design Speed Design Maximum algebraic Difference
Acceptable Limits
(km/h) Guidelines (driving lanes)(m/m)
60 0.02 0.015 - 0.040 0.08
80 0.02 0.015 - 0.035 0.07
100 0.02 0.015 - 0.030 0.06
120 0.02 0.015 - 0.025 0.05
The cross-slope for the other types of lanes addressed later in this chapter, including climbing lanes,
passing lanes and service roads generally adhere to the following criteria.
For truck climbing lanes the cross-slope is usually handled the same as the addition of a lane to a
multilane road. Two common practices are:
1. The continuation of the cross-slope of the through lanes.
2. A small increase in cross-slope compared to the through lanes. On superelevated sections the
cross-slope is usually a continuation of the through lanes unless truck speeds are extremely slow
and icy conditions prevail in which case an adjustment in the truck climbing lane cross-slope
may be desirable.
For passing lanes the practice is similar to that for truck climbing lanes except that slow speeds are not
an issue. The cross-slope for service roads, express collector systems, and weaving lanes basically follow
the same principles as would be applied to a similar class of through lane.
3.5.5 CROSS-SLOPE CHANGES: APPLICATION HEURISTICS
Sometimes it is necessary to change the cross-slope on tangents for reasons other than superelevation.
As in superelevation it is important that the change is gradual enough to provide visual driving comfort.
This is achieved by having an acceptable relative slope which is a slope or profile of the outer edge of
pavement in relation to the profile of the centreline. It is dependent on the rate of cross-slope being
developed, the length over which it is developed, and the width of the pavement. It is therefore an
expression of rate of change of cross-slope. The maximum relative slope normally applied varies with
design speed. Table 3.5.2 provides values for maximum relative slope for two-lane roadways. For four-
lane and six-lane roadways, the lengths are increased by 1.5 and 2.0 times that for two-lane roadways,
72
respectively.
92 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Table 3.5.2: Maximum Relative Slope between Outer Edge of Pavement
and Centreline of Two-Lane Roadway
Design Speed (km/h) Relative Slope
40 0.70
50 0.65
60 0.60
70 0.55
80 0.51
90 0.47
100 0.44
110 0.41
120 0.38
130 0.36
73
Design values for rates of change of cross-slope are shown on Table 3.5.3. These values are suitable
for single-lane ramps. For two-lane ramps lower values are appropriate. Theoretically, the maximum
rate of change for two-lane roadways should be 50% of that for single-lane roadways, however, this may
generate transition lengths which cannot be achieved at an acceptable cost and values of 75% are
acceptable.
Table 3.5.3: Design Values for Rate of Change of Cross-Slope for Single-Lane Turning Roads
Change in Rate of superelevation
Design Speed (km/h)
(m/m/m length)
25 and 30 0.0025
40 0.0023
50 0.0020
~SS 0.0016
The minimum transition length is given by the equation:
lOOwe (3.5.1)
l=
2s
Where:
transition length (m)
w= width of pavement (m)
e= change in superelevation development (m/m)
s= relative slope(%)
The phenomenon of adjacent traffic lanes having different rates of cross-slope or superelevation gives
rise to a ridge at the common edge, referred to as algebraic difference or roll-over.
Too great a difference in cross-slope may cause vehicles travelling between lanes to sway, giving rise to
some discomfort, and possible hazard . Significant differences in cross-slope can occur in the vicinity of
ramp exit terminals and ramp entrance terminals. The maximum algebraic difference in the cross-slope
between adjacent lanes is given in Figure 3.5.3.
Where the design of the superelevation meets speed/radius requirements and the minimum design
values for rate of change of cross-slope, but exceeds the maximum algebraic differences in pavement
cross-slope, the alignment design should be re-examined .
June 2017 93
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
A A
r ~ommon
~oeedge
----- ----- ~ ~
A
cross section view
common lane edge A-A
design speed of exit maximum algebraic
or entrance curve (km/h) difference in cross-slope (m/m)
up to 30 0.06
30 to 50 0.05
50 & over 0.04
Design speed of exit or entrance Maximum algebraic difference of
curve (km/h) cross-slope (m/m)
Up to 30 0.06
30 to 50 0.05
50 and over 0.04
Figure 3.5.3: Maximum Algebraic Difference in Pavement Cross-Slope
74
of Adjacent Traffic Lanes
3.6 BASIC LANES AND LANE BALANCE
3.6.1 BASIC LANES
3.6.1.1 Technical Foundation
Fundamental to establishing the number and arrangement of lanes along major routes such as freeways
and arterials is the designation of the basic number of lanes. Consistency in the number of lanes
provided along the route is essential for maintaining reasonable uniformity in service.
The basic number of lanes is defined as a minimum number of lanes designated and maintained over a
significant length of route, or between geographic locations, irrespective of localized changes in traffic
volumes and requirements for lane balance. Another way of stating this is that the basic number of
lanes is a constant number of lanes assigned to a route, exclusive of auxiliary lanes.
94 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.6.1.2 Application Heuristics
The number of basic lanes changes only where there is a significant change in the general level of traffic
volumes over a substantial length of the facility. Because local traffic variations are ignored, some short
sections may have spare capacity, while other short sections may need some extra capacity by the
addition of auxiliary lanes. For example, if interchanges are closely spaced, the basic number of lanes is
maintained between interchanges even if the estimated traffic in that short section of road does not
warrant that number. If the number of lanes in some short sections were reduced for reasons of
capacity, then these sections are susceptible to becoming bottlenecks when unusual traffic conditions
occur. Common instances are the demands created by accidents, maintenance operations, road closing
or special events. Figure 3.6.1 below illustrates the concept of basic lanes and indicates the number of
75
lanes maintained over significant lengths of routes, as A to B, or C to D.
:- -...... -.-,,
- I 1- -
·.---- --- ---- · B
...... ..... ,- -- -,
"........... .
..... . . - ..'\.
..................... 1 I
6
I .. "' '"'1
6 c D 6 4
·--------
- - ....,,
... ...
.-
6
-------., __, __ _ .--------- -- --------•
, -.
A ·-
4
' -
Figure 3.6.1: Schematic of Basic Number of Lanes
June 2017 95
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.6.2 LANE BALANCE
3.6.2.1 Technical Foundation
To realize smooth and efficient operation on a section of road including through and beyond an
interchange, there should be a balance in the number of traffic lanes on the through roadway and
ramps. The minimum number of lanes required is initially determined from the design traffic volumes
and capacity analysis. However, in some instances it is desirable that the number of lanes be increased
to promote smooth, safe operations, and to accommodate variations in traffic patterns.
3.6.2.2 Application Heuristics
Application of the lane balance principles outlined below and illustrated in Figure 3.6.2 ensures lane
76
balance after the minimum number has been established:
1. At merges, the number of lanes beyond the merge is equal to or one less than the sum of the
lanes merging. This principle prohibits, for example, immediately merging both lanes of a two-
lane entrance ramp into a roadway main line without the addition of at least one additional lane
beyond the entrance ramp.
2. On diverges, the number of lanes downstream of the diverge is equal to one more than the
number of lanes on the approach . An exception occurs at the end of weave sections less than
450m in length, as for example at cloverleaf weaves. An additional condition of this exception is
that there is a continuous auxiliary lane between the terminals.
3. When two lanes diverge, the number of lanes on the roadway is reduced by one downstream of
the exit. This principle prohibits, for example, dropping two lanes at a two-lane exit ramp.
4. The number of lanes in one direction of travel is reduced by not more than one at a time. An
exception to this may be at a major fork where the number of lanes on the roadway may be
reduced by two lanes downstream of the exit provided only one of the lanes dropped is a basic
lane.
96 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
MERGING
A NA-P- NC II c
Ne '" NA+ Nri
or Ne = NA + NB • 11
NB + Ne • NA +1
Examples
- 2--~~---- 2- - - 2 ----~~-- 2 -
--, "'\
- 3 --~~---- 3 - -
( 1
- - 3 -----=~- 3 -
--, 'I
- 4-~~.....- - - - 4 - - - 4 -----=~- 4 -
( 1 1 'I
- :2 ---==""""- --- 3 - - -- 3 ---- -=---
. - - - 2 2- -
f 1
'I
-,,.,..- 1
3 --~----- 4,_ - 4 -----~-- 3 -
-- 2
""\
-f 2 --~----- 3 -
2 ----- .
- 5 ----!1111!1!!!!~~- 4 -
2 "\
- 3- ......
~,,,_ ____ 4--
-- 5 -----~---- 3, -
2 -- 3 ""\
f
Figure 3.6.2: Typical Examples of Lane Balance
3.6.3 COORDINATION OF LANE BALANCE AND BASIC LANES
3.6.3.1 Technical Foundation
Lane balance and basic number of lanes are brought into harmony by means of building on the basic
number of lanes, that is, by adding auxiliary lanes or removing them from the width of the travelled way.
The principles of lane balance must always be applied in the use of auxiliary lanes. This will provide the
June 2017 97
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
necessary balance between traffic load and capacity, with resultant lane balance and needed
operational flexibility. Many operational problems on existing freeways and other higher classification
roadways are directly attributable to a lack of lane balance at ramps and failure to maintain route
continuity. This is especially significant at exit ramps, and on urban freeways because of the high traffic
volumes.
3.6.3.2 Application Heuristics
The principles of coordination of lane balance and basic lanes are best described by example, and this is
illustrated in Figure 3.6.3. In each illustration the through roadway has four basic lanes and a two-lane
exit followed by a two-lane entrance.
In illustration (i) lane balance is maintained, but there is no compliance with the basic number of lanes.
This might cause confusion and erratic operations for through traffic on the freeway. Furthermore, even
though traffic volumes are reduced through the interchange there is no assurance that this pattern of
traffic will prevail under all circumstances. Unduly large concentrations of through traffic might be
caused by special events, closures or reduction in capacity of other parallel facilities because of
accidents or maintenance operations. Under such circumstances, any lanes which have been dropped
on a freeway between some interchanges (based on capacity and lane balance requirements as dictated
by design hour volumes) produce bottlenecks.
The arrangement shown in illustration (ii) provides continuity in the basic number of lanes but does not
conform with the principles of lane balance. With this arrangement, the large exiting or entering traffic
volume requiring two lanes have difficulty in diverging from and merging with the freeway flow .
Illustration (iii) shows an arrangement in which the concepts of lane balance and basic number of lanes
are brought into harmony by means of adding auxiliary lanes. In this manner, the principles of lane
balance and maintenance of basic lanes are both respected.
Where an auxiliary lane is extended beyond an entrance to maintain both lane balance and basic lanes,
the lane drop should be made sufficiently far downstream from the entrance to allow traffic to disperse
into other lanes, but should not be continued so far as to suggest to the driver that it is an added basic
lane. A distance of 700 m to 900 m is recommended from the entrance to the beginning of the lane drop
to permit entering traffic to disperse into the through lanes. The drop is preferred on a tangent section
and not on the far side of a crest curve where sight distance is reduced. A sag curve is an excellent
location for a lane drop since it is readily seen by the driver.
In the case of an auxiliary lane introduced before an exit, the lane should be extended at least 500 m to
make full use of the capacity of the added lane.
98 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
4 ---11!!~
~-2- 3 ~
--2-""""'!!!.- - - - 4 - - - - -
lane balanoe but no cornp lianoe with !basic num ber ·Of lanes
(i)
- - - -- ... 4 ---~~-- 4 ---~--- 4 _ _ _ _ __
~~
N'o lane balance but compliance with basic number of lan es
(ii)
---- 4 - 5 ---·---- 4 -------- 5 - 4 ____
~~
Compliance with both lane balarioe and basic number of lanes
(iii}
77
Figure 3.6.3: Coordination of Lane Balance and Basic Lanes
3.6.4 EXPRESS COLLECTOR SYSTEMS: BEST PRACTICES
The maximum number of basic lanes on an urban freeway in one direction is normally four, in which
case any vehicle obliged to utilize a shoulder does not have to cross more than one lane. If more t han
four basic lanes in each direction of a freeway are required for a significant length, two roadways in each
direction are normally introduced. The inner roadways are referred to as express lanes and the outer
roadways as collector lanes.
Collector lanes, like the express lanes, are fully controlled access, grade-separated at crossing roads with
ingress and egress to and from arterial roads through interchanges. Travel between the express lanes
and collector lanes is provided through transfer roadways crossing the outer separations. The transfer
roadways may be either one lane or two lanes in width. Figure 3.6.4 illustrates a typical express collector
system.
The purpose of an express collector system is to eliminate weaving and reduce the number of ingress
and egress points on t he through roadways while satisfying the demand for access to and from the
freeway.
June 2017 99
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
express lanes
transfer lanes
transfer lanes
collector lanes
78
Figure 3.6.4: Typical Express Collector System
100 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Traffic entering the express-collector system from the arterial road system does so by means of an
interchange to the collector lanes, and transfers to the express lanes. Traffic wishing to exit from the
express lanes does so by a transfer roadway to the collector lanes before the required interchange, and
then proceeds through the interchange to the arterial road system. Traffic travelling relatively short
distances on the freeway remains on the collector lanes throughout. Usually, the traffic volumes on the
collector lanes are less than those encountered on the express lanes, and there are fewer lanes.
An interchange at the express system crossing another freeway will normally provide ramps for all
movements between the collector lanes and the crossing freeway. In addition, a limited number of
movements between the express lanes and the crossing freeway may be provided. These allow traffic to
move directly between the crossing freeway and the express lanes, and assist in minimizing weaving
conditions on the collector lanes.
Collector roadways differ from conventional freeway roadways in that they have left exits and entrances
to transfer lanes. Design speed and other geometric design features are the same. Continuous collector
lanes should be integrated into a basic lane design to develop an overall system. Capacity analysis and
basic lane determination should be performed for the overall express-collector system rather than for
separate roadways.
3.7 LANE AND ROUTE CONTINUITY AND WEAVING
3.7.1 LANE CONTINUITY
3.7.1.1 Technical Foundation
In designing the lane arrangement of a freeway, design volume, maintenance of basic lanes and lane
balance are all taken into account. A further consideration is that of lane continuity.
A driver needs to recognize which lanes are basic or through, to avoid being inadvertently led by the
lane markings to an undesired ramp lane. If good lane balance is applied and basic lanes are maintained,
together with all exits and entrances having a single lane on the right, lane continuity will naturally
follow. Where entering and exiting ramps have two or more lanes, and at transfer lanes on collector
roadways on express-collector systems, lane continuity can be lost.
3.7.1.2 Best Practices
Figure 3.7.1 illustrates examples of lane continuity. Included is an example of noncompliance of lane
continuity followed by an illustration of a rearrangement of lanes and ramps in order to achieve lane
continuity. In illustration (i) three basic lanes are maintained, all ramps are single lane on the right and
the principles of lane balance are observed. Lane continuity is maintained. In illustration (ii) there are
three basic lanes, all ramps are on the right and have two lanes, lane balance is preserved and lane
continuity is maintained.
In illustration (iii) there are two single-lane entrances on the right, a two-lane exit on the right, a two-
lane (transfer) entrance on the left and a two-lane (transfer) exit on the left. Although three basic lanes
are maintained through the section and the principles of lane balance are observed, only one of the
basic lanes is continuous. This confuses the driver, causes turbulence and unnecessary lane changing in
the traffic operation, and is potentially hazardous.
June 2017 101
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Illustration (iv) shows how the deficiencies of illustration (iii) can be resolved. The number of lanes on
each ramp and transfer roadway are the same, proper lane balance is observed and all three basic lanes
are continuous. This is accomplished by use of auxiliary lanes on both the left and right-hand sides of the
roadway.
• •
i) three basic lanes, single lane ramps on the right
proper lane balance, lane continuity maintained
ii) three basic lanes, two lane ramps on the right
proper lane balance, lane continuity maintained
•
•
•
iii) three basic lanes, proper lane balance but only
one through lane is continuous, lane continuity lost.
• •
iv) three basic lanes, proper lane balance, basic
(through) lanes are continuous, lane continuity is restored
79
Figure 3.7.1: Examples of Lane Continuity
102 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.7.2 ROUTE CONTINUITY
3.7.2.1 Technical Foundation
Route continuity refers to the provision of a directional path along and throughout the length of a
designated route. Continuity of route designation, either by name or number, is important to ensure
operational uniformity and to reassure the driver that he is on the intended course. The principle of
route continuity simplifies the driving task in that it reduces lane changes, simplifies signing, delineates
the through route, and reduces the drivers search for directional signing.
Desirably, the through driver, especially the unfamiliar driver, should be provided a continuous through
route on which it is not necessary to change lanes and through traffic vehicular operation occurs on the
left of all other traffic. In maintaining route continuity through cities and bypasses, interchange
configurations need not always favour the heavy movement but rather the through route. To
accomplish this, heavy movements can be designed on flat curves with reasonably direct connections
and auxiliary lanes, equivalent operationally to through movements.
3.7.2.2 Best Practices
Adherence to the above route continuity principles influences the configuration of interchanges. In
Figure 3.7.2, two continuity arrangements are illustrated.
In illustration (i) highway 1 is a north-south route and highway 2 is an east-west route, in which case a
conventional four level fully-directional interchange is appropriate and the designated through routes
are consistent with the route numbers. In illustration (ii), highway A is an east-south route and highway
Bis a north-west route. The through routes, and the route names and numbers, are maintained and the
ramps carry traffic between route numbers.
If the conventional configuration of illustration (i) were applied to the highway A/B interchange, the
through route numbers would be carried on ramps. This would confuse a driver who expects to exit on a
ramp (on the right) only when departing from the through route number of another route. The
designated through route name or number, therefore, influences the selection of the configuration of
the interchange.
June 2017 103
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
i)
ii)
A
80
Figure 3.7.2: Illustration of Route Continuity
104 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.7.3 WEAVING
3.7.3.1 Technical Foundation
Weaving sections are roadway segments where the pattern of traffic entering and leaving at contiguous
points of access result in vehicle paths crossing each other. Weaving sections may occur within an
interchange, between entrance ramps followed by exit ramps of successive interchanges, and on
segments of overlapping roadways. The weave section operations are an important consideration in the
location of ramp terminals.
If the frequency of lane changes in a weaving section is similar to that on an open road, the section is
said to be out of the realm of weaving, but where they exceed the normal frequency the condition is
described as "weaving."
There are three primary types of weaving sections which are determined by the operational features
such as number of entry lanes, number of exit lanes, and their impact on how lane changing must take
place. The three types of weaving sections are: Type A, Type B, and Type C. These three types of
weaving sections are illustrated in Figure 3.7.3.
• Type A weaving section requires that each weaving vehicle make one lane change in order to
execute the desirable movement. Type A weaving section is also broken into two distinct
weaving types. The first is a one sided weave, and the second is called a major weave with
crown line.
• Type B weave section is classified as a major weaving section because it involves multilane
entry and/or exit lanes. Two critical characteristics that distinguish Type B weaving areas are: 1)
one weaving movement may be accomplished without making any lane changes, and 2) the
other weaving movement requires at most one lane change. Type B weaving sections are
extremely efficient in carrying large weaving volumes, primarily because of provisions of a
through lane for one of the weaving movements.
• Type C weaving sections are similar to Type B weaving sections in that one or more through
lanes are provided for one of the weaving movements. The distinguishing differences between
Type B and Type C weave sections is the number of lane changes required for the other
weaving movement.
June 2017 105
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
............ /'
- -c A~ ~ C
A
>=
B ~
::>E: =>E 3>C 3:: ~ D
ramp-weave I one-sided weave
/' . .............
major weave with crown line
.
i) type A weaving areas
A ~
-----
>---~-~
--------
- - -~
---
--- =- c ....::::::::::
B ___.. --- --- --- D
A~
B ~
--
-......_ -------
::> -~ ~~ ~
-
~~~~~~~~--....._
- - - ----
~D
~C
major weave with merging at entrance gore
A ._____
----- c
major weave with merging at entrance gore and lane balance at exit gore
ii) type B weaving areas
A
----------
>-==
~ -~
_::--~ -~ - ~~
--- c
B~ --D
major weave without lane balance or merging two-sided weave
iii) type C weaving areas
81
Figure 3.7.3: Types of Weaving Sections
106 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.7.3.2 Road safety and Human Factors considerations
Crossing the weaving section
Drivers crossing a weaving section from the right to the left side with two through lanes have a number
of sub-tasks to accomplish:
• Follow the on-ramp path.
• Bring the vehicle up to mainline traffic speed.
• Look behind at mainline traffic to the left to locate a suitable gap.
• Pace the chosen gap between vehicles in the adjacent lane.
• Lane-change from the acceleration lane to the adjacent mainline lane.
• Monitor any ramp vehicles directly ahead.
• Monitor the length of on-ramp.
• Monitor mainline traffic directly ahead for slowing.
• Monitor the adjacent mainline lane to the left for vehicles changing lanes to the right
• Read guide sign.
• Look behind at mainline traffic in the left lane to locate a suitable gap.
• Pace the chosen gap between vehicles in the adjacent mainline lane.
• Lane-change to the adjacent mainline lane to the left.
• Monitor start of off ramp.
• Lane-change left to off ramp.
This is a complex sequence of tasks requiring a division of attention between high workloads in the
control task (involving changes in path and speed) and the guidance task (involving interacting with
other vehicles both directly ahead and behind and in adjacent lanes). For unfamiliar drivers there is the
additional navigation task involving reading the guide sign. Errors in any one of the sub-tasks listed
above can lead to a run-off-road, a rear-end, or a sideswipe crash and can happen during both the
control and guidance tasks.
The human factors concerns involved in weaving are very similar to those involved in entering and
exiting a freeway. These are discussed briefly below. For more detail see Chapter 10.
Merging and visual search
Studies involving eye movement cameras as well as video recordings show that drivers on the on-ramp
begin actively looking for downstream traffic about 10 seconds prior to approaching the entrance ramp
82
nose, and continue looking back intermittently about 10 seconds past that bullnose • These values
define the high workload area of the ramp. Ramps are often on curved alignments, which are visually
demanding as shown in research studies of driver eye movement. This curvature increases workload
even more.
The task of mainline drivers is to accommodate the merging of entering drivers and the lane changing of
drivers preparing to exit. In a merge situation, mainline drivers often also change lanes to the left to
accommodate slower entering drivers; sideswipe crashes can occur if their search prior to their lane
change is inadequate. The shorter the merge area speed change lane, the more pressure there is for
entering drivers to force their way into the through lane and for mainline drivers to move left,
sometimes abruptly. In weaving sections, depending on the design circumstances, the use of minimum
design domain values of speed change length may be inappropriate.
June 2017 107
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Reading guide signs prior to exits
The legibility of guide signs has implications for design of the length of weaving sections. Eye movement
studies of unfamiliar drivers using guide signs shows that drivers will be engaged in sign reading starting
at a distance equivalent to 10 seconds at the operating speed from the sign, up to a distance equivalent
to 1 second from the sign. Once drivers are able to complete reading and decision, the remaining
distance up to the exit gore can be used for gap search and lane changing.
Driver gap search and lane change distance requirements
Driver activity in a weaving section can involve several sequential lane changes. Based on driver
behavior research discussed in Chapter 10, for geometric design purposes, rounded values of 13, 17 and
24 seconds can reasonably be used to estimate the necessary times for drivers to search for a gap in
moderate traffic conditions and carry out lane changes of one, two, or three lanes for passenger car
drivers once a sign has been read. At an operating speed of 120 km/h, this corresponds to a travel
distance of 430 m, 570 m, and 800 m respectively, as summarized in Table 3.7.1 below.
Table 3.7.1: Lane Change Times and Distances at Operating Speed of 120 km/h
Number of lane changes
1 2 3
Time (sec) 13 17 24
Distance (m) 430 m 570 m 800m
These values can appropriately be applied to distances required between:
• An on-ramp bullnose and the next off-ramp bullnose
• An on-ramp bullnose and the entrance to express lanes
• An HOV lane end of buffer zone (start of lane change zone) and off-ramp gore
• An HOV lane start of buffer zone (end of lane change zone) and off-ramp gore
It should be noted that tractor-trailers are likely to require more time for changing lanes. However, no
reliable research has quantified distances for such vehicles.
Sight distance to the bullnose area
Providing good sight distance to a freeway exit/entrance bullnose area will assist drivers in identifying
the exit or entrance and preparing for it in a manner appropriate to their needs. Research shows that a
significant proportion of drivers wait until they can see the road layout before they change lanes. To
accommodate such drivers, a decision sight distance of 11to14 seconds to the bull nose at the operating
speed should be provided whenever possible.
Speed reduction and exiting
Drivers easily adapt to high speeds on a freeway and can take time to bring their speeds down when
83
traversing from the freeway to lower speed facilitiesincluding ramps. Although speed limits are posted
on all roadways and vehicles are equipped with speedometers, experience has shown that drivers do
not look at their speedometers frequently to choose suitable travel speeds. Moreover, in situations such
as an off-ramp, where geometry forces a driver to change speed, drivers' workload increases, and they
actually look at the speedometer even less. Thus, sharp curvature on an off-ramp should be avoided.
108 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3. 7 .3.3 Best Practices
The conflict between entering and exiting traffic tends to interrupt the operation of normal through
traffic, precipitates turbulence in traffic flow and has the effect of reducing service volumes and
capacity. Undesirable weaving conditions may be alleviated by increasing the number of lanes in the
weaving section or increasing the length between successive entrance and exit gores. Weaving sections
may be eliminated from the main facility by the selection of interchange forms that do not have
weaving, or by incorporation of collector distributor roadways. Although interchanges that do not
involve weaving operate better than those that do, interchanges with weaving areas nearly always are
less costly than those without.
If the above measures are not effective or not feasible for resolving weaving concerns, it may be
necessary to eliminate certain turning movements or relocate them elsewhere, in the interest of
maintaining the operational integrity of the freeway. Alternatively, a weaving condition may be
eliminated by separating the conflicting traffic movements vertically by introducing a grade separation
of basket weave configuration. These solutions are illustrated in Figure 3.7.4.
solution: increased length and/or number of lanes
I. weaving section
. I
I. weaving section
solution: eliminate one of the turning movements and locate elsewhere
solution: vertical separation
84
Figure 3.7.4: Solutions for Undesirable Weaving
June 2017 109
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
The minimum length, number of lanes, and capacity analysis of the weaving sections are determined
using procedures in the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual.
For efficient operation on freeways, weaving length between a freeway interchange and an arterial
interchange normally should be in the range of 800 m to 1000 m and between arterial interchanges in
the range of 550 m and 700 m. It is recognized that in many cases shorter weaving lengths may be
imposed by other constraints such as the location (spacing) of existing arterial roads. Such shorter
weaving lengths operate with varying levels of quality and safety depending on local conditions and
features such as traffic volumes, sight distance, visibility, horizontal and vertical alignment, and cross
section elements.
Weaving sections longer than 1000 m will frequently be out of the realm of weaving. Weaving length is
measured from the point where lane edges at the merge are 0.5 m apart to where lane edges at the
diverge are 3.7 m, illustrated in Figure 3.7.5 .
edge of through lane edge of through lane
weaving length
edge of ramp lane edge of ramp lane
85
Figure 3.7.5: Method of Measuring Weaving Lengths
3.8 TRUCK CLIMBING LANES
3.8.1 INTRODUCTION
Freedom of movement and safety of operation on roads are adversely affected by heavily loaded vehicle
traffic operating on grades of sufficient length to result in speeds that could impede following vehicles.
Slow moving vehicles pose a safety hazard and can contribute to a higher number of collisions on grade.
Climbing lanes are a safety feature and are commonly included in new construction of busier roads. On
existing roads, they are often built as an additional lane as part of a safety improvement project.
Normally both speed reduction criteria and traffic volume criteria are needed to determine when
climbing lanes are warranted.
A roadway section with a climbing lane is not considered a three-lane highway, but a two-lane roadway
with an auxiliary lane for vehicles moving slowly uphill so that the progress of other vehicles using the
normal lane to the right of the centreline is not retarded. These vehicles pass the slower vehicles moving
up grade, but not in the lane for opposing traffic, as on the customary two-lane road. A separate
110 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
climbing lane exclusively for slow-moving vehicles is preferred to the addition of an extra lane carrying
mixed traffic.
3.8.2 GRADES AND OPERATIONS: TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
The combination of grade, length of grade, and the mass/power ratio of the vehicle are the main factors
in determining the amount of speed reduction . Wind resistance and operator skills cause only minor
variations.
The term critical length of grade is used to indicate the maximum length of a designated up grade on
which a loaded truck can operate without an unreasonable reduction in speed. For a given grade,
lengths less than critical result in acceptable operation in the desired range of speeds. If the desired
freedom of operation is to be maintained on grades longer than critical, design adjustments such as
change in location to reduce grades or addition of extra lanes should be made. The data for critical
lengths of grade are used with other pertinent considerations (such as traffic volume in relation to
capacity) to determine where added lanes are warranted.
To establish design values for critical lengths of grade for which the speed of trucks is the determining
factor, data or assumptions are needed for the following :
1. Size and power of a representative truck or truck combination to be used as a design vehicle
along with the speed data for this vehicle. The mass-power ratio of a truck determines how that
truck operates on various grades. The higher the ratio, the more speed is lost on an ascending
grade and the maximum sustained speed attained is lowered. For example, a truck with a 120
g/W mass to power ratio performs better on an upgrade than a truck with a 180 g/W ratio.
A loaded truck, powered so that the mass/power ratio is about 180 g/W, is representative of the
size and type of vehicle normally used for design in Canada. The use of a 180 ratio for current
use is substantiated by several sources. The Alberta Geometric Design Guide indicates the
mass/power ratio for the design vehicle is 180 g/W based on a survey of Alberta industry,
86
together with a spot survey taken at weigh scales. A 1996 TAC paper from a review of data
over the years showed that weight to power ratios have actually been dropping since the 1950s,
87
indicating an increase in the performance of trucks.
Recent research from the United States indicates that the 85 1h percentile mass/power ratios for
88
trucks on main highways in the US are typically in the range of 102 to 126 g/W • As a result, a
typical loaded truck with a mass/power ratio of about 120 g/W is representative of the size and
type of vehicle that can be used as a design control for main highways in the US.
Using the 180 g/W design vehicle is considered a valid, but conservative approach for most
highways.
2. Speed at entrance to critical length of grade.
The average running speed as related to design speed can be used to approximate the speed of
vehicles beginning an uphill climb. It is, of course, subject to adjustment as approach conditions
may determine. Where vehicles approach on nearly level grades, the running speed can be used
directly. For a downhill approach it should be increased somewhat, and for an uphill approach it
should be decreased.
June 2017 111
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3. Minimum speed on the grade below which interference to following vehicles is considered
unreasonable.
No specific data are available on which to base minimum tolerable speeds of trucks on up-
grades. It is logical to assume that the minimum speeds are in direct relation to the design
speed. Minimum truck speeds of about 40 km/h to 70 km/h for the majority of roads (on which
design speeds are about 70 km/h to 100 km/h) probably are not unreasonably annoying to
following drivers unable to pass on two-lane roads, if the time interval during which they are
unable to pass is not too long. The time interval is not likely to be annoying on two-lane roads
with volumes well below their capacities, whereas it is likely to be annoying on two-lane roads
with volumes near capacity. Lower minimum truck speeds probably can be tolerated on
multi lane roads rather than on two-lane roads because there is more opportunity for less
difficulty in passing. Roads should be designed so that the speeds of trucks will not be reduced
enough to cause intolerable conditions for the following drivers.
89
Studies show that regardless of the average speed on the road, the greater a vehicle deviates
from this average speed the greater its chances of becoming involved in a collision. In one such
study the speed distribution of vehicles was related to the collision involvement rate (the
6
number of vehicles involved in collisions per 100 x 10 vehicle-km of travel) to obtain the rate
for trucks of four or more axles operating on level grades. The collision involvement rates for
different truck speed reductions were developed assuming the reduction in the average speed
of all vehicles on a grade was 30% of the truck speed reduction on that same grade. The results
of this analysis are shown in Figure 3.8.3. The common basis for determining critical length of
grade is a reduction in speed of trucks below the average running speed.
As shown in Figure 3.8.1, the collision involvement rate increases significantly when the truck
speed reduction exceeds 15 km/h with the involvement rate being 2.4 times greater for a 25
km/h reduction than for 15 km/h reduction. On the basis of these relationships, it is
recommended that a 15 km/h reduction criterion be used as the general design guide for
determining critical lengths of grade.
112 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
4000
~
~
0 3000
en
~
<I) Ci)
~~
c~
<I) c
2000 /
/
E .Q
-§
>0
co
<I);::
E
·- ......
/
Qi
c..
en 1000
V"
/
_L.---" ~
<I)
..c
en
ro
8
0
0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35
speed reduction (km/h)
90
Figure 3.8.1: Collision Involvement Rate for Trucks
As indicated earlier, the 180 g/W mass/power ratio is generally used as a design control in Canada, and
an exception should only be made where there is confidence that a different value would more closely
represent the 85th percentile vehicle. An example would be a recreation route where the 120 g/W ratio
would probably be more representative. To provide for alternatives, the performance of three different
vehicle mass/power ratios are provided for various grades. The three ratios included are 120, 180 and
200. The performance curves of three different vehicle mass/power ratios for a 95 km/h entering speed
are illustrated in Figures 3.8.2, 3.8.3 and 3.8.4. Figure 3.8.5 illustrates the deceleration performance
curve for a 120 g/W mass/power ratio with a 110 km/h entering speed. Further information on using
performance charts and example calculations for determining lengths of climbing lanes are provided
later in this section under geometric features.
The entrance speed on the deceleration chart is 95 km/h. This is in recognition of the higher running
speeds experienced in parts of Canada. Where the entering speed is less than 95 km/h, as might be the
case where the approach is on an up-grade, the speed reductions shown in Figures 3.8.2 to 3.8.4 are
affected over shorter lengths of grade. Conversely, where the approach is on a down grade, the
probable approach speed is greater than 95 km/h and the truck or recreational vehicle will ascend a
greater length of grade than shown in the figures before the speed is reduced to the values shown.
Where an up-grade is approached on a down grade, heavy trucks often increase speed, sometimes to a
considerable degree in order to make the climb on the up-grade at as high a speed as possible. This
factor can be recognized in design by an increase in the permissible speed reduction. It remains for the
designer to judge to what extent the speed of trucks would increase at the bottom of the down grade
above that generally found on level approaches. It appears that a speed increase of about 10 km/h can
June 2017 113
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
be considered for moderate down grades and a speed increase of 15 km/h for steeper grades of
moderate length or longer. On this basis, the permissible speed reduction w ith momentum grades
becomes 25 km/h or 30 km/h. For example, where there is a moderate length of 4% downgrade in
advance of a 6% upgrade, a permissible speed reduction of 25 km/h can be assumed. For this case the
critical length of the 6% upgrade is about 300 m. When considering possible speed increases on
downgrades, it is important to recognize that speed increases may not be attainable if traffic volumes
are high enough so that trucks are likely to follow slow moving vehicles.
In climbing lane analysis, it is sometimes not necessary to determine the detailed speed changes, and
instead it may only be required to determine if the speed reduction criteria has been met. Table 3.8.1
may be used as a quick reference to determine if the speed reduction is met. Data for five different
mass/power ratios is provided.
114 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
95
90
80
~
~
- --
~ r---....
r--- -
1%
70
~~ 2%
::i? 60
~ r-.~I'-- 3%
~
-0
Q)
Q)
Cl.
en
50
40
\\1\\ !'----
\\\" "'"--
-- 4%
5%
30
~ 6%
7%
8%
20
10 II - - deceleration
. curve ~
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
length of grade (x100 m)
95 --~,\°"'I''/ 7,,, _,,/ __......()
90 ,,.,,.,,-
/; ~ /"" 1%
/--: -- -
80
/&, / / ---~
---
70 ~ 2%
I/
::i?
E
~
-0
Q)
Q)
Cl.
en
60
50
40
'/
/
/
-- --
::.--- -
3%
4%
5%
6%
'./ 7%
30
8%
y
20
10 II - - acceleration
• curve r-
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
length of grade (x100 m)
Figure 3.8.2: Performance Curves for Heavy Trucks, 120 g/W,
91
Decelerations and Accelerations
June 2017 115
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
95 --==---r------,---.-------.--.------.--,-------,--,------,0%
90 I ::---
, ~""-........ -r-- -~-1---+----+---+---+--+-----i 1%
80
70
~\. """~
t---tl-\-+--'1-'"<-----l__,,,~-+----+---+----+---+----+--+----;
60 ~\\~\_\~~-"'-----+- . . .::::::::::::t:==t===l=::::t:::===t:=::j::::::::==1
. 2%
1\\\ ~
50>-----11..___._\~"-+--\______,~........___~--+----+~--+----+-~--+----+-----+
\ ~ --r--+---+--+---+--+---_, 3%
40 t-----tt-~\
~\-----i,_______,.,,_
~----+----+---+---+---+----+-----t4%
I --~~..--:i
'\.. :::::::==F::===f::=::==t=::==i=::=::==!=::=::::j:::=::=:j::::::=::::j5%
30 r '--i---+----+-___,f----+-----i---+---+-----i6%
'-.:---+-___,f----+-----i---+---+--+---+-----l7%
20 ~---4.-,_:,,,,~""""""""""=l="""""=-O""""""""""~"""""=F""""""""""""'"""""""..,,,.,,""""""""""~""""""""8 %
'--+---+--+----+---f----+--___,---+-----19%
1O 1-----+------1---+----+---+-----+-<i - - deceleration curve r-
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
length of grade (x100 m)
95
--f#;•\•V'
90 --'>, ":> -7:\ o
0%
/J 7 / ,,,.,. --~--
80
70 -
I ~ r; / I / 1%
.<::
E 60 -
"II I/ --~
6
-0 50
~/
r/j ,,,,------
- 2%
-
Q)
Q)
c. 3%
"' 40
30
/Y
v
20
10
1-
I
acceleration curve r-
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
length of grade (x100 m)
Figure 3.8.3: Performance Curves for Heavy Trucks, 180 g/W,
92
Decelerations and Accelerations
116 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
95 ..............
~
90
~ -----r-- -
80
' \,'\ ~ -....... 1%
-----
~
70
:2
60
~'\\ 2%
E
6
u
Q)
Q)
C>.
V>
50
40
\ '\""
\"\""
~~
~ ~
-...... 3%
30
\\:
~~
r--......_ 4%
5%
6%
7%
20
10
1-
I
deceleration curve ~
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
length of grade (x100 m)
95 //1/',,.-:;;;;· 0%
90
I ~ ~ ---~
80
v
70
//; // v - 1%
:2
60
If// / /
VI~ / ,,,,,-
E 2%
6
uQ) 50
Q)
C>.
V> //~, 3%
40
/Ill 4%
5%
30 6%
V'..
~ 7%
20
10
1-
I
acceleration curve ~
I I
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
length of grade (x100 m)
Figure 3.8.4: Performance Curves for Heavy Trucks, 200 g/W,
93
Decelerations and Accelerations
June 2017 117
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
120
110
100 ~~
~~ ;-.....__
-- 0---
1---
:2
E
90
80
70
f--
~"'" ~
1~\\
~
--- r--.._
r--_
2-
-
---
~
"O 60
~ \\ \ I""' 3
---
Q)
Q)
a. 50
\\\\ """ ............_"-... 4
---
en
40
\\\ \ r-.... 5
-
30
\\'
\.
6
7
s---
9
20
I __
10 deceleration curve ~
I
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
distance (m)
Figure 3.8.5: Performance curve for heavy trucks 120 g/W,
94
Deceleration with 110 km/h entering speed
95
Table 3.8.1: Lengths of Grade for 15 km/h Speed Reduction
Design Truck Mass/ Percent Grade
Power Rating 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
60g/W N/A N/A 740 410 240 190 180
120 g/W N/A N/A 440 280 240 200 160
150 g/W 730 360 280 220 170 140 -
180g/W * 550 340 260 210 160 120 -
200 g/W 520 320 260 210 160 120 -
Notes: 1. Length of specified grade in metres at which the designated design truck
speed is reduced by 15 km/h from its entry (entry speed assumed to be
95 km/h)
2. Conversion factor: 1 g/W = 1.645 lb/hp
3. Values have been rounded
4. * 180 g/W is normally used for 2 lane highway
3.8.3 BEST PRACTICES: WARRANTS
3.8.3.1 General
When the speed reduction on grade is greater than the suggested design guides, then undesirable
operations as outlined earlier may result. However, if traffic volumes are low, the effects of speed
118 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
reduction may be minimal as only an occasional car is delayed. Therefore, besides speed reductions and
the lowering of speed related level of service, the total volume also has to be considered. This prevents
construction of not cost-effective climbing lanes with very low volume roads.
The suggested design criterion for determining the critical length of grade is not intended as a strict
control but as a guide. In some instances the terrain or other physical controls may preclude shortening
or flattening grades to meet these controls. Where a speed reduction greater than the suggested design
guide cannot be avoided, undesirable type of operation may result on roads with numerous trucks,
particularly on two-lane roads with volume approaching capacity and in some instances on multilane
roads. Where the length of critical grade is exceeded, consideration should be given to providing an
added uphill lane for slow moving vehicles, particularly where volume is at or near capacity and the
truck volume is high.
Justification for climbing lanes where the critical length of grade is exceeded may be considered from
the standpoint of road capacity. A climbing lane is generally considered necessary when the design hour
volume equals or exceeds the service volume for the design level of service of the road on the gradient.
The effect that trucks have on capacity is primarily a function of the difference between the average
speed of the trucks and the average running speed of the passenger cars on the road. Physical
dimensions of heavy trucks and their poorer accelerating characteristics also have a bearing on the
space they occupy in the traffic stream; the average dual-wheel truck occupies about twice the space of
the average passenger car where grades are nearly level and where trucks can travel as fast as
passenger cars. The provision of a climbing lane reduces the percentage of grade-affected vehicles in the
through lane which can then accommodate the remaining demand volume.
Steep downhill grades can also have a detrimental effect on capacity and safety on facilities with high
traffic volumes and numerous heavy trucks. Although criteria are not established for these conditions,
there are indications that trucks descending steep down-grades in low gear produce nearly as great an
effect as on an equivalent up grade. Therefore, there are instances where consideration should be given
to providing a truck lane for downhill traffic.
3.8.3.2 Warrants for Two-Lane Roads
Freedom and safety of operation on two-lane roads is governed by the frequency of passing sections
and adversely affected by speed differentials. It is desirable to provide a climbing lane on a two-lane
road where the grades, traffic volume, and heavy vehicle volumes reduce operations to an undesirable
level. Specific warrants for climbing lanes vary between jurisdictions, and it is not the intent of this
Guide to recommend specific quantitative warrants. The warrants from AASHTO are outlined below for
the purpose of illustrating a commonly used warrant which incorporates a number of criteria. The
following three conditions and criteria, reflecting economic considerations, should be satisfied to justify
96
a climbing lane:
1. Total upgrade traffic flow in excess of 200 vehicles per hour.
2. Upgrade truck flow in excess of 20 vehicles per hour.
3. One of the following conditions exists:
• A 15km/h or greater speed reduction is expected for a typical heavy truck.
• Level of service E or F on the grade.
• A reduction of two or more levels of service is experienced when moving from the
approach segment to the grade.
June 2017 119
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
The level of service determinations can be made by referencing the Highway Capacity Manual
procedures.
At the other end of a warrant spectrum, some jurisdictions with very low traffic volumes may elect to
have a simple warrant relating various allowable speed reductions for specific classifications of roads.
Other reasons where climbing lanes may be warranted, even though traffic criteria is not met, may
include locations with a high percentage of loaded trucks, and, at locations where there exists a high
demand for passing prior to the up-grade.
3.8.3.3 Warrants for Multilane Roads
Climbing lanes are not as common on multilane roads and freeways as they are on two-lane roads. They
are harder to justify on these higher classification roads because there is less hindrance to passing slow
moving vehicles. Nevertheless, although passing is easier on multilane roads and freeways, it remains
desirable that all vehicles in a traffic stream move at the same speed. Therefore, if speed differentials
are significant and contributing to safety concerns, then a climbing lane should be considered.
Although climbing lanes are primarily a rural condition, there are locations in urban areas where
climbing lanes are beneficial. Climbing lanes are particularly useful on urban freeways where traffic
volumes are high in relation to capacity. On older urban freeways and arterial streets with appreciable
grades and no climbing lanes, it is a common occurrence for heavy traffic, which may otherwise move
well, to queue up the grades.
As with two-lane roads, specific quantitative warrants for multilane roads are not provided. As with two-
lane roads, the principal determinants of need must include grade, speed differentials, and traffic
considerations.
3.8.4 APPLICATION HEURISTICS
Once the need for a climbing lane is established the basic start and end points are determined using the
truck performance curves. Some designers may prefer to use software programs that are available to
calculate whether climbing lanes are warranted and to determine the lengths and location.
1. Climbing lanes are normally introduced where the design truck experiences a 15 km/h reduction
from the 85th percentile speed.
2. The length of climbing lanes based on speed reductions of less than 15 km/h may be assessed to
derive the optimum balance between benefits and costs. On occasion, a differential greater
than 15 km/h may be appropriate.
3. The start of a climbing lane is preceded by a transition consisting of a direct taper of length, L=
0.4(V)w. Where Lis length in metres, Vis the design speed in kilometres per hour, and w is the
lane width in metres. It is desirable that decision sight distance is available at the beginning of
the taper. Some jurisdictions use a ratio of 60:1 for the entrance taper.
4. The ideal design would terminate the truck climbing lane where the design truck regains a speed
equal to or higher than the speed for which the climbing lane was initiated. In general, this
places the end of the climbing lane shortly over the crest of the vertical curve where sight
distance might be restricted for some profile conditions. Sight distance is checked and the
climbing lane is extended, if necessary, to provide decision sight distance measured to the
pavement (height of object zero).
120 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
5. If the lane cannot be extended far enough to provide the desired speed, then the lane can be
ended where the truck can return to the normal lane without due interference to other traffic.
Desirably, this would be where passing sight distance is available, or preferably 60 to 90 m
beyond this point.
6. A transition consisting of a direct taper design is required to succeed the end of the climbing
lane to merge traffic. The length of taper is determined by the equation L=0.6Vw where Lis the
taper in metres, Vis the design speed in kilometres per hour and w is the climbing lane width in
metres. It is desirable to provide an extra wide shoulder beyond the termination. This is a safety
feature because it serves as an escape lane in the event that a merge is not feasible. Some
jurisdictions use a ratio of 60:1 for the taper at the end of the climbing lane.
7. A minimum length of climbing lane is required to allow completion of an overtaking maneuver.
A minimum length of 500 to 1000 m is recommended.
8. The 500 m length applies to roads with low volumes whereas the 1000 m length applies to roads
with higher volumes.
9. If consecutive climbing lanes occur at short intervals, then the separate lanes are joined
together to form one continuous lane. This practice reduces turbulence in the through lanes.
10. In some instances a mixture of climbing lanes and passing lanes can be very effective. Passing
lanes are addressed in Section 3.9.
11. Climbing lanes are designed for each direction independently of the other. Depending on the
alignment and profile conditions, they might or might not overlap where there is a crest with a
long grade on each side. This is illustrated in Figure 3.8.6.
12. The designer should avoid locating climbing lanes in areas which contain intersections and high
volume driveways. Particularly critical are intersections on the left side, and in the vicinity of the
diverge and merge tapers where fast and slow traffic streams mix.
June 2017 121
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
plan
~
i) climbing lanes
profile
ii) climbing lanes overlapping on crest
97
Figure 3.8.6: Climbing Lanes Overlapping on Crest Curve
Where there is a vertical curve on a grade that is being analyzed for climbing lane lengths, approximate
equivalent tangent grade lengths must be used. If the algebraic difference of the tangents is less than
4% then use the vertical point of intersection. If the algebraic difference is more than 4%, the vertical
curve is approximated through the average grades connecting their quarter points on the tangents of
the vertical curve. Widths for climbing lanes are addressed in Chapter 4.
Figure 3.8.7 on the next two pages, illustrates the use of truck performance curves to determine the
location of the beginning and end of a climbing lane .
122 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
LVC = 800m
200 m i 200 m
i---~
I I
:;:I;
start of analysis
N 0%
"*'
i
~
0.:
0.:
0%
climbing lane length = 2240 m
..._
0
"O -
-"'
2
(.) 't
I
:~
..c l ~
I
taper
Q) c .J:: .J:: .J:: .J:: .J::
- 1c
Q) Ol
E E E (")
E E E 1:0 en
~-~ -"' -"' -"' "*' -"'
I'-
-"'
LC1
~ 1 E""'C
0 ·- c
"O LC1 N
LC1 '°
N 0: '<I" I'- co ic:; a:>
"'g 0 g g g g g N
0
<O
N co ..,. <O co N
§ ~
+ + ~ + + + + + +
N N N
"' "' "'
-v
start
95
~ ,..___
1"O
Q)
~
80
60
40
~~ ~
~f "'-
"-.. .........__
.. "-,.._
-
- 52 km/h
1%
2%
3%
4%
""
5%
6%
20
\: 7%
\___ 261 m/h - deceleration curve
I I I
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
length of grade (x100 m)
start
95 t'1':t1° \'/o 0%
~/":_.,_
80
.<::
~
Iii %; K
I - 75 km/h
1%
60 2%
"O
Q) 'fl /" - 4 km/~
~
<J) 40
, 3%
4%
5%
6%
20 7%
~ 26 m/h -acceleration curve
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
length of grade (x100 m)
performance curves for heavy trucks (180g/W)
98
Figure 3.8.7: Climbing Lane Design Example
June 2017 123
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Notes:
1. Entry speed= 95 km/h (assumed) at P.I. #1 (point of intersection).
2. Truck decelerates to 52 km/h at P.I. #2 due to 800m upgrade at four percent. Note that critical
length of grade is 260 m, from Table 2.1.8.1 where speed has droppd by 15 km/h.
3. Truck decelerates to crawl speed (26 km/h) due to 600 m upgrade at six percent.
The design truck now experiences a grade change whose algebraic difference exceeds four percent;
that is, +6%-(-2%)=+8%.
When the algebraic difference exceeds four percent, the vertical curve connecting the grades is
approximated through the average grades connecting the quarter points on the semi-tangents of the
vertical curve. These quarter points act as new P.l..s for the purpose of estimating the design vehicle
speed. In this example, the length of the vertical curve is 800 m. Therefore, the quarter points occur at
200 m on either side of the real P.I. and the grade connecting the quarter points has been estimated at
two percent.
This approximate grade, 400 m in length, reduces the length of the preceding and following grades by
200 m each. (The dashed line now enters the acceleration portion of the chart, as the design truck
accelerates on the two percent upgrade.)
4. Truck accelerates from crawl speed (26 km/h) to 47 km/h on the 400 m, two percent upgrade.
5. Truck acelerates from 47 km/h to 75 km/h at P.I. #4 on the 400 m, two percent downgrade.
6. Truck accelerates from 75 km/h to 80 km/h (the merge speed) on a 300 m, zero percent grade.
As per the plot, the climbing lane should begin when the design truck speed reaches 80 km/h (this
occurs at 1+260). The diverge taper should be introduced before this point. The end point of the
climbing lane can be placed anywhere after the merge speed has been achieved, that is, after 3+500,
provided that the decision sight distance is available. The merge taper is placed after the end of
climbing lane.
3.8.5 EXPLICIT EVALUATION OF SAFETY
3.8.5.1 Collision Frequency on Truck Climbing and Passing Lanes
Collisions that can be related to passing seem to be a small proportion (1-2%) of all collisions. The
following information on collision rates is based on a 1998 research paper showing that 13.9% of
passing-related collisions result in a fatality or incapacitating injury compared to 9.3% of other collisions
on two-lane rural roads. It is therefore unlikely that the provision of passing or climbing lanes will have a
99
pronounced effect on the total number of collisions.
The effect of providing a passing or climbing lane is to transfer some passing maneuvers from elsewhere
to where the added lane is built. One might therefore expect a safety change upstream, downstream,
and within the stretch containing the added lane. Yet, almost all the empirical studies to date were
confined to the stretch of the added lane. It is also not clear how the safety effect depends on length,
gradient, and other geometric features of the added lane.
124 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Although the required information is not complete, it is necessary to try and extract the best conclusions
and estimates from the information now available:
• The weight of the evidence is that the safety effect of the added lane is more pronounced for
injury and fatal collisions than for PDQ (property damage only) collisions
• Based on the empirical evidence available at this time, it is reasonable to estimate that the
effect of a passing or climbing lane is to change PDQ collisions on the stretch of road with the
added lane by a factor of 0.95 (5% reduction), injury collisions by a factor of 0.7 (30%
reduction) and fatal collisions by a factor of 0.4 (a 60% reduction). If the proportions of PDQ,
injury, and fatal collisions on two-lane rural roads are 0.729, 0.263 and 0.008 respectively, the
total collisions are reduced by a factor of 0.729 x 0.95 + 0.263 x 0.7 + 0.008 x 0.4 = 0.88, a
reduction of 12%
• The upstream and downstream safety effect of a passing or climbing lane is at present not
known
Information contained in the AASHTQ Highway Safety Manual for a conventional climbing lane added in
one direction of travel on a rural two-lane two-way highway, suggests a 25% reduction in total collisions
in both directions of travel over the length of the passing or climbing lane. This value assumes the
100
climbing lane is operationally warranted and that the length is appropriate for operational conditions.
3.9 PASSING LANES
3.9.1 INTRODUCTION
The inability to pass on a two-lane rural road is a frequent cause of driver frustration. Passing
opportunities on two-lane roads are mainly influenced by sight distance, however, traffic in the opposite
direction determines whether or not a pass can be successfully completed. As traffic volume increases,
gaps in the traffic stream become shorter and less frequent, and safe passing opportunities decrease. If
passing opportunities fall below an acceptable level, queues or platoons begin to build up, driver
frustration and risk taking increases, and unsafe passing maneuvers may result.
Frustration from the lack of passing opportunities is common when the road facility has some or all of
the following characteristics :
• Rolling or rugged terrain;
• Unrealistically low posted speed;
• A high proportion of long distance, high-speed trips;
• A significant percentage of slow moving vehicles causing queues;
• Traffic volumes high enough to restrict passing but too low to warrant widening.
3.9.2 TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
101
Useful engineering data relating to driver frustration are scarce, although one study in particular
revealed several interesting results. Where drivers were forced to follow slow moving vehicles for
distances of up to 8.0 km, almost 35% of the drivers made an illegal pass in a no-passing zone. This
willingness to risk an unsafe pass and disobey the law reveals a high level of driver frustration.
Climbing lanes, as outlined in Section 3.8 have proved satisfactory in relieving queues on up-grades.
However, this still leaves long stretches of relatively level road which have no additional lanes. Passing in
June 2017 125
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
these areas can be accomplished only in the normal manner, that is the passing vehicle must cross into
the opposing traffic lane. Therefore, if at prevailing traffic volumes the horizontal and vertical alignment
does not provide a sufficient number and length of safe passing sections, or if there is unreasonable
interference from slow speed heavy vehicles, or a combination of both of these factors; then additional
passing opportunities are required. On occasion additional passing opportunities may be required even
at low volumes if the road has extended no-passing zones.
Improvement of passing opportunities can be made through realignment to a high standard two-lane
road, rebuilding to four-lane standards, or the addition of passing lanes and turnouts. Four laning is cost
effective only if the traffic volumes are high enough to justify the expenditure. Although realignment
may provide additional passing opportunities, it is likely to be relatively costly, and even then the
opportunities for passing are only available when opposing traffic permits. Passing lanes and turnouts,
however, offer a cost-effective alternative, and can be constructed one at a time as demand and
conditions warrant. An important factor with passing lanes is that not only do they have operational
benefits, they also have substantial safety benefits.
Passing lanes are geometrically similar to truck climbing lanes but more commonly used in relatively flat
or rolling terrain. While the primary function of a climbing lane is to overcome delays caused by slow
moving vehicles on steep upgrades, the primary function of passing lanes is to enhance passing
opportunities and break up platoons caused by insufficient opportunities. A mixture of passing lanes and
climbing lanes is often appropriate. Figure 3.9.1 illustrates a typical passing lane layout.
----------------------------- ;---------------------
/
- -- ----
-1~ :;:~,:: ~ l~-------:a~:i:: ~:e ~::,:--------~1~ -:::ge-.r
- - -
taper taper
Figure 3.9.1: Typical Passing Lane Layout
Information contained in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual for a conventional passing lane added in
one direction of travel on a rural two-lane two-way highway, suggests a 25% reduction in total collisions
102
in both directions of travel over the length of the passing or climbing lane. This value assumes the
passing lane is operationally warranted and that the length is appropriate for operational conditions.
Passing lanes can be provided in one or both directions and can be used to improve operations at a
bottleneck, or to improve operations over a significant length of road, typically 10 to 100 km long.
Passing lanes may be cost-effective improvements to improve operations and perhaps delay four laning.
A number of studies in Australia have used traffic simulation to estimate the benefits in traffic
operations that could be expected from the provision of auxiliary lanes such as passing lanes, climbing
lanes and descending lanes. In each case, the studies indicated that substantial benefits in traffic
126 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
operations could be achieved at quite low cost. A two-lane road with auxiliary lanes in effect provided
103
an intermediate level of service between two- and four-lane roads.
A turnout is a widened, unobstructed shoulder which allows slow moving vehicles to pull out of the
through lane to provide passing opportunities for following vehicles. The driver of the slow moving
vehicle, if there are following vehicles, is expected to pull out of the through lane and remain in the
turnout only long enough for the following vehicles to pass, before returning to the through lane. When
there are only one or two following vehicles this maneuver can be accomplished without coming to a
stop in the turnout. However, if there are more vehicles, the driver of the slow moving vehicle will have
to stop in the turnout.
Turnouts should not be used in conjunction with passing or climbing lanes. They are only used when the
cost of conventional passing or climbing lanes would be prohibitive, relative to the benefits. Turnouts
are mostly used on older, lower volume roads, where platoons occur but are not very long, and where
difficult terrain conditions prohibit construction of additional lanes. Such conditions are found in
mountains, coastal and scenic areas.
Turnouts require a firm, smooth surface 3.7 to 5.0 m wide, located where there is good sight distance
(approximately 300 min each direction). The minimum length of turnout, including 15 to 30 m approach
and departure tapers, range from 60 m (for a design speed of 60 km/h) to 170 m (for a design speed of
100 km/h). The maximum length should not exceed 200 m, to avoid the turnout being used as a passing
lane.
3.9.3 BEST PRACTICES: WARRANTS
Although the Highway Capacity Manual continues to be the single most important reference for
capacity and level of service calculations, it does not provide a method of quantifying the effectiveness
of passing lanes, short four-lane sections, turnouts and shoulder use. As a result, several Canadian
highway departments have adopted procedures to determine the need and location of passing lanes.
The two main procedures used in Canadian passing lane studies are mathematical models and traffic
simulation models. The mathematical models are based on the concept of overtaking supply and
demand, and passing opportunities. The traffic models simulate the movement of vehicles and are used
to evaluate various configurations and lengths of passing lanes.
A 1998 report outlines the mathematical models used in Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta. 104
Detailed information on these models can be obtained from this report or by referring to the pProvincial
manuals listed as references. A summary of each of the procedures is provided below.
The Ontario Ministry of Transportation uses a concept in their design procedure for passing lanes
defined as assured passing opportunity. Assured passing opportunity is defined as a condition where
one vehicle may safely pass another without restriction either by visibility or opposing traffic. The
warrant for a passing lane is based on the available assured passing opportunity and an acceptable
platoon length. Passing lane frequency is also addressed.
The Alberta Geometric Design Guide establishes the need for passing lanes on a mathematical model
based on a net passing opportunities concept. The net passing opportunity is a function of both passing
opportunities provided by the road geometry, and the number of gaps in the opposing traffic stream.
The British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and lnfastructure uses a two-level approach, namely a
planning level analysis and an operational level analysis. The planning level analysis provides a quick
June 2017 127
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
estimation of the level of service based on percent following as a function of assured passing
opportunity, derived from a simulation model. The results of this analysis establish whether a detailed
analysis at the operational level is justified.
Traffic simulation models are a useful tool in passing lane analysis. The models simulate the movement
of vehicles on a two-lane road. The models generally require three basic types of information; the road
file, the vehicle and driver characteristics file, and the traffic characteristics file. The output is
comprehensive; however, the key output in passing lane analysis is the percent time spent following
which can be related to the Highway Capacity Manual level of service, and percent following which
indicates the degree of platooning at a given location. Various types of passing lane arrangements and
traffic conditions can be analyzed. Figure 3.9.2 provides an illustration of a typical simulation model
105
output of percent following and correlation with level of service.
On occasion, a warrant for passing lanes may be required on low volume roads where the traffic volume
criteria is not applicable, but some passing opportunities are required because of extended no-passing
zones. As an approximate guideline, assured passing opportunities should be provided about every 10
minutes to prevent the drivers from passing in no-passing zones.
100 direction of traffic flow
(/)
c
0
0
-ro
!5..
.!::
0)
c
-~
_Q
Q 50
(/)
(!)
u
:.c(!)
> lllillllllllII passing lane location
'+-
0
c(!)
without passing lane
(.)
L..
(!)
with passing lane
Cl. passing passing
lane lane
0 5 10 15 20 25
post kilometre
Figure 3.9.2: Typical Traffic Simulation Output of Percent Following and Correlation with LOS
3.9.4 APPLICATION HEURISTICS
3.9.4.1 System Considerations
Although passing lanes are occasionally provided at isolated locations to overcome specific problems,
more often they are used as a strategy for improving operating conditions over a long section of road.
When the passing lanes are provided to improve overall operations over a length of road, they are often
128 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
constructed at regular intervals. The following definitions will be useful when referring to a number of
passing lanes in a section of road:
1. Passing lane length is the full width of auxiliary lane, excluding the tapers.
2. Passing lane frequency is the distance from the start of one passing lane to the start of the next
passing lane in one direction of travel.
3. Passing lane spacing is the distance from the end of one lane (end of full width) to the start of
the next lane (start of full width) in one direction of travel.
Determining the need for passing lanes will provide some guidance on lane frequency and the desirable
spacing. In order to minimize frustration, passing lanes need to be frequent. A single passing lane in a 50
km section of a road for example, is probably of little value unless it is to overcome a specific bottleneck.
The benefits of reduced platooning continue for 5.0 to 13 km downstream of a passing lane depending
on the passing lane length, the traffic volume and composition, and the downstream passing
opportunities. After this length of influence, normal levels of platooning will occur until the next added
106
lane. Typical passing lane spacing examples, given as a function of AADT are shown in Table 3.9.1.
Table 3.9.1: Typical Passing Lane Spacing
AADT Spacing km
1001-3000 9.6
3001-5000 8.0
5001-7000 6.4
7001-9000 4.4
> 9000 4.0
The selection of an overall system of passing lanes for both directions of travel is an iterative process.
Possible spacing and locations are identified and tested. Figure 3.9.3 illustrates schematically various
ways to arrange passing lanes in both directions as a system.
June 2017 129
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
two-lane highway
isolated
separated
tail-to-tail
adjoining
head-to-head
adjoining
alternating
overlapping
side-by-side
107
Figure 3.9.3: Alternative Configurations for Passing Lanes
3.9.4.2 Design Considerations
1. The addition of passing lanes should not result in an imbalance in percentage of passing zones
between directions. To achieve a balance, it may be necessary to alternatively add passing lanes
for each direction of travel.
2. It is generally more cost-effective to construct two reasonable length lanes, re latively close
spaced rather than one long one in excess of the normal maximum length.
3. Two staggered three-lane sections are favoured to one four-lane section in order to avoid
mistaken impression of a four-lane road. A four-lane section should only be used if there are no
130 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
options, or where the four-lane passing lane section would form part of an ultimate four-lane
road.
4. If possible, place passing lanes tail-to-tail rather than head-to-head (the tail is the diverge). In
the tail-to-tail configuration, the opposing passing lane restricts advancing passing maneuvers
upstream of the advancing lane rather than downstream. The tail-to-tail is also preferred
because the merge tapers are not opposite each other as they would be in the head-to-head
configuration.
5. Avoid a single passing lane in a long section with limited passing opportunities and high traffic
volumes. This may cause a racetrack effect as drivers tend to speed up to make use of the only
passing opportunity available. This does not apply to staged development on lower volume
roads. One of the advantages of passing lanes is that their construction can be staged.
Therefore, lesser frequency can be initially constructed, and as traffic volumes grow, or where a
greater improvement in traffic operations is required, additional auxiliary lanes may be provided
at spacing as close as 4.0 to 5.0 km.
6. The total length of all auxiliary lanes in one direction should not be more than half the road
section.
3.9.4.3 Location
Determining the need for passing lanes provides information on lane frequency and this provides a
guideline on the desirable spacing. However, it will often be difficult to maintain the desirable spacing
because of road geometry and roadside development. The guidelines for locating individual passing
lanes are outlined below.
1. Locations of passing lanes are chosen to maximize safety and operational benefits relative to
cost. Greater benefits generally occur if the passing lane is located where passing restrictions or
impediments already exist, such as on horizontal curves and upgrades.
2. A passing lane on an upgrade, even in locations where a climbing lane is not warranted, takes
advantage of greater speed differences and reduces slow vehicle delays even if these are minor.
3. While a curve location may be desirable, curves with reduced speeds, as well as sections with
other substandard geometric features, are not considered appropriate for overtaking purposes,
and should be avoided. The design speed of the horizontal curves should at least equal the
design speed of the road.
4. The location of passing lanes have to appear logical to the driver. Locations with restricted
passing will appear logical whereas the need is not as obvious on tangents where passing sight
distances is probably available.
5. In choosing between grade and level locations for a passing lane, the nature of the traffic
demand on the road has to be addressed. If significant queuing occurs for many kilometres
along a route, then a passing lane at any location is likely to produce substantial benefits. If, on
the other hand, the majority of delays are caused by trucks which slow down because of grades
and speed-up afterwards, location on a grade may be important.
6. In locating passing lanes consider the geometrics and traffic both upstream and downstream of
the location in question. Passing lanes in proximity to a four-lane section or downstream from a
climbing lane are not particularly effective.
June 2017 131
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
7. It is preferable to locate a passing lane after a long no-passing zone rather than before it. An
upstream no-passing zone will cause formation of platoons and the downstream passing lane
helps platoons to remain dispersed longer. For the same reasons, passing lanes should be
located leading away from areas of congestion rather than into them.
8. Passing lanes before areas of congestion, or a speed reduced area, or a town, are less effective
because the platoons will rapidly reform. These locations may also encourage racing to
complete passes just before the reduced speed.
9. In selecting a passing location, ensure there is a net increase in the passing opportunity. If at the
passing lane location the centreline marking has to be changed to a no-passing for opposing
traffic, then this opposing direction has a decrease in passing opportunity. This can become an
issue wherever passing in the opposite direction is already permitted by markings and
particularly on long tangents.
10. The designer should avoid locating passing lanes in areas which contain intersections and high
volume driveways. Particularly critical are intersections on the left side of the passing lane, and
in the vicinity of the diverge and merge tapers where fast and slow traffic streams mix. A ''T''
intersection on the passing lane side is less hazardous than the left side because it does not
generate left turning movements to and from the fast lane.
11. If an intersection cannot be avoided it is best located near the middle of the passing lane.
Adequate intersection treatment is required, and if necessary, the intersection should have a
separate left-turn lane since a stopped vehicle in the passing lane represents a significant
hazard. On occasion other options to resolving the passing lane/intersection issue may include
shortening the passing lane, or relocating the intersection.
12. An important aspect of passing lane location is a need to provide adequate sight distance at the
start and end of the lane. Good sight distance promotes effective use of the passing lane. The
traffic can see the passing lane coming and this encourages earlier separation for slow and fast
vehicles into the respective lanes. At the end of the passing lane good sight distance facilitates a
smooth merge and lane change.
13. At the diverge, it is desirable that there be minimum decision sight distance to the middle of the
taper. At the merge, it is desirable that, as a minimum, there be minimum decision sight
distance to and through the taper, and desirable that non-striping passing sight distance be
provided while within the taper limits. A concern with passing lane segments is that a driver
who is attempting to overtake another driver has adequate sight distance to the termination of
the additional lane, allowing the driver to complete the pass or abort it before running out of
lane. Based on studies that have been carried out using drivers unfamiliar with a route who
encounter various potentially hazardous situations to develop time values for decision sight
distance, the minimum recommended value is 11 sec, with longer values applying to more
108 109
complex situations. ' This time can be multiplied by 85th percentile operating speed to give
useful guidance for the necessary sight distance.
14. Cost is an important consideration in determining passing lane locations. Costs should be
minimized by avoiding large cuts and fills, particularly in rock, as well as avoiding other costly
features such as bridges and large culverts. Ensure that a continuous shoulder is possible
through the constrained areas.
132 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.9.4.4 Length
1. There are three basic categories of length of passing lanes:
a. A minimum length is needed to assure delayed vehicles have the opportunity to
complete at least one pass. This length is normally 300 to 500 m, excluding tapers. Lanes
less than these minimum lengths are usually not cost effective.
b. There is a length of passing lane required to eliminate a bottleneck. In this case, the
length of passing lane is controlled by the extent of the bottleneck.
c. A third category is a lane, or lanes, added to improve overall traffic operation, and this
lane should be long enough to provide a substantial reduction in platooning.
2. The length of passing lane to provide a substantial reduction in platooning is approximately 1.0
km to 2.0 km long. The lower limit allows approximately 30 seconds of passing and provides for
dispersing platoons of 4 to 6 vehicles. The higher limit is based on the fact that after
approximately 1.7 km, the reduction in platooning relative to additional length generally
diminishes.
3. An analysis of existing passing lanes in the United States related optimum passing lengths to one-
110
way flows. For a one-way flow of 100 vph the optimum length of passing lane was 800 m. This
optimum length increased in stages to a length of 1.6 to 3.0 km for a one-way flow of 700 vph.
4. A common Canadian practice is to regard the optimum length of passing lanes as 1.5 km to 2.0
km regardless of volume. Passing lane lengths of the order of 1.5 km to 2.0 km will provide
sufficient opportunity to most queues formed behind a slow vehicle to overtake and disperse,
while still short enough to be cost-effective.
5. Very long passing lanes are undesirable, because, when the centre line is marked for no-passing,
then the opposing traffic stream loses passing opportunities. There is some variance in this
practice of centre line marking, however, with higher volumes the no-passing practice for the
opposing traffic is more common.
6. The passing lane is preceded by a diverge taper of length, L = 0.4Vw; where L = length in metres,
V =design speed in kilometres per hour, and w = lane width in metres. A longer than normal
diverge taper is desirable to encourage passing lane usage. Some jurisdictions use a ratio of 60:1
for the taper.
7. Passing lanes are most effective if the majority of drivers enter the right lane at the diverge and
use the left lane only when passing a slower vehicle.
111
8. The passing lane ends with a merge taper of length, L = 0.6Vw. A wide shoulder is desirable at
the merge, which is really a lane drop, to provide a recovery area in case drivers encounter
merging difficulties.
June 2017 133
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.9.4.5 Width
See Chapter 4.
3.9.4.6 Signing and Lane Marking
Although signing is not a geometric design element, appropriate signing is necessary to ensure proper
operation of the passing lanes. Detailed signing information is not included in this Guide; however, the
basic signing objectives are outlined to illustrate their relevance to passing lane operation.
1. Advance signing is desirable 3.0 to 10 km in advance of the passing lane. Advance signing reduces
frustration levels of drivers following slow moving vehicles because they know they will soon
have an opportunity to pass.
2. A sign 2.0 km in advance of the passing lane provides advance notice of the passing lane to the
drivers of both slow moving vehicles and following vehicles so they can prepare to make
effective use of the passing lane.
3. Other basic signing includes: a sign at the diverge, signing for the merge, signing for opposing
traffic, and Keep Right Except to Pass sign.
4. Detailed signing information, and signing and lane marking standards, are provided in the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada. 112 The lane should be marked to direct
traffic into the right lane.
3.10 TRUCK ESCAPE RAMPS
3.10.1 INTRODUCTION
The safety of truck drivers, other road users, and occupants of roadside properties is often imperilled by
the combination of heavy trucks and steep down grades. Gearing down, applying the brakes, and using
the retarding power of the engine may not be sufficient. Loss of brakes may occur either through
overheating or mechanical failure, or both. There may be a failure to downshift at the appropriate time.
Loss of control of trucks can occur and serious crashes can result.
"Truck escape ramps are special facilities designed to control runaway vehicles by diverting them from
the main traffic stream and dissipating their energy through gravitational deceleration, rolling
resistance, or both. Truck escape ramps are not necessarily the only solution to the runaway problem.
Other countermeasures such as reducing maximum gross vehicle weight, reducing truck posted speed,
providing and enforcing brake check areas, or banning certain types of trucks may be viable and must be
113
considered when addressing runaway truck issues". This section of the Guide deals primarily with the
geometrics and other design features related to truck escape ramps.
Construction of truck escape ramps should be considered on long steep grades in rural areas and steep
grades in urban areas. Specific guidelines for escape ramps are lacking, however, considerable
experience exists allowing the design and installation of effective escape ramps. Escape ramps, when
used, are generally effective in minimizing collision injury and preventing gross property damage.
Forces that affect the truck speed include the engine, braking, and tractive resistance forces. In the
design of truck escape ramps, engine and braking resistance are ignored because the design is based on
134 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
the worst scenario in which the vehicle is out of gear and the brakes have failed. Runaway trucks are
usually out of gear as it is common for drivers to miss their downshift, leaving the runaway in neutral.
Improperly adjusted brakes can contribute to brake failure on steep down-grades as they place higher
demands on properly functioning brakes. This results in a buildup of heat in the brakes that can result in
brakes fading.
There are four tractive resistance forces that act on vehicles to affect the vehicles speed: inertial, air,
rolling, and gradient. Inertial and negative grade forces act to maintain motion of the truck, while rolling,
positive gradient, and air resistance forces act to retard its motion. Figure 3.10.1 illustrates these
various forces on a vehicle.
Fa air resistance
Fi inertial resistance
Fg gradient resistance
Fr rolling resistance
w gross vehicle weight
H height
a slope angle
L length
w
L
114
Figure 3.10.1: Forces Acting on Vehicle in Motion
Inertial resistance is a force that resists movement of a vehicle at rest or maintains a vehicle in motion,
unless the vehicle is acted on by some external force. Rolling and positive gradient resistance forces are
available to overcome inertial resistance. Rolling resistance is the resistance to motion between the tires
and roadway surface and is applicable only when a vehicle is in motion. Each roadway surface has a
coefficient expressed in kg/1000 kg of gross vehicle mass (GVM). Values for various surfaces are shown
in Table 3.10.1.
Gradient resistance is due to effective gravity. Upgrades are a beneficial force on truck escape ramps,
whereas when a vehicle is descending a grade, gradient resistance is negative, thereby reducing the
available forces to slow and stop trucks. The amount of gradient resistance is influenced by the total
mass of the vehicle and the magnitude of the grade. For each percent grade the gradient resistance is
10 kg/1000 kg GVM.
June 2017 135
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
The remaining component of tractive resistance is air resistance. Air causes significant resistance at
speeds above 80km/h and negligible under 30km/h. The effect of air resistance is ignored in determining
escape ramp lengths, thereby providing a small safety factor.
115
Table 3.10.1: Values for Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance Equivalent Grade
Surfacing material
(kg/100 kg GVM} (%}a
Portland cement concrete 10 1.0
Asphalt concrete 12 1.2
Gravel, compacted 15 1.5
Earth, sandy, loose 37 3.7
Crushed aggregate, loose so 5.0
Gravel, loose 100 10.0
Sand 150 15.0
Pea Gravel 250 25.0
Note: * Rolling resistance expressed as equivalent gradient.
Calculations for escape ramp lengths are outlined in Section 3.10.5.
3.10.2 BEST PRACTICES: WARRANTS
The warrants for truck escape ramps are mainly based on: the safety of other traffic, the operation of
runaway trucks, and the activities and residences along and at the bottom of the grade.
116
Current sources do not provide a consensus on when truck escape ramps are needed. There is no
uniform, widely accepted procedure to determine when a truck ramp is appropriate, and it appears
generally accepted that each situation presents enough unique variables to warrant independent means
of resolving whether an escape ramp is necessary. Each potential site should be evaluated from a safety
and benefit cost viewpoint and engineering judgment. It is not the intent of this Guide to provide
specific warrants, however, a general description of the factors considered in determining need are
included.
On existing roads, need can be established by field inspections, collision experience, reports from law
enforcement officials, truck drivers, and the public. On proposed facilities, collision experience on similar
facilities and analysis of truck operations on proposed grades can be used as determinants. Engineering
judgment always plays a significant role.
The collision consequences of a runaway are an important consideration and often the impact of a
potential runaway on adjacent activities or population centres may provide sufficient reason. Problems
often occur on short steep grades approaching urban areas. This is because many small urban areas
developed near water and are located at the bottom of steep hills or because urban areas expanded to
include steep hills. In this scenario, trucks could run away striking vehicles that might be stopped at the
bottom of the hill. The problem is extended if pedestrians, patrons of adjacent businesses, and residents
are involved. Unfortunately, these areas are usually constrained and good solutions for runaway trucks
on short steep grades approaching populated areas with limited land for escape ramps are often difficult
to implement.
136 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
A promising technique in analyzing operations on the grade of new and existing facilities is the grade
severity rating system . This system uses predetermined brake temperature limit {260 °C) to establish
safe descent speed for vehicles of different weight and can be used as a guide to establish the need and
location of truck escape ramps. Maximum safe speed, calculated on the basis of brake temperature
estimates, is defined as that speed from which an emergency vehicle stop at the bottom of the grade
117
will not generate brake temperatures above a pre-selected temperature limit. The system also
calculates brake temperature at 0.8km intervals along the grade. At locations where the brake
temperature exceeds the limit, the system indicates brake failure. Caution should be exercised to ensure
the grade severity rating system can adequately address the particular characteristics of the design
vehicle used in the analysis. Also total reliance on the grade severity rating system in determining need
is inadequate because the system focuses only on the grade and ignores the horizontal alignment.
118
Research describes an approach to determine the need and location of truck escape ramps. The study
cited suggests a plot on a horizontal scale of the following:
1) down grade profile;
2) speed profile indicating limit speeds of all curves;
3) brake temperature profile; and
4) accident locations along the down grade.
If the estimated downgrade truck speed exceeds the limiting speed, or if the brakes exceed the
temperature at which they lose effectiveness (brake fade temperature), then there is an indication of a
need for a truck escape ramp. Various methods of determining truck speeds on down grades are
outlined, including an approximate method, a calculator program, and simulation models. Also outlined
are formulae for determining the lim iting speed on curves, and a reference to the Grade Severity Rating
System for determining the brake temperature.
If the need for a truck escape ramp is unclear, then an approach involving a series of progressive
improvements may have merit. In this approach, a start to improve truck operations is made by signing.
As required, the next steps are speed control, and then mandatory pull-off areas, and finally, if required,
a truck escape ramp.
Although not a truck escape ramp, occasionally an auxiliary lane on a long steep downgrade may be
justified to allow loaded trucks to descend safely at slow speeds without affecting the capacity of the
road and restricting passing opportunities. Such lanes are generally only appropriate where truck delays
on the down grade are seen as a particular problem.
3.10.3 TYPES: BEST PRACTICES
Three broad categories of truck escape ramps are gravity, sand pile and arrestor. Within these broad
categories, four basic emergency escape ramp designs predominate. These designs are the sand pile and
three types of arrestor beds, classified by grade: descending grade, horizontal grade, and ascending
119
grade. These four design types are illustrated in Figure 3.10.2.
June 2017 137
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
sandpile 0.0% ramp
··.·.··:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:
arrestor bed
horizontal grade
-%---
road,,,
..ay
arrestor bed arrestor bed
descending grade ascending grade
Figure 3.10.2: Basic Types of Designs of Truck Escape Ramps
Originally straight gravity ramps were constructed into side cuts of long mountainous grades, or in some
cases they were accessible side roads on ascending grades. The surfaces were usually paved or consisted
of a densely compacted material. The gravity ramp relies primarily on gravity to slow and stop the
runaway vehicle. When the vehicle stops, rolling back and jackknifing is a problem. Another
disadvantage of the gravity ramp is the physical limitation on location. Often there is no accessible slope
arising from the right side of the road. Therefore, the gravity ramp is the least desirable of the escape
ramp categories.
The sand pile ramp is composed of loose dry sand and these ramps are usually no more than 120 m
long. The deceleration characteristics of sand piles are usually severe and the sand can be affected by
the weather. Sand pile ramps are less desirable than arrestor beds because of the severe deceleration .
However, when inadequate space exists for another type, the sand pi le ramps may be appropriate
because of its compact dimensions. Some jurisdictions strongly resist sand pile type runaway ramps and
only use them at the terminal point of other types of ramps where adequate length cannot be obtained.
The arrestor bed ramps have a regulated depth of loose sized gravel contained in a form or a mechanical
dragnet system installed. See Section 3.10.6 for more detailed information on materials. The loose
material increases rolling resistance, by dissipation of kinetic energy through the transfer of momentum
to the bed aggregate and overcoming of the shear resistance. The loose material prevents vehicles on
ascending beds from rolling backwards after stopping. Unfortunately, the loose material also makes it
difficult to extract vehicles which have entered the arrestor bed type runaway ramp. Service roads and
anchors for extraction are required and these are described in Section 3.10.5. The dragnet system uses a
series of nets attached to energy absorbers to dissipate kinetic energy through the transfer of
momentum to friction resistance in the energy absorbers. The main advantage of the arrestor type
ramps is that they can be constructed at any grade, therefore, reducing the problem of location .
138 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
The three types of arrestor bed ramps are ascending arrestor, horizontal arrestor and descending
arrestor. The ascending arrestor is the most commonly used. It is relatively short because of the ascent.
The horizontal arrestor relies on increased rolling resistance only, and is longer than the ascending
arrestor. The descending arrestor is constructed parallel and adjacent to the through lanes. It is longer
because of negative grade.
A possible alternative approach to the traditional escape ramps is the half vehicle width arrestor bed
adjacent to the road shoulder along significant lengths of down grade. Flexible guideposts separate the
bed from the shoulder and on the outside a truck-strength concrete barrier is provided to control the
direction of the runaway vehicle as it is brought to a halt. An advantage of this design is that the arrestor
bed can be made available to vehicles over a greater length than is possible using traditional methods.
This type of bed may offer some possibilities where other more desirable types of beds are definitely
not feasible, however, great caution should be exercised recognizing that often there is considerably
more vehicle instability, and the need for a confining barrier wall may offset the benefits of this
application.
3.10.4 LOCATION: BEST PRACTICES
No single defined location criteria or clear guidelines for fixing specific locations exist. However,
selection of a proper location is critical for its effective use because in most cases a ramp can only be
used at a particular entry point. The main factors in consideration of location of truck escape ramps
include:
• Topography
• Grade and horizontal alignment
• Collision locations
• Conditions at bottom of grade
• Speeds of out-of-control vehicles
• Availability of site adjacent to the road and environmental impact
• Length of grade
• Logical distance below the summit.
Of the above factors, the most dominant are terrain, alignment, and distance from the top. General
guidelines on locating a truck escape ramp include the following:
1. Located to intercept the greatest number of runaway vehicles such as at the bottom of the grade
and at intermediate points along the grade, or where out-of-control vehicles could cause
catastrophic results. A collision history, if available, is very useful.
2. Where brake fade may begin to occur.
3. Generally before defined accident - prone spots such as in advance of main line curvature that
cannot be negotiated safely.
4. Preferred location is on a horizontal tangent section because escape ramps on curves add to the
problems of control that already face the driver of a runaway truck. Locations on very flat
curvature could be considered if necessary. A smooth inviting entry is very desirable and this is
defined further under Section 3.10.5.
5. On the right side only, unless impossible, then left side could be considered in a wide median of a
divided road.
June 2017 139
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
6. The grade severity rating system may be useful as a guide locating escape ramps.
A more formal approach for determining need and location of truck escape ramps was outlined in a
1996 paper.
12
°
From the plot of profile, speeds, and brake temperature used to determine need, it is
also possible to use the same plot to select the optimum location of a truck escape ramp. If more than
one warranting location occurs at the same downgrade, then priorities can be established.
3.10.S APPLICATION HEURISTICS
3.10.5.1 Length
121
The required length of escape ramp can be calculated using the following formula:
2
L= v / 254 (R + G) (3.10.1)
Where:
L= Distance to stop (m) (i.e. length of escape ramp)
V= Entering velocity (km/h)
R= Rolling resistance expressed as equivalent percentage
gradient/100 (see Table 3.10.1)
G= Percent grade of escape ramp/100 (G is positive if vehicles
proceed uphill after entering the ramp. G is negative if
vehicles proceed downhill after entering the ramp)
122
An entering velocity of 130 to 140 km/h is suggested for all truck sizes • This assumes, of course, that a
runaway vehicle can negotiate the alignment before the escape ramp at such speeds. A lower speed can
be used if there is confidence that the 130 to 140 km/h is too conservative. Formulae and software are
available to determine the speed of a runaway truck at any point on a down grade.
Example calculation:
• Ramp grade up 10% (G=+0.10)
• Ramp surface (arrestor bed)
• Loose gravel, ramp speed 140km/h
• Rolling resistance = 0.10 (see Table 29)
2
• L = 140 /254 (0.10 + 0.10) = 385 metres, rounded to 400 m
If arrestor bed has more than one grade:
• Speed at end of the first grade (V 2 ) is determined with entering speed as initial velocity (V 1 )
2 2
• V2 = V1 -254 x L(R+G)
• V2 is then used as the initial velocity for the next grade to determine V3
• Steps repeated at each change of grade until sufficient length is provided to stop runaway
vehicle.
If a sufficient length of truck escape ramp is not feasible or if overrunning the end is catastrophic, then
the end could be supplemented with positive attenuation devices. This could include mounds of bedding
material, or perhaps an array of crash cushions such as barrels filled with arrestor bed material, or a
drag-net. Care should be exercised when using attenuation devices that the safety of the occupants of
heavy vehicles is increased and not jeopardized when comparing hitting the attenuation device versus
overrunning the escape ramp. This may occur if an articulated vehicle encounters an abrupt speed
change, load shift, fifth wheel shear or jackknifing. In some instances there may not be an option, and
the hazard to others from an overrun may outweigh the potential harm to the runaway.
140 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3.10.5.2 Layout
The truck escape ramp should be straight and the angle to the through roadway should be as flat as
possible. A good approach is essential because the escape ramp will be accommodating loaded trucks at
high speeds, probably in a runaway state and out of control.
The angle of departure should be 5° or less to enhance the ability to enter the escape ramp. The
operator must feel that the ramp can be negotiated safely and therefore must see as much of the ramp
as possible. The auxiliary lane on high speed roadways should be at least 300 m long, and the approach
lane off the through lane down grade should be paved and at least as wide as the through lanes. The
approach lane should enter the bed squarely so that all axles of the vehicle enter the bed
simultaneously. This facilitates vehicle control during initial deceleration. It is desirable that the bed be
offset laterally from the through lanes to prevent gravel scatter onto the through lanes.
The width of the truck escape ramp depends on whether the ramp accommodates more than one
vehicle, and there is variance of opinion on the need for double occupancy. Therefore, the widths of
ramps have a large range from 4.0 m to 12 m. The 4.0 m width is generally regarded as sufficient for
gravity ramps because their usage is usually shorter term and not requiring a wait for extraction,
although there may be delays due to mechanical failure which caused the runaway. A 5.0 m width is a
minimum for other types of ramps in constrained areas providing one lane operation. 8.0 m is a
common minimum for two lane operation, while 9.0 to 12 m would be desirable to more safely
accommodate two or more out-of-control vehicles.
The rolling resistance characteristic of the truck escape ramps becomes an impediment to vehicle
removal once the ramp is used. Service lanes and anchors to facilitate extraction should be an integral
part ofthe truck escape ramps. There should be at least one paved or gravel service road 3.5 to 4.0 m
wide adjacent to the entire length of bed. Preferably the service road would be located on the side of
the escape ramp adjacent to the through lane. A truck restraining barrier could also be provided on the
outside edge of the escape ramp if the consequences of a truck exiting out of the side of the bed could
be hazardous to others (mainly in urban areas). Anchors for tow trucks should be located along the
service road every 50 to 100 m, situated to the side of the service road. In addition, one anchor should
be placed approximately 50 m in advance of the arrestor bed on the approach. Figure 3.10.3 illustrates a
typical layout of a truck escape ramp.
Although not a truck escape ramp feature, brake check areas contribute to reducing runaways. They can
be voluntary or mandatory. They can consist of a turnout or pull-off at summits of grades, or they can
operate in conjunction with weigh stations. They provide opportunities for brake checks, provide
information on grades and escape ramps, and may ensure that trucks start down the grade from a
stopped condition.
June 2017 141
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Figure 3.10.3: Typical Layout of Truck Escape Ramp
3.10.6 DETAILS OF BED: DESIGN ELEMENTS
3.10.6.1 Cross Section
The main cross sectional features are illustrated in Figure 3.10.4. When trucks are well into the arrestor
bed they sink in approximately 300 to 450 mm. The rate of sinking is not clear; in order that there be a
gradual rate of deceleration, the granular material is tapered from approximately 75 mm at the bed
entry to full depth in 30 to 100 m.
There is a large variance in the different references in regards to the recommended depth of bed
123
material. The range is from 450 mm to approximately 1000 mm. The Ontario Roadside Safety Manua/
124
recommends a minimum depth of 450 to 600 mm, whereas AASHTO recommends 1000 mm. Depths
of granular in the bed greater than the anticipated depth of trucks sinking are provided in view of the
fact that the approximately 300 m of material at the bottom can become contaminated with fines, and
become very hard. In cold temperatures these fines are susceptible to freezing.
The bed holding the granular material is trapezoidal with 2:1 side slopes. These side slopes serve three
functions. First, if necessary this allows entrance into the bed past the expected entrance point, second,
the side slopes control vehicles within the bed in regards to direction and stability, and thirdly, the side
slopes facilitate extraction .
3.10.6.2 Materials
The size and shape of materials used in arrestor beds is of utmost importance in order that the escape
ramps operate effectively. Material specifications are not with in the parameters of this guide, and
therefore only the general descriptions of the desirable characteristics of the materials are outlined
below.
1. Loose material in arrestor bed should be clean, not easily compacted and have a high coefficient
of friction.
2. Large predominantly single-sized aggregates will minimize the problems due to moisture
retention and freezing. Although smaller sized aggregates have slightly higher deceleration
characteristics, they are more susceptible to freezing.
142 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
3. Aggregates should be well rounded and uniform ly graded to provide the greatest rolling
resistance in order to maximize deceleration.
4. Pea gravel is used most frequently and recommended at locations with freezing.
5. The best performance attained with the main particle size ranging between 15 mm and 20 mm
with a top size of 40 mm, and as free from fines as possible.
6. Fractured angular aggregate must be avoided.
3.5 to 4.0 m 4.0 to 12 m 3.5 to 4.0 m
service road G) service road G)
gravel base
course
washed
or pavement
pea gravel
filter cloth covered
perforated plastic pipe
gravel base
course or
pavement
Note: 1. One service road minimum; two service roads desirable.
Figure 3.10.4: Typical Cross Section of Truck Escape Ramp
3.10.6.3 Drainage
Proper drainage of the bed is important for two reasons. First, fast effective drainage is necessary in
order to minimize freezing and to ensure winter operation . The second reason is to minimize
contamination of the bottom. In order to facilitate drainage of the bed the bottom should have a 3%
cross-slope and have subdrains.
An open graded drainage aggregate layer at the bottom will further promote drainage of the arrestor
aggregate, although precautions are required to keep the larger aggregate separated from the arrestor
bed aggregate. In addition a positive subdrain system is required, including intercepting water prior to
entering the bed.
3.10.7 SIGNING, DELINEATION, ILLUMINATION, MAINTENANCE
Advance signing and brake check areas at the top of grades contribute significantly to safe operations.
Signing can provide advance information on escape ramps to potential runaways, and identify access to
the escape ramp. A common problem is the use by other motorists of the entrance to the truck escape
ramp as a parking lane and rest area. No stopping signs are essential to discourage this practice. Weight-
specific advisory signs based on a grade severity rating system are a form of advanced warning.
June 2017 143
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
Delineators define the edges of the escape ramp and also outline the through lanes, both before and
after the escape ramp entrance. The delineation has to be effective for both day and night operations.
Signing, delineation, and pavement markings should be in accordance with the MUTCDC. Adequate
maintenance is essential if truck escape ramps are to operate effectively. Two key practices seem
essential to obtaining continuous effective performance of arrestor beds. One is restoring the bed, and
the second is the prevention of fine material buildup in the bed. Reshaping is necessary after each use.
Occasionally fluffing is necessary. Contaminants should be cleaned and scarified periodically.
Maintenance of contaminants can be minimized by installing geotextile layer at the bottom of the bed
material, and asphalting the bottom and side slopes of the bed. If fuel spills are frequent, the asphalt on
the bottom may deteriorate and a concrete bottom may be necessary. On the other hand, the asphalt
may not be necessary ifthe escape ramp receives very limited use.
Care should be taken during snow plowing and other maintenance activities to ensure that no fines are
added to the bed during these operations. Power equipment should be used for all maintenance
operations in order to minimize the exposure time to workmen and disabled vehicles.
3.10.8 EXPLICIT EVALUATION OF SAFETY
There is growing evidence that the effects of alignment on trucks are greater than on cars, especially on
two-lane, two-way roads with significant curvature and grades.
Most collision-prone locations for runaway trucks are steep down-grades with sharp horizontal curves
near the bottom.
Although guides and warrants for truck escape ramps are not refined, experience to date indicates
effective deceleration rates and good driver control attainable thereby saving lives and reducing
property damage. However, few studies assess the benefits of truck escape ramp use relative to their
125
costs, or to the probable cost of collisions that might otherwise have occurred.
On the positive side there has been increasing attention to the runaway truck problem. Some of the
helpful factors include the following:
• a higher proportion of the truck fleet may be equipped with retarder systems to augment
engine braking and more trucks are equipped with regular service brake systems;
• driver education is probably now more widely available, and there are increased on-road
inspections;
• the provision of additional site specific information and guidance to truck operators also
contributes to safety.
Lastly, better facilities are being provided to cope with runaways.
144 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
REFERENCES
1 Rockwell, T.H. 1987. "Spare visual capacity in driving- revisited: New empirical results for an old idea ."
1987. In Vision in Vehicles-II: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Vision in Vehicles,
Nottingham, U.K. 14-17 September, 1987. Amsterdam, North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp .
317-324.
2 Victor, T.H. and Dozza, M. 2011. "Timing matters: Visual behavior and crash risk in the 100-car on-line
data [online]." Presentation given at the 2nd International Conference on Driver Distraction and
Inattention, Gothenburg, Sweden [Viewed October 28, 2016] http ://www.chalmers .se/safer/ddi2011-
gJJJ_
3 Fitzpatrick, K., Wooldridge, M .D., Tsimhoni, 0., Collins, J.M., Green, P., Bauer, K.M., Parma, K., Koppa,
R.J ., Harwood, D.W., Anderson, I., Krammes, R., and Poggioli, B. 1999. Alternative design consistency
rating methods for two-lane rural highways. Report FHWA-RD-172. Washington, DC : U.S. Federal
Highway Administration.
4 Messer, C.J. 1980. "Methodology for evaluating geometric design consistency." In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 757. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 7-14.
5 Krammes, R. and Glascock, S.W. 1992. " Geometric inconsistencies and accident experience on two-lane
rural highways." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
1356. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 1-10.
6 Wooldridge, M.D. 1994. "Design consistency and driver error." Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1445. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, pp. 148-155.
7 Liu, C. and Subramanian, R. 2009. Factors related to fatal single-vehicle run-off-road crashes. Report
DOT HS 811 232, Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofTransportation.
8 Liu, C. and Ye, T.J. 2011. Run-off-road crashes: An on-scene perspective Report DOT HS 811 500,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
9 Glennon, J.C., Neumann, T.R., and Leisch, J.E. 1985. Safety and operational considerations for design of
highway curves. Report FHWA/RD-86/035. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
10 Shinar, D., McDowell, E., and Rockwell, T.H. 1977. "Eye movements in curve negotiation." Human
Factors, 19{1}, pp. 63-71.
11 Tsimhoni, 0. and Green, P. 1999. "Visual demand of driving curves determined by visual occlusion."
Presented at the Vision in Vehicles 8 Conference. Boston MA.
12 Zegeer, C., Stewart, R., Reinfurt, D., Council, F., Neuman, T., Hamilton, E., Miller, T., Hunter, W. 1990.
Cost Effective Geometric Improvements for Safety Upgrading of Horizontal Curves. Chapel Hill NC:
Highway Safety Research Center.
13 Othman, S., Thomson, R., & Lanner, G. 2014. "Safety analysis of horizontal curves using real traffic data".
In Journal of Transportation Engineering, 140 (4).
14 McGee, H.W., Hughes, W.E., and Daily, K. 1995. NCHRP Report 374: Effect of Highway Standards on
Safety. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
15 Virsu, V. and Weintraub, D.J. 1971. "Perceived curvature of arcs and dot patterns as a function of
curvature, arc length, and instructions." Journal of Experimental Psychology 23, pp. 373-380.
June 2017 145
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
16 Fildes, B. and Triggs, T. 1985. "The effect of changes in curve geometry on magnitude estimates of road-
like perspective curvature." Perception & Psychophysics, 37(3), pp. 218-224.
17 Milleville-Pennel, I., Hoc, J.-M., and Jolly, E. 2007. "The use of hazard road signs to improve the
perception of severe bends." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(4), pp. 721-730.
18 Alexander, G.J. and Lunenfeld, H. 1986. Driver expectancy in highway design and traffic operations.
Report FHWA-T0-86-1, Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
19 Post, T.J., Alexander, G.J., and Lunenfeld, H. 1981. A User's Guide to Positive Guidance. Report FHWA-
TP-81-1. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration .
20 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999.Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
21 Ibid.
22 Moyer and Berry. 1940. Cited in AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets,
6thEdition. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p.
3.21.
23 Ibid.
24 Chowdhury, M.A., Warren, D., Bissell, H. 1998. "Evaluation of Criteria for Setting Advisory Speeds on
Curves." Presented at the 1998 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
25 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Transportation Association of Canada. 1995. Urban Supplement to the Geometric Design Guide for
Canadian Roads. Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada.
29 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3.26.
30 Bryar, P. and Mojsiak, W. 1974. Highway Geometrics (Horizontal}: SI (Metric). Downsview, ON: Ministry
of Transportation and Communications.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Transportation Association of Canada. 1995. Urban Supplement to the Geometric Design Guide for
Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
146 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
39 AASHTO. 2001. "Equation 3-2S" A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 4th Edition.
Washington, DC : American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 171.
40 Roads and Transportation Association of Canada. 1977. Metric Curve Tables: Circular and Spiral Curve
Functions for Layout Purposes. Ottawa, ON: Roads and Transportation Association of Canada .
41 Transportation Association of Canada . 199S. Urban Supplement to the Geometric Design Guide for
Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON : Transportation Association of Canada .
42 Ibid .
43 Adapted from: Surveys and Design Office. 1994. " Figure C3-3 : Method of Attaining Superelevation for
Spiraled Curves." Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways. Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry
of Transportation. p. C3-7.
44 Transportation Association of Canada. 199S. Urban Supplement to the Geometric Design Guide for
Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
4S AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington, DC :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3.8S-97.
46 Adapted from: AASHTO . 2011. " Figure 3-21. Derivation of Turning Roadway Widths on Curves at
Intersections" A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3.-98.
47 Figures adapted from: AASHTO. 2001. "Figure 3-S4. Derived Pavement Widths for Turning Roadways for
Different Design Vehicles" A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 4th Edition.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3.-98 .
48 Ibid.
49 Province of Saskatchewan. 1998. Roadway Design Manual. Regina SK : Department of Roadways and
Transportation .
SO Adapted from AASHTO. 2011 . " Figure 3-23 : Diagram Illustrating Components for Determining Horizontal
sight Distance," A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6th Edition . Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-109 .
Sl Adapted from: AASHTO. 2011. " Figure 3-22a: Des ign Controls for Stopping Sight Distance on Horizontal
Curves," A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6 th Edition . Washington, DC: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-107.
S2 Adapted from AASHTO . 1994. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets. Washington, DC:
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
S3 Hauer, E. 1998. " Literature Review and Analysis on Collision Rates on Horizontal Alignment", University
of Toronto.
S4 Harwood, D., Council, F., Hauer, E., Hughes, W ., Vogt, A. 2000. Prediction of Expected Safety
Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highways. Report FHWA-RD-99-207 . Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
SS AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, 2014 Supplement. Washington, DC: American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
S6 Transportation Association of Canada . 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON :
Transportation Association of Canada .
June 2017 147
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
57 Traffic Operations and Management Standing Committee. 2014. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices for Canada, Fifth Edition. Ottawa, ON : Transportation Association of Canada .
58 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
59 Province of Alberta. 1995. Alberta Roadway Geometric Design Guide. Edmonton : Alberta Transportation
and Utilities.
60 AASHTO. 2011. " Figure 3-34: Design Controls for Crest Vertical Curves Based on Stopping sight
Distance," A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets. Washington, D.C. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-155.
61 Traffic Operations and Management Standing Committee. 2014. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices for Canada, Fifth Edition. Ottawa, ON : Transportation Association of Canada.
62 Olson, P.L. and Farber, E. 2003 . Forensic Aspects of Driver Perception and Response: Second Edition .
Tucson, AZ : Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company.
63 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington, DC :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
64 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON :
Transportation Association of Canada.
65 Easa, S.M. 2009. "Improved Sight Distance Model for Sag Vertical Curves with Overpasses. "
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 2120. Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp . 28-36.
66 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6th Edition . Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
67 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON :
Transportation Association of Canada.
68 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, 2014 Supplement. Washington, DC : American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
69 All images from : Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian
Roads. Ottawa, ON : Transportation Association of Canada .
70 Province of Alberta . 1995. Alberta Roadway Geometric Design Guide. Edmonton, AB: Alberta
Transportation and Utilities.
71 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON :
Transportation Association of Canada.
72 Ibid .
73 Ibid.
74 Ibid.
75 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
76 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON :
Transportation Association of Canada.
77 Ibid.
148 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
78 Surveys and Design Office. 1994. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways. Downsview, ON:
Ministry of Transportation Ontario .
79 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
80 Ibid .
81 Surveys and Design Office. 1994. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways. Downsview, ON :
Ministry of Transportation Ontario.
82 Rockwell, T.H., Bhise, V.D., and Nemeth, Z.A. 1973. Development of a computer-based tool for
evaluating visual field requirements of vehicles in merging and intersection situations. Final report of
Project RF3306. New York : Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
83 Schmidt, F. and Tiffin, J. 1969. " Distortion of drivers' estimates of automobile speed as a function of
speed adaptation." Journal of Applied Psychology 53, pp. 536-539 .
84 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
85 Ibid.
86 Province of Alberta . 1995Highway Geometric Design Guide. Edmonton, AB : Alberta Transportation and
Utilities.
87 Sanderson, R. W . 1996. "The Need for Cost Effective Guidelines to Enhance Truck Safety." In Cost-
Effectiveness Through Innovation : Proceedings of the 1995 TAC Conference, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
88 Harwood, D. W., Tor bic, D. J., Richard, K. R. Glauz, W . D., and Elefteriadou, L. 2003. NCHRP Report 505:
Review of Truck Characteristics as Factors in Roadway Design. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies.
89 Glennon, J.C. 1970 "An Evaluation of Design Criteria for Operating Trucks Safely on Grades." In Highway
Research Record 312. Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp .
93-112.
90 AASHTO . 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 5th Edition . Washington, DC :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
91 Province of Alberta . 1995. Highway Geometric Design Guide. Edmonton : Alberta Transportation and
Utilities.
92 Ibid.
93 Ibid .
94 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 5th Edition. Washington, DC :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
95 Province of Alberta . 1995. Highway Geometric Design Guide. Edmonton : Alberta Transportation and
Utilities.
96 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 5th Edition. Washington, DC :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
97 Quality and Standards Division . 1993. Roadside Safety Manual. Downsview, ON : Ministry of
Transportation Ontario.
June 2017 149
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
98 Province of Alberta . 1995. Highway Geometric Design Guide. Edmonton, AB : Alberta Transportation and
Utilities.
99 Hauer, E. 1998. Literature Review and Analysis on Collision Rates fo r Truck Climbing and Passing Lanes.
University of Toronto .
100 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, 2014 Supplement. Washington, DC: American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
101 Corupe, E.G., Geissler, E. H., Hunter, G. K., Tennant, W. H., Tretjakoff, A., and Robertson, J. A. 1975.
Development of Passing Lane Criteria. Downsview, ON : Ontario Ministry of Transportation and
Communications .
102 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, 2014 Supplement. Washington, DC : American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
103 Hoban, C. J. 1986. "Recent Developments in Rural Road Design in Australia ". Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1055. Washington, DC: Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 8-16.
104 Morrall J. 1998. " Impact of Passing Lanes on the Quality of Service on Two-Lane Highways." Proceedings
of the Third International Symposium on Highway Capacity, . Copenhagen, Denmark : Ministry of
Transportation . Road Directorate, pp. 775-789.
105 Morrall J., Miller E. Jr., Smith, G.A., Feuerstein J., Yazden F. 1995. " Planning and Design of Passing Lanes
Using Simulation Model." Journal of Transportation Engineering 121(1), Reston VA: American Society of
Civil Engineers, pp . 50-62.
106 B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways. 1997. Passing Lane Warrants & Design. Technical Bulletin
DS97003 . Victoria: Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
107 Ibid .
108 McGee, H.W ., Moore, W ., Knapp, B.G., and Sanders, J.H. 1978. Decision sight distance for highway
design and traffic control requirements. Report FHWA-RD-78-78, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration .
109 Lerner, N., Huey, R.W., McGee, H.W., and Sullivan, A. 1995. Older driver perception-reaction time for
intersection sight distance and object detection. Report FHWA-RD -93-168. Washington, DC: Federal
Highway Administration.
110 Harwood, D.W ., Hoban, C.J., and Warren, D. 1988. "Effective Use of Passing Lanes on Two-Lane
Highways." In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1195.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp . 79-91.
111 AASHTO . 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 5th Edition . Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
112 Traffic Operations and Management Standing Committee. 2014. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices for Canada, Fifth Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
113 Abdelwahab, W.E. and Morrall J. 1996. " Determination of the Need for and Location of Truck Escape
Ramps" In Cost-Effectiveness Through Innovation : Proceedings of the 1995 TAC Conference,
Charlottetown, P.E.I. Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada .
114 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 5th Edition . Washington, DC :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
150 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
115 Transportation Association of Canada. 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
116 Witheford, D. K. 1992. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 178: Truck Escape Ramps,.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
117 Ibid.
118 Abdelwahab, W.E. and Morrall J. 1996. "Determination of the Need for and Location of Truck Escape
Ramps" In Cost-Effectiveness Through Innovation: Proceedings of the 1996 TAC Conference,
Charlottetown, P.E.I. Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada.
119 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
120 Abdelwahab, W.E. and Morrall J. 1996. "Determination of the Need for and Location of Truck Escape
Ramps" In Cost-Effectiveness Through Innovation: Proceedings of the 1996 TAC Conference,
Charlottetown, P.E.I. Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada.
121 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
122 Ibid.
123 Quality and Standards Division .. 1993. Roadside Safety Manual. Downsview, ON: Ministry of
Transportation Ontario.
124 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Roadways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
125 Witheford, D. K. 1992. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 178: Truck Escape Ramps.,
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
June 2017 151
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 4 - CROSS SECTION ELEMENTS
June 2017
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
Transportation Association of Canada
401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive
Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-621-4
TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM
Title and Subtitle
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
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) WSPIMMM Group Limited
Carl Clayton, Stantec Consulting (Co-Project Manager) 100 Commerce Valley Drive West
Geoff Millen, WSP I MMM Group Thornhill, ON L3T OAl
Jim Dowell, WSP I MMM 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 human
Planning of Transport
factors research and practices for roadway geometric design. It replaces the 1999 edition
Infrastructure.
of the Guide and subsequent revisions. The Guide provides guidance to planners and
Access Road
designers in developing design solutions that meet the needs of a range of users while
Bridge
addressing the context of local conditions and environments. Design guidelines for
Canada
freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural locations are
Central Reserve
included as well as guidance for integrated bicycle and pedestrian design.
Cross Section
The Guide is organized into ten chapters to cover the entire design process from design Design (overall design)
philosophy and roadway classification to design parameters and specific guidelines for Footway
the safe accommodation of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on linear road elements Hard Shoulder
and at intersections. The chapters are: Design Philosophy; Design Controls, Classification Kerb
and Consistency; Alignment and Lane Configuration; Cross Section Elements; Bicycle Layout
Integrated Design; Pedestrian Integrated Design; Roadside Design; Access; Intersections; Roadside
and Interchanges. Specifications
Textbook
Chapter 4- Cross Section Elements provides guidance on design procedures and
Traffic lane
domains related to cross sections and related elements including special purpose lanes,
Transverse Profile
shoulders, medians, outer separations and boulevards, curb and gutter and drainage.
Tunnel
Considerations for bridges and utility placement, snow storage and future widening are
Width
discussed and a series of typical cross sections are provided.
Supplementary Information
Index is available at www.tac-atc.ca
Chiu, M., Clayton, C., Millen, G. et al. 2017. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 4 - Cross Section
Elements. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
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 I MMM 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 ofTAC staff are also
appreciated.
A substantial portion of this Guide includes the contents adapted from the 1999 Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads, 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 4 - Cross Section Elements
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 ofTransportation Ontario
Prince Edward Island Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy
Ministere des Transports, de la Mobilite durable et de l'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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Project Steering Committee
Eric Christiansen, Manitoba Infrastructure (Co-Chair)
John Hammer, Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Co-Chair)
Ke ith 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 Dobush 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 ofTransportation and Infrastructure
Sandra Majkic, Transportation Association of Canada (Project Manager)
June 2017 iii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
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, WSPIMMM 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Foreword
BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE
In 1999 the Transportation Association of Canada relased 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 for 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 th is Guide.
June 2017 v
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
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 4
Chapter 4- Cross Section Elements provides guidance on design procedures and domains related to
cross sections and related elements including special purpose lanes, shoulders, medians, outer
separations and boulevards, curb and gutter and drainage. Considerations for bridges and utility
placement, snow storage and future widening are discussed and a series of typical cross sections are
provided.
vi June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
CONTENTS
4.1 OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................................................1
4.1.1 lntroduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
4.1.2 Focus of this Chapter ............................................................................................................ 1
4.1.3 Design Focus ......................................................................................................................... 1
4.1.4 Chapter Outline .................................................................................................................... 2
4.1.5 The Roadside ........................................................................................................................ 2
4.1.6 Cross Section: Design Domain Controls ............................................................................... 2
4.1.7 Design Elements: Cross Section ............................................................................................ 3
4.1.8 Explicit Consideration of Safety: General Principle .............................................................. 7
4.2 LANE WIDTHS ..........................................................................................................................7
4.2.1 Through Lane Widths ........................................................................................................... 7
4.2.1.1 Technical Foundation ............................................................................................. 7
4.2.1.2 Road Safety and Human Factors Considerations ................................................... 8
4.2.1.3 Design Domain: Quantitative Aids ......................................................................... 8
4.2.1.4 Design Domain: Application Heuristics .................................................................. 9
4.2.2 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ............................................................................................... 10
4.2.2.1 Lane Widths ......................................................................................................... 10
4.2.2.2 Centreline Rumble Strips: Best Practices ............................................................ 11
4.3 SPECIAL PURPOSE LANES .......................................................................................................13
4.3.1 Technical Foundation ......................................................................................................... 13
4.3.2 Design Domain and Application Heuristics ........................................................................ 13
4.3.2.1 Passing and Climbing Lanes ................................................................................. 13
4.3.2.2 Right-Turn Lanes .................................................................................................. 13
4.3.2.3 Left-Turn Lanes .................................................................................................... 13
4.3.2.4 Parking Lanes ....................................................................................................... 14
4.3.3 Other Special Purpose Lanes .............................................................................................. 14
4.3.3.1 Left-Turn Slip-Around Lane .................................................................................. 14
4.3.3.2 Continuous Right-Turn or Left-Turn Lane For Access .......................................... 15
4.3.3.3 Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes .................................................................. 15
4.3.3.4 Weaving Lanes ..................................................................................................... 15
4.3.3.5 Transit Lanes ........................................................................................................ 15
4.3.3.6 Service or Frontage Road Lanes ........................................................................... 16
4.3.3.7 Bike Facilities ........................................................................................................ 16
4.3.3.8 Ramps .................................................................................................................. 16
4.3.3.9 Turning Roadways ................................................................................................ 16
June 2017 vii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.4 SHOULDERS ...........................................................................................................................17
4.4.1 Technical Foundation ......................................................................................................... 17
4.4.2 Shoulder Width ................................................................................................................... 18
4.4.2.1 Design Domain: Quantitative Aids ....................................................................... 18
4.4.2.2 Design Domain: Application Heuristics ................................................................ 18
4.4.3 Surface Treatment of Shoulders: Best Practices ................................................................ 19
4.4.3.1 Delineating the Shoulder and The Travelled Lane ............................................... 19
4.4.3.2 Shoulder Material ................................................................................................ 19
4.4.3.3 Pavement Edge Drops .......................................................................................... 20
4.4.3.4 Shoulder Rumble Strips ....................................................................................... 21
4.4.4 Shoulder Cross Slopes: Best Practices ................................................................................ 24
4.4.5 Shoulder Rounding: Best Practices ..................................................................................... 25
4.4.6 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ............................................................................................... 26
4.5 MEDIANS AND OUTER SEPARATIONS .....................................................................................28
4.5.1 Technical Foundation ......................................................................................................... 28
4.5.2 Freeway and Expressway Medians: Application Heuristics ............................................... 32
4.5.3 Arterial Road Medians: Application Heuristics ................................................................... 33
4.5.4 Outer Separations and Frontage Road Separations: Application Heuristics ...................... 35
4.5.5 Explicit Evaluation of Safety ............................................................................................... 36
4.5.5.1 Freeways and Expressways .................................................................................. 36
4.5.5.2 Urban Median Application: Non-Freeway/Expressway ....................................... 37
4.6 SIDEWALKS, BOULEVARDS, AND BORDER AREAS .................................................................... 38
4.6.1 Technical Foundation ......................................................................................................... 38
4.6.2 Boulevards: Design Domain and Application Heuristics .................................................... 40
4.6.3 Border Areas: Design Domain and Application Heuristics ................................................. 40
4.6.4 Boulevard/Border Surfaces and Cross Slopes: Application Heuristics ............................... 40
4.6.5 Sidewalks ............................................................................................................................ 41
4.7 CURBS AND GUTTERS ............................................................................................................41
4.7.1 Technical Foundation ......................................................................................................... 41
4. 7 .2 Curbs: Best Practices ......................................................................................................... 42
4.7.2.1 Gutters: Best Practices ........................................................................................ 44
4.8 DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................................44
4.8.1 Grades: Best Practices ........................................................................................................ 44
4.8.2 Rural Drainage Channels (Ditchline): Best Practices .......................................................... 44
viii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4 .8.3 Urban Storm Drainage: Best Practices ..... ... ...................... ... .. .................... ... .... ................. 45
4 .8.4 Cross Slope : Best Practices ... ....................... .... ................. .. .... ....................... .... ................. 46
4.9 SNOW ...................................................................................................................................46
4 .9.1 Technical Foundation: Snow Removal and Storage ............... ................. .. .. .. ..................... 46
4 .9.2 Mitigative Measures: Best Practices .... .. .. ..................... ......................... ......................... ... 47
4.10 BRIDGES ................................................................................................................................50
4 .10.1 Technical Foundation ...... .... ......... ....... ... .. ... ................. .. .... ... .................... .... ................. .. .. 50
4.10.1.1 Roads under Bridges: Design Domain And Application Heuristics ...................... 50
4.10.1.2 Roads on Bridges: Design Domain and Application Heuristics ... .... ................. .. .. 53
4.10.1.3 Multi-Modal Configurations .... .. ................... ... ...................... ......................... ..... 59
4.10.1.4 Vertical Clearances : Design Domain and Application Heuristics ......................... 59
4.10.1.5 Explicit Evaluation of Safety: Bridge Widths .... ....................... ...................... ....... 59
4.11 UTILITY PLACEMENT ..............................................................................................................61
4.11.1 Technical Foundation .. ... .............. ... ... .... .................. ...... ................... .... .... ................. .. .... .. 61
4.11.2 Utility Placement: Best Practices .. ... ....... .................. ...... ................... .... .... ......................... 62
4.11.3 Explicit Evaluation of Safety: Utility Poles ................ ...... ................... .... .... ................. .. .... .. 62
4.12 DESIGNING FOR FUTURE WIDENING ......................................................................................64
4.12.1 lntroduction ............ ..... ................. ... ......................... ...... ................... .... ............................. 64
4.12.2 Rural Roads: Best Practices .......... ... ... .... ................. .. ..... ....................... ... ................. ... .... .. 65
4.12.3 Six-Lane Divided Urban Arterials: Best Practices ... ... ..... ................. ...... ................... .. ........ 65
4.12.4 Four-Lane Undivided Urban Arterials: Best Practices ... ...................... .. ......................... .... 67
4.13 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS ...................................................................................................... 69
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................76
June 2017 ix
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
TABLES
Table 4.2.1: Through Lane Widths - Rural Roadways (Design Hour Directional Volume <=450) ............. 8
Table 4.2.2: Through Lane Widths - Rural Roadways (Design Hour Directional Volume >450) ............... 9
Table 4.2.3: Through Lane Widths- Urban Roadways .............................................................................. 9
Table 4.2.4: Collision Modification Factors for Centreline Rumble Strips (Two-Lane Rural Roads) ........ 11
Table 4.4.1: Shoulder Widths for Undivided Rural Roads (m) ................................................................. 18
Table 4.5.1: Visual Glossary of Median Types ......................................................................................... 29
Table 4.5.2: Effect of Median Type on Collision Rates by Number of Access Points ............................... 37
Table 4.5.3: Estimated Total Collisions/ Kilometre/ Year ........................................................................ 37
Table 4.8.1: Guide for Lateral Spread of Surface Water Flow ................................................................. 46
Table 4.10.1: Horizontal Clearance at Bridges on Local and Collector Urban Roads ................................ 54
Table 4.10.2: Horizontal Clearance at Bridges on Rural Roads .................................................................. 55
FIGURES
Figure 4.1.1: Urban Street Cross Section Elements Nomenclature ......................................................... 4
Figure 4.1.2: Rural Roadway Cross Section Elements Nomenclature ...................................................... 5
Figure 4.1.3: Bicycle Facility Nomenclature ............................................................................................ 6
Figure 4.2.1: Collision Modification Factors for Lane Width on Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Highways .. 11
Figure 4.2.2: Centreline Rumble Strips .................................................................................................. 12
Figure 4.3.1: Collision Effects of Lane Width on Rural Frontage Roads ................................................. 16
Figure 4.4.1: Usable Shoulders .............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4.4.2: Example of Safety Edge (FHWA) ....................................................................................... 21
Figure 4.4.3: Shoulder Rumble Strips .................................................................................................... 22
Figure 4.4.4: Bicycle Friendly Shoulder Rumble Strips .......................................................................... 23
Figure 4.4.5: Shoulder Cross-Slope and Superelevation ........................................................................ 25
Figure 4.4.6: Shoulder Rounding ............................................................................................................ 26
Figure 4.4.7: Collision Modification Factor for Shoulder Widths on
Rural Two-lane Two-way Highways .................................................................................. 28
Figure 4.5.1: Freeway Medians .............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 4.5.2: Arterial Medians ............................................................................................................... 35
Figure 4.6.1: Typical Sidewalk, Boulevard and Border Dimensions ....................................................... 39
Figure 4.6.2: Sidewalk and Driveway Entrances .................................................................................... 41
x June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Figure 4.7.1: Curb and GutterTypes ...................................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.9.1: Effect of Slope on Snow Drifting ....................................................................................... 48
Figure 4.9.2: Snow Drifting Patterns for Alternative Median Barriers .................................................. 49
Figure 4.10.1: Horizontal Clearance at Bridges on Urban Arterial Roads (Underpass) ........................... 51
Figure 4.10.2: Horizontal Clearance at Bridges on Urban Freeways (Underpass) ................................... 52
Figure 4.10.3: Horizontal Clearance on Bridges on Urban Arterial Roads (Overpass) ............................. 57
Figure 4.10.4: Horizontal Clearance on Bridges on Urban Freeways (Overpass) .................................... 58
Figure 4.10.5: Collision Rate Versus Relative Bridge Width for Two-Lane Two-Way Rural Roads ......... 60
Figure 4.11.1: Relationship between Frequency of Utility Pole Collisions and Pole Offset
for Three Levels of Pole Density ....................................................................................... 63
Figure 4.11.2: Nomograph for Predicting Utility Pole Collision Rate ....................................................... 63
Figure 4.12.1: Staging of New Six-lane Divided Arterial Street ................................................................ 66
Figure 4.12.2: Staging of a New Four-Lane Undivided Arterial Street ..................................................... 68
Figure 4.13.1: Typical Section - Public Lanes ........................................................................................... 69
Figure 4.13.2: Typical Section - Rural Local Undivided Road .................................................................. 69
Figure 4.13.3: Typical Section - Urban Local Undivided Road ................................................................. 70
Figure 4.13.4: Typical Section - Rural Collector Undivided Road ............................................................ 70
Figure 4.13.5: Typical Section - Urban Collector Undivided Road .......................................................... 71
Figure 4.13.6: Typical Section - Rural Collector Divided Road ................................................................ 71
Figure 4.13.7: Typical Section - Urban Collector Divided Road ............................................................... 72
Figure 4.13.8: Typical Section - Rural Arterial Undivided Road .............................................................. 72
Figure 4.13.9: Typical Section - Urban Arterial Undivided Road ............................................................. 73
Figure 4.13.10: Typical Section - Rural Arterial Divided Road ................................................................... 73
Figure 4.13.11: Typical Section - Urban Arterial Divided Road ................................................................. 74
Figure 4.13.12: Typical Section - Rural Expressway and Freeways ........................................................... 74
Figure 4.13.13: Typical Section - Urban Expressway and Freeways ......................................................... 75
June 2017 xi
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4. CROSS SECTION ELEMENTS
4.1 OVERVIEW
4.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The design of the cross section of a roadway - like the design of its horizontal and vertical alignment -
must focus on all road user needs including those of pedestrians and cyclists. Similar to alignment
elements, the cross section elements provide vital guidance to the driver through their presence,
dimensions and coordination. Lane and shoulder widths, the presence of special purpose lanes, the
need to accommodate all road users, and related features such as general grading, drainage, boulevards
and street furniture should be consistent along any given road and on similar roads. Drivers have a
limited capacity for processing new information. As such, consistency in the design approach helps to
ensure that information processing load is kept to a reasonable level, that all road users' expectations
are met, and that users are able to safely navigate the roadway.
The rural cross section typically consists of the travelled way and shoulders, related drainage features,
side slopes and back slopes; together with consideration of design features to accommodate rural
pedestrians and cyclists according to jurisdictional policy. In urban and suburban areas, the cross
section typically consists of the travelled way, shoulders and/or curbs in addition to consideration of
provisions for pedestrians and cyclists (sidewalks, bicycle paths/lanes, multi-use paths), special purpose
lanes (turn movement bay/ storage lanes, parking lanes, bus lanes, etc.) and separators (medians,
boulevards, outer separators).
Careful planning and design of the cross section is essential, because adding extra width after the fact
can be a prohibitively expensive and publicly unacceptable process. It is generally recognized that many
safety benefits can be obtained simply by careful design of the cross section. Designers developing cross
section designs should also take into consideration the discussions contained in Chapter 7 of this Guide
since elements of that discussion can impact directly on certain aspects of the material in this section.
It is important that the road designer consider the impact of the sequence of construction for staged
facilities upon the original design of the cross section, since the provision of certain elements of the
longer term design in the initial stages of construction can affect both the safety and functionality of the
road during its first stages of operation.
4.1.2 FOCUS OF THIS CHAPTER
This chapter focuses on the design procedures and domains dealing with cross section design and
related elements including the use of special purpose lanes, drainage features, grading, snow removal,
bridge considerations, and shared use of the right-of-way by public and private utilities. Chapter 3 of this
Guide discusses the elements of Horizontal and Vertical Alignment design and Chapter 7 covers the
closely related issue of Roadside Safety.
4.1.3 DESIGN FOCUS
The focus of the design measures outlined in this chapter is ensuring consistency and meeting road user
needs including those of pedestrians and cyclists where appropriate. In the context of providing safe
and efficient facilities for the travelling public, the designer's primary goal in developing the cross
section design must be to provide a road which provides strong and consistent positive guidance to road
users, thus reducing the possibility of both on-road collisions and departures from the roadway.
June 2017 1
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.1.4 CHAPTER OUTLINE
The chapter begins with a review of the basic design considerations and design domain issues related to
the development of an appropriate cross section for a given road.
Subsequent portions of the chapter deal with specific cross sectional design elements, commencing with
the fundamentals of general lane width selection, followed by specifics pertaining to special purpose
lanes. A series of other cross sectional design elements are then covered, including: shoulders; medians
and outer separators; sidewalks, boulevards and border areas; and curbs and gutters.
The final sections of this chapter detail related cross sectional design elements including: drainage, snow
removal and related issues, bridges, utility placement and designing with provision for future widening.
In the final part of the chapter a series of typical cross sections is provided . More detail on roadside
slopes, bridges, utility placement and barriers are included in Chapter 7.
4.1.S THE ROADSIDE
Designers working on the cross sectional aspects of a road plan must ensure consideration the roadside
safety elements of the cross section design as described in Chapter 7.
4.1.6 CROSS SECTION: DESIGN DOMAIN CONTROLS
The selection of cross section elements can substantially influence the functionality of a road. A number
of these controls are discussed in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of this Guide and are not covered here
except where they may have a specific and explicit relevance to cross section design. These are:
• Safety is a prime consideration in cross section design. The careful selection and coordination
of the various cross section components can do much to promote safety for drivers,
pedestrians and cyclists. Although there is evidence to suggest that wider lanes or wider
shoulders are beneficial in reducing certain types of collisions, these wider dimensions can also
have an adverse effect on safety performance (e.g. effect to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians)
due to the potential for higher operating speeds. In urban areas, designers must consider these
potential impacts where pedestrians, cyclists, boarding and alighting transit passengers, and
other non-vehicular users of the facility must be accommodated.
• Design speed is important as a cross section and roadside safety design control on rural and
access controlled urban roadways. However, in the case of most urban roads, where users
other than motorists must be considered, design speed usually takes a lesser role in helping to
define the cross section. Further information regarding speed considerations in design is
provided in Chapter 2.
• Climatic conditions may have a bearing on a number of geometric features. During the winter
months in the rural environment, drifting snow often restricts visibility. The selection of side
slopes, the geometry of road ditches, roadside vegetation and other road design factors
influence the potential for drifting snow and snow accumulation on the roadway surface. On
major streets in urban areas, snow accumulations are periodically removed and hauled away.
However, there is an obvious need to store snow in windrows along boulevards, medians, and
in some instances parking lanes. This need to store snow applies equally to the pedestrian and
bicycle elements of the cross section.
• Land availability is of particular importance in urban areas where land for right-of-way may not
be readily available for a number of reasons including conflict with existing major buildings,
high cost of acquisition, and other protected land uses. However, during the design process it
is often advantageous to explore the benefits of acquiring additional right-of-way to improve
2 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
traffic operations, capacity, pedestrian and bicycle provisions and safety by incorporating
elements such as auxiliary lanes, channelization, wider pedestrian areas, bike lanes and
boulevards. Right-of-way acquisition may also be desirable for other purposes such as utility
alignment, streetscaping, and maintenance considerations.
• Traffic volumes must be taken into account in the design, and all available information should
be considered. Current and projected traffic volumes are usually stated in terms of annual
average daily traffic (AADT) or design hour volume (DHV). At intersections, turning movement
counts and pedestrian and bicycle counts will be particularly important in helping the designer
define the specific requirements of road users at the intersection. Seasonal variations may be
relevant, particularly on roads likely to have a high proportion of recreational traffic.
• Consideration of the need for special purpose lanes, including turning, passing, climbing,
parking and other types of lanes is particularly critical at the design stage of the work based on
the high cost associated with adding these facil ities in an ad-hoc fashion post design.
• The location of existing major utilities should be taken into account as they are often difficult
and costly to relocate, particularly in congested urban areas. Both surface and underground
utilities can have a major influence in selecting the cross sectional configuration and
dimensions for a road design. In particular, the location of aboveground utilities with respect
to the clear zone should be carefully considered (see Chapter 7).
• The nature of the adjacent land use and associated access patterns are important in urban
settings. Land use influences such elements as design speed, the need for and extent of
pedestrian, bicycle and on-street parking facilities, and the need for access to and egress from
the roadway (and hence the potential need for median opening controls). Further discussion
on access is contained in Chapter 8 of this Guide.
• The multi-functional use of urban street rights of way may help further define the cross section
design domain. Examples of such influences include the spatial relationship of utility
alignments to street elements, and the effective placement of streetscaping features without
compromising vehicular and pedestrian safety.
4.1.7 DESIGN ELEMENTS: CROSS SECTION
In general, the design of the cross section requires the specification of dimensional parameters for a
variety of features including:
• The number of lanes
• The types of lanes
• Lane width
• Shoulder width and treatment
• Type and width of cycling facilities
• Type and width of pedestrian facilities
• The presence of medians, outer separators, boulevards, border areas, curb and gutter and
other similar features as well as the appropriate dimensions for earthwork and drainage
features (see Chapter 7)
Figures 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 provide illustrations of urban and rural cross section elements/nomenclature
respectively. There is a wide variety of potential on-street and off-street bicycle provision types.
Although they do not cover all of the bicycle facility types available, Figure 4.1.3 illustrates some of the
common nomenclature associated with bicycle facilities. For further information of the types and
dimensions of bicycle facilities, please refer to Chapter 5 of this Guide.
June 2017 3
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
s .--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.>
urban street right-of-way CD >
0 gutter or offset 1 shoulder 1sidewalk O
o:: border boulevardE roadway o::
n
with mountable
rave e way rb d It
auxiliary through lanes c~oa::id;u er
lane border
sidewalk cross-slope - - (m/m) sidewalk
curb curb
n
a. undivided street ~
~I
border boulevard
gutter or offset
roadway median roadway
I~
i---~-t~ra_v_e~lle-d~w-ay~~-i--~~~~i---~--,-tra_v_e~lle-d~w-ay~---i
1
sidewalk sidewalk
roadside I
roadside
b. divided street
~ roadside roadway median roadway
0::
left-
i1
parking through lanes turn through lanes
lane lane
'
: sidewalk
I travelled way I travelled way
~
c. divided street with parking and left-turn lanes
~
~I outer separation freeway or
expressway
o:: 1 roadside frontage I service road travelled way
0 or collector lanes
jl J
-right
shoulder
1et1-1 ~
)
'
\_
I
shoulder ~
d. expressway I freeway with frontage I service road or collector lanes
Note: 1. Right-of-way width is also influenced by other elements including utility and drainage facilities ,
bike ways, landscaping and noise mitigation installations.
Figure 4.1.1: Urban Street Cross Section Elements Nomenclature
4 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
road right of way
roadside roadway roadside
::;:---------------~-------------::;:
~ shoulder travelled lanes shoulder ~
I .drainage channel
a. rural undivided highway cross section
road right of way
s I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---i
. ·ls
~I roadway roadway
I~
1 ·
travelled
· 1 1 ·
travelled · 1 outer
lanes median lanes separation I
(j; ..... ..... I
~
Q) Q)
:Q :Q
:J :Q
0
:J
0
median :J
.s:::.
(/) .s:::. (depressed) 0
.s:::.
I
(/) (/)
:E .;: .;:
·;::
O> ~ ~
I I
I .median J L JL 1
~ drainage
drainage
channel _/
channels
b. rural divided highway cross section
Figure 4.1.2: Rural Roadway Cross Section Elements Nomenclature
June 2017 5
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Low
Speed
Shared
Roadway
Roadside/ General Roadside/
Sidewalk Purpose Sidewalk
Lane
Low
Speed
Service
Road
General General
Median Parking Roadside/
Purpose Purpose
Sidewa lk
Lanes Lanes
(Main Road) (Service Road)
Advisory
Bike
Lanes
Roadside Adviso ry General Adv isory Roadside
Bike Lane Purpo se Bike Lane
Lanes
Bicycle
Accessible
Shoulder
Roadside Shoulder Genera l Shoulder Roadside
Purpose
Lane s
Figure 4.1.3: Bicycle Facility Nomenclature
6 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.1.8 EXPLICIT CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY: GENERAL PRINCIPLE
Safety considerations affect the selection of each cross section element. Not all collision types are
affected by cross section elements. Rear-end and angle collision types are not usually affected by cross
section elements. Run-off-road collisions as well as collision types related to lane and shoulder width
and shoulder surface treatments are affected. In determining the dimensions of each cross section
element, the designer must find an appropriate balance between the level of safety provided and
capital, maintenance and other costs.
Wherever possible, this Guide provides some level of guidance on safety-related issues and their
relationship to cross section design. In some instances, strong research data is available to provide
substantive guidance to the designer. In other cases, the research is not conclusive, and the designer
must rely on previous experience with similar designs and problems, engineering judgement, other
sources of information and research related to the problem at hand (including any internal research
efforts carried out by their own agency), and the guidance offered by the relevant planning and design
policies and specifications of their own agencies. In any case, where trade-offs involving safety are
being considered, an explicit evaluation of the safety impacts must be carried out and documented,
even in the absence of quantifiable safety performance functions. An independent road safety audit can
assist in identifying potential safety issues and appropriate mitigating measures.
Information pertaining to the safety effects of cross section elements can be found throughout this
chapter as well as in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of this Guide, and a number of key references provided in the
chapter references.
4.2 LANE WIDTHS
4.2.1 THROUGH LANE WIDTHS
4.2.1.1 Technical Foundation
Lane width and condition of the roadway surface have a significant influence on the safety and comfort
of both drivers and cyclists (and, indirectly, pedestrians). On freeways and rural highways, the capacity
of the roadway is markedly affected by lane width, with wider lanes having the ability to carry a larger
volume of traffic than a narrower lane. In general, safety increases on freeways and rural highways with
wider lanes up to a width of about 3.7 m. There is no further increase in safety for lane widths beyond
1
the 3.7 m range.
A number of recent research projects have examined the relationship between lane width and safety on
urban and suburban arterials. These studies found no general indication (with a few exceptions) that the
2
use of lanes narrower than 3.6 m increased crash frequencies • While this research provides insight into
lane width/safety relationships, the impacts of speed, volume, transit, heavy vehicles, the presence of
turn lanes, bike lanes and on-street parking, shoulder width, curb and gutter, another lane next to lane
of interest, or the proximity of objects such as utility poles, trees, or street furniture on the roadside,
bicycle and pedestrian use, and shared versus exclusive lane use, is not fully understood. Therefore,
when selecting lane widths, careful consideration of the dimensions used for other cross-section
elements (e.g. bike lane width) is required.
June 2017 7
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.2.1.2 Road Safety and Human Factors Considerations
Lane width is a cross sectional element that affects driver workload and speed. Results from driver
simulator measurements of attentional demand - an aspect of workload - indicate that as lane width
narrows, attention demand increases with the maximum demand required for lane widths of 3.0 m and
less.
Lane width also affects driver speed. In 1990 an Organization for Economic Co-Operation and
3
Development Scientific Experts Group published a review of impacts of lane width on driver behaviour .
Citing studies from Australia, U.S.A., and Canada, researchers consistently found a reduction in speed
with decreases in lane width and vice versa.
4.2.1.3 Design Domain: Quantitative Aids
Lane widths are dependent upon the design speed, the volume of traffic the roadway is intended to
carry, and the number and types of heavy vehicles on the roadway and in the urban situations, the need
to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. The lane widths used by various agencies across the country
vary substantially. Design domain widths for lower volume rural two-lane roadways are provided in
Table 4.2.1 while lane widths for higher volume and multilane rural roadways are given in Table 4.2.2.
Lane widths for through lanes on urban roadways are provided in Table 4.2.3.
The design domain guidelines are presented as values within a recommended range and within practical
lower/upper limits. Recommended values are intended to represent the range of optimal design
parameters for the design user. Practical limit values represent the range of parameter values beyond
which practical function is severely lessened or eliminated. For example, cars are typically 2.2 m wide
and trucks and buses are also less than 2.7 m wide. However, the presence of large mirrors, a typical bus
with mirrors is 3.1 m wide, and the driver's need for shy way from adjacent objects and other travelers
even at lower speeds and volumes means that a lane width less than 2.7m substantially decreases the
lane's functionality.
Table 4.2.1: Through Lane Widths - Rural Roadways (Design Hour Directional Volume <=450)
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Design Speed (km/h} Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
60 and less 2.7m 3.0m 3.7m 4.0m
70 to 100 3.3m 3.Sm 3.7m 4.0m
110 and higher 3.Sm 3.Sm 3.7m 4.0m
1. Where buses and larger trucks are expected to regularly use a lane, a minimum lane width of 3.3m is
recommended regardless of the design speed or traffic volume.
8 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Table 4.2.2: Through Lane Widths - Rural Roadways (Design Hour Directional Volume >450)
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Design Speed (km/h) Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
60 and less 3.0m 3.Sm 3.7m 4.0m
70 to 100 3.Sm 3.Sm 3.7m 4.0m
110 and higher 3.Sm 3.7m 3.7m 4.0m
1. Where buses and larger trucks are expected to regularly use a lane, a minimum lane width of 3.3m is
recommended regardless of the design speed or traffic volume.
Table 4.2.3: Through Lane Widths - Urban Roadways
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Design Speed (km/h) Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
60 and less 2.7m 3.0m 3.7m 4.0m
70 to 100 3.0m 3.3m 3.7m 4.0m
110 and higher 3.Sm 3.7m 3.7m 4.0m
1. Where buses and larger trucks are expected to regularly use a lane, a minimum lane width of 3.3m is
recommended regardless of the design speed or traffic volume.
4.2.1.4 Design Domain: Application Heuristics
The tables noted above should be applied in the context of the following application heuristics.
2. Lane widths in Tables 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 are exclusive of any gutter width . Where a gutter does
not exist adjacent to a curb, the minimum offset to the travelled lane is 0.25m.
3. Lane widths in Tables 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 do not account for the presence of parked cars, snow
storage or accommodation of cyclists. Refer to Chapter 5 for guidance on desired shared-use lane
widths for the accommodation of bicycles.
4. Research indicates that lane widths greater than 4.0 m may lead to confusion and improper lane use
in congested urban environments and may encourage unsafe passing maneuvers in rural
4
environments.
5. Where buses and larger trucks are expected to regularly use a lane, a minimum lane width of 3.3m is
recommended regardless of the design speed or traffic volume.
June 2017 9
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
6. Local roads and public lanes (alleys) in urban areas do not typically have defined travelled lanes as
they are intended to be lower speed roads. Local conditions and practices related to provision of on-
street parking, emergency access and snow storage need to be considered in determining the width
of the roadway.
4.2.2 EXPLICIT EVALUATION OF SAFETY
4.2.2.1 Lane Widths
There are three links between safety and lane width.
1. The wider the lanes, the larger the average separation between vehicles operating in adjacent
lanes. This may provide a larger buffer to adsorb the small random deviations of vehicles from
their intended path. On roadways that are identical except for lane widths, drivers may tend to
5
drive faster and follow the preceding vehicle more closely on the road that has wider lanes.
2. A wider lane may provide more room for correction in near-collision circumstances. For
example, a moment's inattention may lead a vehicle to drop off the edge onto a gravelled
shoulder. In the same situation, if the driving lane was wider and the shoulder paved, the
driver's brief moment of inattention may have less serious consequences.
3. Wider lane widths may induce higher operating speeds, which in urban areas can be linked to
reduced pedestrian and bicycle safety performance (e.g. the probability of a collision involving a
pedestrian or cyclists with a motor vehicle resulting in fatality increases significantly as motor
vehicle speed increases).
The AASHTO Highway Safety Manual contains collision modification factors for lane width on various
roadway types including rural two-lane two-way highways, rural multi-lane highways and rural frontage
roads. For example, Figure 4.2.1 shows the collision modification factor for single-vehicle run-off-road,
multiple-vehicle head-on, opposite-direction sideswipe, and same direction sideswipe crashes, as well as
lane width for given annual average daily traffic volume on rural two-lane two-way highways. 6
The Highway Safety Manual currently does not include collision modification factors for changes in
urban roadway width. Although recent research projects have examined the relationship between lane
width and safety on urban and suburban arterials and found no general indication that the use of lanes
narrower than 3.6 m increased crash frequencies,7 additional research is needed to fully understand the
safety impacts associated with reduced lane widths in urban conditions.
10 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
1.70
...0
-
0
~
c:
1.60
I I I I
This factor applies to single-vehicle run-
off-the-road and multiple-vehicle head-
on. opposite direction sideswipe. and 1.50 2.75 m lanes
0 1.50 same-direction sideswipe collisions.
;:;
IV
0
~ /
v
:c0 1.40
E ./
/ 1.30 3.05m lanes
c: 1.30 ~
0 .,.,........... ~
..,,, ... /
~ __.,...
0 1.20
0 ~
/ __.,,.,. ~
1.10 _/
1.05
1.02
__.,.,.. ~ 1.05 3.35 m lanes
-1.0~
1.00 3.65m lanes
1.00
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
AADT (veh/day)
Figure 4.2.1: Collision Modification Factors for Lane Width on
Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Highways
4.2.2.2 Centreline Rumble Strips: Best Practices 8 9
On two-lane rural roadways and multi-lane urban and rural roadways, centreline rumble strips can be a
cost-effective means to reduce head-on and opposite-direction sideswipe collisions. Figure 4.2.2 details
typical dimensions of centreline rumble strips. However, in urban areas or adjacent to residential areas,
concerns with excessive noise from vehicles traversing the rumble strips typically does not make them a
viable option.
The target collision types for centreline rumble strips are head-on and opposing-direction sideswipe
collisions due to inattentive drivers. Run-off-road left collisions may be considered as a secondary target
collision type. 10 In a study conducted by Persaud et al., 11 the following collision modification factors
were determined for two-lane rural roads.
Table 4.2.4: Collision Modification Factors for Centreline Rumble Strips
(Two-Lane Rural Roads)
Collision Modification
Collision Type Collision Severity
Factor (CMF}
0.85 All types Injury
0.75 Head-on and opposite-direction sideswipe Injury
0.79 Head-on and opposite-direction sideswipe All severities
June 2017 11
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
©
"O
©
"O
"S "S
0 0
..c
(J)
..c
(J)
"O "O
(]) (])
> >
-
ro ro
Cl. Cl.
0 0
(]) (])
Ol Ol
"O "O
(]) (])
plan view
centreline rumble strips
detail section A-A
typical continuous centreline all dimensions are in millimetres
rumble strip installation
Notes: 1. A semi-circular shape is preferred because it is easier to clean
and resists the loss of aggregates due to the small number of
sharp edges.
2. For use on typical highways in no-passing zones rumble strips
span the width of the two solid pavement markings plus the space
in between the pavement markings. The rumble strip remains
entirely within the painted lines.
3. A depth of 8 mm provides sufficient noise and vibration to alert
drivers without creating excessive noise in the surrounding area .
4. May vary by jurisdiction.
12
Figure 4.2.2: Centreline Rumble Strips
12 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.3 SPECIAL PURPOSE LANES
4.3.1 TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
In addition to the through lanes on a roadway, many facilities incorporate various types of special
purpose lanes adapted to particular needs and functionality. Passing lanes, climbing lanes, various types
of turning lanes and parking lanes, represent a few of these specialized lane types. The design of passing
lanes and climbing lanes from a horizontal alignment perspective is discussed in Chapter 3 of this Guide.
This section outlines the cross sectional design aspects of both these and a number of other special
purpose lane types.
Suggested dimensions included in this section are exclusive of gutter or curb offsets. In some instances,
the design domain is specified across multiple values. Values from the higher end of the design domain
are typically used in situations where the volume of heavy vehicles exceeds 15 vehicles per hour.
4.3.2 DESIGN DOMAIN AND APPLICATION HEURISTICS
4.3.2.1 Passing and Climbing Lanes
Warrants for passing and climbing lanes are discussed in Chapter 3 of this Guide. They are normally
introduced to the right of the through lane and their widths are generally the same as the adjacent lane
width. In some instances, the width of these lanes may be reduced from the through lane dimension by
0.2 to 0.25 m, but the width should not fall below 3.25 m.
13
Recent information contained in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manuaf for a conventional passing or
climbing lane added in one direction of travel on a rural two-lane two-way highway, suggests a 25%
reduction in total collisions (CMF of 0.75) in both directions of travel over the length of the passing lane.
This value assumes the passing lane is operationally warranted and that the length is appropriate for
operational conditions. For additional guidance on passing lanes, refer to Sections 3.8 and 3.9 of
Chapter 3 of this Guide.
4.3.2.2 Right-Turn Lanes
Right-turn lanes, including channelized right turn lanes, added to the right of through lanes ahead of
intersections allow right-turning traffic to slow down before making the turn without interfering with
following through traffic and generally provide additional capacity at intersections. Their widths are
generally the same as the adjacent lane width. In some instances, the width of the right-turn lane may
be reduced from the through lane dimension by 0.2 to 0.25 m. Although widths below 3.25 mare not
ideal, some road agencies in Canada use lane widths as low as 3.0 min urban environments.
For additional guidance on right-turn lanes, refer to Chapter 9 of this Guide.
4.3.2.3 Left-Turn Lanes
1. Left-turn lanes added to the left of through travelled lanes provide a refuge for left-turning
traffic waiting to make the left turn. Such lanes limit interference with following through traffic
by allowing left-turning traffic to move into the dedicated lane, slow down and wait for a
suitable gap in oncoming traffic to make the turn. They are used with and without medians.
2. The widths of left-turn lanes not adjacent to a median are generally the same as the adjacent
lane width or 0.2 to 0.25 m less. Although widths below 3.25 mare not ideal, some road
agencies in Canada use lane widths as low as 3.0 m in urban environments. Left-turn lanes
adjacent to a raised median are normally offset 500 mm from the face of curb. Left-turn lanes
June 2017 13
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
adjacent to a raised or painted median are either the same width as the adjacent lane or 0.2 m
less, but should not be less than 3.0 m wide.
3. Dual and triple left-turn lanes are frequently used at intersections that have high left- turning
movements. The width of these turning lanes should be 3.5 m on the approach leg. Departure
leg widths should be determined with vehicle turning movement software using appropriate
design vehicles. Wider lanes may be required if the turning lanes carry a high volume of heavy
vehicles. Further discussion of multiple left- turn lanes is contained in Chapter 9 of this Guide.
4.3.2.4 Parking Lanes
Cross section design may include provision for parking; however, this is normally done only on urban
roadways. Parking facilities should offer safety and convenience for parking users while, at the same
time, maintaining safe and convenient operation for other traffic.
1. Parking lanes are used on lower design speed roadways, normally local and collector urban
streets, and generally are not applied to roadways having design speeds of 70 km/h or over.
2. Parking lane width is generally 2.4 m.
3. Where a parking lane is used as a travelled lane during a portion of the day, the minimum lane
width is determined by the requirements of the travelled lane usage.
4. The parking lane widths above do not include gutter allowances or set-backs which in practice
may be used as part of the available parking lane width.
5. Snow-clearing operations should also be considered in determining the dimensions of parking
lanes. Windrows of snow and ridges of snow and ice at the curb face reduce the available width
of the parking lanes during several months of the year as the windrows not only reduce the
available parking lane width, but restrict the opening of vehicle doors forcing drivers to park
further from the curb face.
6. If necessary to combine a parking lane and a bicycle lane on the same facility, careful
consideration is required to avoid conflicts between passing bicycles and opening car doors. For
additional guidance on this topic refer to Chapter 5 of this Guide.
7. Parking should be restricted near two-way stop control intersection and mid-block pedestrian
crossings so that pedestrian sight lines to major-road vehicles from the right and the left are not
obstructed.
4.3.3 OTHER SPECIAL PURPOSE LANES
4.3.3.1 Left-Turn Slip-Around Lane
Left-turn slip-around lanes, also referred to as "shoulder by-pass lanes", may be used on two- lane
highways at intersections where the left- turning volumes do not warrant the traditional left-turn lane
treatment, but left-turn traffic may pose a threat to the safety of through lane traffic. Drivers have a
strong expectation based on experience that traffic on the through road continues at highway speeds. A
driver will not expect another driver suddenly slowing ahead on the main path to turn left, and because
of difficulties in perceiving closing speed, may not detect the slowing until too late. As a result, the
application of this treatment requires careful consideration.
Widths for the slip-around lanes are the same as the adjacent lane width or 0.2 m less, but should not
be less than 3.3 m. For more guidance on the design of left-turn slip-around lanes refer to Chapter 9.
14 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.3.3.2 Continuous Right-Turn or Left-Turn Lane For Access
Continuous right-turn lanes or left-turn lanes are frequently provided to minimize disruption to through
traffic flows on roads with high levels of access. The widths of these continuous lanes are generally the
same as the adjacent through traffic lane, but should not be less than 3.25 m. Two-way left turn lanes
(2WLTL) are discussed in detail in Section 8.6.
4.3.3.3 Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes
An acceleration lane is often provided at an intersection or interchange to allow traffic to accelerate to a
reasonable merging speed with the adjacent through travelled lane without affecting the speed of
through traffic. Similarly, deceleration lanes are frequently provided to allow turning traffic to
decelerate to an appropriate turning speed on the approach to an intersection.
• The widths of both acceleration and deceleration lanes should be the same as the adjacent
through lane or 0.2 to 0.25 m less, but should not be less than 3.25 m.
• Further information on acceleration and deceleration lanes is contained in Chapter 9 and
Chapter 10 of this Guide.
4.3.3.4 Weaving Lanes
Weaving lanes are typically provided on freeways to accommodate merging and diverging traffic
maneuvers resulting from closely spaced successive entrance and exit ramps.
The width of weaving lanes should be the same as the adjacent through lane or 0.2 to 0.25 m less, but
should not be less than 3.5 m.
4.3.3.5 Transit Lanes
Exclusive lanes for transit vehicles are often provided on routes that have a high transit usage.
• Where these lanes are provided in the same direction of travel as the adjacent through lanes,
the width of the transit lane should be chosen to suit the operation of the transit vehicles.
• Where a contraflow or counterflow lane is provided, the width should be 4.0 m where design
speed is greater than 60 km/h, and 3.7 m to 4.0 m where design speed is equal to or less than
60 km/h.
• Where bus bays are provided, the minimum width of the bus bay should be 3.25 m.
The design choices made in the planning of a new bus rapid transit or busway corridor (e.g. use of a
center-lane or curbside configuration, contraflow or counterflow lanes, and open or closed stations)
affect not only the operational performance of the system, but also the risks of collisions, injuries, and
fatalities. A study of nine bus rapid transit systems and busways around the world found that centre-
lane systems tended generally to be safer than curbside systems. Contraflow or counterflow lanes were
the most dangerous possible configuration. Some of the features that provide higher passenger capacity
(such as multiple bus lanes and multiple docking bays at stations) may introduce new types of conflicts
and collisions. In the planning of any bus system, trade-offs often need to be made between capacity,
14
safety, and pedestrian accessibility along the corridor.
June 2017 15
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.3.3.6 Service or Frontage Road Lanes
Service (frontage) roads are often provided to serve circulation and access needs of adjacent lands while
controlling access to major roadways and thereby allowing the major roadway to function at a greater
level of safety and efficiency. Lane widths for service roads should be consistent with the following:
• Two-way service road lane
o Residential land uses, 3.3 m minimum, per direction
o Industrial/commercial land uses, 3.5 m minimum, per direction
• One-way service road lane, no parking permitted, single travelled lane
o Residential land uses, 4.6 m minimum
o Industrial/commercial land uses, 4.8 m minimum
• One-way service road lane, parking permitted, or more than one travelled lane
o Same dimensions as two-way service road lane.
The AASHTO Highway Safety Manual contains the following collision modification factor (CMF) for rural
frontage road lane widths. Both one-way and two-way frontage roads were considered in the
development of this CMF. The following table has been adapted from AASHTO.
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
Cl)
~ 1.4
~ 1.3
11.
:E
(..) 1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
2.7 2.9 3.05 3.2 3.35 3.5 3.65
Lane width (m)
Figure 4.3.1: Collision Effects of Lane Width on Rural Frontage Roads
4.3.3.7 Bike Facilities
Refer to Chapter 5 for guidance.
4.3.3.8 Ramps
Refer to Chapter 10 for guidance.
4.3.3.9 Turning Roadways
Refer to Chapter 9 for guidance.
16 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.4 SHOULDERS
4.4.1 TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
Shoulders are a critical element of the roadway cross section. Immediately adjacent to the travelled
lanes, shoulders provide: a recovery area for errant vehicles, a refuge for stopped or disabled vehicles,
an area out of the travelled lanes for use by emergency and maintenance vehicles as requ ired, and
lateral support of the roadway structure. Factors which influence selection of shoulder width and type
include :
• Safety considerations
• Traffic volume and make-up
• Number of travelled lanes
• Design speed
• Right-of-way constraints
• Surface treatment
• Cross slope
• Presence of curb and gutter
• Winter conditions
• Use of the road by other modes (for example, pedestrians and cyclists)
Shoulders can also offer an opportunity to improve sight distance on a horizonatal curve through cut
sections of the road, and may indirectly help improve highway capacity by encouraging uniform speed
among vehicles, and promoting a sense of well-being on the part of the driver.
Shoulders are normally provided on rural roads. In urban areas, they are desirable on freeways,
expressways, and certain high speed arterials with design speeds in excess of 80 km/h. The high cost of
right-of-way in urban areas makes the provision of shoulders difficult to justify on other streets where
vehicle speeds are less.
The usable width of shoulder, as shown on Figure 4.4.1, is defined as the actual width that can be used
when a driver makes an emergency stop and is measured from the edge of the travelled way.
travelled usable shoulder
way
Figure 4.4.1: Usable Shoulders
June 2017 17
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.4.2 SHOULDER WIDTH
4.4.2.1 Design Domain: Quantitative Aids
For undivided rural roadways, the design domain for shoulder widths is outlined in quantitative form the
following table.
15
Table 4.4.1: Shoulder Widths for Undivided Rural Roads (m)
Designation and Design Hour Directional Volume
Design Rural Collector Arterial
Speed Design Hour Directional
Design Hour Directional Volume
(km/h} Local Volume
<250 250-450 >450 <450 >450
60 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
70 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
80 1.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0
90 1.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0
100 1.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0
110 2.5 3.0
120 3.0 3.0
130 3.0 3.0
The shoulder widths provided in the table above are representative of the values commonly used by
road agencies in Canada. Some agencies use shoulder widths less than those displayed in this table (i.e.
Alberta uses a reduced shoulder width on two-lane arterial roads).
Guidelines for the design domain for shoulder width in other shoulder applications are provided below:
• For divided rural roadways, the shoulder widths are as follows:
o the right shoulder width for all designations and design speeds, 3.0 m
o the left shoulder width for all classifications and design speeds for four-lane divided
roadways, 1.5 m;
o the left shoulder width for all classifications and design speeds for divided roadways
having more than four lanes, 2.5 m.
• For interchange ramps and transfer roadways, the right shoulder width is 2.5 m and the left
shoulder width is as follows:
o for one and two-lane ramps, 1.0 m;
o for ramps of more than two lanes, 2.5 m.
• Shoulder width adjacent to climbing lanes and passing lanes preferably should be the same as
for the roadway on the approach to the auxiliary lane. The width may be reduced to not less
than 1.0 m provided an explicit analysis of the safety impacts of such a reduction can be
justified.
4.4.2.2 Design Domain: Application Heuristics
1. It is desirable that a vehicle stopped on a shoulder for emergency reasons be clear of the
adjacent travelled lane by at least 0.3 m and preferably 0.5 m. This has led to the adoption of 3.0
16
m as the normal shoulder width for high-speed freeways .
18 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
2. For roadways of lower speed and/or lower volume, a shoulder narrower than 3.0 m wide may
be applied provided that this can be justified on the basis of an explicit analysis of the safety
impacts of such a change by the designer.
3. Where curb and gutter or mountable curb and gutter is placed at the outside edge of a
shoulder, the usable shoulder width is defined as the distance between the edge of the travelled
way and the lip of the gutter.
4. Where guiderails, walls or other obstructive elements are introduced adjacent to a shoulder, it is
desirable that the element or elements be placed in a manner such that 0.5 m clearance is
provided to allow for opening of a vehicle door.
5. Shoulders should be continuous so that at any location along the roadway a driver can leave the
travelled lanes to use the shoulder. If the shoulder is intermittent, some drivers may find it
necessary to stop on the travelled lanes precipitating a hazardous condition. However, it may
not always be economical to maintain shoulder width in all cases and, where this appears to be
the case, an explicit and quantitative analysis of the safety impacts of any proposed shoulder
width reduction through the Design Exception process described in Chapter 1 can help the
designer to reach the appropriate decision .
6. Shoulder widths on bridge decks for various conditions are discussed in Section 4.10 of this
Chapter.
4.4.3 SURFACE TREATMENT OF SHOULDERS: BEST PRACTICES
4.4.3.1 Delineating the Shoulder and the Travelled Lane
It is important to make a clear distinction between travelled lanes and shoulders so as not to encourage
the use of a shoulder as a travelled lane. At night and in periods of inclement weather, the ability for
the driver to differentiate between the travelled lanes and the shoulder enhances the safety of the
roadway. Assisting the driver in this respect can be accomplished in a number of ways, including:
• The use of pavement of a contrasting colour and/or texture on paved shoulders or the use of
rumble strips. For example, the shoulder may be treated with a coarser surface than that of the
travelled lane, so that if a vehicle inadvertently leaves the lane and travels onto the shoulder,
the change in tone of tire noise will alert the driver.
• The use of pavement edge striping. This is an important and economical measure for
delineating the shoulders, particu larly where the shoulder is partially paved with the same
material as the through travelled lane.
• The use of a steeper cross slope across the shoulder than the adjacent travelled lane. This
further assists the driver in distinguishing between the two.
4.4.3.2 Shoulder Material
In the selection of surface treatment of the shou lder, the designer must consider the impacts on the
level of safety, drainage, and maintenance costs. Three types of shoulder treatments are available to the
designer: gravelled, partially paved and paved. The benefits of the different shoulder materials are as
follows :
• Gravelled shoulders provide a clear line of demarcation between the edge of travelled lanes and
the shoulder, but require a higher level of maintenance.
• Partially paved shoulders that have a paved width of 0.5 m provide a stable surface to absorb
minor deviations of vehicles straying from the travelled lanes.
June 2017 19
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
• Paved or sealed shoulders are safer than unpaved shoulders as they provide a greater recovery
and maneuvering area for motorists to take evasive action to avoid potential collisions or to
reduce their severity. Paved shoulders also reduce the potential for vehicles that stray out of the
17
driving lane to lose control in loose shoulder material. The benefits of paved or sealed
shoulders are generally greater for sections of roads on curve or on grade than on flat,
tangential sections of roadway.
4.4.3.3 Pavement Edge Drops
Pavement edge drops (vertical discontinuities at the edge of the paved surface) should be avoided,
particularly on the inside of horizontal curves. Trucks are particularly susceptible to roll-over at
pavement edge drops because of their higher centre of gravity, compounded by the potential of load-
shifting and the wider off- tracking of the rear wheels of the vehicle.
Pavement edge drops can lead to run off-road crashes. A Transportation Research Board (TRB) State of
the Art Report describes the various elements of an edge drop loss of control: 18
• The driver, due to inattention or some other reason, allows the right wheels of the vehicle to
move just onto the lower unpaved surface.
• The driver attempts to recover without reducing speed, steering initially gently and then
harder, thereby creating a scrubbing action, until finally the wheel mounts the pavement.
• Then, with the increased friction available, the tires suddenly grab hold causing the vehicle to
shoot across the road into oncoming traffic
The TRB State of the Art Report indicated that, based on driver performance testing, a 6.4 cm (2.5-inch)
vertical drop-off was on the border between being considered reasonably safe and marginally safe, and
a 8.9 cm (3.5-inch) drop-off, on the border between being considered marginally safe and questionably
safe. Numerous road agencies in North America have set a maximum recommended allowable
pavement edge drop-off of 5 cm.
A safety edge treatment is an uncomplicated and effective solution to mitigate pavement edge-related
crashes. When done correctly, simply shaping the edge of the pavement to 30 degrees can eliminate the
problem of vertical drop-off. Research quoted in the TRB State of the Art Report has shown that this
shape is considered conservative in that the transition from on-roadway surface to shoulder and back is
so smooth it defies assignment of any degree of severity, except when the elevation change from
pavement to shoulder causes a noticeable tilt in the vehicle.
20 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Figure 4.4.2: Example of Safety Edge (FHWA)
4.4.3.4 Shoulder Rumble Strips
Shoulder rumble strips are a cost-effective strategy to reduce single-vehicle run-off-road incidents.
Shoulder rumble strips are often used to provide an audible and tactile warning to the driver that the
vehicle has left the travelled lanes.
• Continuous rumble strips on asphalt shoulders or regularly spaced rumble strips along
extended sections of asphalt or concrete shoulders have been shown to reduce the rate of run-
19 20
off-road incidents significantly.
• On highways with extremely monotonous driving conditions, reductions in run-off- road
21
collisions as high as 60% can be expected. Rumble strips on roadways having a high volume of
bicyclist traffic can also serve as a buffer to keep the cyclist away from the painted shoulder
line, provided that the shoulder is of sufficient width. Refer to Chapter 5 for additional details
on required shoulder widths for bicycles.
• A shoulder rumble strip is a raised or grooved pattern in the pavement surface of the shoulder.
The raised rumble strip is not as desirable as the grooved type because of snow clearing
operations. Grooved rumble strips are indented into the pavement of the shoulder of the
roadway. In summer, grooved rumble strips are self-cleaned by highway traffic. In winter, even
covered with snow, the shoulder rumble strips still produce an effective humming noise when
22
traversed by errant vehicles.
• Rumble strips may be rolled into the shoulder surface during the installation of an asphalt
pavement or overlay. A second method is to 'mill' the strip into the finished pavement.
Although the cost of milled rumble strips is more expensive than the cost of rolled-in strips,
23
milled-in rumble strips generally keep their intended shape during construction. Rolled-in
strips have the additional limitation of making the compaction of the pavement more difficult.
Milled-in rumble strips tend to produce a more effective rumbling noise and create more
24
vibration for large trucks than the rolled-in type. Refer to Figure 4.4.3 for typical dimensions
for shoulder rumble strips.
• Although rumble strips can offer significant reductions in run-off-road crashes on rural
highways, they can have a negative effect on bicycle traffic. Cyclists riding on or over rumble
strips can experience discomfort and/or a loss of control. Placing gaps in a rumble strip pattern
to permit bicycle traffic to cross the rumble strip area without striking the rumble strip pattern
itself is one method of addressing this concern. See Figure 4.4.4 for details.
June 2017 21
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
~ rumble strips ~
~ a;nted s~ulde,Une ~
c::::::::J c:::::::::i·-
c::::::::J c::::::::J
~
c::::::::J c::::::::J
c::::::::J c::::::::J
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
. c::::::::J
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
Q;
"O
"S
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
.. c::::::::J
c::::::::J
0
.r::.
en
.
c::::::::J c::::::::J
c::::::::J c::::::::J "O
c::::::::J
At c::::::::J Q)
~
c::::::::J c::::::::J
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
.. c::::::::J
c::::::::J
>
ro
a.
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
c::::::::J
0
Q) c::::::::J c::::::::J Q)
Cl c::::::::J •1 c::::::::J Cl
"O c::::::::J c::::::::J "O
Q) Q)
c::::::::J c::::::::J
c::::::::J c::::::::J
c::::::::J c::::::::J
c::::::::J c::::::::J
c::::::::J
c::::::::J D c::::::::J
~
plan view
painted shoulder line
150±40
rg
L
I
painted shoulder line
,----- 8±2@
,(j)
:J
N
6 --- 300-500 --1
section view
detail A-A
typical continuous shoulder
all dimensions are in millimetres
rumble strip installation
Notes: 1. For use on typical highways. The 300 mm width is
preferred to maximize the remaining clear shoulder
width. A wider strip may be used in locations where large
trucks typically encounter problems (i.e ., ramps, tight
horizontal curves , acceleration lanes) as a 500 mm
width has been shown to be more effective for large
trucks.
2. A semi-circular shape is preferred because it is readily
milled , easier to clean, and resists the loss of
aggregates due to the small number of sharp edges.
3. Varies by jurisdiction
25
Figure 4.4.3: Shoulder Rumble Strips
22 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
intermittent
rumble strips
rinteds~ulderli~
= =
~
=
= =
=
= =
= ~ =
Ci3 Ci3
= . =
"C "C
::;
0
•II c:::::::::I
= =
=
::;
0
.c
(/)
=
= . ====
[
.c
(/)
"C
Q) =
= At
"C
Q)
..
~ ..
>
C1l
>
C1l
c. c.
c
0
..
0
Q)
Cl
"C
Q)
. Q)
Cl
"C
Q)
=
= 0 =
=
= plan view
=
painted shoulder line
~---~:shoulder rumble strips
r L
painted shoulder line
Ls±2°
~
~ 1--~30-0~---1
section view
detail A-A
typical shoulder
all dimensions are in millimetres
rumble strip installation
Notes: 1. The 0 to 200 mm offset is provided as a range to provide
flexibility in implementing rumble strips on shoulders
used by cyclists and to ensure that the pavement
integrity is maintained.
2. The 300 mm width is preferred to maximize the
remaining clear shoulder width.
3. Varies by jurisdiction.
26
Figure 4.4.4: Bicycle Friendly Shoulder Rumble Strips
June 2017 23
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.4.4 SHOULDER CROSS SLOPES: BEST PRACTICES
The difference in cross slope between a shoulder and an adjacent travelled lane can have an impact on
safety. When the difference in cross slope is significant, a disabled vehicle moving to the shoulder may
experience serious sway causing the occupants discomfort and perhaps causing the driver to lose
control; or the driver, on recognizing the difference, will reduce speed before moving to the shoulder,
putting themselves and other roadway users in danger. A number of useful practices can help the road
designer reduce the possibility of these situations from occurring.
• Generally, on a tangent section, the cross slope on shoulders may be the same as or up to 0.03
m/m steeper than that of the adjacent travelled lane. Some agencies allow up to 0.04 m/m
differences.
• On sections in which the normal crown is removed and reversed, the shoulder cross slope is
normally maintained as for the tangent section.
• On superelevated sections, the cross slope on the low side is often the same as that of the
adjacent travelled lane. On the high side, two alternative treatments are commonly used. It is
the policy of some authorities to superelevate the shoulder to match that of the travelled
lanes, while other authorities will slope the shoulder away from the travelled lane to prevent
water runoff from the shoulder from flowing across them. In the latter practice, excessive
difference in slope at the common edge should be discouraged to minimize sway in a vehicle
moving to the shoulder and to discourage reductions in speed before leaving the travelled
lanes. A maximum algebraic difference in cross slope of 0.08 m/m is used by some authorities.
The cross slope of the shoulder relative to cross slope of the travelled lanes is illustrated in Figure 4.4.5.
Additional information pertaining to cross slopes is provided in Chapter 3 of this Guide.
24 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
tangent section
shoulder cross slope same as
travelled lanes or steeper
crown removed
shoulder cross slope same as
on tangent
superelevated section
shoulder cross slope on low side , same as travelled lanes.
shoulder superelevation on high side same as travelled lanes
or cross slope as on tangent.
Figure 4.4.5: Shoulder Cross Slope and Superelevation
4.4.5 SHOULDER ROUNDING: BEST PRACTICES
Shoulder rounding is a transition between the shoulder and the constant fill slope or cut side slope. It
provides lateral support for the shoulder and also helps reduce the potential of errant vehicles leaving
the roadway and becoming airborne, thereby enhancing the driver's ability to maintain steering control.
Shoulder rounding is formed with granular material and if the shoulder is paved, is placed after the
shoulder material has been placed and shaped to grade. Shoulder rounding may require treatment with
stabilizing material to inhibit shoulder erosion.
Wider rounding is appropriate for higher design speed roadways. Roundings of 1.0 mare typically used
for design speeds of 100 km/h or higher, and 0.5 m for design speeds less than 100 km/h. Where a
traffic barrier is in place, rounding normally is measured from the back of the barrier, as illustrated in
Figure 4.4.6.
June 2017 25
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
travelled way shoulder
travelled way shoulder rounding
Figure 4.4.6: Shoulder Rounding
4.4.6 EXPLICIT EVALUATION OF SAFETY
Two aspects of shoulder design have a direct impact on road safety:
1. The shoulder type: paved, graveled or sod.
• Graveled shoulders may have some advantage in alerting the driver who strays from the
travelled lanes. However, they may also contribute to the further loss of control, particularly in
cases where the graveled surface is eroded.
• The same "alerting" effect of gravelled shoulders may also be achieved through the use of
paved shoulders with longitudinal rumble strips. Paved shoulders without such strips do not
offer such an advantage. In any event, paved shoulders probably allow the driver to more easily
recover from the excursion, regardless of the presence of a rumble strip. The AASHTO Highway
Safety Manual contains collision modification factors for various shoulder types.
2. The shoulder width. The shoulder width can affect road safety as follows:
• Since the shoulder is an even and obstacle free surface, it serves as a potential recovery area
upon which errant drivers can regain control or recover from error and resume normal speed.
The width of this recovery area can obviously have a direct influence on the driver's ability to
recover before embarking on the roadside; wider shoulders may provide a safety benefit in this
respect.
• Shoulders provide an area for vehicles to stop. While it is necessary to provide a refuge area for
vehicle breakdowns, wide shoulders may induce some voluntary stopping. Vehicles stopping
(for whatever reason), stopped, and returning to the traffic stream may pose a hazard to other
traffic.
• Wider shoulders may induce higher running speeds. Even small increments in the mean speed
of the traffic stream may increase collision severity.
26 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
The net safety effect of shoulder width is thus complex and is a sum of opposing tendencies. Thus, the
safety effects of shoulder widths are often uncertain for a variety of reasons:
• Narrow lanes, narrow shoulders, and an unforgiving roadside often go hand in hand with low
traffic volumes, thus it is difficult to differentiate between these factors.
• Causal factors for collisions occurring on tangential and flat roadways may differ from roadways
that are more curvilinear and have steeper grades.
• Although data for many studies rely on total collision counts, the effect of shoulders on injury
collisions differs from that on property damage collisions.
• The use of shoulders to facilitate passing, a habit with negative safety ramifications, differs
amongst jurisdictions.
In spite of these factors, the following general conclusions can provide design assistance:
• Increased shoulder width is generally regarded as being more beneficial to safety at higher
traffic volumes than lower volumes.
• There are some indications in the research that roads with wider shoulders may tend to have
collisions of greater severity. This phenomenon may be due to the higher running speeds that
such wider shoulders may encourage in some instances.
• Shoulders wider than about 2.0 m to 2.5 m can contribute to the increase in the number of
injury collisions in some circumstances. Once again, this phenomenon may be due to the higher
running speeds that wider shoulders may encourage. It is thus logical that, in situations where
wider shoulders are to be used, particular attention should be paid to providing an appropriately
forgiving roadside design.
• The safety effect of wide shoulders on level and straight roads is less than on sharp horizontal
curves and on roads with steep grades.
• Wider shoulders tend to have fewer run- off-road and opposite direction collisions. However,
they may in some instances be associated with greater levels of 'other' types of collisions.
• Shoulders fulfil an important function as a refuge area for broken-down vehicles. Making
adequate provision for the refuge of such vehicles is particularly important on high-volume
facilities such as rural and urban freeways. In consideration of this fact, and of the consequent
need to allow people room to move around the vehicle for maintenance and/or repair purposes,
the design domain for shoulder width allows for widths up to 3.0 m. In instances where the
lower limits of the design domain are used, particular attention should be paid to providing a
forgiving roadside.
• A sample CMF related to shoulder width and AADT on rural two-lane two-way highways is
shown on Figure 4.4.7. This figure is based on single-vehicle run-off-road and multi-vehicle
head-on, opposite-direction sideswipe, and same-direction sideswipe collisions. If the
information shown in the figure is to be applied to total collisions, an appropriate correction
needs to be applied. For example, if half of the collisions on a given road are of the run-off-road
and opposite direction type, the CMF needs to be applied only to half of the total number of
collisions. If the "other" collision types are affected by shoulder width, the CMF needs to be
reduced further.
• In general, the provision of full shoulders instead of only curb and gutter on multi-lane suburban
27
highways is associated with a 10% lower collision rate.
June 2017 27
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
1.60
I I I
1.50 0.0 m st oulders
1.50 This factor applies to single-
~
vehicle run-off-the-road and
--
L.
0
CJ
co
c:
1.40
multiple-vehicle head-on ,
opposite direction sideswipe,
and same-direction sideswipe
collisions.
/
v
/
1.30 0.6 m st oulders
0
:;:::; 1.30
co / l,....---"" i----
CJ
!-!:
i:::s
0
1.20
/
,/
l,....---"" I"""""
-- l,....---""
1.15 1.2 m st oulders
...............
~ ___.,.,-
--- --
E 1.10 ~
~
c: 1.10 --------
- .....-
.2
.!!! - ~
1.00 1.8 m st oulders
0
1.00
CJ 0.98
0.90
-
0.87 2.4 m st oulders
0.80
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
AADT (veh/day)
Figure 4.4.7: Collision Modification Factor for Shoulder Widths on
28
Rural Two-Lane Two-way Highways
4.5 MEDIANS AND OUTER SEPARATIONS
4.5.1 TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
A median may be defined as that portion of a road which physically separates the travelled lanes of
traffic travelling in opposing directions. Median width is the lateral dimension measured between the
inner (left) edges of the travelled lanes and includes the left shoulder, as well as the gutter or offset
widths, as shown above in Figures 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.
A median is a safety device which provides some measure of freedom from interference of opposing
traffic. Medians provide a recovery area for errant vehicles, storage area for emergencies, speed-change
lanes for left-turn and U-turn traffic, and reduce headlight glare. Medians add to a sense of open space
and reduced driver workload as well as provide an area for snow storage, particularly in urban areas.
Medians should be visible day and night and should be in definite contrast to adjacent travelled lanes.
Medians may be flush with, raised above, or depressed below the adjacent travelled lanes. The
following table presents a visual glossary of common median types in Canada .
28 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
29
Table 4.5.1: Visual Glossary of Median Types
Median Type Example Photo
Rural
freeway/expressway
median
Urban
freeway/expressway
narrow median
Two-way or shared
left-turn centre lane
June 2017 29
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Painted/Flush median
Textured median
Raised median
Median widths may be as narrow as 1 m and as wide as 30 to 35 m. Where right-of-way costs are low,
even wider median widths are sometimes provided. Median widths above 3.0 mallow for independent
alignments, in which case the roadways are designed separately, and the area between is largely left in
its natural state. Medians may serve as escape routes and provide a clear zone for vehicles that are
30
avoiding possible collisions with vehicles in their own lanes. The major uses of a median separation are
to reduce the risk of head-on collisions and to control access. Increasing median width reduces the
30 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
frequency of cross median collisions. Collision frequencies generally decrease with increasing median
widths. The TAC Synthesis of Practices for Median Design contains crash reduction factors to allow for
the evaluation of safety impacts of varying median widths. In general, medians should be as wide as
economically possible and should be in balance with the other elements of the cross section and the
character of the area.
An outer separation is that portion of an arterial street, road, expressway or freeway which physically
separates the outside travelled lanes of a roadway from an adjacent frontage/service road or collector
road. The width of an outer separation is measured from the outer (right) edge of the travelled lanes to
the closest edge of the parallel frontage/service road or collector road, and includes the shoulder and
gutter or offset widths, as shown in Figure 4.5.1.
median width less than 25 m
shoulder shoulder
_ _ _ _ _ 4:1 Orffatter <\ \ orllatter -----
~-----1-~-·-;~
median width greater than 25 m
h""
===::::.:==--!'.§Varies
'--==:::::i====
-iarie~s
6:1 desirable - - - - - - - - - 6-.\ desirable
"'"rl
median width
shoulder varies varies shoulder
pier
freeway
median with pier
~mod•'w;dth
L I, ,., '"'""" ""~
freeway or arterial concrete or
narrow median box beam barrier
Figure 4.5.1: Freeway Medians
A discussion regarding median barriers is presented in Chapter 7 of this Guide.
June 2017 31
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.5.2 FREEWAY AND EXPRESSWAY MEDIANS: APPLICATION HEURISTICS
1. Rural freeways usually have depressed medians of sufficient width to allow the road bed to
drain into the median and to eliminate the need for median barriers.
2. Median side slopes are generally minimized so that a vehicle leaving the travelled lanes has an
opportunity to recover control thus reducing the potential for occupant injury and vehicle
damage. Overturning crashes are more frequent for deeply depressed medians with slopes
steeper than 4 :1. Such slopes should be avoided. Flatter slopes are desirable where feasible in
terms of cost, drainage and property. See Chapter 7 for additional discussion of slopes.
3. In Canada, median widths ranging from 13 m to 30 mare common on rural freeways and in
some instances when right-of-way permits, treed medians as wide as 75 m wide are provided.
Some Canadian road agencies have reported road safety concerns associated with median
widths of 15 m or less. This observation is consistent with findings from a US national survey of
cross median crashes conducted by the FHWA in 2004. Based on the responses received from 25
states, approximately two thirds of cross median crashes occurred where the median was less
31
than 15 m in width. Although a survey of Canadian road authorities suggests a desire to
maintain a median width of 22.6 m or greater, limited rights-of-way and difficult terrain often
32
result in the provision of less than desirable median width.
4. Ideally, the median should be of sufficient width to eliminate the need for a median barrier as
discussed in the section on median barrier warrants in Chapter 7 of this Guide. Although a
median barrier can reduce collision severity and the risk of cross median collisions, the presence
of a median barrier can increase collision frequency due to its close proximity to the travelled
lanes. This can result in an overall increase in collision and maintenance costs.
5. Although depressed medians are typically associated with rural freeways, they are often applied
as an interim stage in urban design where additional lanes may be added in the future. In these
instances, the median width is typical ly determined by the future requirements. Although not
always practical in a confined urban environment, consideration should be given to providing
sufficient median width to preclude median barriers in the ultimate stage when the future lanes
are added.
6. Medians for urban freeways normally are either flush or a raised island with a median barrier.
Median dimensions depend on shoulder widths, barrier type, and the need for provision of
structure piers. See Chapter 7 for a discussion of median barriers.
7. In areas of difficult terrain, right-of-way restrictions and high construction costs, the use of a
narrow median cross section is common. This is particularly the case in constrained urban
freeway corridors. In these instances, the width of the median shoulder typically ranges from
1.5 m to 2.5 m. This suggests that the minimum median width should be at least 3.0 m (the
width of 2 median shoulders) plus the width of the selected barrier plus allowances for such
factors as barrier deflection on impact, and provision for barrier mounted illumination poles,
overhead sign footings and bridge piers. Some Canadian road authorities provide an enhanced
shoulder width. For example, on multi-lane urban freeways, the Ontario Ministry of
Transportation requires a minimum 3.0 m median shoulder width between the edge of the
travelled lane and the bottom edge of the concrete barrier
8. On horizontal curves, reduced stopping sight distance resulting from sightline obstructions
created by median barrier installations is of concern . To address this situation, some agencies
set minimum curve radius design criteria based on the available barrier offset. Other agencies
provide localized widening of the median shoulder. Although this treatment improves the
available stopping sight distance, the risk of more severe high impact angle collisions and
32 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
undesirable driver behaviour (stopping in median) is increased. For this reason, the allowable
width of the localized widening is typically limited. For example, the British Columbia Ministry of
Transportation and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation use a maximum barrier offset of 2.4
3 34
m and 4.0 m, respectively3 • •
9. Median width can also be governed by vehicle lengths when full access control, such as in a
freeway situation, has not been implemented. The minimum required median width at an
unsignalized intersection on a rural or urban expressway is generally a function of the design
vehicle selected. A width of 7.5 m provides a passenger car with space to stop safely in the
median to complete a crossing or left turn movement. The selection of a school bus as the
design vehicle requires a median width of 15 m. Alberta Transportation design practice deals
specifically with long combination vehicles:
o "Where longer vehicles such as log haul trucks {30.5 m) or long combination vehicles (up to
41 m) are expected to be crossing the highway at at-grade intersections it is a good practice
to provide sufficient median width to allow refuge for those vehicles plus a 3 m buffer
(offset from travelled lanes) at the front and back of the vehicle. This may be achieved
through the use of a wide median throughout or the use of median widening at selected
35
intersections only."
10. In providing wide medians it is important to ensure approaching vehicles on the cross road can
see both roadways of the divided highway so drivers can understand that a divided highway is
being approached and not inadvertently make a left turn into oncoming traffic.
11. If it is anticipated that signals may be required at the intersection at some point in the future,
36
wide medians are not operationally practical. Slotted left turn lanes can mitigate these
operational concerns.
12. Expressway median widths of more than 18 mare undesirable at intersections that are
signalized or may require signalization in the foreseeable future due to the operational
limitations they impose on the signal controller.
4.5.3 ARTERIAL ROAD MEDIANS: APPLICATION HEURISTICS
1. A flush median without barrier may be appropriate for rural highways with low to medium
volumes and operating speeds. This median is normally slightly crowned to effect drainage, and
is normally paved, often in the same surface material as the adjacent lanes. It is advantageous,
however, to surface the median in a contrasting texture and/or colour to alert the errant driver
travelling in the median. Widths of flush highway medians without median barriers can vary
between 1.0 m and 4.0 m.
2. Wider flush medians with barriers normally apply to high speed rural arterial roads.
3. For an arterial street application, the desirable overall width of the flush median is 3.6 m, but
may be reduced to 2.6 m for design speeds up to 70 km/h (two mountable type curb and gutter
sections, each 1.0 m wide, plus concrete barrier width of 0.6 m).
4. Medians in urban areas may be either flush or raised.
5. Medians in urban areas are normally raised using barrier type curbs. A width of 2.0 m is
normally adequate to allow for gutters or offsets from the edges of the travelled lanes on each
side and to allow traffic signs and other control devices to be located in the median without
interrupting adjacent traffic. To accommodate left-turn auxiliary lanes or a protected structural
pier, the desirable overall median width is 6.0 m which includes the gutter or offset widths.
6. Medians on a divided urban street serve a variety of important purposes related to safety, traffic
operations, access control, and aesthetics including:
June 2017 33
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
• Physical separation of opposing traffic flows
• Storage area for left-turning vehicles out of the path of the through traffic stream
• Provision of pedestrian refuge space
• Control of access by restricting left- turns and U-turns to specific median openings
• Provision of physical space for the effective placement of traffic control devices and
bridge piers
• Provision of space for landscaping and streetscaping treatments to enhance street
aesthetics
7. Where provision for a left-turn lane is required, the median may require widening to provide the
appropriate lane width.
8. Additional median width may be required if heavy volumes of multi-trailer trucks are anticipated
at unsignalized intersections.
9. When trucks and buses comprise less than 15 veh/h in the turning traffic stream, the left-turn
auxiliary lane width may be as narrow as 3.0 m, and when combined with a 2.0 m separation
from the opposing traffic, results in a minimum median width of 5.0 m. For higher volumes of
trucks and buses, the left turn auxiliary lane should be 3.3m or wider. Figure 4.5.2 illustrates
typical arrangements for arterial medians with widths of 5.0 m to 6.0 m.
10. A median in an urban area normally does not have a barrier because it has to be terminated at
intersections and some entrances. The safety benefits of the median are then offset by the
hazard of the barrier ends. Additional median width might be required to accommodate
illumination poles, bridge piers or traffic control devices.
11. Where left-turn auxiliary lanes, structural piers or median barriers are not a consideration, and
a median is desired for safety or access control purposes, a 2.0 m to 2.5 m width is common. In
retrofit situations, widths of 1.5 m to 2.0 m may be considered. However, the reduced width
makes it difficult to locate the required traffic signs and other control devices within the median
without interfering with the adjacent traffic.
12. Where structural piers are required in the median area, the minimum median width is
determined on the basis of the minimum horizontal clearance to the barrier, the barrier width
and deflection requirements, and the width of the pier.
13. Typical arrangements for piers protected by concrete and flex beam barriers are shown on
Figure 4.5.2. The horizontal clearance requirements are determined in Section 4.10.
14. At locations remote from intersections and other median openings, where a median barrier is
required for safety or other reasons, a flush type of median with a rigid concrete barrier can be
utilized.
34 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
5.0 - 6.0 m
2.0 - 2.5 m 3.0 - 3.5 m median width CD
left tu rn
lane 1.4- 1.5 m 1.4- 1.5 m
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
- 0.50 m - 0.50m I - 0.50m - 0.50m -0.50 m
arterial with left turn lane arterial with pier
and concrete barrier
median width CD 2. 6 - 3.6 m
median width
2.4- 2.5 m 2.4 - 2.5 m
!\
1.4-1.5 m 1.0 m 1.0 m 1.4-1.5 m
0.25 -0.50 m
r- 0.25 -0.50 m
_J ~ L
1.0 -1. 5 m 0.6 m 1.0 -1.5 m
arterial with pier arterial with
and flex beam barrier concrete median barrier
Notes : 1. Median width is dependent on pier width.
2. Deflection allowance is based on flex beam with rub rail and 1.9 m post spacing .
3. With median lighting , extra width may be required in addition to the barrier width
to accommodate the pole base and mounting hardware, and protection thereto.
-\ Barrier deflection symbol.
Figure 4.5.2: Arterial Medians
4.5.4 OUTER SEPARATIONS AND FRONTAGE ROAD SEPARATIONS: APPLICATION HEURISTICS
The outer separation is the area between the edge of the travelled lanes of the major road and the
adjacent parallel road or street. Outer separations may accommodate bridge piers and lighting poles as
well as other utilities and, in urban areas, may contain a barrier or fence . Viewed in the direction of the
traffic from the centre of the outer separation, the outer separation consists of the right shoulder of the
main road on the left and the left shoulder of the parallel road on the right separated by a barrier or
fence.
• Typica l width of an outer separation is 7.5 m provided that clear zone requirements are met.
Additional width might be required for specific items such as bridge piers, but there is little
safety benefit to be derived from wider outer separations.
• An arterial outer separation functions on freeways as the buffer area between through traffic on
the arterial and local traffic on the service or frontage road.
• When a two-way frontage road is provided, a driver on the main line often contends with
approaching traffic on the right (opposing frontage road traffic) as well as opposing main line
traffic on the left. Therefore, the frontage road separation should be sufficiently wide to
minimize the effects of approaching traffic, particularly headlight glare at night along non-
illuminated sections.
June 2017 35
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
• On urban arterials, outer separation widths in the range of 4.5 m to 6.0 mare typical for this
application.
• On rural freeways, the width of an outer separation may be influenced by side slope geometrics
and longitudinal ditch drainage gradients, and is typically 20 m to 35 m.
• With one-way service or frontage roads, the outer separation need not be as wide as that
required for a two-way frontage road.
• In the immediate vicinity of a service or frontage road intersecting with a cross street, the width
of the outer separation is typically increased substantially over its normal width. The additional
width provides sufficient distance for the vehicle storage requirements on the cross street
between the arterial/cross street intersection and the frontage road/cross street intersection.
• The recommended minimum outer separation width on roadways with curbs and gutter in an
urban environment, beyond the influence of the intersections, is 3.0 m. If street lighting poles
are placed within the outer separation or frontage road separation, the minimal width of the
separation is typically determined by the required horizontal clearances to the lighting poles.
• The provision of future lane additions, both through and auxiliary, should be considered in
establishing the width of the outer separation.
4.5.5 EXPLICIT EVALUATION OF SAFETY
4.5.5.1 Freeways and Expressways
In general, the literature is clear on the influence of three primary factors on the safety performance of
freeway medians:
1. Collision frequencies generally increase with higher traffic volumes.
2. Increased median width generally results in a decrease in cross median collision frequencies.
3. Although the presence of median barrier generally decreases overall collision severities through
the reduction/elimination of cross median collisions, overall collision frequencies typically
increase.
A number of US state department of transportation studies, carried out in support of the development
37
of median barrier warrants, reflect these findings. Specific cost-effectiveness studies carried out by a
number of State agencies (e.g. Pennsylvania, Texas, California and Washington) further support these
findings. Thus, a median barrier can significantly reduce the occurrence of cross median collisions and
the overall severity of median related collisions. However, the increased use of a median barrier reduces
the recovery area available to errant vehicles and the total number of collisions may increase. Road
safety concerns associated with snow drifting and drainage at median barrier installations have also
been identified.
There is a growing body of experience with the emerging technology of median high-tensile cable
barrier that clearly shows a reduction in median crossover collisions when such barrier is installed. For
example, Montana Department of Transportation (DOT) found that interstates with median widths less
than 18 m were overrepresented in cross median collisions. As a result of that finding, Montana DOT
changed its policy to require the installation of cable barrier on all interstates with medians less than 18
38
m. In follow up studies, they have observed up to a 92% reduction in cross median fatalities.
CMFs specific to median type and width are another means of expressing changes in the numbers of
collisions that will likely occur under certain design situations. The AASHTO Highway Safety Manual
contains guidance on the application of CM F's specific to median type and width for multi-lane rural
highways, urban and rural freeways, and urban and suburban arterials.
36 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.5.5.2 Urban Median Application: Non-Freeway/Expressway
The introduction of a median provides separation between opposing directions of vehicular traffic. This
reduces the potential for head-on and sideswipe collisions. The presence of a median also serves an
access control function reducing potential conflicts resulting from turning movements and allowing
designers and traffic engineers to properly focus such activities at controlled locations with appropriate
design features. Urban medians can also serve an important function in terms of accommodating
pedestrian crossings at arterial intersections and if desired at properly controlled mid-block crossing
locations.
NCH RP Report 420 discusses methods for predicting and analysing the safety and traffic operational
39
effects of selected access management techniques. The following tables are drawn from this reference
and present collision rates by median type for urban and suburban areas.
Table 4.5.2: Effect of Median Type on Collision Rates by Number of Access Points
Collisions Per Million Vehicle Kilometres Per Year
Total Access Points
Per Kilometre A Undivided Two-Way Left Raised Median
Turn Lane
: : ; 12 2.4 2.1 1.8
12 - 24 4.5 3.7 3.2
24 - 37 5.8 4.9 4.2
> 37 6.6 5.7 5.1
All 5.6 4.3 3.5
Note: A: Includes both signalized and un-signalized access points
The results shown in Table 4.5.2 indicate that regardless of median type, as access densities increased,
the number of collisions per million vehicle kilometres of travel also climbed - and did so significantly.
The raised median alternative consistently provided the best level of safety performance of the three
categories - regardless of access density. In a separate analysis drawn from the same report as Table
4.5.2, the results of an operational analysis using seven collision prediction models further supports the
contention that roadways with raised medians experience fewer collisions than those with two-way left
turn lanes (TWTL) or undivided cross sections. Table 4.5.3 summarizes the results of this work.
Table 4.5.3: Estimated Total Collisions/ Kilometre/ Year
Collisions Per Kilometre Per Year
ADT Undivided Two-Way Left Turn Raised Median
Lane
10,000 30 24 20
20,000 78 37 34
30,000 118 57 48
40,000 157 70 53
June 2017 37
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Table 4.5.3 shows that traffic volume is a primary determinant of collisions per kilometre per year: the
number of collisions per kilometre per year was found to increase dramatically as the ADT increases. In
all traffic volume groupings the raised median alternative provided better safety performance, followed
by the two-way left turn lane and then the undivided roadway. The differences in safety performance
become more significant as traffic volumes increase -with the raised median alternative having a 33%
lower collision rate than an undivided facility at an ADT of 10,000, but a 67% lower collision rate at an
ADT of 40,000.
4.6 SIDEWALKS, BOULEVARDS, AND BORDER AREAS
4.6.1 TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
The area between the curb and the sidewalk can be referred to as the boulevard; the equivalent area
can also be referred to as the furnishing zone, particularly in urban contexts (refer to Section 6.3.1 of
this Guide) where it may or may not be a physical extension of the sidewalk. The boulevard serves as a
safety separation, as well as a location for surface and underground utilities, traffic signs and other
control devices, street trees, transit shelters and snow storage. It is generally preferred to locate utility
poles, lamp standards and other objects potentially hazardous to an errant vehicle as far as possible
from the travelled way, for example, at the back of the sidewalk. However, this may not be justified or
desired in low speed or constrained urban environments. Refer to Chapter 7 of this Guide for additional
guidance on roadside design in urban areas.
The provision of boulevards or a furnishing zone is desirable for the following reasons:
1. The separation between the sidewalk and the vehicular traffic provides increased safety for
pedestrians.
2. The probability of a vehicle/pedestrian collision is reduced by placing the sidewalk some
distance from the curb.
3. Changes are minimized to the cross slope of the sidewalk to provide for appropriate driveway
gradients through the use of the boulevard area to affect the grade change.
4. Pedestrians are less likely to be splashed by passing vehicles in wet weather.
5. The conflict is minimized between pedestrians and solid waste or recycling containers
temporarily stored at curb side for scheduled pick up.
6. Space is provided for various street hardware (signs, lighting poles, transit shelters and fire
hydrants), and streetscaping elements.
7. An area is provided for the storage of snow plowed off the roadway.
8. Space is provided for both surface and underground utilities.
9. May provide greater sight lines and enhance the ability for drivers to see pedestrians who may
decide to cross the road.
The area between the back of the sidewalk and the edge of right-of-way can be referred to as the
border. The equivalent area can also be referred to as the frontage zone, particularly in urban contexts
(refer to Section 6.3.1 of this Guide) where it may or may not be a physical extension of the sidewalk.
Aesthetic considerations in the urban environment are important, particularly when major street
facilities pass through or are adjacent to parkland and residential areas. Landscaping requirements, for
instance, may influence the cross section dimensions for boulevard and border areas and thus the
overall right-of-way requirements. In most cases, the street facilities are designed in consideration of
the adjacent land uses. Where feasible, the positive aesthetic qualities of the adjacent development are
carried over into the border, boulevard and pedestrian areas of the street.
38 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Typical boulevard and border dimensions are illustrated on Figure 4.6.1. Additional details can also be
found in Chapter 6 of this Guide.
border , I , sidewalk CD I boulevardQ)
0.3 - 1.0 m 1.5 - 2.3 m I
2.0-3.0 m ®
1 ·
1.5 min.
> normal slope 0.02 m/m
£ 1~~--.:==~====~~~~~n
u.. typical cross section I ~----=-a-
border 1 sidewalk CD 1 boulevard@ drop curb
~F=o:.3:-:1:.o: : : ojr~ a~l:j:s~l:~·:~: j: ~.:~2m:m: /:;m31===2:.:~.:;:~:·~n:m:@:3=r4=
II
typical cross section at driveway
sidewalk with boulevard
border sidewalk(})
I
0.3 - 1.0 m I 1.5 _ 2.3 m
s normal slope 0.02 m/m
~rl~~----e·==~====n1~~----
I typical cross section
- - border , __ sidewalkCD , r=
drop curb
0.3 - 1.0 m 1.5 - 2.3 m
1
s 1
®slope 0.01 m/m - 0.04 m/m
~~
I =======e~=======~1r'-=J- •
typical cross section at driveway
I
sidewalk without boulevard
Notes: 1. Sidewalk widths may be greater than those shown to accommodate high
pedestrian volumes and persons in wheelchairs (refer to Figure 4.6.2 ).
2. Wider boulevard widths may be desirable in consideration of the location of
streetlight poles and snow storage requirements.
3. 1.5 m is suggested minimum for grassed boulevard, narrower boulevards
are normally hard surfaced.
4. For pedestrian safety, it is desirable to maintain a sidewalk cross
slope of 0.02 m/m or less across driveway.
Figure 4.6.1: Typical Sidewalk, Boulevard and Border Dimensions
June 2017 39
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.6.2 BOULEVARDS: DESIGN DOMAIN AND APPLICATION HEURISTICS
Typical widths of boulevards range from 2.0 to 3.0 m. When the sidewalk is immediately adjacent to the
roadway there is no boulevard.
Factors to consider in boulevard design are:
1. The location of the lighting poles is an important consideration in the selection of appropriate
boulevard widths. From a vehicular traffic safety perspective, it may be desirable to position the
lighting poles in the border area behind the sidewalk.
2. The incorporation of boulevards is particularly important for streets with design speeds greater
than 60 km/h.
3. Boulevard widths less than 2.0 m, typical of retrofit situations, are normally hard surfaced rather
than grassed due to maintenance difficulties associated with narrow strips.
4. Where property is limited or where sidewalks need to be wider to accommodate high volumes
of pedestrians, such as in a downtown, boulevards may be narrower than the suggested
dimensions but space is still required for street furnishings and surface utilities.
5. Boulevards are usually sloped toward the curb to facilitate surface drainage.
6. Boulevards provide an area for snow storage outside of the parking lane or shoulder.
For more information on this subject please refer to Chapter 6 of this Guide.
4.6.3 BORDER AREAS: DESIGN DOMAIN AND APPLICATION HEURISTICS
1. On urban local and collector roads, border widths are normally in the order of 0.3 m to 1.0 m to
provide suitable clearances to edge of right-of-way in the case of new construction, and to
provide for future grade adjustments in retrofit situations, where re-grading of the adjacent
properties is not possible.
2. Border areas are also often used to accommodate surface utilities such as lighting poles and
other fixed objects, maximizing the lateral clearance from the travelled lanes.
3. The border width can provide a comfortable separation between the pedestrians on the
sidewalk and fences or buildings at the edge of right-of-way.
4. On urban freeways and arterial roadways, wider border areas may be required for provision of
acoustic barriers, and access control fencing.
5. Factors influencing the determination of the dimensions of border areas include:
• Availability of right-of-way
• Topography
• Utilities
• Preservation and enhancement of the adjacent environment
6. In rural areas, the border width is affected by the depth of cut or fill as well as the side slopes
and back slopes.
4.6.4 BOULEVARD/BORDER SURFACES AND CROSS SLOPES: APPLICATION HEURISTICS
1. Cross slopes on grass of at least 0.04 m/m are suggested.
2. Boulevards and border areas are used to manage differences in elevation between the road
elements and natural ground at the edge of right-of-way. Care must be taken, however, in
increasing the cross slopes of boulevards when driveways are present.
3. The slope of the driveway entrance across the boulevard preferably should not be more than
0.05 m/m, but is sometimes exceeded, especially in retrofit situations. In addition the ridge in
40 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
the driveway profile at the boundary between the sidewalk and boulevard should not be great
enough to impinge on the undercarriage of a vehicle.
4. If steep sidewalk cross slopes or sidewalk depressions are used, the maximum driveway slope
and boulevard slope should be determined on the basis of the geometry of the design vehicle.
When reversing cross slopes, care must be taken to ensure adequate surface drainage is
maintained. Figure 4.6.2 shows typical driveway entrances.
For more information on this subject please refer to Chapter 6 of this Guide.
variable sidewalk
varies
5: slope 0.08 mlm max.
slope 0.04 mlm max.
0
O::'.
typical cross section at entrance
sidewalk without boulevard
variable I • side"."'alk • • boulevard
1
typical cross section at entrance
sidewalk with boulevard
slope driveway entrance slope
varies 3.0 m - 10.0 m varies
125 mm
curb l 25mm curb
gutter gutter
driveway entrance with drop curb
Figure 4.6.2: Sidewalk and Driveway Entrances
4.6.5 SIDEWALKS
For guidance on sidewalk design and the pedestrian through zone refer to Chapter 6.
4.7 CURBS AND GUTTERS
4.7.1 TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
Curbs are raised or vertical elements, located adjacent to a travelled lane, parking lane or shoulder.
They may be employed with all types of urban streets for any or all of the following reasons:
June 2017 41
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
• Drainage control
• Delineation of the pavement edge or pedestrian walkways to improve safety
• Right-of-way reduction with the elimination of open ditch drainage
• Reduction in maintenance operations
• Access control or provision
• Aesthetics
Curbs are used to a limited extent on rural roadways where drainage is usually controlled by means of
drainage channels. Concrete gutters are typically used to facilitate longitudinal drainage along urban
roadways. They are often cast integrally with curbs, but may also have a "vee" shape when used
adjacent to a concrete traffic barrier.
4.7.2 CURBS: BEST PRACTICES
There are three general types of curb: barrier, semi-mountable and mountable (see Figure 4.4.1). Each
type may be designed as a separate unit or integrated with a gutter to form a combination curb and
gutter section. This section should be read in conjunction with Chapter 7 of this Guide.
• Barrier type curb is vertical or near vertical, with a typical height of 150 mm, and is intended
primarily to control drainage and access, as well as to inhibit low speed vehicles from leaving
the roadway. When struck at high speeds, barrier curbs can result in loss of vehicle control and
- in spite of its name - is inadequate to prevent a vehicle from leaving the roadway. In addition,
the barrier type curb can contribute to a high speed errant vehicle vaulting over a semi-rigid
traffic barrier under certain conditions. For this reason, barrier curb is generally not used on
urban freeways and is considered undesirable on expressways and arterials with design speeds
in excess of 70 km/h. Barrier curb is never used in combination with rigid concrete barrier
systems.
• Semi-mountable curb is considered to be mountable under emergency conditions or very slow
moving conditions. Its face slope ranges from 0.250 m/m to 0.625 m/m with a maximum
vertical height of 125 mm. Semi-mountable curbs are used on urban freeways, expressways,
and on high speed arterials (design speed over 70 km/h) as a trade-off between drainage
requirements and, when required, the functional needs of semi-rigid traffic barrier systems.
Refer to Chapter 7 for additional guidance.
• Mountable curb contains a relatively flat sloping face (0.10 m/m to 0.25 m/m) to permit
vehicles to cross over it easily. While mountable curb may be used in conjunction with either
semi-rigid or rigid traffic barrier systems, it is preferable not to use a curb in combination with
either of these traffic barrier systems.
The cross section dimensions of concrete curbs and curbs with gutters vary between municipal
jurisdictions. Standardization of curb and gutter dimensions within a given jurisdiction is desirable for
economy and uniformity in construction and maintenance practice.
When introducing a curb at the transition between typical rural and urban road cross sections, the curb
on the urban section is normally flared out to match the edge of shoulder on the rural section. Flare
rates of 24:1 for a design speed of 80 km/h or greater and 15:1 for 50 km/h or less are considered
appropriate. The end of the curb is normally tapered down to be flush with the shoulder surface to
prevent blunt impacts between the curb and vehicle tires or snow clearing equipment.
Where curb and gutter is placed at the outside edge of a paved shoulder, the shoulder width is
measured between the edge of the travelled way and the lip of the gutter.
42 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
The visibility of curbs, particularly at night, is important. To improve curb visibility, as much contrast as
possible should be provided between the curb and the adjacent pavement or shoulder. There are
several ways to improve curb visibility including the use of reflectorize paint or other reflectorize
40
surfaces.
E
~ profile at curb cut
S =0.1 mlm
.. .
l!) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . .,..
.,~4
. . · ., 4. 4 ~ ... ., . .d..:3 . "4 .
"' . . ~-4
travelled lane gutter nominal curb face
ors ou er
barrier
200mm
,_,____,~ E...---------
S =0.1 mlm 1 ~ e!'~~e_a_!. ~u_!:b_~!.._
N
,,,· ~- .
.,, _· . ,;,
... 'II , . • . 4 ....
•
.
travelled lane I gutter nominal curb face
or shoulder
semi-mountable
400 mm
~ .
4· _ ~ . ' .
I "'··.: "' ~..·. :.i.. ·
./' ·~ .
"'., ·
•• .,
4
4<1' ,
..
4-4 .
..; . ...
: ' ,il ' ., :.i. , . 4 A ,; · 4
travelled lane gutter nominal curb face
or shoulder
mountable
Figure 4.7.1: Curb and Gutter Types
June 2017 43
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.7.2.1 Gutters: Best Practices
1. Cross slopes on gutters in the range of 0.10 m/m to 0.12 m/m are desirable to increase flow
near the curb thereby minimizing the lateral spread of surface water on the adjacent roadway
and improving the efficiency of catch basin inlets.
2. Gutters generally vary in width from 250 mm to 500 mm. Widths at or near 500 mm are typical
of streets in the upper end of the street hierarchy, such as major arterials. Local streets often
have gutter widths of 250 mm to 300 mm .
3. Wide gutters have the advantages of providing increased lateral clearance between the
travelled lanes and the curb, and an increased surface drainage capacity.
4. Narrow gutter widths are sometimes selected for major urban streets in retrofit situations as
dictated by restricted rights of way or physical constraints.
5. Where cyclists are expected to use the roadway adjacent to the curb, gutters at or near 250 mm
in width are effective in providing an offset between the lip of gutter/ pavement edge and the
desired line of travel of the cyclist. Alternatively, the gutter can be eliminated completely and
only a curb provided.
6. The gutter cross slopes may be decreased if a smaller hydraulic capacity for the gutter is
satisfactory. On the high side of superelevated sections, the cross slope of the gutter, which may
be carried through for delineation, normally conforms to the cross slope of the roadway surface.
4.8 DRAINAGE
4.8.1 GRADES: BEST PRACTICES
1. To ensure adequate street drainage, curbed roadways normally have a minimum longitudinal
grade of 0.5%.
2. In certain rare cases, when no other alternative is feasible, a grade of 0.35% may be used as an
absolute min imum, preferably in combination with highly stable soils and rigid pavements.
3. For retrofit projects, rather than removing a considerable amount of pavement, longitudinal
grades less than the normal minimum of 0.5% can be retained provided that the length of the
pavement section is kept relatively short.
4. When designing gradelines for urban streets with curbs, particularly those with design speeds
greater than 80 km/h, careful consideration is advisable in selecting the K values for the vertical
curves. Large K values producing flat vertical curves often result in poor longitudinal drainage
along the curb, which in turn often produces free standing water on the travelled lanes. As a
result, there is greater potential for loss of vehicle control due to hydroplaning or icing
conditions.
5. For crest vertical curves, the curve is normally designed to be sharp enough to provide a
minimum gradient of 0.35% at a point 15 m from the peak. This corresponds to a maximum K
value of 43 m. Where flatter crest vertical curves are required for sight distance considerations,
additional catch basins along the curb may be used to reduce or eliminate ponding on the
surface of the travelled lanes. Alternatively, a street cross section with ditches rather than curbs
may be considered.
6. At sag vertical curves the same criterion is applied . To assist in positive drainage on curbed
roadways, the K values for sag vertical curves are typically near the minimum design values.
4.8.2 RURAL DRAINAGE CHANNELS (DITCHLINE): BEST PRACTICES
For guidance on rural drainage channel cross sectional design, refer to Chapter 7 of this Guide.
44 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.8.3 URBAN STORM DRAINAGE: BEST PRACTICES
The design criteria for a storm drainage system are generally a matter of local policy. For the majority of
a street storm water collection system, it is common practice to provide sufficient catchbasin inlets and
storm water piping capacity for snowmelt or rainfall events, whichever is greater, for a return period of
five years. For certain more critical links in the street network, such as freeways, expressways, major
arterials and underpasses, a return period in the range ten to twenty-five years is advantageous to
preserve the integrity of the principal routes during snowmelt or rainfall events.
Drainage grates and utility covers are potential hazards for cyclists because they tend to be slippery
when wet, not flush with the roadway surface, a prime location for the formation of potholes, and a
potential trap for bicycle wheels.
1. Catch basins and the street storm drainage system in general should be designed so as to
minimize the spread of water on the travelled lanes portion of the roadway to a practical limit
during a storm event. Examples of typical practice in urban areas are shown in Table 4.8.1.
2. Catchbasins with combination inlets consisting of both grate and curb openings are
advantageous in the urban environment. With this arrangement, the catchbasins inlets are less
likely to become fully or partially blocked by trash or debris accumulation. Inlet grates are also
advantageous to safely accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic where appropriate.
3. Drainage grates with openings parallel to the flow of traffic can trap bicycle wheels. A preferable
grate style has openings perpendicular or diagonal to the direction of travel. Narrower drainage
grates that do not extend as far from the curb face are also preferable. The use of curb inlets
mounted in the side of curbs only, or drainage grates in coves or catchment basins outside the
lane of traffic, are also potential solutions.
4. Catchbasins are preferably located immediately upstream of pedestrian crosswalks wherever
feasible and are normally totally avoided within the limits of sidewalk ramps. This assists
pedestrians in safely crossing a street during heavy rains. It is also preferable to locate
catchbasins away from driveways.
5. Where superelevation is being developed, catchbasins are normally located strategically in
advance of the point where the roadway crossfall reverses in order to prevent appreciable flow
of storm water across travelled lanes.
6. High velocity gutter flow may be hazardous to small children. A typical maximum acceptable
velocity is 3.0 m/s, for the design storm condition.
7. The spacing of catch basins and drainage inlets is based on the lateral spread objectives
described earlier, and vary in accordance with roadway width, longitudinal grades, and the size
and nature of the areas that contribute surface drainage to the roadway. These requirements
result in catch basin spacing typically in the range of 50 m to 150 m.
8. Multiple catchbasins are often implemented at major sag locations to minimize the spread of
water into the travelled lanes and to limit the depth of surface ponding to the height of curb
during the selected design return period.
9. In certain cases, it may be advantageous to utilize drainage swales and additional catch basins,
within the right-of-way but outside of the roadway, to limit the amount of surface drainage
flowing onto the roadway.
June 2017 45
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Table 4.8.1: Guide for Lateral Spread of Surface Water Flow
Street Designation Lateral Spread
freeways, expressways, major arterials no encroachment on travelled lanes
minor arterials, collectors one clear lane in each direction of 3.0 m
minimum width each
local roads one clear lane of 3.0 m minimum width
and flows not over the top of curb
4.8.4 CROSS SLOPE: BEST PRACTICES
1. The normal roadway cross slope of 0.02 m/m on paved tangent roadways provides positive
drainage to the curbs.
2. In areas where superelevation is developed and the cross slope rate is reduced to zero at the
tangent runout, it is advantageous to maintain a longitudinal street grade of at least 0.6% to
ensure that positive drainage flow is provided along the curb through this critical area.
3. In intersection areas, the normal cross slopes of the intersecting roadways may be reduced to
avoid abrupt grade changes for through traffic. However, a minimum cross slope of 1.0% is
desirable to maintain good surface drainage.
4. The algebraic difference in pavement cross slope between adjacent travelled lanes, or between
through lanes and adjacent auxiliary lanes/turning roadways, as needed to maintain
superelevation or provide drainage, are limited to the values discussed in Chapter 3 of this
Guide.
5. Some Canadian road agencies use a cross slope of 0.03 m/m on paved tangent sections of rural
highways to reduce the risk of hydroplaning. Implementation of this cross slope results in an
algebraic difference in pavement cross slope of 6%. Although this value is greater than the 4%
maximum recommended in Chapter 3 of this Guide, agencies using the 0.03 m/m cross slope
have not reported any safety related concerns.
4.9 SNOW
4.9.1 TECHNICAL FOUNDATION: SNOW REMOVAL AND STORAGE
Accumulation of snow on driving surfaces can have several impacts, including reductions in:
• Vehicle performance
• Roadway capacity
• Drivers' visibility
• Available sight distance
• Visibility of pavement markings
In addition to these factors, localized drifting of snow often creates unexpected safety hazards,
inconsistent driving conditions, and reduced efficiency of the maintenance program because of
repeated callouts to clear localized areas.
46 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Snow drifts occur when snow particles have been deposited in areas of reduced wind speed. The wind's
power to transport snow varies as the cube of the velocity, so even small decreases in wind speed will
cause snow to be deposited. Interruptions to the smooth flow of the wind by features such as changes
of grade, curbs on raised medians, barriers, fences, landscaping or buildings cause the formation of
localized turbulent air zones on the leeward side of the interruption. These zones are usually low
velocity regions resulting in snow accumulation. Conversely, less snow is deposited where higher
velocities occur. When the low velocity region has been filled with snow, the snow drift does not
continue to increase in size and the depth of the snow drift is not significantly affected by changes in the
wind speed. However, during the initial development of the snow drift, the wind speed will affect the
rate at which the snow drift increases.
Road cross sections in fill, where the prevailing wind is across the road, tend to keep reasonably clear of
snow. On the other hand, road cross sections in cut tend to precipitate snow drifting on the roadway up
to the surrounding ground elevation.
Buildings, dense tree growth, sound barriers and rock faces close to roadways where the prevailing wind
is across the road, tend to generate snow drifting on the leeward side of the obstruction. If these
obstructions are close to the roadway, snow drifting may obstruct the roadway itself.
4.9.2 MITIGATIVE MEASURES: BEST PRACTICES
1. Roads in cut sections that are likely to precipitate snow drifting may be designed in one of two
ways to minimize or eliminate the impact as follows:
• The more desirable treatment is to raise the profile so as to bring the roadway above
natural ground elevation.
• Alternatively, the back slopes of the cut section may be flattened to 7:1 or flatter, so as to
eliminate or minimize the area of low wind velocity where snow tends to deposit. In some
cases it may be desirable to provide a separate snow storage area where stored snow will
not create a new drifting problem.
2. Shoulder rounding, particularly on the high side of superelevated curves, also contributes to the
reduction of snow drifting on the roadway surface.
3. Controlling the drift deposit area is important where drifting snow cannot be avoided. Where
snow drifting occurs, the length of the drift depends on the height of the obstruction and the
slope of the terrain as illustrated in Figure 4.9.1. Landscaping or snow fencing at an appropriate
distance from the roadway can be applied to control snow drifting. For snow fencing, trees,
vegetation and other semi-solid objects, a distance of 15 times the height of the obstruction on
level ground is required. The distance for solid objects such as buildings and dense vegetation is
10 times the height of obstruction on level ground.
June 2017 47
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
obstruction ~
- - wind direction
-----l~-
15 x height of obstruction
I . . I
>15 x height of obstruction
obstruction i----
____..-
<15 x height of obstruction
Notes: Obstruction refers to snow fencing , trees , vegetation and other semi-solid objects .
Figure 4.9.1: Effect of Slope on Snow Drifting
4. On divided highways with curb or median barriers, snow drifting may occur at the curb or
barrier where the predominant w ind direction is across the roadway. Figure 4.9.2 illustrates the
snow drifting patterns for alternative median barriers. If potential snow drifting is an important
design consideration, box-beam or high tension cable barriers might be the most suitable types
to mitigate this concern.
48 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
___... ---
wind direction
~
...
box beam
----
winddirec~
concrete barrier
length of drift up to
15 x barrier height
· d direc~ __...
~
steel beam barrier
Figure 4.9.2: Snow Drifting Patterns for Alternative Median Barriers
5. When designing an area that is apt to commonly experience drifting, the design should include
snow storage areas.
6. The mitigating measures described above apply to general cases. The solutions to specific
problems are best explored through the scale model simulation of drifting snow. Additional
tools, including the use of meteorological data or aviation wind roses, are valuable in defining
winter prevailing wind directions and velocity consistencies. Publications such as the TAC Salt
Management Guide and the Province of Saskatchewan's Policy Document SKS 2.2.9-A provide
additional information on the design of roadways and roadsides to minimize snow and ice
41
problems.
June 2017 49
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.10 BRIDGES
4.10.1 TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
Bridge structure dimensions of an operational nature are geometric design features and are influenced
by the geometric design elements and operational characteristics of the approach roads. The horizontal
and vertical alignments of bridges should conform to those of the approach roads and, in general, cross
section elements of roads on and under bridges should match those of the approach road.
To develop a cost-effective design, the process of defining the dimensions of the cross section of a
structure is frequently an interactive one combining elements of structural and road design. Shoulder
width must be considered on both overpassing structures and on roads passing under bridges, relative
to the shoulder width on the approach roadway. Similarly, sight distance at the structure and on the
road approaching the structure must be confirmed. Other components of the design which affect both
the road and the structural designer include the provision of the required vertical clearances and
drainage.
4.10.1.1 Roads under Bridges: Design Domain And Application Heuristics
The cross section of roads under bridges must take into consideration pier locations and dimensions,
roadside and median barrier requirements, and drainage. The number of spans and the location of the
piers of the structure will depend, to some degree, upon the economies of construction. However, they
will then dictate the need for and type of roadside and median barriers to be used.
1. Drainage in the vicinity of the structure must be considered. Two primary options are available.
The first is to carry the adjoining drainage channel under the structure in an open channel, while
the second is to use a closed pipe system. These issues must be addressed in developing the
dimensions for the structure and the underpassing road.
2. Bridges with open abutments are preferable as they provide better visibility and provide a
pleasing open appearance. Closed abutments cause greater wind speed reductions and snow
accumulation on the road beneath the bridge.
3. At underpasses in rural areas, where implementation of the clear zone requirements cannot be
realistically achieved on most classes of roads, a benefit cost analysis should be undertaken to
determine the cost-effectiveness of installing a barrier.
4. Where a barrier is warranted on urban roads under bridges, Figures 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 provide
the required minimum clearances and offsets for various barrier types for urban arterials and
freeways, respectively. Table 4.10.1 provides minimum clearances for local and collector urban
roads.
5. When reduced horizontal clearances are selected, the clearance is measured from the edge of
travelled way to the face of the chosen barrier system. An allowance is then made for the
barrier and the associated deflection to establish the distance between the edge of travelled
way and the pier or abutment.
50 June 2017
c::s n G\
:r 11)
ID Q.J 0
N median (left) side right side ~ 3
~I
"T1
ciQ'
.., ,...
11) 11)
c..,
(with introduced barrier system) (with introduced barrier system) .i::. ~.
n
11)
B design shy dist. + barrier = dL B design shy dist. + barrier = dR n'c
tD
::. .., Ill
~ d®
t.:
0 speed (XL) defl(Y) 0 speed (XR) defl(Y) dR® 0
"'
-·
O'Q
0
~
x (km/h) (m) (m) (m) x (km/h) (m) (m) (m)
"'
Ill G)
:::I
c
::c
0
XL
B
60 1.4 1.5 3.0 (2.9)
B
60 2.6 1.5 4.0 (4.1) XR a a:
11)
0 11)
~.
70 1.4 1.5 3.0 (2.9) 70 2.6 1.5 4.0 (4.1)
N E E :I
m 0-
0 80 1.5 1.5 3.0 80 3.0 1.5 4.5 tD ;;
,...
:::I A 90 1.5 1.5 3.0 A 90 3.0 1.5 4.5 3 Q.J
:I
~
11)
M 100 1.5 1.5 3.0 M 100 3.0 1.5 4.5 :I Q.J
.... c..
n "' :::I-·
i;' Q.J
..,
QI
F design shy dist. + barrier = dL F design shy dist.+ barrier = dR ::a
QI 0
:::I d L@ L speed defl(Y) L dR
(XL) speed (XR) defl(Y) Q.J
n c..
11) E (m) E Ill
,...
QI y CD x L x
(km/h) (m) (m)
x
(km/h) (m) (m\ (m\
XR
60 1.4 1.0 2.5 (2.4) 60 2.6 1.0 3.6
o:J
~. B 70 1.0 2.5 (2.4) B 70 1.0 3.6
c.. 1.4 2.6
O'Q
11)
E 80 1.5 1.0 2.5 E 80 3.0 1.0 4.0
Ill
A 90 1.5 1.0 2.5 A 90 3.0 1.0 4.0
0
:::I M 100 1.5 1.0 2.5 M 100 3.0 1.0 4.0
c..,
C"
QI c design shy dist. + barrier =dL c design shy dist. + barrier = dR
:::I i~) 0 speed (XL) width 0 speed (XR) width
)> L
;::::. N (km/h) (m) (m) (m) N (km/h) (m) (m) (m)
11) XL
~.
QI
c 60 1.4 0.4 1.8 c 60 2.6 0.4 3.0
R 70 1.4 0.4 1.8 R 70 2.6 0.4 3.0
::a
0 E 80 1.5 0.4 2.0 (1.9) E 80 3.0 0.4 3.4
QI
c.. T 90 1.5 0.4 2.0 (1.9) T 90 3.0 0.4 3.4
Ill
c
:::I
E 100 1.5 0.4 2.0 (1.9) E 100 3.0 0.4 3.4
c.. Notes: 1. Contact barrier manufacturer for barrier deflections. For sidewalk, the sidewalk should be placed in back of rigid barrier
..,
11)
2. 3.0 design value (2.9 calculated value) . or behind the pier (when the latter employs a semi-rigid barrier system) .
q
"C
QI 3. All clearances should meet sight distance requirements.
Ill
~ Barrier deflection symbol : \ -
111
.....
U1
N
c
"T1
ciQ'
...
11)
B
0
median (left) side
shoulder clearance
design shoulder shy dist. barrier
speed width + (XL) + defl(Y) =
d
L
B
0
right side
shoulder clearance
design shoulder shy dist. barrier
speed width+ (XR) + defl(Y) =
d
R
n
~
.... dl x 4/6+ lane 4/6+ lane x dR
(km/h) (m) (m) (m) (m) (km/h) (m) (m) (m) (m)
?
~ B 80 2.5 0.7 1.5 4.7 B 80 3.0 0.7 1.5 5.2 shoulder XR
::c 90 2.5 0.7 1.5 4.7 90 3.0 0.7 1.5 5.2
0
...;::r E
100 2.5 0.7 1.5 4.7
E
100 3.0 0.7 1.5 5.2
0
A 110 0.7
A 110 0.7
2.5 1.5 4.7 3.0 1.5 5.2
::J
..... M 120 2.5 0.7 1.5 4.7 M 120 3.0 0.7 1.5 5.2
~
n
tD' shoulder clearance shoulder clearance
...
QJ
QJ
F
L design shoulder shy dist. barrier d
F
L design shoulder shy dist. barrier d
::J speed width + (XL) + defl(Y) = L speed width+ (XR) + defl(Y) = R
n dl E E
11) 4/6+ lane 4/6+ lane
QJ
..... yCD XL shoulder
x (km/h) (m) (m) (m) (m) x (km/h) (m) (m) (m) (m)
dR
yG)
...o:J "-"--1-1 • • I B 80 2.5 0.7 1.0 4.2 B 80 3.0 0.7 1.0 4.7 shoulder XR
a.:
O'Q E
90 2.5 0.7 1.0 4.2
E
90 3.0 0.7 1.0 4.7 snoulder
11) 100 2.5 0.7 1.0 4.2 100 3.0 0.7 1.0 4.7
Ill A 110 1.0
A 110 1.0
0 2.5 0.7 4.2 3.0 0.7 4.7 Cl
::J M M tD
120 2.5 0.7 1.0 4.2 120 3.0 0.7 1.0 4.7 0
c... 3
tD
C"
QJ
.....
c c n ~·
::J
dl~ shoulder clearance shoulder clearance
c
...
"T1
11) 0
design shoulder
speed width +
barrier
width = dl 0
design shoulder barrier
speed width + width = dR dR
':f'
QI
"C
tD
Ill
11) 4/6+ lane 4/6+ lane ;; o'Q'
::e N N ... ::J
(km/h) (m) (m) (m) (km/h) (m) (m) (m) .i::. Cl
QJ
<Ill c c I c:
-c
::J
R
E
80
90
100
2.5
2.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
3.0(2.9)/
3.0(2.9)/
3.0(2.9)/3.4
R
E
80
90
100
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
n
0
Ill
VI
-·
.., Q.
tD
0-
Q. 2.5/3.0 Ill ...
...
11)
"C
T 110 2.5/3.0 0.4 3.0(2.9)/3.4 T 110 3.0 0.4 3.4 ID
n Cl.I
n
QJ E 120 2.5/3.0 0.4 3.0(2.9)/3.4 E 120 3.0 0.4 3.4 !:!'. ::J
-
Ill 0 QI
Ill ::J Q.
i: ' Notes: 1. Contact barrier manufacturer for barrier deflections. 3. All clearances should meet sight distance requirements. m iii'
::I iii ::J
3 ::a
ID
N 2. 3.0 design value (2.9 calculated value) ly-- Barrier deflection symbol. ID 0
....'-I
0 ::J
.....
Ill
QI
Q.
Ill
PRINTED BY: Cloud Creus <cloud@creus.ca>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.10.1.2 Roads on Bridges: Design Domain and Application Heuristics
1. On overpasses, it is preferable to carry the shoulder width across the bridge, including median
shoulders and outside shoulders, to eliminate the hazard of the offsets at the ends of the bridge,
to provide continuity of surface width on the structure and on the approach roadway and assist
in providing adequate sight distance at intersections close to the end of the structure.
2. Reduced horizontal clearances are sometimes adopted due to the costs associated with
providing the desirable dimensions particularly on long (50 m or longer) bridges, where
construction costs are high. The safety implications of such a design compromise must be
examined preferably by using a quantitative benefit cost analysis technique, and then
documented by the road designer in the process of reaching such a decision.
3. Guidelines for minimum horizontal clearances on bridges on urban local and collector roads are
provided in Table 4.10.1.
4. Guidelines for minimum horizontal clearance at bridges on rural roads are shown in Table
4.10.2.
5. Guidelines for minimum horizontal clearances at bridges on urban arterial roads and urban
freeways are shown on Figures 4.10.1 and 4.10.2.
6. Horizontal clearances to a rigid barrier on overpass bridges on arterial roads are shown on
Figure 4.10.3 while horizontal clearances to a rigid barrier on overpass bridges on freeways are
provided on Figure 4.10.4 . The rigid barrier assists in keeping errant vehicles on the bridge
structure and is preferred where pedestrians are accommodated on the overpass.
42
7. Appropriate barrier transitions should be used on the approaches to the structure. Refer to
Chapter 7 for additional information .
June 2017 53
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Table 4.10.1: Horizontal Clearance at Bridges on Local and Collector Urban Roads
Design Short Overpass (<SOm) Long Overpass (>SOm) Underpass
Speed
(km/h) Left Right Left Right Left Right
1 1 1
No Sidewalk No Sidewalk No Sidewalk
Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk
30 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.2 1.0
Undivided
40 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.2 1.0
Local
50 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.2 1.0
50 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.6 1.0
Undivided 60 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.6 1.0
Collector 70 1.2 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.0
80 1.2 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.5 1.0
50 1.2 1.2 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.4 1.6
Divided 60 1.2 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.4 1.6
Collector 70 1.5 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.4 2.0
80 1.5 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Notes: 1. If a barrier is to be placed between the sidewalk and roadway, then clearance should
be the same as when there are no sidewalks.
2. For short overpasses (<50 m) shoulder widths should be carried across bridge.
3. All clearances should meet requirements for sight distance.
54 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
Table 4.10.2: Horizontal Clearance at Bridges on Rural Roads
Design Short Overpass (<SOm) Long Overpass (>SOm)
Speed
(km/h) Left Right Left Right
1 1
No Sidewalk Sidewalk No Sidewalk Sidewalk
50 1.2 0.5 1.0 1.0
60 1.2 0.5 1.0 1.0
70 1.2 0.5 1.0 1.0
Undivided
80 1.2 0.5 1.2 1.0
Local
90 1.2 0.5 1.2
100 1.2 0.5 1.4
60 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.0
70 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.0
Undivided
80 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.0
Collector
90 2.0 1.5 1.2
100 2.5 1.5 1.4
70 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0
Divided 80 1.2 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0
Collector 90 1.2 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.2
100 1.2 2.5 1.5 1.0 1.4
80 2.5 1.5 1.5
90 2.7 1.5 1.5
Undivided 100 3.0 2.0 1.6
Arterial 110 3.0 2.5 1.7
120 3.0 2.5 1.8
130 3.0 2.5 1.8
June 2017 SS
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
80 1.5 2.5 1.0 1.5
90 1.5 2.7 1.0 1.5
Divided 100 2 .0 3.0 1.0 1.6
Arterial 110 2 .0 3.0 1.0 1.7
120 2 .0 3.0 1.0 1.8
130 2 .0 3.0 1.0 1.8
100 2 .5 3.0 1.5 2.0
110 2 .5 3.0 1.5 2.0
Freeway
120 2 .5 3.0 1.5 2.0
130 2 .5 3.0 1.5 2.0
Notes: 1. If a barrier is to be placed between the sidewalk and roadway, then clearance
should be the same as when there are no sidewalks.
2. For short overpasses (<50 m) shoulder widths should be carried across bridge
3. All clearances should meet requirements for sight distance.
56 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
w w
left side right side
___ _}
sidewalk I
)
/
/
/
- - - - - - - = - - - - - --
short overpass (and at interchanges)
with introduced barrier system
c design shy distance barrier
dl dR
0
speed x x + face width =
L R
w
N km/h m m m m m
c 60 1.4 1.4 0.2 1.6 1.6
R 70 1.5 1.7 0.2 1.7 1.9
E 80 1.6 2.0 0.2 1.8 2.2
T 90 1.7 2.3 0.2 1.9 2.5
E 100 1.8 2.6 0.2 2.0 2.8
long overpass ( >50m )(J)
with continuous barrier system
c design shy distance barrier
0
speed
XL XR
+ face width = dl dR
w
N km/h m m m m m
c 60 1.0 1.2 0.2 1.2 1.4
R 70 1.0 1.4 0.2 1.2 1.6
E 80 1.2 1.5 0.2 1.4 1.7
T 90 1.5 1.5 0.2 1.7 1.7
E 100 1.5 1.5 0.2 1.7 1.7
Note: 1. Dimensions may vary with local policy.
Figure 4.10.3: Horizontal Clearance on Bridges on Urban Arterial Roads (Overpass)
June 2017 57
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
left side right side
short overpass (and at interchanges) with introduced barrier system
shy distance CD
c design barrier
speed XL XR + face width = dL dR
0
4-lane 6+-lane 4-lane 6+-lane w 4-lane 6+-lane 4-lane 6+-lane
N km/h m m m m m m m m m
c 80 2.5 3.0 0.2 2.7 3.2
R 90 2.5 3.0 0.2 2.7 3.2
E 100 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.2 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.2
T 110 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.2 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.2
E 120 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.2 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.2
Note: 1. For XL (6+ lane), the cross-section elements on structures should match
those of the approach, i.e. left shoulder on multi-lane= 3.0 m.
long overpass (>50 mf2> with continuous barrier system
c shy distance ®
design barrier
speed XL XR + face width = dL dR
0
4-lane 6+-lane 4-lane 6+-lane w 4-lane 6+-lane 4-lane 6+-lane
N km/h m m m m m m m m m
c 80 1.5 1.5 0.2 1.7 1.7
R 90 1.5 1.5 0.2 1.7 1.7
E 100 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.2
T 110 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.2
E 120 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 0.2 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.2
Notes: 2. Dimensions may vary with local policy.
3. XLand XR: (6+ lane) 2.0 mis minimum width disabled vehicle provision,
a requirement on both sides of high speed multi-lane facilities.
Figure 4.10.4: Horizontal Clearance on Bridges on Urban Freeways (Overpass}
58 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.10.1.3 Multi-Modal Configurations
Combination bridge barriers are used in a variety of multi-modal configurations, depending on the
highway classification and anticipated volumes of both vehicular and active transportation traffic. The
three most common multi-modal configurations are as follows:
• Bridge with no sidewalk
• Bridge with sidewalk
• Bridge with sidewalk separated by a barrier.
For information on these multi-modal configurations refer to Chapter 7 of this Guide and the TAC Guide
to Bridge Traffic and Combination Barriers. Any multi-modal barrier configuration used in these
applications must be compliant with the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.
4.10.1.4 Vertical Clearances: Design Domain and Application Heuristics
For guidance on vertical clearances refer to Chapter 3 of this Guide.
4.10.1.5 Explicit Evaluation of Safety: Bridge Widths
Both absolute and relative bridge widths affect the safety at bridge sites. From the perspective of safety,
the bridge width should be the same as the approaching roadway. However, it is not always
economically feasible to provide the same shoulder width across the structure.
Although the information in this section is derived from research conducted in 1987, it is still regarded
as a good general comparator that allows designers to assess the relative merits of various bridge width
choices in specific design situations. As with all such models, it should be used with caution and the
results should be regarded as relative rather than absolute. Figure 4.10.5 shows the Number of
Collisions by Relative Bridge Width, based on the following equation:
2
Y = 0.05-0.20013(RW) + 0.023681(RW) (4.10.1)
Where Y Number of collisions per million vehicles
RW Relative bridge width (m) =bridge width -
width of travelled way
June 2017 59
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
shoulder
<(
travelled ~m f---() c
way
approach b_rid~g~e----+----approach
- - - - +_ _ _
Where: A = Lane Width
B = Travelled Way Width
C = Bridge Width
D = Approach Roadway Width
RW = Relative Bridge Width = C - B
1.2
rJJ 1.0
Cl>
(3
E
Cl>
>
.§ 0.8 2
.E Y = 0.50-0.20013(RW)+0.023681 (RW)
©
a.
~ 0.6
0
~
0(.)
0.4
0.2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO 0 ~ q LO q ~ q ~ q LO q ~ q LO q ~
N
I
N
I
......I ......I ci
I
0 0 ...... ...... N N ("") ("") LO LO
""'" ""'"
relative bridge width (m)
Figure 4.10.5: Collision Rate Versus Relative Bridge Width for
43 44
Two-Lane Two-Way Rural Roads
60 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
To give an example, a designer is preparing the design of a bridge and wishes to determine the number
of collisions that could occur on the bridge using 2.0 m shoulders, compared to 1.0 m shoulders. The
bridge will have two 3.7 m lanes plus shoulders. Annual average daily traffic on the bridge is 4000
vehicles per day over the 75 year life span of the bridge. The road approaching the bridge has two 3.7 m
lanes with 3.0 m shoulders. If 1.0 m shoulders are used, the relative bridge width is 2(3.7+1.0) - 2(3.7), or
2.0 m. If 2.0 m shoulders are used, the relative bridge width is 4.0 m. If 1.0 m shoulders are used, it is
estimated that 0.194 collisions will occur for every million vehicles crossing the bridge. If 2.0 m
shoulders are used, this figure would drop to 0.078 collisions per million vehicles. This translates to 21.3
collisions in the 75 year life span of the bridge if 1.0 m shoulders were used, compared to 8.6 collisions
over the same time period if 2.0 m shoulders were used.
While this equation is generally recognized as providing adequate guidance to the designer for
comparative purposes, it should be applied with some caution, since the data set upon which the model
was developed included only bridges where at least one collision had occurred. Building a model on such
a dataset may introduce bias into the resultant predictive equation; however there is no uniform
consensus among road safety experts on either the degree of bias that may exist or its direction in the
case of this work. Nonetheless, the model is included here as a tool that may be used by designers for
the purposes of comparison between alternatives in lieu of some more meaningful local data being
available to generate a comparable analysis tool for the specific case being designed.
4.11 UTILITY PLACEMENT
4.11.1 TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
Both surface and buried utilities are often located within the road right-of-way. Surface utilities typically
located within road rights of way include but are not limited to the following:
• Electrical transmission lines
• Telephone lines
• Street lighting poles
• Traffic signal poles
• Cable television lines
• Pad mounted transformers
• Communications pedestals
• Fire hydrants .
Buried utilities include:
• Storm and sanitary sewers
• Water lines
• Telephone, television and communication fibre optic cables
• Pipelines
• Gas lines
• Buried power transmission cables.
The type and location of the utilities within the right-of-way generally depend upon several factors.
These include:
• Designation of the road
• Maintenance requirements
• Public safety, and future staged improvements for the road.
June 2017 61
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
The use of an integrated process in the planning and design of roadways, utilities, and sidewalks located
in the right-of-way is encouraged to minimize current and future conflicts.
4.11.2 UTILITY PLACEMENT: BEST PRACTICES
The location of surface and underground utilities within the urban street rights of way have an impact
on widths selected for rights of way, boulevards and borders. The practices of individual municipal
jurisdictions vary, and most major municipalities have guidelines governing the placement of utilities for
each functional designation of new streets. Nonetheless, two general points are worth noting:
1. The integrated planning and design of roadway, sidewalk and utility alignments is beneficial in
avoiding conflicts, providing reasonable access for utility maintenance purposes, meeting
minimum physical separation criteria, and accommodating possible future needs such as
roadway widening.
2. For rural roads and higher speed urban roads, surface utilities should be located outside of the
clear zone. The guidelines for the clear zone requirements are provided in Chapter 7.
4.11.3 EXPLICIT EVALUATION OF SAFETY: UTILITY POLES
The frequency of utility pole collisions can be reduced in several ways, including the relocation of poles
further from the roadway, increasing pole spacing, or by removing the poles and placing the utilities
45
underground. The joint use of poles by two or more utilities can reduce the number of poles adjacent
to the roadway and reduce the frequency of utility pole collisions . Collision severity can be reduced by
the use of breakaway utility poles. However, if a breakaway design is to be considered, the designer
must be aware of the potential of falling wires.
The relationships between traffic, collisions, road type, and utility pole data for 4,000 km of two-lane
46
and multilane roads in urban and rural areas were assessed. The results of the assessment are shown
in Figure 4.11.1.
The nomograph shown in Figure 4.11.2 predicts the number of utility pole collisions as a function of
47
AADT, pole density and pole offset. As shown in Figure 4.11.2, for an AADT of 10,000 vehicles and a
pole density of 40 poles/km, the number of collisions at a 3.0m offset is 0.5 collisions/km/year. At an
offset of 1.5 m, the number of collisions increases to 0.75 collisions/km/year.
The AASHTO Highway Safety Manual contains no specific CM F's related to this subject. However,
research is ongoing and the Manual notes :
"As the distance between the roadway edge line and the utility pole, or utility pole offset is
increased and the utility pole density is reduced, utility pole crashes appear to be reduced.
Relocating utility poles from less than 10 feet to more than 10 feet from the roadway appears to
provide a greater decrease in crashes than relocating utility poles that are beyond 10 feet from
the roadway edge. As the pole offset increased beyond 10 feet, the safety benefits appear to
continue however, the magnitude of the crash effect is not certain at this time."
While the quote does not offer specific quantitative results, the trends are similar to those outlined in
Figure 4.11.1 and Figure 4.11.2 .
62 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
1.5
pole density legend
Cc 1.2 low= 0-20 poles/km
Q)
<- moderate= 21-30 poles/km
E high= >30 poles/km
.I<:
Ui
c
0
0.9
~
0
~
Q)
"§
c 0.6
0
~
0()
0.3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
average pole offset (m)
Figure 4.11.1: Relationship between Frequency of Utility Pole Collisions and
48
Pole Offset for Three Levels of Pole Density
1000 2000 5000 10 000 20 000 60 000 0.25 0.50 0. 75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1. 75
average dally traffic (vehicles/day) utility pole collision frequency (colllslons/km/year)
49
Figure 4.11.2: Nomograph for Predicting Utility Pole Collision Rate
June 2017 63
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.12 DESIGNING FOR FUTURE WIDENING
4.12.1 INTRODUCTION
The need for future expansion of a road facility to provide additional capacity or, perhaps, to convert a
roadway to a different classification as development occurs should be considered. This is particularly
important in the design of a cross section and selection of cross section elements and their dimensions.
In selecting cross section elements it is prudent to approach the design in two ways:
1. Determine the ultimate requirements of the road in terms of classification, design speed, level
of service and service volumes, and design a suitable cross section. For the first and any
intermediate stages, the cross section consists only of those elements of the cross section that
are required to meet immediate needs. Additional elements can then be added in the future as
required without wasting capital expend itures made initially.
2. Determine the initial requirements and select the dimensions so as to allow for future
expansion, should it be required.
The first approach is appropriate if the ultimate requirements are known at the outset. This is often not
known or might be known in general terms only, in which case the second approach may be more
appropriate . Often in practice, knowledge of future requirements is limited and the designer may
consider both approaches in selecting cross section elements.
Arterial streets and highways are often constructed in successive stages to meet the demands of
increasing traffic associated with development growth. The staging of arterials, which are to be divided
in their ultimate form, is a common application. Typically, arterials that are to remain undivided are
more difficult to stage effectively. The possible advantages are sometimes outweighed by the inherent
operational shortcomings or the amount of temporary construction lost when the street is upgraded
from its initial stage. However, economic considerations may dictate that undivided arterials be staged
regardless of the possible inefficiencies associated with further stages.
Staged construction of arterials that are to remain undivided entails a lower initial capital cost.
Alternatively, if the first stage is crowned on centerline and widened to its ultimate width, catch basins
and luminaires installed in the first stage will require relocation in the second stage of roadway
development. In addition, traffic accommodation during construction and provision of temporary access
during the second stage becomes more complicated if the initial stage roadway is widened to the
outside.
The need for staged implementation of structures must also be determined in the initial design of a road
facility. This assessment will include the selection of the type of structure to be used in the case of
overpass structures and the clear width provided at underpass structures. The planning for the
structure should address such factors as:
• The time frame for road upgrading
• The type of substructure and superstructure to be used
• The impacts on traffic accommodation during the upgrading of the structure.
In staged construction, if the time period between successive stages is expected to be long term, the
road agency normally takes appropriate steps to control the vegetation which may develop in the
unused right-of-way. If, for example, large trees and shrubs are allowed to be established in these
unused areas, there may be objections raised from the public regarding the implementation of the
64 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
subsequent stage, when it is warranted. It is therefore generally advantageous to carry out the rough
grading for future stages as part of the initial stage of construction.
The following sections outline examples of staging roadways. The first example is for the staged
development of rural roads, followed by discussions of the staging of six-lane divided arterial roads and
four-lane undivided arterial roads. The methodologies described in these sections can be applied to the
staging of other road classifications.
4.12.2 RURAL ROADS: BEST PRACTICES
Widening of two-lane rural arterial roads to multilane undivided or divided highways usually takes place
on the outside and culverts are extended at the time of the widening. Bridges at underpasses may be
built to the ultimate design in the initial stage. Sometimes a two- lane rural arterial is converted to a
four-lane divided arterial or rural freeway by twinning the existing two-lane roadway. In this case the
dimensions of the future cross section are determined so that the initial roadway can be properly
located within the right-of-way to accommodate future expansion. The need for future upgrading of a
two-lane rural arterial road should also be considered in the selection of the type of overpass structures
to be used in the initial stage of construction.
Freeways are usually widened in the median so that ramps and bridge structures are unaffected at later
stages. In this case, the critical dimensions in the cross section to allow for future expansion are lane
width, shoulder width, and median width. The implications of the type and ultimate width of median on
the future level of safety should be considered in establishing the initial median width.
4.12.3 SIX-LANE DIVIDED URBAN ARTERIALS: BEST PRACTICES
In the staging of a new six-lane divided arterial street, the following sequence is typical of existing
practice in major Canadian cities. The sequence is also illustrated on Figure 4.12.1:
• Stage I - Construct the two outside lanes of one half of the ultimate six-lane divided street and
then operate the two lanes as a two-way street.
• Stage II - Construct the two outside lanes of the other half of the ultimate street cross section
and then operate as a four-lane divided street with a wide median.
• Stage Ill - Construct the remaining two inside lanes and final median configuration.
As part of stage I, it is generally advantageous to undertake the rough grading for the ultimate cross
section, although financial considerations may dictate otherwise. The typical staging of a four-lane
divided street is similar whereby one side (two lanes) of the ultimate cross section is constructed initially
and operated as a two-way street. The second and final stage is the construction of the second two
lanes and the associated establishment of the median to create the divided street.
Adding a median barrier to a divided roadway generally increases the number of collisions on a section
of road but, because of the virtual elimination of head-on collisions, reduces the severity of the
collisions. In developing the ultimate cross section, the designer should assess whether it is appropriate
to install a wider median in the initial stage to eliminate the need for a median barrier in the ultimate
stage.
The advantages of the stated three step staging scenario for a six-lane divided street are as follows:
1. The loss in existing pavement surfaces by progressing from stage to stage is minimized.
2. Less traffic disruption occurs from one stage to the next, and particularly when advancing from
stage I to stage II.
June 2017 65
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
3. By constructing the outside curbs initially, the cross street approaches on either side of the
arterial street are unaffected by the upgrading from stage II to stage Ill.
4. Where the roadways are sloped from the median down to the outside curbs, the catchbasins are
typically provided at the outside curbs only. On the median or high side, reverse gutter sections
or no gutters are utilized. Assuming these conditions, minimal drainage changes are required to
progress from stage to stage. Generally, however, it is preferable to limit the flow of dra inage
across the roadway to a two-lane width. On a six-lane divided street, a crown line is often
introduced within each half of the divided roadway to restrict the cross roadway drainage to a
maximum of two lanes. With this arrangement, two lanes are sloped to the outside curb and
one lane is sloped to the median curb.
5. Facilities that are located in the roadside areas are not affected by the staging because the
outside curbs are positioned in their ultimate locations at the outset. These facilities include
elements such as lighting, surface utilities, streetscaping, landscaping, pedestrian walkways, bike
paths, noise attenuation devices, and roadside barriers.
6. The wide median area in stage II can be effectively used to develop slot left-turn bays at the
intersection where deemed appropriate and acceptable. Further information on slotted left-
turn bays is provided in Chapter 9.
7. Where existing development is adjacent to the arterial road, the perceived impact of the
widening from four to six lanes is less severe than that associated with physically widening the
roadway toward the development.
ROW ROW ROW
¢::::i (existing) ¢::::i (existing)
¢::::i
~----1
--~<l--m~ia_n_ __ -~q....,_m~ia_n_ __ --~<l--m~ia_n_ __
1 ~ ___ _
~ (existing)
ROW ROW ROW
stage I stage II stage Ill
Figure 4.12.1: Staging of New Six-lane Divided Arterial Street
66 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.12.4 FOUR-LANE UNDIVIDED URBAN ARTERIALS: BEST PRACTICES
Figure 4.12.2 portrays two typical methods of a two-stage construction approach for a new four-lane
undivided arterial street.
In method A, the centre two lanes are constructed as the initial stage. Curbs are not incorporated as
part of this stage and shoulders are utilized to ensure stability of the lane edges and to provide
clearance to the edge of pavement and the side slope. The width of the shoulders is chosen in
consideration of several factors including design speed and the potential for cyclists and pedestrians
along the roadway. Surface drainage facilities, in the form of ditches or swales, are typically used to
convey the surface runoff to storm water collection points. Appropriate longitudinal grade must be
available to adequately convey the surface drainage if the underground drainage system is not
constructed until the second stage.
In the second and final stage for method A, the roadway is widened equally on both sides to the desired
width of the four-lane undivided street. Both outside curbs are constructed and the ditches or swales
are eliminated. Surface drainage collection is normally upgraded at this time to include catch basins and
underground storm sewers. Sidewalks may be added within the right-of-way, if desired, to
accommodate pedestrians. In Figure 4.12.2, a new separate sidewalk is added on one side as part of the
Stage II construction.
Method B, on the right half of Figure 4.12.2, has the initial stage being two lanes, both on the same side
of the ultimate roadway centreline. In this method, one outside curb is constructed as part of the first
stage. On the opposite side of the first stage roadway, a temporary curb or shoulder is normally
constructed. With one outside curb constructed in its ultimate location, a sidewalk can be immediately
implemented on that same side, if desired.
The second stage of method B consists of constructing the remaining two lanes and the second
permanent curb. If a temporary curb was constructed during stage I, this curb is removed as part of the
second stage of construction. With method B, the underground storm drainage system is typically
constructed as part of the first stage. Thus, only the catch basins required for the second curb are
constructed in stage 11.
Both staging methods are examples of accepted practice. The choice of which method to implement is
typically made on the basis of economics, right-of-way availability, pedestrian and cyclist demands,
adjacent development and drainage needs.
June 2017 67
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
method A method B
I
I
I (j; I
Du
"O
I "3
Du
0
.i::::: : .i:::::
en
s0 ~cu I
....
0
Cl
CLl
"O
"3 ~I s
0
stage I s0 .0
:; I
~
CLl
s
0
-~.... I .s
0::: 0 .s~ 0::: 0::: (.) 0:::
.i:::::
en ~
I
:
~
"O 0
a.
E
2 I
I
I
I I
1 1
I
DDuu I I
DDuu Cl .!:
(ii I
Cl ..l<: Cl ·:;;;::
s0 .0
:; ~
Q)
c:
~(!,}J
~
Q)
ro
::: s
0
stage II s0 .0
:; ~
Q) @J
.S:
Ci)
~ s
0
0::: (.)
.s ·:;;;::I .s CLl
"O
·u;
0::: 0::: (.)
.s ·:;;;::
..l<:
ro 0:::
~ ~ :::CLl
"O
·u;
Figure 4.12.2: Staging of a New Four-Lane Undivided Arterial Street
68 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
4.13 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
Figures 4.13.1to4.13.13 provide typical dimensions for the various road designations described in
Chapter 2 of this Guide. For cross section details on various bicycle facility types refer to Chapter 5 of
this Guide.
public lane
right of way
utility
pole
S:
0
Cl:'.
private
fence
width
Note: Public lanes (alleys) typically do not have defined travel lanes or allow for snow storage;
• residential width 4 .8 m (varies to suit conditions)
• commercial width 6.0 m (varies to suit conditions)
• width is usually clear of utility poles
Figure 4.13.1: Typical Section - Public Lanes
r
shoulder travelled lanes
~I back drainage side g' I
~
0
0::
=:r·m~i~r-::::::±::::::===::::::::::::::::±:::::~~~
0::
design shoulder fill slopes
speed back side rounding shoulders travelled with no
km/h slope slope (m) (m) lanes (m) barrier barrier
5. 60 3:1 4:1 0.5 1.0 3.0 - 3.7 2:1(rock 1.5:1) 4:1
> 60 3:1 4:1 0.5 1.0 3.5 - 3.7 2:1(rock 1.5:1) 4:1
Note: Give consideration to using flatter side slopes and back slopes to increase degree of safety provided.
Figure 4.13.2: Typical Section - Rural Local Undivided Road
June 2017 69
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
travelled lanes
parking parking
15mlF
without
:-
lane 3.0 to 3.7 m lanes lane
sidewalk boulevard sidewalk
n
lane 2.4 m
2.4 m . mi~ I 0.3-1 .0 m
~I s0
0::: 0:::
Figure 4.13.3: Typical Section - Urban Local Undivided Road
roadway
01 shoulder travelled lanes shoulder 01
sl ~§
c
'o
c
s
0 I0
1-
back drainage side
21
~ ~-iT'°'"I
fill slope 0:::
•lope
I I
-I I
v .............
~
I I
I I
design max. desirable fill slopes
speed design back mm. shoJjlder shoulders travelled with no
km/h hour vol. slope side roun mg (m) (m) lanes (m) barrier barrier
slope
:S60 :S450 3:1 3:1 0.5 2.0 3.0-3.7 2:1(rock 1.5:1) 3:1
:S60 >450 3:1 3:1 0.5 2.5 3.5-3.7 2:1(rock 1.5:1) 3:1
70-90 N/A 3:1 4:1 0.5 2.5 3.5-3.7 2:1(rock 1.5:1) 6:1
~100 N/A 3:1 6:1 1.0 3.0 3.5-3.7 2:1(rock 1.5:1) 6:1
Note: 1. Give consideration to using flatter side slopes and back slopes to increase degree of safety provided .
2. Snow drifting will occur when side slopes are less than 3:1 or greater than 6.5:1.
Figure 4.13.4: Typical Section - Rural Collector Undivided Road
70 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
travelled lanes ~
without 3.0 - 3.7 m lanes
sidewalk parking parking boulevard sidewalk
ct.
15~1
I 0. 3 m -
0.3 m - 2.0m min
3.0 m I ''"eGl laooGl I desirable I 1.Om
I
I
I
I
sl
0
I I
s
0
0:::
0:::1
Notes: 1. Parking lane (permanent) , 2.8 m
2. Wider lanes are desirable where truck, bus or bicycle traffic is significant
Figure 4.13.5: Typical Section - Urban Collector Undivided Road
<t.
I
side drainage back
median travelled lanes slope channel slope
3.5 to 3.7 m
lanes
inside shoulder outside shoulder fill slopes
design shoulder travelled shoulder outside max. min.
with no
speed 21anes <:31anes rounding lanes rounding shoulder back side
barrier barrier
(km/h) (m) (m) (m) (m) slope slope
~ 100 1.5 2.5 0.5 3.5 - 3.7 0.5 2.5 3:1 4:1 2:1(rock 1.5:1) 4:1
> 100 1.5 2.5 1.0 3.5 - 3.7 1.0 3.0 3:1 6:1 2:1(rock 1.5:1) 6:1
Note: 1. Give consideration to using flatter side slopes and back slopes to increase degree of safety provided.
2. Snow drifting will occur when side slopes are less than 3:1 or greater than 6.5:1.
Figure 4.13.6: Typical Section - Rural Collector Divided Road
June 2017 71
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
travelled lanes
CD median travelled lanes
CD
I 3.0 to 3.7 m lanes raised
n
I
I parking boulevard sidewalk
without i-- 1.5 m
~-
sidewalk lane min. 0.3 -
1
2.8 m 1.0 m
I- -2.01
.
1-
I
~
I I
Notes: 1. Wider lanes are desirable where trucks, bus or bicycle traffic is significant
Figure 4.13.7: Typical Section - Urban Collector Divided Road
back drainage side fill
slope channel slope travelled lanes slope
s0
er:
design design back side shoulder shoulders travelled fill slopes
speed hour slope slope rounding (m) lanes with no
(km/h) volume (m) (m) barrier barrier
5 100 5 450 3:1 4:1 0.5 2.5 3.5 - 3.7 2.1(rock 1.5:1) 4:1
5 100 2: 450 3:1 6:1 0.5 3.0 3.5 - 3.7 2.1(rock 1.5:1) 6:1
> 100 5 450 3:1 6:1 1.0 2.5 3.5 - 3.7 2.1(rock 1.5:1) 6:1
> 100 > 450 3:1 6:1 1.0 3.0 3.7 2.1(rock 1.5:1) 6:1
Note: 1. Give consideration to using flatter side slopes and back slopes to increase degree of safety provided.
2. Snow drifting will occur when side slopes are less than 3:1 or greater than 6.5:1.
Figure 4.13.8: Typical Section - Rural Arterial Undivided Road
72 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
travelled lanes CD
without
sidewalk boulevard sidewalk
3.0 m 1.5 m 1.0 m
des. min.
~I
0:::
Notes: 1. Travelled lane widths of 3.0 to 3.7 m for a design speed
of 60 km/h or less and 3.3 to 3.7 m for a design speed> 60 km/h
Figure 4.13.9: Typical Section - Urban Arterial Undivided Road
side drainage back
median travelled lanes slope channel slope
I~0:::
I
inside shoulder outside shoulder fill slopes
design shoulder travelled shoulder outside
back side with no
speed 21anes 2:3 lanes rounding lanes rounding shoulder
slope slope barrier barrier
km/h (m) (m) (m) (m)
< 100 1.5 2.5 0.5 3.5 - 3.7 0.5 2.5 3.1 6.1 2.1(rock 1.5:1) 6.1
> 100 1.5 2.5 1.0 3.5 - 3.7 1.0 3.0 3.1 6.1 2.1(rock1 .5:1) 6.1
Notes: 1. Give consideration to using flatter side slopes and back slopes to increase degree of safety provided.
2. Snow drifting will occur when side slopes are less than 3:1 or greater than 6.5: 1
Figure 4.13.10: Typical Section - Rural Arterial Divided Road
June 2017 73
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
CD CD
travelled lanes median travelled lanes
I Is 0
I n 1~
~I
171
boulevard sidewalk
i - 1.5 m
I
without <t_ 3.0 m min.
des.
~
Isidewall
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
6.0 m median - 3.5 m turning lane
5.5 m median - 3.0 m turning lane
Notes: 1. Travelled lane widths of 3.0 to 3.7 for design speed of 60 km/h or less
and 3.3 to 3.7 m for a design speed of >60 km/h
Figure 4.13.11: Typical Section - Urban Arterial Divided Road
Cl
travelled outer
lanes separation
I
iride shoulder outside shoulder
median
(depressed)
side drainage side back I
I slope channel slope slope
I
I 1c=~1 c:::frc:::ont=age=="'"-... D1
road
inside shoulders (m) fill slopes
design outside shoulder travelled
drainage back side with no
speed slope slope 21anes :<:3 lanes shoulders rounding lanes
channel barrier barrier
km/h (m) (m) (m)
< 100 2.5 3:1 6:1 1.5 2.5 3.0 0.5 3.5 - 3.7 2:1(rock1.5:1) 6:1
> 100 2.5 3:1 6:1 1.5 2.5 3.0 1.0 3.7 2:1(rock1.5:1) 6:1
Notes: 1. Give consideration to using flatter side slopes and back slopes to increase degree of safety provided.
2. Snow drifting will occur when side slopes are less than 3:1 or greater than 6.5:1
Figure 4.13.12: Typical Section - Rural Expressway and Freeways
74 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
~
G)
travelled lanes travelled lanes
G) 13a:
I
I I
barrier
I
I
i concrete
/-swales
I
median
barrier collector- I
freeway outer distributor
I .
separation road
Note : 1. Travelled lane widths are 3.7 m wide for a design speed >100 km/h
2. A rigid median barrier is likely to result in snow drifting.
Figure 4.13.13: Typical Section - Urban Expressway and Freeways
June 2017 75
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
REFERENCES
1 Hauer, E. 1998. "Literature Review and Analysis on Lane Widths", University of Toronto, and Hauer, E.
2000. "Lane Width and Safety [draft][online]."[Viewed 28 April 2017).
https://ezraha uer. files. word press.com/2012/08/la ne-width-and-safety. pdf
2 Potts, I., Harwood, D. and Richard, K.R. 2007. "Relationship of Lane Width to Safety on Urban and
Suburban Arterials," Transportation Research Record No. 2023: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board. Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 63-82.
3 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1990. Behavioral Adaptations to Changes in
the Road Transport System. Paris: Road Transport Research, Scientific Expert Group.
4 Ogden, K.W. 1995. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. Castle Hill, Australia: Avery
Technical.
5 Hauer, E. 1998. " Literature Review and Analysis on Lane Widths". University ofToronto.
6 CMF adapted from the AASHTO, 2010. Highway Safety Manual, 1 st Edition, Volume 2, based on work
conducted by Zegeer et al. 1981 and, Griffin and Mak. 1987.
7 Potts, I., Harwood, D. and Richard, K.R. 2007. "Relationship of Lane Width to Safety on Urban and
Suburban Arterials," Transportation Research Record No. 2023: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 63-82.
8 Bahar, G., Wales, J., and Longtin-Nobel, L. 2001. Synthesis of Practice: Best Practices for the
Implementation of Shoulder and Centreline Rumble Strips. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of
Canada.
9 Torbic, D.J., Hutton, J.M., Bokenkroger, C.D., Bauer, K.M., Harwood, D.W., Gilmore, D.K., Dunn, J.M.,
Ronchetto, J.J., Donnell, E.T., Sommer 111, H.J., Garvey, P.M., Persaud, B. and Lyon, C. 2009. NCHRP
Report 641: Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centreline Rumble Strips.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
10 Bahar, G., Wales, J., and Longtin-Nobel, L. 2001. Synthesis of Practice: Best Practices for the
Implementation of Shoulder and Centreline Rumble Strips. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of
Canada.
11 Persaud, B., Retting, R., and Lyon, C. 2003. Crash Reduction Following Installation of Centerline Rumble
Strips on Rural Two-Lane Roads. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Arlington VA.
12 Bahar, G., Wales, J., and Longtin-Nobel, L. 2001. Synthesis of Practice: Best Practices for the
Implementation of Shoulder and Centreline Rumble Strips. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of
Canada.
13 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2010 . Highway Safety Manual, 1 st
Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
14 Duduta, N., Adriazola, C., Hidalgo, D., Lindau, L.A., and Jaffe, R. 2012. "Understanding Road Safety
Impact of High-Performance Bus Rapid Transit and Busway Design Features." Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2317(1), pp. 8-14.
15 Transportation Association of Canada, 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa, ON :
Transportation Association of Canada.
76 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
16 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001. A Policy on Geometric Design
of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
17 Ogden, K.W. and Pearson, R.A. 1992. "Road and Traffic Factors in Truck Safety" Proceedings 16th
Australian Road Research Board Conference, Part 4: Technology & Safety. Victoria, Australia: Australian
Road Research Board, pp. 289-312.
18 Ivey, D. L., Zimmer, R.A., Julian, F., Sicking, D.L., Johnson, W.A. and Nord Iin, E.F. 2009. Influence of
Roadway Surface Discontinuities on Safety: State of the Art Report, Transportation Research Circular, No.
E-C134. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of National Academies.
19 Harwood, D.W. 1993. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 191: Use of Rumble Strips to Enhance Safety.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of National Academies.
20 Bahar, G., Wales, J., and Longtin-Nobel, L. 2001. Synthesis of Practice: Best Practices for the
Implementation of Shoulder and Centreline Rumble Strips. Ottawa ON.
21 Hickey Jr, J.J. 1997. "Shoulder Rumble Strip Effectiveness: Drift-Off-Road Accident Reductions on the
Pennsylvania Turnpike". Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
No. 1573. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of National Academies, pp. 105-109.
22 Alberta Transportation and Utilities, 1998. A Review of Practices for Use of Rumble Strips on Alberta's
Rural Highways. Technical Standards Branch, Edmonton, AB.
23 Khan, A.M. and Bacchus, A. 1995. "Economic Feasibility and Related Issues of Highway Shoulder Rumble
Strips". Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1498.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of National Academies, pp. 92-101..
24 Alberta Transportation and Utilities, 1998. A Review of Practices for Use of Rumble Strips on Alberta's
Rural Highways. Edmonton, AB: Technical Standards Branch, Alberta Transportation and Utilities.
25 Bahar, G., Wales, J., and Longtin-Nobel, L. 2001. Synthesis of Practice: Best Practices for the
Implementation of Shoulder and Centreline Rumble Strips. Ottawa: Transportation Association of
Canada.
26 Ibid.
27 Harwood, D.W. 1986. NCHRP Report 282: Multi-lane Design Alternatives For Improving Suburban
Highways. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of National Academies.
28 CMF from: AASHTO. 2010. Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, Volume 2, based on work by Zegeer et al.
1981 and 1988.
29 Robinson, J.B. L. and Millen, G. 2010. Synthesis of Practices for Median Design. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
30 Knuiman, M.W., Council, F.M., and Reinfurt, D.W. 1993. "Association of Median Width and Highway
Accident Rates." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No.
1401. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of National Academies, pp. 70-82.
31 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011. Roadside Design Guide - 3rd
Edition with Updated Chapter 6. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
32 Robinson, J.B. L. and Millen, G. 2010. Synthesis of Practices for Median Design. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
June 2017 77
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 4 - Cross Section Elements
33 British Columbia Ministry of Transportation. 2007. BC Supplement to TAC Geometric Design Guide.
Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Transportation.
34 Quality and Standards Division. 1993. Roadside Safety Manual. Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry of
Transportation.
35 Alberta Transportation and Utilities, 2004. Highway Geometric Design Guide. Edmonton, AB: Technical
Standards Branch, Alberta Transportation and Utilities.
36 Potts, I. B., Harwood, D. W., Torbic, D. J., Richard, K. R., and Gluck, J. S., Levinson, H. S., Garvey, P. M. and
Ghebrial, R. S. 2004. NCHRP Report 524: Safety of U-Turns at Unsignalized Median Openings."
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
37 See for example: Richard W. Glad, Richard B. Albin, Dawn M. Mcintosh, and David K. Olson. 2002.
Median Treatment Study of Washington State Highways. Olympia WA: Washington State Department of
Transportation.
38 CTC & Associates LLC. 2007. Putting the Brakes on Crossover Crashes: Median Barrier Research and
Practice in the US. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
39 Gluck, Jerome, Levinson, Herbert Sand Stover, Vergil. 1999. NCHRP Report 420: Impacts of Access
Management Techniques. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of National Academies.
40 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design
of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
41 See Transportation Association of Canada. April 2013. Syntheses of Best Practices-Road Salt
Management [online]. Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada [http://www.tac-
atc.ca/en/bookstore-and-resources/free-resources-and-tools/syntheses-practice]; and Province of
Saskatchewan. August 7, 2009. "Policy SKS 2.2.9-A" in Supplement to the TAC Geometric Design Guide
(subject to revision). Regina: Saskatchewan Highways and Infrastructure.
42 Transportation Research Board, 1993. Transportation Research Circular 414: Human Factors Research in
Highway Safety. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of National Academies.
43 Turner, D.S. January 1984. "Prediction of Bridge Accident Rates." Journal of Transportation Engineering,
110 (1). New York, NY: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 45-54.
44 Mak, K.K. 1987. "Effect of Bridge Width on Highway Safety". State of the Art Report 6: Relationship
Between Safety and Key Highway Features. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, pp. 22-35.
45 Zeeger, C.V., and Council F.M. November 1992. Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features -
Volume Ill- Cross Sections. Report FHWA-RD-91-06. Mclean, Virginia: Federal Highway Administration.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Zegeer, C.V. and Parker, M.R. September 1983. Cost-Effectiveness of Countermeasures for Utility Pole
Accidents. Report FHWA/RD-83. Mclean, Virginia: Federal Highway Administration.
78 June 2017
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 5 - BICYCLE INTEGRATED DESIGN
June 2017
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.
Cover photos courtesy of Anthony Smith, WSP
Copyright 2017 by
Transportation Association of Canada
401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive
Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-623-8
TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM
Title and Subtitle
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 5 -Bicycle Integrated Design
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, WSP I MMM Group
Jeff Ward, WSPIMMM 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 human
Planning of Transport
factors research and practices for roadway geometric design. It replaces the 1999 edition
Infrastructure
of the Guide and subsequent revisions. The Guide provides guidance to planners and
Bicycle
designers in developing design solutions that meet the needs of a range of users while
Canada
addressing the context of local conditions and environments. Design guidelines for
Cycle track
freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural locations are
Design (overall design)
included as well as guidance for integrated bicycle and pedestrian design.
Junction
The Guide is organized into ten chapters to cover the entire design process from design Layout
philosophy and roadway classification to design parameters and specific guidelines for Longitudinal profile
the safe accommodation of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on linear road elements Network (traffic)
and at intersections. The chapters are: Design Philosophy; Design Controls, Classification Safety
and Consistency; Alignment and Lane Configuration; Cross Section Elements; Bicycle Traffic control
Integrated Design; Pedestrian Integrated Design; Roadside Design; Access; Intersections; Traffic lane
and Interchanges.
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design provides guidance and examples on how to
integrate holistically the design of bicycle facilities into the roadway design to achieve a
balanced solution for all modes and road users. Guidance is provided on bicycle and
in line skater design needs, types of bicycle facilities and a framework for the selection of
an appropriate type of facility, and specific design elements.
Supplementary Information
Index is available at www.tac-atc.ca
Chiu, M., Clayton, C., Millen, G. et al. 2017. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated
Design. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
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 I MMM 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 ofTAC staff are also
appreciated.
A substantial portion of this Guide includes the contents adapted from the 1999 Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads, 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 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
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 ofTransportation Ontario
Prince Edward Island Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy
Ministere des Transports, de la Mobilite durable et de l'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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Project Steering Committee
Eric Christiansen, Manitoba Infrastructure (Co-Chair)
John Hammer, Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Co-Chair)
Ke ith 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 Dobush 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 ofTransportation and Infrastructure
Sandra Majkic, Transportation Association of Canada (Project Manager)
June 2017 iii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
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, WSPIMMM 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Foreword
BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE
In 1999 the Transportation Association of Canada relased 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 for 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 th is Guide.
June 2017 v
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
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 5
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design provides guidance and examples on how to holistically integrate
the design of bicycle facilities into the roadway design to achieve a balanced solution for all modes and
road users. Guidance is provided on bicycle and in-line skater design needs, types of bicycle facilities and
a framework for the selection of an appropriate type of facility, and specific design elements.
vi June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
CONTENTS
5.1 BICYCLE DESIGN FOCUS ............................................................................................................1
5.1.1 Design Integration ................................................................................................................ 1
5.1.2 Design Users: People Riding Bicycles ................................................................................... 2
5.1.2.1 Design Vehicle Analogy .......................................................................................... 2
5.1.2.2 Types of Bicycle Riders ........................................................................................... 2
5.1.2.3 Design User Group ................................................................................................. 4
5.1.3 Human Factors: Motivations and Deterrents To Bicycling ................................................... 5
5.1.4 Application of Design Domain .............................................................................................. 5
5.2 BICYCLE DESIGN NEEDS ............................................................................................................6
5.2.1 Design Vehicle ...................................................................................................................... 6
5.2.2 Operating Space I Dimensions ............................................................................................. 6
5.2.2.1 Cyclists ................................................................................................................... 6
5.2.2.2 In-line Skaters ........................................................................................................ 7
5.2.3 Safety and Security ............................................................................................................... 8
5.2.3.1 Safety: Reducing Collisions with Cyclists ............................................................... 8
5.2.3.2 Security: Preventing Crime .................................................................................... 9
5.2.4 Speed and Momentum ......................................................................................................... 9
5.2.5 Connectivity and Directness ............................................................................................... 10
5.2.6 All-Season Surface Quality .................................................................................................. 10
5.3 BIKEWAY FACILITY TYPES .......................................................................................................10
5.3.1 Separated Bikeways ............................................................................................................ 11
5.3.1.1 Buffered and Unbuffered Bike Lanes ................................................................... 11
5.3.1.2 Protected Bike Lanes ........................................................................................... 14
5.3.1.3 Bike Paths ............................................................................................................. 18
5.3.1.4 Multi-Use Paths ................................................................................................... 19
5.3.2 Unseparated Bikeways ....................................................................................................... 22
5.3.2.1 Bicycle Boulevards ............................................................................................... 22
5.3.2.2 Shared Roadways ................................................................................................. 25
5.3.2.3 Shared Lanes ........................................................................................................ 27
5.3.2.4 Advisory Bike Lanes ............................................................................................. 29
5.3.2.5 Bicycle Accessible Shoulders ................................................................................ 30
June 2017 vii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.4 BIKEWAY FACILITY SELECTION ................................................................................................32
S.4.1 Facility Selection Framework .............................................................................................. 32
S.4.1.1 Motor Vehicle Speeds of 0 to 30 km/h ................................................................ 34
S.4.1.2 Motor Vehicle Speeds of 30 to SO km/h .............................................................. 34
S.4.1.3 Motor Vehicle Speeds of SO to 80 km/h .............................................................. 3S
S.4.1.4 Motor Vehicle Speeds over 80 km/h ................................................................... 3S
S.4.2 Context Considerations and Trade-Offs ............................................................................. 3S
5.5 BICYCLE DESIGN: ALIGNMENT AND RELATED ELEMENTS ......................................................... 35
S.S.1 Design Speed ...................................................................................................................... 36
S.5.2 Stopping Sight Distance ...................................................................................................... 36
S.5.3 Horizontal Alignment .......................................................................................................... 37
S.5.3.1 Radius and Superelevation .................................................................................. 38
S.5.3.2 Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves ............................................................... 38
S.5.4 Vertical Alignment .............................................................................................................. 40
5.S.4.1 Grades .................................................................................................................. 40
5.S.4.2 Crest Curves ......................................................................................................... 41
5.S.4.3 Sag Curves ............................................................................................................ 42
S.S.5 Horizontal Clearance .......................................................................................................... 43
S.S.6 Vertical Clearance ............................................................................................................... 44
S.S. 7 Cross-Slope ......................................................................................................................... 44
5.6 BICYCLE DESIGN: INTERSECTION ELEMENTS ............................................................................44
S.6.1 Bike Lanes at Roadway Intersections ................................................................................. 4S
5.6.1.1 Continuous Bike Lane without Right Turn Lane ................................................... 4S
S.6.1.2 Continuous Bike Lane with Right Turn Lane ........................................................ 47
S.6.1.3 Discontinuous Bike Lane (Shared Lane) ............................................................... 48
S.6.1.4 Bike Ramp to Bike Path ........................................................................................ 49
S.6.1.S Left Turn Considerations ...................................................................................... Sl
S.6.2 Protected Bike Lanes at Roadway Intersections ................................................................ Sl
S.6.2.1 Protected Bicycle Signal Phase ............................................................................ Sl
S.6.2.2 Discontinuous Lane I Mixing Zone (Shared Lane) ............................................... S2
S.6.2.3 Protected Intersections ....................................................................................... S3
5.6.2.4 Left Turn Considerations ...................................................................................... S4
S.6.3 Bike Paths and Multi-Use Paths ......................................................................................... S4
5.6.3.1 At Roadway Intersections .................................................................................... 54
S.6.3.2 At Mid-Block Crossings ........................................................................................ S6
S.6.4 Bicycle Boulevards at Roadway Intersections .................................................................... S9
S.6.S Bike Boxes ........................................................................................................................... S9
viii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.6.6 Two-Stage Left-Turn Queue Box ....................................................................... ................. 60
5.6.7 Bikeway Facilities at On/Off Ramps ................................................................................... 62
5.6.7.1 Lower-Speed Roadway (SO km/h or less) On/Off Ramps .................. .................. 62
5.6.7.2 Higher-Speed Roadway (>50 km/h) On/Off Ramps .......................... ................... 63
5.6.7.3 At On-Ramps (Entrance Ramps) ......................... ......................... ...... .................. 64
5.6.7.4 At Off-Ramps (Exit Ramps) ......... ......................... ......................... ........................ 64
5.6.8 Bikeway Facilities at Roundabouts ................................................................... .................. 65
5.6.9 Bikeway Facilities at Railway and Streetcar Crossings ..................................... .................. 66
5.6.10 Grade-Separated Bikeway Crossings .......................... ........................................................ 67
5.7 BICYCLE DESIGN : OTHER ELEMENTS AND DETAILS ................................................................... 67
5.7.1 Traffic Control Devices .......................... ............................................................................. 67
5.7.1.1 Pavement Markings and Signs ... ..................... ......................... ......................... ... 68
5.7.1.2 Types of Signs ....... .......... ....... ..... .................... .. .................................................... 68
5.7.1.3 Bicycle Signals ................ ....... ... .. .................... .. ....... ......................................... .. .. 68
5.7.2 Lighting ......................................... ............ ...................... ...................... ......................... ..... 69
5.7 .3 BikeRamps ............... .................... ..... ..... .. .................. ......................... .. ........................... .. 69
5.7 .4 Bikeway Facilities at Transit Stops .................................. ....................... ...................... ....... 71
5.7.5 Protected Bike Lane Delineators .. ......................................................... ...................... ....... 72
5.7 .6 Bikeway Facilities at Bridges or Tunnels ................... ......................... ......................... .. .... .. 75
5.7 .7 Dual Bike Lane (Passing Area) ...... ... ......................... ...... ................... .... ............................. 75
5.7 .8 Bikeway Facilities in Rural Areas .. ... ... ..................... .. ............................... ................. ....... .. 76
5.7.8.1 Lighting .... .. ..................... ... ............................... ....................... ..................... .. ...... 76
5.7.8.2 Towns and Villages ......... .. ........................ ......................... ...... ................... ... ....... 76
5.7 .9 Bicycle Parking ..... .... .............................................................................. ..................... ........ 76
5.7.10 All-Season Bikeway Maintenance ...... ......................................................................... ....... 77
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................79
June 2017 ix
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
TABLES
Table 5.1.1: Representative Geometric Design Implications for Accommodating the Casual User .......... 4
Table 5.3.1: Design Domain: Width of Unbuffered Bike Lane ................................................................. 12
Table 5.3.2: Design Domain: Width of Buffered Bike Lane ...................................................................... 14
Table 5.3.3: Design Domain: Width of Protected Bike Lane .................................................................... 15
Table 5.3.4: Design Domain: Width of Bike Path ..................................................................................... 18
Table 5.3.5: Design Domain: Width of Multi-Use Paths .......................................................................... 20
Table 5.3.6: Design Domain: Width of Shared Roadways ....................................................................... 26
Table 5.3.7: Design Domain: Width of Shared Lanes ............................................................................... 28
Table 5.3.8: Design Domain: Width of Advisory Bike Lanes .................................................................... 30
Table 5.3.9: Design Domain: Width of Bicycle Accessible Shoulder ........................................................ 31
Table 5.5.1: Minimum Stopping Sight Distance for Bicycles (Paved Surface, Wet Conditions) .............. 37
Table 5.5.2: Minimum Radii for Paved Bikeways ..................................................................................... 38
Table 5.5.3: Lateral Clearance for Bicycles on Horizontal Curves ............................................................ 40
Table 5.5.4: Crest Vertical Curves for Bicycles (Paved Surface, Wet Conditions) .................................... 42
Table 5.5.5: Vertical Sag Curves for Bicycles ............................................................................................ 43
Table 5.5.6: Design Domain: Vertical Clearance ...................................................................................... 44
Table 5.6.1: Minimum Sight Distance for Multi-Use Path Crossing ......................................................... 58
Table 5.7.1: Delineators Based on Type and Speed of Adjacent Lane ..................................................... 74
x June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
FIGURES
Figure 5.2.1: Bicycle Operating Space ...................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5.2.2: In-line Skater Operating Space ........................................................................................... 8
Figure 5.3.1: Unbuffered Bike Lanes ...................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5.3.2: Buffered Bike Lanes .......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5.3.3: Protected Bike Lanes ........................................................................................................ 15
Figure 5.3.4: Bike Paths .......................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5.3.5: Multi-Use Paths ................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 5.3.6 (A): Bicycle Boulevard - Cross Section ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 5.3.6 (B): Bicycle Boulevard - Plan View Example ............................................................................ 24
Figure 5.3. 7: Shared Roadway ............................................................................................................... 25
Figure 5.3.8: Shared Roadway - Service Road ........................................................................................ 27
Figure 5.3.9: Shared Lane ...................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 5.3.10: Advisory Bike Lane ............................................................................................................ 29
Figure 5.3.11: Bicycle Accessible Shoulder .............................................................................................. 31
Figure 5.4.1: Bikeway Facilities, by Roadway Posted Speed .................................................................. 33
Figure 5.5.1: Lateral Clearance for Stopping Sight Distance .................................................................. 39
Figure 5.5.2: Horizontal Clearance ......................................................................................................... 43
Figure 5.6.1: Bicycle Circulation and Turning Maneuvers ..................................................................... 46
Figure 5.6.2: Continuous Bike Lane Without Right Turn Lane ............................................................... 47
Figure 5.6.3: Continuous Bike Lane With Right Turn Lane .................................................................... 48
Figure 5.6.4: Shared Curb Lane at Intersection ..................................................................................... 49
Figure 5.6.5: Bike Ramp to Bike Path ..................................................................................................... 50
Figure 5.6.6: Protected Bicycle Signal Phase (No Lateral Shift) ............................................................. 51
Figure 5.6.7: Protected Bicycle Signal Phase (Bend In) .......................................................................... 52
Figure 5.6.8: Mixing Zone ...................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 5.6.9: Protected Intersection ...................................................................................................... 54
Figure 5.6.10: Intersection Multi-Use Paths Crossing .............................................................................. 56
Figure 5.6.11: Mid-Block Multi-Use Path Crossing .................................................................................. 57
Figure 5.6.12: Minimum Sight Distance for Multi-Use Path Crossing ..................................................... 58
Figure 5.6.13: Median Diverter ................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 5.6.14: Bike Box ............................................................................................................................. 60
June 2017 xi
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Figure 5.6.15: Two-Stage Left-Turn Queue Boxes ................................................................................... 61
Figure 5.6.16: Protected Bike Lane and Two-Stage Left-Turn Queue Box ............................................... 62
Figure 5.6.17: Bikeway Crossing Low-Speed On/Off Ramps .................................................................... 63
Figure 5.6.18: Bikeway Crossing High-Speed On/Off Ramps ................................................................... 65
Figure 5.6.19: Bikeway Crossing Railway I Streetcar Tracks .................................................................... 67
Figure 5.7.1: Bike Ramp ......................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 5.7.2: Bike Lane at Curbside Transit Stop ................................................................................... 71
Figure 5.7.3: Bicycle Bypass at Transit Stop ........................................................................................... 72
Figure 5.7.4: Protected Bike Lane Delineators ...................................................................................... 73
Figure 5.7.5: Dual Bike Lane Passing Area ............................................................................................. 76
Figure 5.7.6: On-Street Bicycle Corral .................................................................................................... 77
xii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5. BICYCLE INTEGRATED DESIGN
5.1 BICYCLE DESIGN FOCUS
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the designer with a set of guidelines and examples of practice
for the integrated design of bicycle facilities. This includes explicit geometric design aspects as well as
contextual and integrative guidelines that combine holistically to produce designs appropriate for the
needs of cyclists and other road users.
This edition of the Guide shifts the focus of bicycle integrated design from a viewpoint of "bicycles as
vehicles" to "people riding bicycles". This shift considers broader human and community design needs,
enabling bicycle facilities to encourage bicycle riding more often and more safely.
Bicycle facilities, in the context of Canadian roads, primarily means separated bikeways (i.e., bike lanes,
bike paths, multi-use paths) and unseparated bikeways. This chapter includes guidance on the selection
of appropriate bikeway types, the design specifics involved in integrating bikeway facilities into
complete multimodal road designs, as well as bicycle parking in the context of road design. Types of
bicycle facilities not directly related to road geometric design, such as end-of trip facilities (e.g., showers,
lockers, off-road parking), are not included in this Guide.
This chapter's design focus is people riding bicycles. However, each design element should be integrated
into a balanced design solution, with all modes and road users kept in the designer's frame of reference.
A number of the design elements described in this chapter are variations of those found in the TAC
Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines. 1 Similarly, the TAC Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Canada (MUTCDC} provides guidance on pavement markings which may be applicable. 2 The designer
should confirm that the selected design elements are consistent with local legislation, regulation and by-
laws before implementing them.
5.1.1 DESIGN INTEGRATION
Transportation agencies in Canada increasingly recognize the importance of the bicycle as a means of
transportation. Bicycling can play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating road
congestion, enlarging catchment areas for public transit, improving health outcomes, and contributing
to sustainable communities. Across Canada, the economic, environmental and health benefits of cycling
are leading to increased demand for and participation in cycling. To play an effective role within a
modern transportation system, cycling facilities must be attractive to a broad range of existing and
potential users, and function as an integral part of a multimodal system.
Municipalities and provinces/territories are responding to the increased demand for cycling by investing
in bicycle facilities and complementary policies. Design approaches for bikeways have evolved based on
the need for safe, comfortable, and efficient infrastructure. The selection, design, and implementation
of bikeways requires an understanding of bicycles, cyclist behaviours, and bikeway attributes, including
aspects such as user vulnerability, physical dimensions, and bicycle operational characteristics.
On-road bikeway facilities exist in multimodal travel environments so their design and implementation
must consider motor vehicle traffic operations, pedestrian facilities, and the combined human factors
and operational characteristics of all road users and travel modes. The concept of "complete streets" is
helpful in visualizing integrated road design that is suitable for all ages, abilities, and modes of travel, as
well as fitting with the context of the land uses through which the road traverses.
June 2017 1
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Land use contexts can range from rural to suburban to urban. The role of the road itself can vary from a
highway intended for high-speed travel over long distances, to an arterial required to balance through-
put and sense-of-place, to a street where walkability and active transportation are key objectives.
The application of bicycle integrated design depends on these contexts. In both urban and rural
contexts, it is important to integrate considerations of safe transportation for the full range of design
road users. This chapter includes a range of bikeway facilities, many of which are primarily appropriate
for urban contexts. Population density and transportation demand supportive of bicycle transportation
is often lower in rural areas. Nonetheless, many of the design features presented in this chapter can be
implemented in rural contexts, where appropriate.
5.1.2 DESIGN USERS: PEOPLE RIDING BICYCLES
Generally, cyclists may be defined as people riding bicycles, where the term "people" reflects the need
to consider human factors when designing for human beings with a variety of needs. Design users of
bikeway facilities can also include people such as:
• Skateboarders, longboarders
• In-line skaters, roller skaters
• E-bike operators.
The concept of design vehicle applies to bikeway facilities in a similar way as it applies to motor vehicle
facilities. Cyclists vary in age, size and ability, and design of a bikeway should be sensitive to user types
and to the dimensions and characteristics of their vehicles.
5.1.2.1 Design Vehicle Analogy
The design vehicle concept comes from motor-vehicle based geometric design guidelines, such as those
published since the 1960s. These references identify how varying widths, wheelbases, chassis
configurations, speed characteristics, and vehicle turning paths affect the geometry and dimensions
required for vehicles of different types to traverse physical space.
Early road design guidelines that considered bicycles typically applied this same approach by
quantifying length, height, speed potential, and leaning dimensions to create similar technical
specifications for the design of multi-use paths and bikeways. This information remains relevant, and
current bicycle design vehicle parameters are included in Section 5.2.
However, overt or exclusive emphasis on the physical characteristics of the bicycle neglects the
characteristics of the bicycle rider. The wide range of cyclist preferences, abilities and training (or lack
thereof) affects the operation of a bicycle as much as the physical characteristics of the machine itself.
5.1.2.2 Types of Bicycle Riders
Bicycles are legally defined as vehicles, and can be operated as vehicles in mixed traffic on the roadway.
However, this type of bicycle operation is generally attractive to only a narrow range of riders who are
adequately (i.e., quite highly) skilled and confident, and have a relatively high tolerance for risk.
Many cyclist typology approaches have been developed in recent years, helping to understand
3
characteristics and infrastructure preferences of existing and potential cyclists • The following examples
of such cyclist classification approaches serve to describe the broader range of bicycle riders for whom
many municipalities and provinces/territories are striving to design appropriate bikeways.
2 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
4
The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities addresses adult bicycle rider types based on
trip purpose (recreational vs utilitarian I transportation), and level of comfort and skill ("experienced
and confident" vs "casual and less confident").
• Experienced and confident riders are comfortable riding on roads without any special treatments for
cyclists and are confident enough to ride on busy roads in traffic to reach their destination.
• Casual and less confident riders (described as a majority of the population) are not comfortable
traveling in traffic on busy roads, and prefer low-traffic conditions, or paths separated from busy
roads.
Another framework for understanding characteristics of cyclists was developed by Rick Geller, a planner
5
in Portland, Oregon, and has been referenced and correlated to local data in several Canadian cities.
This framework is based on four categories that address varying attitudes towards bicycling in North
America.
• Strong and fearless (approximately 1% of population) - This category is characterized by cyclists that
will typically ride anywhere regardless of roadway conditions or weather. These cyclists prefer direct
routes and will typically choose roadway connections-even if shared with vehicles-over separate,
less direct bikeways, such as multi-use paths.
• Enthused and confident (approximately 5-10% of population) - This category encompasses cyclists
who are fairly comfortable riding on all types of bikeways, but usually choose low traffic streets or
multi-use paths where available. These cyclists may deviate from a more direct route in favour of a
facility type that is more appealing to them. This group includes all kinds of cyclists, such as
commuters, recreationalists, and competitive racers.
• Interested but concerned (approximately 60% of population) - This category comprises the bulk of
the cycling population and represents cyclists who typically only ride a bicycle on low traffic streets
or multi-use paths under favourable weather conditions. These cyclists perceive significant barriers
to their increased use of cycling and are typically reluctant to ride on shared roadways where motor
vehicles may pass without slowing. These people may become "enthused and confident" with
improved facilities, encouragement, education, and experience.
• No way, no how (approximately 30% of population) -This category represents individuals who are
not cyclists by choice or lack of ability, and may perceive severe safety issues with riding in traffic.
Some people in this group may eventually become more regular cyclists with time and education. A
significant portion of these people will not ride a bicycle under any circumstances.
6
Complete streets principles recognize the need to design for the full range of user ages and abilities.
Similarly, other examples of universal design principles describe the objective of designing bikeways
appropriate for users "7 to 70" years of age (e.g., League of American Bicyclists 7), or "8 to 80" years of
8
age (e.g., 8-80 Cities). The precise ages are not as crucial as the concept that facilities need to be
appropriate for a significantly broader range of cyclist ages and abilities than in the past. Table 5.1.1
summarizes the characteristics of the casual user, as identified by AASHTO, and presents implications for
the geometric design of roadways for their intended use.
June 2017 3
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Table 5.1.1: Representative Geometric Design Implications for Accommodating
the Casual User
User Characteristics Geometric Design Implication
Prefers multi-use paths, bicycle Facility provision should emphasize low-volume and low-
boulevards, or bike lanes along low- speed routes, either through route selection or
volume, low-speed streets. engineered traffic calming. Where routes are along
higher-volume streets, physical separation from traffic is
preferred.
May have difficulty gauging traffic Intersection treatments that lower exposure to conflicts
and may be unfamiliar with the rules and minimize merge/weave maneuver are preferred.
of the road as they pertain to Increased cyclist delay is accepted if a safer, more
cyclists; may walk bike across comfortable maneuver is well accommodated.
intersections.
May use less direct routes to avoid On high-volume streets, facility provision should
arterials with high traffic volumes. If emphasize physical separation from traffic.
no comfortable facility is available,
may ride on sidewalks.
May ride at speeds around 12 to 20 Design for 30 km/h.
km/h. Downhill grades may
significantly increase riding speed.
Typical trip distance of 1.5 to 8 km. Out of direction travel becomes more onerous on shorter
trip distances. Network and route design should
emphasize directness.
Will want to be able to travel with Facilities should allow for side-by-side riding while
family and friends. This includes side- permitting comfortable passing opportunities for other
by-side social riding, and side-by-side riders.
riding with children.
.. .. . ~
Table mod1f1ed from AASHTO Gwde for the Development of B1cycle FaC1/ltles
5.1.2.3 Design User Group
The design user group for bicycle integrated design represents the broader range of bicycle riders for
whom many municipalities and provinces/territories are striving to design appropriate bicycle facilities.
As examples, this range could be illustrated by Geller's "interested but concerned" segment or
AASHTO's "casual and less confident" segment, and typ ically embodies the widest practical range of
ages and abilities. Unless otherwise indicated, the bicycle design elements included in this chapter,
especially for facility types and facility selection, are based on this design user group.
4 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.1.3 HUMAN FACTORS: MOTIVATIONS AND DETERRENTS TO BICYCLING
Perceptions of cyclist safety and comfort are of critical importance to the design of multimodal
transportation systems, and are a significant challenge to overcome, given the vulnerability of cyclists
relative to other modes. As such, the Guide considers the physical and perceptual capacities of cyclists in
relation to other road users, directly and indirectly.
This chapter offers integrated bicycle design guidance that recognizes and respects the capabilities of
the design user group, and endeavours to elicit behaviour appropriate to the broad range of
circumstances evident on Canadian roadways. The technical foundation on human factors is found in
Section 2.2.
To effectively integrate bicycle transportation, a designer must understand which road characteristics
motivate or deter potential and existing cyclists, and that there is a strong connection between
perceived versus actual safety of cycling infrastructure. More information on this aspect of human
factors is described in Section 5.2.3.
5.1.4 APPLICATION OF DESIGN DOMAIN
The GDG provides gu idelines on integrated bicycle design based on the design domain concept
described in Chapter 1. As applied to quantitative values, guidelines may consist of any or all of the
following:
• Recommended values
• Practical lower I upper limit values
• Absolute lower I upper limit values
Recommended values may be a recommended minimum and/or maximum value, a recommended
range, or a recommended single value. Recommendations are described as "should" not "shall" or
"may". Where options or supporting guidance are provided, they are described as "may".
Recommended values or qualitative recommendations are intended to represent optimal design
parameters for the design user group (i.e., the broader range of bicycle riders as described in
Section 5.1.2). For example, a bike lane between 1.8 m and 2.5 m wide is the recommended guideline
range, as these provide ample safety, comfort, and desirability for the design user group.
Practical limit values represent the design domain and represent the range of parameter values beyond
which practical function or effect is lessened or eliminated. For example, a bike lane could physically be
implemented at less than 1.5 min width. However, its practical function and effectiveness is
substantially decreased (for the design user group) below this practical lower limit.
Absolute limit values represent the range beyond which the design parameter is infeasible or non-
functional. Absolute lower limits may be based on physical limitations. For example, the width of a bike
lane has an absolute lower value that corresponds to the physical operating envelope of a bicycle with a
rider.
Not all these limits need to be defined, since they may not be applicable in all cases. For example, larger
bikeway dimensions are generally beneficial, so a practical upper limit is only used to indicate the point
at which there is a loss in the quality of the facility if it is made larger.
Absolute or practical upper limits can also indicate the dimension at which another type of facility is
more appropriate. For example, at a certain upper limit of width, an unbuffered bike lane should be
rejected in favour of a buffered bike lane or a more protected bicycle facility .
June 2017 5
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.2 BICYCLE DESIGN NEEDS
5.2.1 DESIGN VEHICLE
In addition to the characteristics of the design user group outlined in Section 5.1.2, the characteristics of
vehicles are an important factor in determining the design domain for bikeway facilities.
Many bicycle types may be permitted to operate on bikeway facilities, including regular bicycles (e.g.,
road I touring I mountain I hybrid), children's bicycles, adult tricycles, cargo bicycles, bicycles with
trailers, electric bicycles (e-bikes), and recumbent bicycles. Bikeway facilities designed for this range of
design vehicle will typically accommodate the majority of existing and potential users, with the possible
exception of in-line skaters as discussed in Section 5.2.2. As technology adoption continues to evolve,
the designer may also consider the design needs of other human powered or light electric vehicles.
The design vehicle is the bicycle illustrated in Figure 5.2.1.
It is important to understand the characteristics of both cyclists and bicycles when designing bikeway
facilities. In relation to facility design, there are basic requirements to allow cyclists to operate bicycles
comfortably and safely. Design users require:
• Sufficient operating dimensions
• Adequate separation from users with significant speed differentials
• Smooth surface with adequate traction
• Speed maintenance
• Connectivity.
These requirements apply equally on all bikeway facilities, including facilities on and off roadways.
5.2.2 OPERATING SPACE/ DIMENSIONS
5.2.2.1 Cyclists
Figure 5.2.1 illustrates the physical design dimensions, operating envelopes, and minimum clearances
for a cyclist. These dimensions provide the basis for the design of bicycle facilities described in later
sections of this chapter. The envelope is relevant to the design of travel lanes on roadways, bikeways,
and bicycle parking facilities.
10
The design domain for the horizontal operating envelope of a cyclist is 1.2 m to 1.5 m, which allows for
the width of a bicycle and for variations in tracking (reflecting that not all bicycle riders can steer a very
straight line, especially when riding uphill or when travelling at full speed). On bikeway facilities with a
steep grade, an operating envelope at the higher end of the design domain should be assumed.
The design domain for the length of a bicycle ranges from 1.8 m up to 3.0 m (e.g., if a trailer is attached).
For the design of bikeways, it is typical to assume a bicycle length of 1.8 m. Where a higher number of
bicycles coupled with trailers is anticipated, it may be appropriate to assume a total length of 3.0 m,
particularly for the design of intersections, crossings and refuge areas.
Bicycle riders also need adequate clearances to fixed objects and to passing vehicles in addition to the
horizontal and vertical operating envelopes, as described in Section 5.5.5 and Section 5.5.6.
6 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
T :----------~
T ' I
Pedal
Vertical '
I ' • Height
Operating
.,...._.,_.~-- 0.1 m
Envelope
2!5m
_.;- Handlebar
Height
0.9-1.1 m
2.4 m
I,. •I
Horizontal Operating
Envelope
1.2 m - 1.5 m
,. •I
1.2 m 0.75 m
Figure 5.2.1: Bicycle Operating Space
5.2.2.2 In-line Skaters
The horizontal operating envelope of an in-line skater is 1.5 m to 2.3 mas illustrated in Figure 5.2.2. The
lower end of this range allows for the coasting phase of movement, while the upper end allows for the
side-to-side skating phase of movement.
Another operating space consideration is the braking technique for in-line skates. It not only leads to a
longer stopping distance, but greater lateral braking space requirements. Further guidance is available in
11
the TAC In-line Skating Review.
June 2017 7
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
r---i1---------~----:
Vertical : 1
i' :
I I I
Operating : '
En~el~pe
2.s'm1 :
I
,
I
~eight
2.0m I
I
I I
I I
I I
- -----l
Total Operating Envelope
I
I
I
I
1----
I
I
I
I
2.3m
Maneuvering
Envelope
1.5 m
Figure 5.2.2: In-line Skater Operating Space
5.2.3 SAFETY AND SECURITY
This section discusses aspects of cyclist safety and security by reducing the potential for collisions and
creating a setting that is perceived as comfortable and safe. Geometric design can contribute to this by
applying:
• Design elements to minimize the frequency and severity of collisions
• Strategies for crime prevention.
5.2.3.1 Safety: Reducing Collisions with Cyclists
Cycling collisions may take place with motor vehicles, other cyclists, pedestrians, and other obstacles.
The selection of recommended bikeway facilities is based, in part, on published research that reduce the
risk of cycling collisions. For example, Teschke et al. studied 690 cycling injuries in Toronto and
Vancouver which found that bike lanes, protected bike lanes, local streets (i.e., low-speed, low-volume),
and major streets when there is no on-street parking, even if there is no bicycle infrastructure, have
12
reduced risk for cyclist collisions.
The cited report included findings on the perceived desirability of each type of facility and indicates that
the safety performance of key bikeway facilities can be summarized (in decreasing order) as follows:
• Protected bike lanes (Section 5.3.1.2) have the highest safety performance of the bikeway
facilities studied, with approximately one-ninth the risk level of the base comparison facility (a
major roadway with parked cars). Protected bike lanes reduce the collision risk level further
than bike lanes alone. They are also perceived by cyclists to be safer than bike lanes.
• Bike lanes (Section 5.3.1.1) reduce the likelihood of collisions relative to shared lanes or no
bikeway facility at all, with a risk level of approximately half that of the base comparison facility
(a major roadway with parked cars). Bike lanes are positively perceived by cyclists, except when
adjacent to parking.
8 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
• Local streets (referred to in this guide as "bicycle boulevards" and "shared roadways", see
Section 5.3.2.1 and Section 5.3.2.2, respectively) have a similar safety performance to bike
lanes. Local streets are positively perceived by cyclists, including when on-street parking is
permitted.
• Major streets when there is no on-street parking.
5.2.3.2 Security: Preventing Crime
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a suite of design strategies that can reduce
the threat of crime to pedestrians. Three CPTED strategies are relevant to the design and operation of
transportation facilities:
• Natural surveillance reduces opportunities for crime by maximizing visibility and fostering
positive social interaction. Design strategies include :
o Encouraging slower passing motor vehicle traffic so that it can act as a surveillance
asset.
o Avoiding poorly placed lights that create blind spots for potential observers.
o Placing lighting at proper heights so it illuminates the faces of people using the space.
o Configuring landscaping and other physical elements to maintain sight lines and avoid
blind spots.
• Natural access control provides connectivity so that pedestrians have options to maintain
movement and avoid areas that are isolated.
• Territorial reinforcement promotes a sense of ownership by inviting use of public space. Design
strategies include:
o Placing amenities (e .g., seating and shade trees) in common areas to attract larger
numbers of desired users
o Maintaining sidewalks, street furniture, and landscap ing such that they communicate an
alert and active presence occupying the space.
For additional information regarding CPTED, refer to guidelines or practices documented by the relevant
local jurisdiction, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's overview of the Canadian perspective on
13
CPTED strategies.
5.2.4 SPEED AND MOMENTUM
Cyclists typically travel at speeds between 15 km/h and 30 km/h, although they may reach SO km/h
when traveling downhill. Where there is no physical barrier between cyclists and motor vehicles, the
14
speed differential between them should not exceed 20 km/h to 25 km/h . If the speed differential is
anticipated to be greater, separated bikeways should be provided, or the running speed of traffic should
be decreased through operational or engineering measures. Design speeds for cyclists are discussed in
Section 5.5.1.
For bicycles to be effective as a means of transportation, cyclists must be able to maintain their
momentum without having to slow or stop often . Once slowed or stopped, it takes considerable time
and effort to regain the desired operating speed. To the extent reasonable, bicycle routes should be
designed for continuous riding and to minimize steep gradients, rough surfaces, sharp corners,
intersections, and the need to yield to other users.
June 2017 9
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.2.5 CONNECTIVITY AND DIRECTNESS
Both connectivity and directness are important elements of bicycle integrated design. Connectivity is
defined as the extent to which a bikeway network offers route choices that accommodate movement in
various directions. Bikeway facilities should combine to form a network on which bicycle trips can be
made effectively and conveniently. In establishing bicycle networks, practitioners should provide
intuitive connections between existing and future routes, with direct routes that minimize the diversion
distance required . Bikeways that are part of a designated bicycle network can be signed with the Bicycle
15
Route Marker Sign (IB-23) or simi lar appropriate signage.
5.2.6 ALL-SEASON SURFACE QUALITY
An even and firm riding surface, clear of obstacles and debris, is an important element for a bikeway to
be safe and easily passable to cyclists. An uneven surface, or sudden changes in the level of the surface,
can damage the wheel rims of bicycles or cause cyclists to lose control.
Materials that can provide an appropriate surface quality for bikeway facilities include asphalt, concrete,
coloured pavement, and paving stones. Granular, timber, or cobblestone surfaces are less comfortable
for all cyclists and may preclude use by some types of road bicycles.
Design dimensions of bikeway facilities are based on the assumption that the surface quality and
maintenance make it appropriate for cycling. Where a design location is prone to ongoing surface
quality issues (e.g., cracks, potholes, debris), a wider facility should be considered to allow cyclists
greater latitude in avoiding surface deficiencies.
Maintenance of an appropriate surface quality for cycling should be considered in all four seasons, as a
growing number of cyclists ride year-round.
5.3 BIKEWAY FACILITY TYPES
Bikeway facilities are classified based on varying degrees of separation and/or exclusivity of use among
cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. General descriptions of bikeway facilities are provided in this
section, with additional design elements addressed in subsequent sections. Guidance on facility
selection is provided in Section 5.4. Unless otherwise specified, the bikeway facility descriptions,
selection, and design recommendations are intended to be appropriate for the design user group
described in Section 5.1.2 (i.e., broader range of cyclists).
Many of the bikeway facilities described in this chapter are most commonly found in urban areas, where
population density is higher than in rural areas, and more trips are made in the distance range most
suitable for larger volumes of bicycle transportation. However, although less common, these bikeway
facilities can also be implemented in rural contexts, possibly with some modifications according to
engineering judgement. Section 5.7.8 provides additional discussion of approaches to bikeway facilities
in rural areas.
Bikeway widths are referenced to whichever edge conditions are applicable:
• The centre of a pavement marking that defines the edge of the bikeway
• The edge of a protected bike lane delineator
• The edge of longitudinally continuous pavement surface
• The face of curb or lip of gutter as follows, depending on the width of the gutter:
10 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
o the face of curb (i.e., where the pavement or horizontal concrete gutter pan meets the
vertical flat surface of the curb), if the gutter is narrower than 375 mm or
o the lip of gutter plus 375 mm, if the gutter is wider than 375 mm (to keep the "seam" at
the lip of gutter from interfering with the line of bicycle wheel travel).
5.3.1 SEPARATED BIKEWAYS
This section describes three types of separated bikeways: bike lanes, bike paths, and multi-use paths.
• Bike lanes (unbuffered, buffered, and protected) are roadway facilities designed for the
exclusive use of cyclists. They are separate from both motorists and pedestrians, but primarily
require design based on bicycles operating in parallel with motor vehicles, especially at
intersections.
• Bike paths are roadside facilities designed for the exclusive use of cyclists. They are separate
from both motorists and pedestrians, but primarily require design based on bicycles operating in
parallel with pedestrians, especially at intersections.
• Multi-use paths are roadside facilities designed for shared use by cyclists and pedestrians,
separate from motorists.
In this section, bike lanes are described initially as with-flow configuration (i.e., with bicycle traffic in the
same flow direction as the adjacent motor vehicles). Any of the bike lane types may also be configured
as contraflow, which is a variation described at the end of Section 5.3.1.2.
5.3.1.1 Buffered and Unbuffered Bike Lanes
Buffered and unbuffered bike lanes are exclusive travel lanes for bicycles, typically positioned adjacent
to a curb or parking lane, and delineated from adjacent motor vehicle travel lanes by a linear pavement
marking.
Bike lanes are defined as a type of reserved lane in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Canada. 16 Section A2.9.9 provides guidance regarding reserved bicycle lane signs. The Bikeway Traffic
Control Guidelines 17 document specifies the widths, colours, and patterns of bike lane pavement
markings in Section 7 .2 as well as typical bike lane marking configurations in Section 8.1.1.
Generally, unbuffered and buffered bike lanes are for the exclusive use of cyclists and are delineated by
a solid white line. Where motor vehicle traffic may occupy a bike lane while turning, a dashed white line
is used. Bike lanes that do not extend all the way to the curb (i.e., that are positioned away from the
curb in the roadway, or are separated from the curb by on-street parking), should include an additional
solid white line on the right (curb) side of the bike lane. This line indicates that cars are not to encroach
upon the bike lane while parked or stopped next to the curb.
To maintain the functionality of bike lanes, it is necessary to prevent blockage, especially lengthy or
frequent blockages, by stationary motor vehicles. This is typically accomplished by regulation and/or
signage, combined with adequate enforcement, showing it is prohibited to park, stand, and/or stop in
bike lanes. The extent of regulation, signage, and enforcement needed to prevent unacceptable
blockage depends on local road-user characteristics.
June 2017 11
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Unbuffered Bike Lanes
An unbuffered bike lane, as illustrated in Figure 5.3.1, is a travel lane for cyclists defined primarily by
white pavement marking line(s) running parallel to the alignment of the roadway. Design domain
dimensions are shown in Table 5.3.1.
Roadside/ Bike General Bike Parking Roadside/
Sidewalk Lane Purpose Lane Sidewalk
Lanes
Figure 5.3.1: Unbuffered Bike Lanes
Table 5.3.1: Design Domain: Width of Unbuffered Bike Lane
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Parameter Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
I Width (m), unbuffered bike lane 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.1
The recommended width of an unbuffered bike lane is 1.8 m to 2.1 m. This accommodates a reasonable
width for single-file bicycle traffic, and also allows for basic passing movements. Where bicycle traffic
volume is high (e.g., greater than 1,500 bicycles/day), the upper end of the specified range is
recommended to make it easier for bicycles to pass and to better accommodate different speeds of
cyclists. If an unbuffered bike lane is adjacent to a parking lane, the recommended width is 2.1 m to
provide a 0.6 m of space for motor vehicle doors opening in addition to a 1.5 m cyclist operating width.
The practical lower limit of the width of an unbuffered bike lane is 1.5 m. If the bike lane is narrower
than this, it loses much of its practical capability to provide separation between bicycles and adjacent
motor vehicles.
12 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
The practical upper limit of the width of an unbuffered bike lane is 2.1 m; if the lane is wider than this, it
may encourage motor vehicle traffic to use it inappropriately as a parking lane. Accordingly, designing
for side by side riding is not recommended for unbuffered bike lanes. Where a total bike lane width
greater than 2.1 m is available, it is recommended that a buffered bike lane be used instead.
Unbuffered bike lanes between 1.5 m and 1.8 m in w idth should be used only under constrained
conditions and for short distances (e.g., less than 100 m), and when reasonable consideration has been
given to context and trade-offs, as described in Section 5.4.2.
The absolute lower limit of the width of an unbuffered bike lane is 1.2 m based on the bicycle horizontal
operating envelope. Widths less than 1.5 m should require a design exception justification.
Buffered Bike Lanes
A buffered bike lane, as illustrated in Figure 5.3.2, is defined primarily by white pavement markings
running parallel to the roadway, where at least one of the markings acts as a longitudinal buffer to
increase the separation between cyclists and adjacent motor vehicles (moving and/or parked).
Specifically, buffers may be placed between bike lanes and general purpose lanes and/or between bike
lanes and parking lanes. The buffer space is typically demarcated with a pavement marking such as
hatched striping, and can decrease ambiguity as to the intent of the lane (i.e ., it is less likely to
encourage inappropriate motor vehicle use as a travel lane).
See Section 5.3.1.2 for information on protected bike lanes which is a bikeway type with the same
minimum space requirements, but provides increased comfort and protection for cyclists.
Design domain dimensions are shown in Table 5.3.2.
Roa dside/ Buffere d General Buffered Parkin g Roa d side/
Sid ewa lk Bike Lane Pu rpose Bike Lane Sidewa lk
Lanes
Figure 5.3.2: Buffered Bike Lanes
June 2017 13
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Table 5.3.2: Design Domain: Width of Buffered Bike Lane
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Parameter Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
Width (m), buffered bike lane,
1.8 2.1 3.0 3.5
including buffer
Width (m), bike lane component 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.1
Width (m), buffer pavement marking 1 1
0.3 0.3 0.9 1.4
component
Note 1: A minimum buffer width of 0.6 mis required when bike lanes are adjacent to motor vehicle parking.
The recommended total width of a buffered bike lane including the buffer pavement marking is 2.1 m to
3.0 m, and the recommended width of the buffer pavement marking is 0.3 m to 0.9 m. This is based on
the width of the bicycle travel lane being between 1.8 m and 2.1 m, which is consistent with an
unbuffered bike lane.
The practical upper limit of the width of a buffered bike lane excluding the buffer pavement marking is
2.1 m. If the lane is wider than this, it may encourage motor vehicle traffic to use it inappropriately as a
parking or travel lane. Where a total width greater than 3.0 m is available, it is recommended that a
protected bike lane be considered.
The buffer pavement marking may be provided on one or both sides of the buffered bike lane. It
provides separation from parked and/or through vehicles. Wider buffer pavement markings can also be
used to limit the perception that a wider buffered bike lane is a parking or travel lane. However, an
excessive portion of space allocated to buffers can unnecessarily restrict cyclist lane positioning and
ability to pass other cyclists and are not necessarily beneficial.
The practical lower limit of the width of the buffer pavement marking is 0.3 m, based on two 100 mm
solid longitudinal lines centred 0.3 m apart and separated by a 200 mm space to create a hatching
pattern. If the buffer pavement marking is adjacent to a parking lane, the recommended width of the
buffer pavement marking is 0.6 m to provide space for the potential opening of motor vehicle doors.
If this type of facility is adjacent to a parking lane, and no marked buffer is provided on that side of the
bike lane component, the recommended bike lane width is 2.1 m to provide a 0.6 m to provide space for
the potential opening of motor vehicle doors, in addition to a 1.5 m cyclist operating width.
The practical lower limit of the total width of a buffered bike lane including the buffer pavement
marking is 1.8 m . A narrower width, with buffering, unnecessarily constrains the position of the cyclist
and reduces the area available for comfortable riding.
14 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.3.1.2 Protected Bike Lanes
A protected bike lane, as illustrated in Figure 5.3.3, is an exclusive on-roadway bikeway delineated by a
vertical barrier element or equivalent physical separation from motor vehicle travel lanes. The
commonly used term "cycle track" may refer to a protected bike lane, but may also refer to a similar
bicycle-only facility on the roadside as discussed in Section 5.3.1.3.
Protected bike lanes are typically positioned directly next to a curb or on the curb-side of a parking lane,
separated from general purpose travel lanes by a delineator appropriate to the speed and volume of the
adjacent traffic. The defining element of this facility type is the protected bike lane delineator, which is
designed to minimize or prevent encroachment on the bike lane by motor vehicles. Information on
delineators, w ith examples ranging from flexible bollards to concrete barriers, is described in Section
5.7.5. A parking lane may also function as a further buffer between cyclists and motor vehicle traffic,
where provided as a complementary element beyond the protected bike lane delineator.
Unidirectional and bidirectional protected bike lanes are described below. The design domain for
protected bike lane dimensions is provided in Table 5.3.3.
Roadside/ Protected General Parking Protected Roadside/
Sidewa lk Bike Lane Purpose Bike Lane Sid ewa lk
Lanes
(A) Unidirectional Protected Bike Lane
Roadside/ Protected Parking General Roadside/
Sidewa lk Bike La nes Purpose Sid ewa lk
Lanes
(B) Bidirectional Protected Bike Lane
Figure 5.3.3: Protected Bike Lanes
June 2017 15
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Table 5.3.3: Design Domain: Width of Protected Bike Lane
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Parameter Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
Width (m), protected bike lane,
1.8 2.1 3.5 5.0
unidirectional, including delineator
Width (m), bike lane component,
1.5 1.8 2.5 3.0
unidirectional
1 1
Width (m), delineator component 0.3 0.3 1.0 2.0
Width (m), protected bike lane,
2.7 3.3 4.6 6.0
bidirectional, including delineator
Width (m), bike lane component,
2.4 3.0 3.6 4.0
bidirectional
1 1
Width (m), delineator component 0.3 0.3 1.0 2.0
1
NOTE: A minimum delineator width of 0.6 mis required when bike lanes are adjacent to motor vehicle parking
The recommended width of a protected bike lane depends on its directionality.
• For unidirectional protected bike lanes, as in Figure 5.3.3 (A), the recommended width of the
bike lane component is 1.8 m to 2.5 m to allow for single file bicycle traffic. Where bicycle traffic
volume is high (e.g., greater than 1,500 bicycles/day), the upper end of the specified range (2.0
m to 2.5 m or greater) is recommended to make it easier for bicycles to pass and to better
accommodate different speeds of cyclists.
• For bidirectional protected bike lanes, as in Figure 5.3.3 (B), the recommended width of the bike
lane component is 3.0 m to 3.6 m to accommodate the full operating envelope for single file
bicycle traffic in each direction plus minimum horizontal clearances to allow passing
movements.
In addition to the design requirements based on user needs and directionality, the width of protected
bike lanes should also consider the width of maintenance equipment such as sweepers and snow plows.
The recommended lower limits for unidirectional protected bike lanes may not be adequate, depending
on the existing or potential future width of snow clearing and sweeping equipment suitable for
maintaining bikeways.
The recommended width of the protected bike lane del ineator ranges from 0.3 m to 1.0 m, which is
partly based on the typical dimensions of potential delineators. If a protected bike lane is adjacent to
and on the curbside of a parking lane, a minimum separation of 0.6 m is recommended to provide space
for the potential opening of motor vehicle doors on the passenger side. As part of protective delineator
selection and design, the designer should consider the horizontal clearances as per Section 5.5.5 and
incorporate additional width as required.
16 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
The practical lower limit of the width of a unidirectional protected bike lane including the delineator
portion is 1.8 m, based on a minimum delineator width of 0.3 m. This allows for the cyclist operating
envelope and horizontal clearance from curb-type delineators, but does not facilitate passing within the
lane. The practical lower limit dimensions should be used only under constrained conditions and for
short distances (e.g., less than 100 m), and when reasonable consideration has been given to context
and trade-offs as described in Section 5.4.2. Dimensions lower than the practical lower limit require
cyclists to excessively focus on maintaining lane positioning in the centre of the lane, so the facility
would have reduced benefit to the design user group of cyclists.
The practical lower limit of the width of a bidirectional protected bike lane including the delineator
portion is 2.4 m, based on a minimum delineator width of 0.3 m. This allows for the cyclist operating
envelope and horizontal clearance from curb-type delineators. Passing is possible by encroaching into
the opposing lane. The practical lower limit dimensions should be used only under constrained
conditions and for short distances (e.g., under 100 m), and when reasonable consideration has been
given to context and trade-offs as described in Section 5.4.2.
The practical upper limits of a protected bike lane are suggested to minimize the potential for the
protected bike lane to be confused with a travel lane for a roadway. Similarly, where delineator
components wider than 2.0 m can be provided, it is suggested that a bike path be considered.
Along wide roadways with long block lengths and intensive land use, bidirectional protected bike lanes
can provide cyclists more direct route choices by eliminating the need to cross the street in order to
travel in the opposite direction. Bidirectional protected bike lanes and contraflow bike lanes require
additional considerations at intersections and driveways because they create unusual or unexpected
conflict points as discussed in Section 5.6.2. On two-way roadways, the design challenges associated
with bidirectional protected bike lanes can be avoided by designing a unidirectional protected bike lane
on each side of the roadway. On one-way roadways, bidirectional bike lanes should be placed on the left
side of the roadway for two reasons. First, bicycles and motor vehicles move in the same direction
where they are adjacent, reducing their relative travel speed. Second, all users remain on the normally-
anticipated side of the road, so that motor vehicles making right hand turns do not face oncoming
bicycle traffic, which is contrary to drivers' expectations.
Raised Configuration for Protected Bike Lanes
A protected bike lane may be configured with a height difference between the bike lane and motor
vehicle lane, and/or the bike lane and the curb-level roadside. The dimension that the bike lane is raised
is typically between one-half and the full height of the curb. Delineator widths towards the higher end of
the range {1.0 m) in Table 5.3.3 are recommended in order to accommodate the grade difference
between the bike lane and the motor vehicle lane.
Variation: Contraflow Bike Lanes
Contraflow bike lanes allow cyclists to travel on one-way streets in the opposite direction of motor
vehicle traffic, improving network connectivity for cyclists.
Design domain dimensions for the contraflow configuration are the same as with-flow bike lane
configurations described in Section 5.3.1.1 and Section 5.3.1.2.
Contraflow bike lanes use a 200 mm solid yellow line to indicate bicycle traffic moving in the opposite
18
direction . At intersection approaches, the solid yellow line may be replaced by a physical delineator,
such as those discussed in Section 5.7.5, to reinforce the contra-flow configuration for cyclists in the
bike lane and drivers on the cross-street.
June 2017 17
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
A variety of signage is required to establish a contraflow bike lane. TAC Bikeway Traffic Control
19
Guidelines for Canada illustrates the use of the following sign age:
• At entry and exit points, Entry Prohibited Signs (RB-23) with supplementary tab for bicycle
exception (sign RB-9) in accordance with MUTCDC 20 Section A2.5
• On other roadways which lead into the contraflow bike lane, turn control signage in accordance
with MUTCDC Section A2.4.
Additional signage is recommended to warn motorists and pedestrians of unusual conflict points as
follows:
• On cross streets, for motor vehicle traffic, Contraflow Bicycle Lane Crossing Signs (WC-43) in
accordance with MUTCDC Section. A3.7.3.4
• On cross streets, for pedestrians, Contraflow Warning for Pedestrians Sign (WC-18) in
accordance with MUTCDC Section A6.9.l
For cyclists travelling in the direction of motor vehicle traffic on a one-way street with a contraflow bike
lane, a shared lane or bike lane can be provided, as described in Section 5.4.
5.3.1.3 Bike Paths
A bike path is a roadside facility for the exclusive use of cyclists, and may be unidirectional or
bidirectional. The commonly-used term "cycle track" may refer to a bike path, but may also refer to a
similar bicycle-only facility on the roadway as described in Section 5.3.1.2.
In an urban road configuration, a bike path is commonly located alongside a parallel foot path or
sidewalk, as illustrated in Figure 5.3.4. As such, the bike path and sidewalk as a pair are essentially the
same as a multi-use path segregated by user type as illustrated in Figure 5.3.5 (B).
Design domain dimensions for a bike path are shown in Table 5.3.4. Design guidance for an associated
sidewalks provided in Table 6.3.
Table 5.3.4: Design Domain: Width of Bike Path
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Parameter Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
Width (m), bike path, unidirectional 1.5 1.8 2.5 3.0
Width (m), bike path, bidirectional 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.0
18 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
The recommended width of a bike path depends on whether it is unidirectional or bidirectional, and is
consistent with the design domain for protected bike lanes.
Roadside/ Bike Path Genera l Parking Bike Path Roadside/
Sidewa lk Purpose Sidewa lk
Lanes
Figure 5.3.4: Bike Paths
Integrated Design Heuristics
A bike path directly adjacent to a sidewalk should be designed with clear cues that cyclists should
remain within the bike path and pedestrians should remain within the sidewalk, except at intersections.
A linear boundary between the two facilities should be provided with tactile characteristics for visually
impaired pedestrians. Alternatively, one of the two facilities can be raised to create a curb-like elevation
difference. The bike path also can be differentiated by surface texture or colour.
A bike path directly adjacent to a sidewalk should be signed with the Pathway Organization sign (RB-94),
as per Section A.2.9.6.6 of the MUTCDC. At decision points, the RB-94 sign, bike path and footpath
should all be close to each other, so they are simultaneously visible to path users. The Dismount and
Walk sign (RB-79) may be used for short footpath segments without a nearby bike path (e.g., stairway
approaches), but this design should generally be avoided.
5.3.1.4 Multi- Use Paths
A multi-use path is a roadside facility that allows for two-way, off-street shared use by cyclists and
pedestrians as illustrated in Figure 5.3 .5 (A).
If a multi-use path is configured to segregate pedestrians and cyclists on separate path sections, as
illustrated in Figure 5.3.5 (B), it is treated and designed as two facilities : a bike path as described in
Section 5.3.1.3 and an adjacent foot path or sidewalk as described in Section 6.3.1.2.
Such segregation should be considered for multi-use paths where there is:
• A high percentage of pedestrians (more than 20% of users) and total user volumes greater than
33 persons per hour per metre of path width or
• A low percentage of pedestrians (less than 20% of users) and total user volumes greater than 50
persons per hour per metre of path width.
Design domain dimensions for a multi-use path as illustrated in Figure 5.3.5 (A) are shown in Table
5.3.5.
June 2017 19
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5- Bicycle Integrated Design
Roadway Multi-Use Path
(A) Multi-Use Path
Roadway Bike Path Foot Path
(Sidewalk)
(B) Segregated Multi-Use Path
Figure 5.3.5: Multi-Use Paths
Table 5.3.5: Design Domain: Width of Multi-Use Paths
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Parameter Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
I Width (m), shared multi-use path 2.7 3.0 6.0 6.0
The recommended lower limit width of a shared multi-use path is 3.0 m, which provides comfortable
width for one cyclist in each direction. This dimension also accommodates the operating envelope of
one coasting in line skater in each direction, and accommodates a scenario based on the operating
envelope of a single cyclist (1.2 m) plus comfortable space {1.8 m) for two pedestrians walking abreast.
20 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
The practical lower limit width of a shared multi-use path is 2.7 m, based on the operating envelope of a
single cyclist (1.2 m) and the operating envelope (1.5 m) of two pedestrians walking abreast. The
absolute lower limit is 2.4 m, based on the operating envelope of two bicycles passing in opposite
directions. In addition to requirements based on user needs, multi-use path design should consider the
existing or potential width of maintenance equipment, such as sweepers and snow plows suitable for
maintaining bikeways.
Integrated Design Heuristics
Where pathways experience high bidirectional volumes or operational challenges such as sight distance
constraints, directional dividing line pavement markings can help to clarify the operating space allocated
to users travelling in opposite directions. A solid directional dividing line is often used to separate
opposing traffic. Some jurisdictions use a dashed line, for example to indicate where crossing the
directional dividing line to pass is appropriate.
Removable bollards or similar access control devices may be used at entry points to restrict access by
unauthorized motor vehicles while accommodating periodic access (e.g., maintenance vehicles). Sign age
and enforcement to maintain general access to the path for intended users is also needed, especially if
all-terrain vehicles or motorcycles use the area.
The Shared Pathway sign (RB-93) as per Section A.2.9.6.5 of the MUTCDC may be applicable.
Variation: Multi-Use Paths in Highway Right-of-Way
A highway right-of-way may be an important potential link for paths or trails across barriers such as
waterways or rail lines. Regulations vary across Canada with regard to the implementation of multi-use
paths within a highway right-of-way which are typically in a rural context and involve long distances and
relatively low traffic volumes.
Particularly for highway and rural contexts, multi-use paths optimally should be separated from the
edge of the travelled way by at least the clear zone distance of the roadway in order to place users
outside the anticipated range of errant vehicles. Typical clear zone distances range from 2 m to 14 m
based on design speed and design traffic volumes, and are provided in Table 7.3.1.
Where it is not feasible to place the multi-use path entirely outside the clear zone, trade-offs should be
considered. Trade-offs may be assessed through a cascading decision process such as the following,
adapted from the Trails in Alberta Highway Rights-of-Way report 21 .
1. The best location for a multi-use path in a roadway right-of-way is along the edge of the right-of-
way and outside the clear zone.
2. The next best position is any other location outside the clear zone.
3. If the multi-use path must be located within the clear zone of the highway, it should be
separated by a physical barrier and outside the zone of deflection of the barrier system.
Variation: Multi-Use Paths in Independent Corridors
Multi-use paths may also be located outside road right-of-way in independent corridors. Typical
locations include waterfronts, utility rights-of-way, rail corridors (e.g., rails-to-trails, rails-with-trails),
parks, and institutional open spaces. These locations can be particularly advantageous if they offer
features such as gentle grading, direct rights-of-way, long sight lines, and/or attractive scenery.
June 2017 21
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
The design domain guidance provided in this section is also applicable to multi-use paths in independent
corridors. Consideration of vertical grade, horizontal curve, cross slope and overhead clearance are
relevant for independent corridor multi-use paths and guidance is provided in Section S.S.
Variation: Multi-Use Trails
Whereas multi-use paths are generally paved with asphalt or concrete to provide a firm surface, multi-
use trails often have a surface of granular or other material (e.g., lumber) with different friction factors,
smoothness, etc. Multi-use trails apply similar design principles as multi-use paths, and may still be
considered pedestrian accessible if they meet the surface type, grade, and cross-slope requirements for
pedestrians as described in Section 6.S.l. Multi-use trails with a granular surface will generally be
passable to riders of mountain bikes, but may require users of road bikes to dismount. This Guide does
not treat multi-use trails as a bikeway facility in the context of Canadian roads. In particular, issues such
as designing curves on an unpaved surface at the bottom of a downslope, or stopping performance
generally on a granular downslope, require customized analysis and design for those specific
parameters.
S.3.2 UNSEPARATED BIKEWAYS
Unseparated bikeways are located on the roadway in space shared with motor vehicles. This section
describes specific bikeway facilities that involve sharing the travelled way or shoulder, along with
associated application heuristics. These include bicycle boulevards, shared roadways, shared lanes,
advisory bike lanes, and bicycle accessible shoulders.
Unless prohibited by signage or regulation, cyclists are generally permitted to operate on roadways in
Canada, including roadways with higher speeds and volumes than are described in this section.
In most jurisdictions, cyclists operating on roadways are legally required to keep as far to the right (curb)
side as practicable. However, most jurisdictions allow for cyclist lane selection and positioning based
upon safety and operational needs. This includes occupying a full travel lane when necessary, such as
when making a left turn or to navigate narrow road conditions or where there is limited visibility.
The application of motor vehicle speed and volume management techniques can be an important, and
in many cases a necessary design component, to create an operating environment that meets the needs
of the design user group of cyclists.
S.3.2.1 Bicycle Boulevards
A bicycle boulevard, as illustrated in Figure S.3.6 (A &B), is a shared roadway that provides a continuous
corridor of suitable operating conditions for cyclists, including limiting exposure to motor vehicle traffic
and designing for low motor vehicle speeds. Often located on local roads, bicycle boulevards incorporate
traffic calming measures to facilitate through-access by bicycles while inhibiting through access by
motor vehicles. At intersections, such traffic calming measures can include diagonal diverters, bicycle-
crossable medians, and neighbourhood traffic circles. Between intersections, such traffic calming
measures can include bicycle-crossable chicanes and speed humps. Design guidance for traffic calming
22
measures is available in various relevant publications.
To reduce cyclist travel time and facilitate maintenance of speed and momentum at minor street
intersections, stop signs should be oriented to control the cross-street rather than the bicycle boulevard.
At major street intersections, bicycle signals with bicycle detectors or bicycle-friendly actuation should
be provided. Section 5.6.4 further discusses bicycle boulevards at major intersections.
22 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Signage and pavement markings should be used to identify the bicycle boulevard and prepare motorists
to encounter traffic calming treatments. Shared use lane markings ("sharrows") may be used in
accordance with the TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada. 23
The design domain for the width of general purpose travel lanes and parking lanes on bicycle boulevards
can be based on the design domain for those dimensions in Section 5.3.2.2.
Roadside/ Parking General Parking Roadside/
Sidewalk Purpose Sidewalk
Lanes
Figure 5.3.6 (A): Bicycle Boulevard - Cross Section
June 2017 23
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
II
Figure 5.3.6 (B): Bicycle Boulevard - Plan View Example
24 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.3.2.2 Shared Roadways
A shared roadway bikeway is a facility on which, under low-speed conditions, cyclists and two-way
traffic share a narrow space on the travelled way. As illustrated in Figure 5.3.7. Shared roadways are
narrow overall, typically with parking permitted on both sides and with a single central travel lane that is
only wide enough for one direction of veh ides to proceed at a time. The resulting restriction of traffic
flow to one direction at a time, and generally narrow conditions, encourage motorists and cyclists to
drive slowly and yield to opposing vehicles by pulling into gaps in the parking lane. Design domain
dimensions are shown in Table 5.3.6.
As a bikeway facility, shared roadways may be beneficial for feeding into and connecting gaps in the
network of separated bikeway facilities, thereby providing a continuous bicycle route.
Roadside/ General Roadside/
Sidewalk Purpose Sidewalk
Lane
Figure 5.3.7: Shared Roadway
June 2017 25
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Table 5.3.6: Design Domain: Width of Shared Roadways
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Parameter Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
Width (m), shared roadway, with
parking both sides and two-way
8.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
traffic flow, typically one direction at
atime
Width (m), shared roadway, with
parking on one side and two-way
5.5 5.5 7.0 7.5
traffic flow, typically one direction at
atime
Shared roadways may be marked or unmarked. Shared roadways with a speed limit of 40 km/h or less
and ADT under 2,500 veh/day generally provide suitable operating conditions for cyclists. In this case
they may be left unmarked unless marking is needed to assist with wayfinding or bicycle network
connectivity.
Where a shared roadway is marked, shared use lane markings ("sharrows") may be used in accordance
w ith Section 7 .4.3 of the TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada. To indicate bidirectional
cycl ist traffic, sharrows running in opposite directions within the same lane should be spaced
longitudinally at 1.5 m to 2.0 m to indicate bidirectional cyclist traffic, and laterally at least 1.0 m centre-
to-centre to prevent overlap of the implied cyclist operating envelopes. Another possible marking would
be advisory bike lanes (Section 5.3.2.4) in the centre travel lane.
For one-way shared roadways, or two-way shared roadways with sufficient room for a separate lane in
each direction of travel, the shared roadway should be designed as a shared lane (see Section 5.3.2.3).
Service (Frontage) Roads
A service road, also known as a frontage road, is a type of roadway typically located next to a major
(e.g., arterial) roadway and separated from the main traffic flow by a median. Motor vehicles typically
use the service road for local access to on-street parking, driveways, minor streets, and neighbourhood
destinations.
Design parameters for a shared roadway - service road bikeway, as illustrated in Figure 5.3.8, are listed
in Table 5.3.6. The second row of the table is typically applicable to a shared roadway - service road
bikeway configuration. Shared roadway - service road bikeways may be either unidirectional or
bidirectional for bicycles. The determination of which should consider the type and directionality of
other bikeway facilities that the service road bikeway may be linking to at either end. For example, if the
service road bikeway connects to a bidirectional multi-use path, bidirectional bicycle operation (e.g.,
"sharrows" in both directions) would likely be appropriate.
26 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
General General
Median Parking Roa dsi de/
Purpose Purpose
Sidewalk
Lanes Lanes
(Main Road) (Service Road)
Figure 5.3.8: Shared Roadway - Service Road
5.3.2.3 Shared Lanes
A shared lane is a general purpose lane that has sufficient width to facilitate sharing of the lane by
motorists and a narrow range of cyclists. Many cyclists are not comfortable using shared lanes,
regardless of width, in the presence of motor vehicle traffic. Therefore, it is beneficial for shared lanes to
be supplemented by other parallel bikeway facilities that support travel by the design user group of
cyclists. Figure 5.3.9 illustrates two types of shared lanes.
Marked shared lanes are not recommended for the design user group, except on lower-speed lower-
volume roads, and if insufficient space is available to provide a bikeway facility that is more appropriate
for the design user group. Guidance on these selection criteria is provided in Section 5.4. The
placement of shared lane markings on lower-speed lower-volume roads is shown on Figure 5.3.9.
Roads ide/ Parkin g Shared Shared Parking Roadside/
Sidewa lk Lane- Lane- Sidewa lk
Single-fil e Side-by-side
Operation Operation
Figure 5.3.9: Shared Lane
June 2017 27
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Design domain dimensions are shown in Table 5.3.7.
Table 5.3.7: Design Domain: Width of Shared Lanes
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Parameter Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
Width (m), shared lane, side-by-
4.3 4.3 4.9 4.9
side operation (m)
Width (m), shared lane, single file
Lane width Lane width 4.0 4.3
operation (m)
As outlined in Table 5.3.7, the width of a shared lane determines whether it should be designed for side-
by-side or single file operation.
• Lanes that are 4.3 m to 4.9 m wide should be designed for side-by-side operation. This range
allows a motor vehicle to pass a cyclist without encroaching into adjacent lanes. Where a shared
lane is next to on-street parking, widths from the higher end of this range should be selected to
allow for adequate separation of cyclists from potential opening car doors.
• Lanes that are less than 4.3 m wide should be designed for single file operation. This range does
not allow a motor vehicle to pass a cyclist without encroaching into adjacent lanes. Therefore,
cyclists should be encouraged to take the full lane.
The practical upper limit of the width of a shared lane is 4.9 m. If the lane is wider than this, there is a
higher risk of motor vehicles attempting to operate side-by-side within the lane. Where a lane width of
more than 4.9 m is available, it is recommended that a bike lane or protected bike lane be used instead.
Side-by-side shared lanes are marked with a shared use lane marking ("sharrow") and WC-19 signage in
accord a nee with Section 8.1.2 of the TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada. Single file
shared lanes are marked with a shared use lane marking ("sharrow") and W-20 signage in accordance
with Section 8.1.3 of the TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada.
Unmarked Wide Curb Lane
Although inappropriate for the design user group of cyclists, where characteristics of a roadway
preclude provision of suitable bikeway facilities, an unmarked wide curb lane (4.0 m to 4.8 m wide) may
be used. It does offer some benefits to a narrow range of cyclists. Bicycle route signage, facility signage,
or shared lane pavement markings should not be used on these wide curb lanes. Although they allow
more space for motor vehicles to pass cyclists who are permitted to operate in the lane, unmarked wide
curb lanes may have unintended effects on traffic behaviour such as faster motor vehicle travel speeds
or disproportionate use of the curb lane by heavy vehicles, both of which negatively impact safety and
comfort for cyclists and pedestrians.
The practical upper limit of the width of an unmarked wide curb lane is 4.8 m. If the lane is wider than
this, there is a higher risk of motor vehicles attempting to operate side-by-side within the lane. Where a
28 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
lane width of more than 4.8 m is available, it is recommended that a bike lane or protected bike lane be
used instead.
5.3.2.4 Advisory Bike Lanes
Advisory bike lanes as illustrated in Figure 5.3.10 run on both sides of a single, bi-directional centre
travel lane for motor vehicles. Advisory bike lanes are distinct from other bike lanes because they are
delineated by a dashed line, which permits opposing motor vehicles to enter the advisory bike lane
temporarily when safe to do so to pass by a vehicle moving in the opposite direction. This arrangement
clarifies operating positions for cyclists and motorists to minimize conflicts and increase comfort.
Common in Europe, advisory bike lanes are currently undergoing testing in several American cities as
24
part of an FHWA official experiment on dashed bike lanes.
Roadside Advisory General Advisory Roadside
Bike Lane Purpose Bike Lane
Lanes
Figure 5.3.10: Advisory Bike Lane
Advisory bike lanes should be marked with a dashed line to indicate that motor vehicles may use the
area to maneuver around oncoming traffic. A shared lane marking ("sharrow") should be applied in the
centre of the advisory bike lane to indicate that the area is intended for bicycle access, but that the area
is not reserved for this purpose. Shared lane markings should not be included if the advisory bike lanes
are also intended to serve pedestrians, such as in rural contexts.
Advisory bike lanes are implemented in situations where bikeway facilities are desired, but right-of-way
constraints preclude the provision of two general purpose travel lanes. Advisory bike lanes are only
appropriate on narrow, straight sections of roadway where it is rare for two motor vehicles to meet
each other at the same time while one cyclist or more is in the same vicinity. Advisory bike lanes may be
appropriate on rural roads, two-lane urban roads without room for separated bike lanes, and in cases
where there are low motor vehicle volumes and speeds. See Section 5.4 for additional information on
suitable conditions for advisory bike lanes.
Recommended dimensions for advisory bike lanes and associated centre travel lanes are given in
Table 5.3.8. For cyclists, advisory bike lanes function similar to and have the same recommended
dimensions as unbuffered bike lanes (Section 5.3.1.1). The recommended width is 1.8 m to 2.1 m,
June 2017 29
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
provided on each side of the roadway. The remain ing roadway space becomes the two-way centre
travel lane shared by motor vehicles traveling in both directions. The practical upper limit for the width
of the centre travel lane is 5.7 m, to ensure that it does not appear too similar to a full -width two-way
roadway.
Table 5.3.8: Design Domain: Width of Advisory Bike Lanes
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Recommended Recommended
Practical Practical
Lower Limit Upper Limit
Parameter Lower Limit Upper Limit
Width (m), roadway with advisory
6.0 6.6 9.9 11.1
bike lanes
Width (m), advisory bike lane
1.5 1.8 2.1 2.9
component (one-way)
Width (m), two-way centre travel
lane component, for use with 3.0 3.0 5.7 5.7
advisory bike lanes on both sides
5.3.2.5 Bicycle Accessible Shoulders
A bicycle accessible shoulder, as illustrated in Figure 5.3.11, is a paved area located to the right of the
roadway travelled way, separated from the travel lane by a white edge line. Suitable applications of
bicycle accessible shoulders are discussed in Section 5.4.
Shoulders are generally intended to accommodate emergency vehicles and provide a refuge for
passenger vehicles during breakdowns. They are found primarily along highways and other roadways,
including in urban areas, where the curb is absent.
Although shoulders, as opposed to bike lanes, are not designed for cyclists, where permitted by law,
they may be considered "bicycle accessible" if they provide sufficient operating space, pavement
marking separation from adjacent traffic, and a smooth surface clear of snow and debris. Roadways with
posted speeds greater than 100 km/h are generally not considered bicycle accessible.
Bicycle accessible shoulders do not offer the exclusivity, protection or consistent quality of a separated
bikeway facility and should not be considered as such. Bicycle accessible shoulders, particularly in rural
contexts, may also be shared with pedestrians.
30 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Roadside Shoulder General Should er Road side
Purpose
Lan es
Figure 5.3.11: Bicycle Accessible Shoulder
Bicycle traffic on a shoulder is always one-way in the same direction as the adjacent outside travel lane.
An edge line should be marked between the shoulder and the traffic lane, unless traffic volumes and
speeds are low. In this case a shared roadway design without edge lines as described in Section 5.3.2.2
may be more appropriate.
Design domain dimensions for bicycle accessible shoulders are shown in Table 5.3.9. Dimensions for
bicycle accessible shoulders should at least match the shoulder dimensions in Section 4.4 of this guide. A
minimum width of 1.8 mis recommended in order to accommodate cyclists. A minimum of 1.5 mis
sufficient for shoulders on low speed roadways (e.g., 50 km/h) but will not be comfortable for cyclists at
speed limits higher than this, where more separation is required . A more desirable minimum width is
2.0 m which allows for a 1.5 m bicycle lane with a 0.5 m wide painted buffer. Use of shoulder rumble
strips within the buffer area is recommended on higher speed facilities. Pavement widening on curves is
not required, since bicycle off-tracking is negligible, but adequate clearance is required for sight distance
and side clearances. If motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds are high, or if the proportion of heavy
vehicles increases, a bike lane, protected bike lane, or bike path I multi-use path should be provided.
Table 5.3.9: Design Domain: Width of Bicycle Accessible Shoulder
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Parameter Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
I Width (m), bicycle accessible shoulder 1.5 1.8 3.0 3.0
June 2017 31
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Wider shoulders can lead motor vehicle drivers to treat the shoulder as a travel lane and/or
deceleration/acceleration lane. The recommended and practical upper limits are consistent with those
recommended in Section 4.4.
If a shoulder is frequently used for parking, whether legally or illegally, it will be obstructed for use by
cyclists. Alternative nearby parking, signage to prohibit parking, and/or periodic laybys should therefore
be considered during the design. Periodic laybys that are at least 2.5 m wide exclusive of shoulder width
will better accommodate parked, stalled, or emergency vehicles without disrupting bicycle traffic.
5.4 BIKEWAY FACILITY SELECTION
This section provides a selection framework for the bikeway facilities described in Section 5.3. The
25
selection framework is consistent with Canadian and international guidance •
The selection framework can be used in numerous ways to select and evaluate bikeway facility types in
the design process.
• If a particular new roadway or roadway to be retrofitted has been selected for a bikeway, the
framework can help identify candidate bikeway facilities on that roadway.
• If a particular bikeway facility (e.g., protected bike lane) has been selected, the framework can
help identify candidate roadways with suitable conditions for that facility type.
• If a particular bikeway facility has been selected for a roadway, the framework can help identify
what the target motor vehicle speed on that roadway should be. This can be used to allocate
traffic calming measures and enforcement resources.
• The framework can be used to evaluate if an existing bikeway facility remains suitable for
prevailing roadway conditions.
5.4.1 FACILITY SELECTION FRAMEWORK
Motor vehicle speed and volume on the roadway aligned with the bikeway are key considerations in
26
identifying a suitable bikeway facility. Higher motor vehicle speeds require increased separation for
cyclist safety and comfort, while higher motor vehicle volumes increase the number of potential
conflicts.
Figure 5.4.1 summarizes the range of speeds at which each bikeway facility is most likely to be suitable
for the design user group identified in Section 5.1.2. The roadway posted speed is used in this
framework as it is generally known, whereas the design speed or 85 1h percentile operating speed is not.
32 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
0 30 so 80
km/h km/h km/h km/h
Facility
Unbuffered or
Buffered Bike Lane
r--~-
Protected Bike Lane
Bike Path I Multi-
Use Path
r--~-
..
Bicycle Boulevard
___..
Shared Roadway ,__~
Shared Lane
1--~-
Advisory Bike Lane
Bicycle Accessible
Shoulder
1--~-
Facility is suitable •
Depends on context •
Figure 5.4.1: Bikeway Facilities, by Roadway Posted Speed
For Figure 5.4.1, where the posted speed on the roadway is in the black-shaded range, the
corresponding bikeway facility (or facilities) would typically be suitable when implemented based on the
recommended range of the design domain. Where the gray range of motor vehicle speeds is indicated,
the bikeway facility may be suitable, but other factors (e.g., motor vehicle volume) affect whether the
facility type is suitable. Where neither the black nor gray range of motor vehicle speeds is indicated, the
bikeway facility is not suitable for the design user group of cyclists. The application of Figure 5.4.1 may
generate the option of more than one potentially suitable bikeway facility.
Motor vehicle volumes used in this framework are average daily traffic (ADT) in both directions of the
roadway. Thresholds for motor vehicle volumes are suggested values. There is some flexibility in
June 2017 33
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
defining motor vehicle volume thresholds and suggested values can be adjusted by± 500 to 1,000
veh/day. For each motor vehicle speed range outlined below, motor vehicle volumes and other
considerations are included to provide additiona l context that will help select the most suitable bikeway
facility.
5.4.1.1 Motor Vehicle Speeds of 0 to 30 km/h
For motor vehicle speeds of 30 km/h or less, roadway conditions are typically acceptable for the shared
use of space by cyclists and motorists, as the relative speed between them is typically no more than
10 km/h to 20 km/h. For motor vehicle volumes less than 2,500 veh/day, unseparated bikeways such as
bicycle boulevards (Section 5.3.2.1), shared roadways/lanes (Section 5.3.2.2 and Section 5.3.2.3),
advisory bike lanes (Section 5.3.2.4), and bicycle accessible shoulders (Section 5.3.2.5) provide suitable
conditions for the design user group of cyclists. For motor vehicle volumes of 2,500 veh/day or more,
which is uncommon at these speeds, bike lanes (Section 5.3.1.1) or protected bike lanes (Section
5.3.1.2) are more suitable.
The following additional factor should also be considered:
• If there is more than a negligible volume of heavy vehicles including transit buses on the
roadway (e.g., .'.:'._10 heavy vehicles in the peak hour), shared roadways/lanes and advisory bike
lanes are less suitable.
5.4.1.2 Motor Vehicle Speeds of 30 to 50 km/h
For motor vehicle speeds greater than 30 km/h and up to 50 km/h, cyclists should be separated from
motor vehicle traffic by a painted line at a minimum. For motor vehicle volumes less than 4,000 veh/day,
bike lanes (Section 5.3.1.1) are suitable on urban roadways, while on rural roadways, bicycle accessible
shoulders (Section 5.3.2.S) or advisory bike lanes (Section 5.3.2.4) are suitable. For motor vehicle
volumes of 4,000 veh/day or more, protected bike lanes (Section 5.3.1.2) or bike paths I multi-use paths
(Section 5.3.1.3 and Section 5.3.1.4) are more suitable.
For motor vehicle volumes less than 1,000 veh/day, unseparated bikeways such as bicycle boulevards
(Section 5.3.2.1) and shared roadways/lanes (Section 5.3.2.2 and Section 5.3.2.3) may provide suitable
conditions for the design user group of cyclists, if motor vehicle speeds are 40 km/h or less.
The following additional factors should also be considered:
• If there is more than a negligible volume of heavy vehicles including transit buses on the
roadway (e.g., 10 or more heavy vehicles in the peak hour), protected bike lanes or bike paths I
multi-use paths should be used instead of bike lanes. In a rural context, bicycle accessible
shoulders may require greater widths within the design domain, or a bike path I multi-use path
may be more suitable.
• On one-way roadways, contraflow bike lanes will require some form of protected bike lane
delineator because of the higher relative speeds on contraflow facilities.
• If the number of potential/existing cyclists along the corridor is high (e.g., 100 cyclists or more in
the peak hour), a bike lane, protected bike lane or bike path I multi-use path will help
consolidate cyclist traffic to the bikeway facility. This in turn increases the level of driver
expectancy for cyclists in the bikeway.
34 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.4.1.3 Motor Vehicle Speeds of 50 to 80 km/h
For motor vehicle speeds greater than 50 km/h and up to 80 km/h, where feasible, cyclists should be
separated from motor traffic by a physical barrier or be outside the roadway cross-section. The most
suitable facilities are a protected bike lane with barrier delineators (Section 5.3.1.2), or a bike path I
multi-use path located outside the clear zone (Section 5.3.1.3 and Section 5.3.1.4).
5.4.1.4 Motor Vehicle Speeds over 80 km/h
For motor vehicle speeds greater than 80 km/h, the most suitable facility is a bike path I multi-use path
located outside the clear zone (Section 5.3.1.3 and Section 5.3.1.4).
5.4.2 CONTEXT CONSIDERATIONS AND TRADE-OFFS
Geometric and operational context considerations affect the selection and design of bikeway facilities.
Geometric context considerations may include right-of-way width, presence of parking, and roadway
sight distance, among others. Where right-of-way width is fixed (e.g., an existing right-of-way with no
widening under consideration), trade-offs involve the number and width of general purpose lanes,
parking lanes, and medians in the roadway. Operational context considerations may include the level of
existing/potential cyclist demand, motor vehicle level-of-service and capacity, nearby land uses, and
winter maintenance.
Complete streets principles help the designer make trade-offs. While the road network must integrate
all users, individual roadways may prioritize the subsets of users most suited to the context of that
roadway. For example, not all roadways will have bikeway facilities, and not all roadways will provide a
large throughput for motor vehicles. However, there are cases where the same roadway has high
demand from both cyclists and motor vehicles, typically leading to the need for trade-offs of design
priorities.
Where facilities such as bike lanes or protected bike lanes are to be located within the existing roadway
width, consideration can be given to reallocating space from other roadway elements. For example, the
following application heuristics could be considered for urban roadways with speeds of 50 km/h or less:
• Reducing median width or removing a median, if possible.
• Reducing parking lanes to 2.5 m if existing dimensions are wider, or removing on-street parking
completely.
• Reducing lane widths within the design domain described in Chapter 4.
If eliminating or narrowing roadway elements does not result in enough width to reallocate,
consideration may be given to reducing the number of lanes.
The design of roadways and evaluation of trade-offs, particularly in retrofit situations, requires the
designer's judgement and consideration of the needs of the design user group. In all cases, context
considerations and trade-offs will be affected by jurisdictional policy and modal priorities.
5.5 BICYCLE DESIGN: ALIGNMENT AND RELATED ELEMENTS
Increasingly, bikeway geometric design is oriented toward facilities that not only meet minimum
requirements, but that can attract and accommodate a growing number of facility users over time. To
this end, it is important to improve both actual and perceived safety. This means that "weak links" in the
bicycle network-locations of substandard geometrics and potential conflict-should be minimized and,
when present, mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
June 2017 35
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
The geometric design guidelines described in this section apply to any bikeway. However, the guidance
is particularly relevant to off-street facilities such as bike paths I multi-use paths. This is because on-
street bikeways are subject to the same geometric standards as general purpose travel lanes, which are
adequate for bicycles, with the exception of stopping sight distance. Stopping sight distance can be
greater for bicycles than motor vehicles, particularly in the case of steep downgrades, and should be
considered in the design of all bikeways.
5.5.1 DESIGN SPEED
Bike lanes and bike paths should be subject to a design speed that is at least as high as the preferred
speed of the faster cyclists who will use the facility. Multi-use paths shared with pedestrians must also
take into account the expectations of the other users of a facility. In general, a bicycle design speed of
20 km/h to 30 km/h may be used. However, under certain conditions a design speed of 40 km/h to 50
km/h is advisable. These conditions include:
• Where a downgrade exceeds 5%
• Where strong tailwinds prevail
• When designing a dual bike lane (passing area).
Facilities with higher design speeds must account for slower-moving users by providing elements that
facilitate safe passing, such as additional facility width, pullout refuges, and separation of travelers by
mode and/or direction of travel.
In certain circumstances, lower design speeds of 20 km/h are advisable. These situations include:
• On unpaved paths, where lower coefficients of friction influence horizontal curvature design
• On protected bike lanes, along sections with multiple conflict points such as driveways,
intersections, and other users
Selecting an appropriate design speed (abbreviated as "V") that accounts for these physical conditions
and expected user types is the first step in calculating the stopping sight distance and aspects of
horizontal and vertical alignment.
5.5.2 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
Minimum stopping sight distance for cyclists is the distance required to bring a bicycle to a controlled
full stop. It is a function of the cyclist's perception and brake reaction time, the initial speed of the
bicycle, the coefficient of friction between the tires and the bikeway surface, and the braking capability
of the bicycle. The stopping sight distance is given by the expression:
v2
SSD = 0.694V + G (5.5.1)
255(/ + 100)
Where SSD =stopping sight distance (m)
V = design speed or velocity (km/h)
f = coefficient of friction
G =grade (m/m; % upgrade is positive and downgrade is negative)
The first term in the expression is the distance travelled during a perception-reaction time of 2.5 s. The
second term is the distance travelled after brakes are engaged.
36 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Table 5.5.1 illustrates minimum stopping sight distance for a range of speeds from 10 km/h to 50 km/h
and grades up to 12% on a paved surface under wet conditions. For two-way facilities, the values for the
descending direction control the design. The recommended coefficient of friction (f) is 0.25 for paved
surfaces, which accounts for the poor wet weather braking characteristics of many bicycles.
Table 5.5.1: Minimum Stopping Sight Distance for Bicycles {Paved Surface, Wet Conditions)
Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (m) with Coefficient of Friction, f=0.25
Design Speed (km/h)
Grade
(%) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 so
12 8 13 18
10 8 13 18 24
8 8 13 19 25 32
6 8 13 19 25 32 40
4 8 13 19 26 33 41 49
2 8 14 20 26 34 42 51 61
0 9 14 20 27 35 44 53 63 74
-2 9 14 21 28 36 45 55 66 77
-4 9 15 21 29 38 47 58 69 81
-6 9 15 22 30 39 50 61 73 86
-8 9 16 23 32 42 53 65 78 92
-10 10 16 24 34 44 56 70 84 100
-12 10 17 26 36 48 61 76 92 110
For the purpose of measuring the available stopping sight distance, the height of eye is normally taken
to be 1.37 m and the height of object is 0 m, to include obstacles at pavement level, such as potholes.
5.5.3 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
This section addresses the following aspects of horizontal alignment: radius and superelevation of a
circular curve, and lateral clearance on horizontal curves.
June 2017 37
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.5.3.1 Radius and Superelevation
The minimum radius of a circular curve for a bikeway is a function of bicycle speed, superelevation, and
coefficient of friction. These variables are related by the expression:
vz
R=----
127 (e + fi) (5.5.2)
Where: R = radius (m)
V = design speed or velocity (km/h)
e = superelevation (m/m)
fL =coefficient of lateral friction
This relationship is used to determine the minimum design radius for given design speeds. For most
applications and conditions, the superelevation rate will range from a minimum of 0.02 m/m to
O.OS m/m. The coefficient of latera l friction used for design of paved bikeways varies from 0.30 at
2S km/h to 0.22 at SO km/h . For the design of unpaved surfaces, lateral friction factors are reduced to
SO% of those of paved surfaces. Table5.5.2 gives coefficient of lateral friction and minimum radius for a
range of design speeds based on superelevation rates of 0.02 m/m and O.OS m/m .
Where curve radii less than those in Table 5.5.2 are used, or superelevation is unavailable, warning signs
should be placed in advance of the curve in accordance with MUTCDC Section A3.2.l.
Table 5.5.2: Minimum Radii for Paved Bikeways
Design Speed Coefficient of Lateral Minimum Radius for Design (m)
(km/h) Friction e =0.02 m/m e =0.05 m/m
20 0.30 10 9
2S 0.30 lS 14
30 0.28 24 21
3S 0.27 33 30
40 0.2S 47 42
4S 0.23 64 S7
so 0.22 82 73
5.5.3.2 Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves
Lateral clearance to obstructions on the inside of horizontal curves is based on the need to provide
sufficient sight distance to riders who notice an obstacle on their intended path of travel and need to
stop. The line of sight to the object is taken to be the corner of the visual obstruction, and the stopping
distance is measured along the intended path, which is taken to be the inside edge of the inner lane.
38 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Figure 5.5.1 illustrates the method of measurement and gives a mathematical expression for the
calculation of lateral clearance. Table 5.5.3 gives the lateral clearance for a range of radii from 10 m to
80 m and stopping sight distances from 10 m to 100 m. The lateral clearance values shown occur at the
midpoint of the curve.
sight distance
measured along
inside edge
c =R[1 - cos(;0~)] (5.5.3)
S =stopping sight distance (m)
R =radius of inside lane (m)
C =distance from inside lane (m)
Note: formula applies only when
'S' ~ length of circular curve
Figure 5.5.1: Lateral Clearance for Stopping Sight Distance
June 2017 39
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Table S.S.3:Lateral Clearance for Bicycles on Horizontal Curves
Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves (m)
Radius Stopping Sight Distance (m)
(m) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10 1.2 4.6 9.3 - - - - - - -
15 0.8 3.2 6.9 11.5 - - - - - -
20 0.6 2.4 5.4 9.2 13.7 18.6 - - - -
25 0.5 2.0 4.4 7.6 11.5 15.9 20.8 - - -
30 0.4 1.7 3.7 6.4 9.8 13.8 18.2 22.9 27.9 -
35 0.4 1.4 3.2 5.6 8.6 12.1 16.1 20.5 25 .2 30.0
40 0.3 1.2 2.8 4.9 7.6 10.7 14.4 18.4 22.8 27.4
45 0.3 1.1 2.5 4.4 6.8 9.6 12.9 16.6 20.7 25.0
50 0.2 1.0 2.2 3.9 6.1 8.7 11.8 15.2 18.9 23.0
55 0.2 0.9 2.0 3.6 5.6 8.0 10.8 13.9 17.4 21.2
60 0.2 0.8 1.9 3.3 5.1 7.3 9 .9 12.8 16.1 19.7
65 0.2 0.8 1.7 3.1 4.7 6.8 9 .2 11.9 15.0 18.3
70 0.2 0.7 1.6 2.8 4.4 6.3 8.6 11.1 14.0 17.1
75 0.2 0.7 1.5 2.7 4.1 5.9 8.0 10.4 13.1 16.1
80 0.2 0.6 1.4 2.5 3.9 5.6 7 .5 9.8 12.3 15.1
Notes: No value is shown where deflection angle exceeds 180° (stopping sight distance> R)
5.5.4 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
This section addresses three aspects of vertical alignment: grade, crest curves, and sag curves.
5.5.4.1 Grades
There is no absolute maximum grade for bikeway facilities. However, long steep grades are a deterrent
to cycling.
Grades less than 4% are ideal for cyclists. On a grade of 4%, a typical uphill speed is 10 km/h, and
downhill coasting speeds can reach 25 km/h. On grades of 4% to 6%, downhill coasting speeds can reach
40 km/h. Grades between 6% to 8% are considered steep and may be used where necessary, but should
have paved surfaces. These steep grades will reduce uphill speeds to the minimum to maintain balance,
and downhill coasting speeds can reach 60 km/h. The practical upper limit for the grade of a paved
bikeway is 8%. Beyond this grade, many cyclists will need to dismount and walk.
40 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Where a new bikeway is proposed, it is often beneficial to make the route longer to maintain lower
grades. When steep grades {6% or more) cannot be avoided, higher cyclist design speeds (e.g., SO km/h
to 60 km/h) should be used, and warning signage should be posted in accordance with MUTCDC Section
A3.4.3.
On long, steep, uphill grades, it is desirable to have a relatively flat area of grade (e.g., 3% or less) every
100 m to allow cyclists to rest.
The recommended minimum longitudinal gradient for bikeways is 0.6%. Where surface drainage is
provided by adequate cross-slope and lateral slope of the ground away from the bikeway, the minimum
grade may be reduced to 0%.
27
Grades and length of slope for in-line skaters are found in the TAC In-line Skating Review •
5.5.4.2 Crest Curves
The minimum length for crest curves is based on providing at least minimum stopping sight distance
(SSD), as described in Section 5.5.2 . The eye height is taken to be 1.37 m and the object height is taken
to be 0 m, based on the ability to see a fault in the riding surface quickly enough to be able to stop.
Where design is predicated on a significant usage by children, a lower eye height may be appropriate.
Table 5.5.4 gives minimum crest curve lengths for design speeds up to SO km/h and algebraic
differences in grade (A) up to 2S%. If lengths are required for intermediate values, the table may be
interpolated or the formula may be used.
Calculated stopping sight distances in Table 5.5.4 are based on level grade. Where there is a significant
difference in approach and departure grades, adjustment to the length of curve to account for
significant grade may be appropriate.
June 2017 41
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Table 5.5.4: Crest Vertical Curves for Bicycles (Paved Surface, Wet Conditions)
Minimum Curve Length (m)
Algebraic Changes Design Speed (km/h)
of Grade - A (%)
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 60
I I I I I I I
2 - - - - - - - - 11
5 - - - - 15 32 51
I 71 100
10 - - 13 27
I 44 69 102 145 199
16 - 10
I 22 40 67 104 153 - -
20 3 14 20 54 - - - - -
25 8 18 37 - - - - - -
Notes:
Above the heavy line, stopping sight distances are greater than the curve length:
L= 2(SSD) - 274
A (5.5.4)
Where:
SSD =minimum stopping sight distance from Table 5.5.1
A= algebraic difference in grades(%)
Below the heavy line, stopping sight distances are less than the curve length:
L = A(SSD) 2
(5.5.5)
274
5.5.4.3 Sag Curves
Where bikeway facilities are used in the hours of darkness, they are normally illuminated for security
reasons. Accordingly, there is little need to apply sag curves sufficiently flat to provide sight distance by
headlight as for motorized vehicles in non-illuminated areas. The criterion for bicycles, therefore, is
comfort. The sag curve is made sufficiently flat so as not to generate an unpleasant "roller coaster"
effect. Comfort on a sag curve is expressed in terms of vertical radial acceleration, and is taken to be 0.3
m/s 2 . This gives corresponding vertical curve values.
K= V2
390 (5.5.6)
Where: V =design speed or velocity (km/h)
Sample K-values for designs speeds ranging from 25 km/h to 50 km/h are provided in Table 5.5.5. These
minimum K values are lower than those required for motor vehicles. Thus, they will not govern for
bikeways that follow a roadway alignment.
42 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Table 5.5.5: Vertical Sag Curves for Bicycles
Design speed (km/h) 25 30 35 40 45 50
Minimum sag curve (K) (m) 1.5 2.5 3 4 5 6
5.5.5 HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE
A horizontal clearance is generally maintained between a cyclist's operating envelope and lateral
obstructions to the left or right side. This minimum horizontal clearance applies to all bikeway facility
types and is measured laterally from the edge of the obstruction to the edge of the cyclist operating
envelope as illustrated in Figure 5.5.2. Potential lateral obstructions include protected bike lane
delineators, street trees, fences, and railings.
The minimum horizontal clearance is:
• 0.2 m to obstructions between 100 mm and 750 mm high
• 0.5 m to obstructions greater than 750 mm high
Objects less than 100 mm high are not considered obstacles as they are lower than a typical bicycle
pedal. Objects up to 750 mm high require less clearance since they are below the typical handlebar
height of 0.9 m to 1.1 m.
Horizontal clearance for cyclist passing maneuvers, either for oncoming cyclists or for overtaking, is
recommended as 0.2 m.
Horizontal Operating Envelope
• •
0.2 m min
curb or other obstacle
g realer than 100 mm high
Figure 5.5.2: Horizontal Clearance
June 2017 43
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.5.6 VERTICAL CLEARANCE
As shown in Table 5.5.6, the recommended minimum vertical clearance for a bikeway is 3.6 m,
measured from the highest point on the bikeway riding surface to the lowest point on the underside of
the structure/foliage above the bikeway. This accommodates most small service vehicles and provides a
comfortable buffer in addition to the 2.5 m vertical operating envelope for a cyclist. The practical lower
limit for vertical clearance is 2.7 m, based on a 0.2 m buffer and the 2.5 m vertical operating envelope of
a cyclist. Vertical clearances between 2.7 m and 3.0 are less comfortable for cyclists and should be used
only on shorter segments (e.g., under 100 m). The absolute lower limit for vertical clearance is 2.5 m,
and requires a design exception justification.
Table 5.5.6: Design Domain: Vertical Clearance
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Parameter Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
Vertical Clearance (m), all bikeways,
bikeway surface to overhead 2.7 3.6 n/a n/a
structure/foliage
5.5.7 CROSS-SLOPE
Bike paths I multi-use paths may be crowned or have a constant cross-slope. Where the operation is
two-way, a crowned section may be preferable for drainage and to maintain the cross fall to the right
for cyclists in both directions, since this is the normal condition on bikeway facilities.
Cross-slope for a concrete-surfaced path is recommended to be between 1.5% and 2.0%. For asphalt-
surfaced paths, a cross-slope of 2% to 4% is recommended. See Section 5.5.3 for guidelines on
superelevation.
5.6 BICYCLE DESIGN: INTERSECTION ELEMENTS
Intersections can be challenging and uncomfortable to navigate by bicycle, and therefore require careful
design. Several of the design elements described in this section are variations of those found in the TAC
Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines. 28 Similarly, the TAC MUTCDC 29 provides guidance on pavement
markings which may be applicable. When applicable and consistent with local legislation, regulation and
by-laws, the treatments described herein should take precedence.
To design bikeways through intersections with existing or warranted traffic signals, the integration of a
protected bicycle signal phase may be used to eliminate conflict between turning motorists and cyclists
traveling through. For detailed guidance, refer to the TAC Traffic Signal Guidelines for Bicycles. 30
Intersection crossing markings such as dashed lines, shared lane markings, coloured pavement markings,
or a crossride (i.e., the use of elephant's feet markings to extend a bike path through an intersection),
indicate the intended path of cyclists through an intersection, or across a driveway or another zone of
44 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
potential conflict. They guide cyclists on a direct path through the intersection and provide a clear
indication of the paths of through cyclists and through or crossing motor vehicles in the adjacent lane.
Provincial standards should be consulted before installing intersection crossing markings since additional
signage requirements or other restrictions may apply.
Where the path of motor vehicles potentially conflicts with through cyclists, it is recommended to use
coloured pavement within intersection crossing markings. The recommended colour is green, and it may
31
be applied using horizontal green bars or by colouring the pavement of the entire conflict area.
Specific guidance regarding conflict zone markings may be found in TAC Bikeway Traffic Control
32
Guidelines for Canada.
5.6.1 BIKE LANES AT ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS
Road design at intersections with bike lanes should incorporate awareness of the potential for conflict,
consider the visibility of cyclists to motorists, isolate and manage conflicts upstream of the intersection
area, and clearly assign yield priority.
Typical travel paths for cyclists and motor vehicles are illustrated in Figure 5.6.1. The main conflict
points at a typical intersection of two roads, on which one or both have a bike lane, are:
• Through bicycle traffic with right-turning motor vehicle traffic
• Through bicycle traffic with left-turning motor vehicle traffic
• Left-turning bicycle traffic with through motor vehicle traffic.
As per Section 5.4.1 unbuffered or buffered bike lanes are generally suitable only on lower-speed lower-
volume roadways, where conventional intersection designs such as pavement markings and two-stage
turn boxes may be adequate. Larger or more-complex intersections require a greater degree of physical
protection for cyclists or separate signal phasing of multimodal movements.
5.6.1.1 Continuous Bike Lane without Right Turn Lane
The continuous bike lane design without a right turn lane, as illustrated in Figure 5.6.2 (A&B), is a
straightforward design that allows cyclists to continue through the intersection within a bike lane.
When combined with a protected bicycle signal phase, as illustrated in Figure 5.6.2 (A), temporal
separation of bicycles and motor vehicles is provided rather than spatial separation eliminating conflicts
with right-turning motor vehicles. The signal phasing can also be designed to mitigate conflicts between
pedestrians and motor vehicles. This is particularly applicable if pedestrian volumes are high.
Without a protected bicycle signal phase, Figure 5.6.2 (B) illustrates pavement markings through the
intersection to indicate the area where conflicts will exist and need to be negotiated between bicycles
33
and motor vehicles. The TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines provide guidance on signs and
pavement markings for this configuration. The RB-37 (Turning Vehicles Yield to Bicycles) sign should be
used to clarify that because this is a continuous bike lane, motor vehicle drivers are required to yield to
cyclists.
This design has the disadvantage that sight lines between the cyclist and the motorist are difficult (i.e.,
can require nearly 180° over-the-shoulder view lines). Also, this design places the motor vehicle conflict
points with bicycles and pedestrians in close succession, requiring more intense motorist workload to
negotiate.
June 2017 45
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Bike La ne Bike La n e
I
I I
11111 1111111:1
~-
=
--- ·--
I '
- - 1.!PI ---
II
I Ill
D
Jo
--
=
--- I 11
-
--
II I
Bike La n e
Bike trave l • • • • • • • • • • • - • • • ._
M o t o r vehicl e travel
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to th e MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelin es for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.1: Bicycle Circulation and Turning Maneuvers
46 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
11111111 ° 11111111 °
I
I
-- -
-
:" -
I
I I
11111111 ° 111151'
. . ·o $
liil
iu ~¢
(A) With protected bicycle signal phase (B) With pavement markings
.
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.2: Continuous Bike Lane Without Right Turn Lane
5.6.1.2 Continuous Bike Lane with Right Turn Lane
If a right turn lane is provided at an intersection approach with a bike lane, it should be introduced to
the right of the bike lane. A bike lane placed between two traffic lanes, such as a right turn lane in this
case, should be at least 1.8 m wide.
Cyclists and motorists thus negotiate the potential conflict upstream of the intersection, and the design
should require motorists to yield to cyclists before weaving across the bike lane. The weave maneuver
area (i.e., where motorists cross the bike lane) should be delineated with dashed lines as illustrated in
Figure 5.6.3 to allow crossing of the white lane line. To further identify where the potential for conflict
exists, the dashed lines may be supplemented with a coloured surface treatment. The TAC Bikeway
34
Traffic Control Guidelines provide guidance on signs and pavement markings for this configuration.
The length of the weave maneuver area should be at least 15 m for a design speed of 50 km/h or less
and ADT up to 2,500 veh/day. On streets with more traffic (e.g., up to 4.000 veh/day), a length of up to
30 m should be considered to provide greater time and flexibility for motorists to complete the weave
maneuver.
June 2017 47
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5- Bicycle Integrated Design
11111111111°
- 1111111111 °
-
•
I I I
I II ~
:+ : rt
Added right
turn lane
~ rjl
Added riglit
turn lane
o.1U
-
(A) Without parking lane (B) With parking lane
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.3: Continuous Bike Lane With Right Turn Lane
5.6.1.3 Discontinuous Bike Lane (Shared Lane)
Some designs for bike lanes at intersections render the bike lane discontinuous, either by "dropping" the
bike lane completely or for a short section, or by implementing a "mixing zone." Both of these
treatments are essentially a shared-lane configuration, which as per Section 5.4.1 is suitable for the
design user group only with low traffic volumes and low speeds (i.e., up to 30 km/h if traffic volume less
than 2,500 veh/day, or up to 40 km/h if traffic volume less than 1,000 veh/day).
48 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Figure 5.6.4 illustrates a bike lane being dropped at an intersection approach, with bicycles and motor
35
vehicles traveling in a shared curb lane at the intersection. The TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines
provide guidance on signs and pavement markings for this configuration.
11111111
- CJ
A
&t
+t
~A
fl ,. I
I
&t
:$
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to
the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.4: Shared Curb Lane at Intersection
Other variations of discontinuous bike lanes are typically more-complex configurations and reflect
higher traffic volumes or speeds than are suitable for shared lane bikeway facilities for the design user
group.
5.6.1.4 Bike Ramp to Bike Path
If the intersection context (e.g., available space, traffic volumes, traffic speeds) makes it infeasible to
provide an intersection bike lane design that is suitable for the design user group, an alternative
treatment may be to terminate the bike lane prior to the intersection and transition via a bike ramp to a
bike path in the roadside area. See Section 5.7.3 for information on bike ramps.
June 2017 49
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5- Bicycle Integrated Design
As in the example illustrated in Figure 5.6.3, the bike path should be separate from any parallel
sidewalk, and should be unidirectional in the same direction as the bike lane. The cyclist then proceeds
through the intersection according to the design of a bike path or multi-use path at intersections as
described in Section 5.6.3.1.
If the roadside has a multi-use path, it can be transitioned to a separate bike path I sidewalk
configuration, or designed appropriately to "receive" the terminated bike lane and avoid wrong-way
bike movements from the roadside onto the bike lane.
1111111111111°
-
Footpath
(sidewa lk)
" '"]
Ramp t o Bike
P~th
Sidewa lk
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the
MUTCDC or TAC Bike way Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada
for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.S: Bike Ramp to Bike Path
so June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.6.1.5 Left Turn Considerations
Left turns from bike lanes can be accommodated using bike boxes (see Section 5.6.5). Depending on the
traffic volume and speed, it may be suitable to use a bike box which places cyclists in front of traffic
stopped at a signal; however a two-stage left-turn queue box is more likely to be suitable for the design
user group. The size of these boxes should be based on bicycle volumes and arrival volumes.
Some road designs may include opportunities for "early exit" from the bike lane (e.g., a section of
dashed bike lane line prior to the intersection) to allow cyclists to exit the bike lane and traverse general
purpose travel lanes to complete a left turn in mixed traffic. Cyclists do not have priority at these
locations and motorists are not expected to yield. Treatments such as dotted line extensions, green
coloured pavement, or Yield to Bicycles signs should not be used in this instance. This design is not
suitable for the design user group.
5.6.2 PROTECTED BIKE LANES AT ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS
Intersections and approaches with protected bike lanes must be carefully designed to promote safety
and facilitate turns from the protected bike lane. This section addresses unidirectional protected bike
lanes at intersections with roadways. Bidirectional protected bike lanes are not addressed, but FHWA
36
provides a current discussion of directional characteristics. FHWA also provides useful information
37
specifically on protected bike lanes at intersections.
5.6.2.1 Protected Bicycle Signal Phase
A protected bike lane with bicycle signal phase, as illustrated in Figure 5.6.6 is a straightforward design
that allows cyclists to reach the intersection within a dedicated bike lane. The bicycle signal then
provides temporal separation of bicycles and motor vehicles rather than spatial separation. This
eliminates conflicts with right-turning motor vehicles, and the signal phasing can also be designed to
mitigate conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Left turns are carried out in a two stage left
--- ---
turn to eliminate conflicts with through motor vehicles.
11 '®
-- -- -- --
<>~
11 D
~
-- -
T
---- ~
~
1•001 -
r
----
\./QV
\./QV "'
~ 111111111 ~
I I
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.6: Protected Bicycle Signal Phase (No Lateral Shift)
June 2017 51
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Where there is a parking lane forming part of the delineator of the protected bike lane as it approaches
the intersection, the lane may "bend in" toward the road centre line to be immediately adjacent to the
general purpose travel lane as illustrated in Figure 5.6.7. This improves visibility conditions between the
cyclist and motorist. It may also accommodate a curb extension which can benefit pedestrians by
decreasing crossing distance and providing amenity space .
11 Is) --- --
<:> ~
<:> ~ -
- ~
l• ool
CJ
0
111111111 °
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6. 7: Protected Bicycle Signal Phase {Bend In)
A protected bike lane on a roadway can also bend out, away from the road centre line, transitioning to
an off-roadway facility which can be treated as a bike path at the intersection. Section 5.6.3.1 and
38
FHWA provide guidance on this treatment.
5.6.2.2 Discontinuous Lane/ Mixing Zone (Shared Lane)
Some designs for protected bike lanes at intersections render them discontinuous, either by "dropping"
the protected bike lane completely or for a short section, or by implementing a "mixing zone." Both of
these treatments are essentially a shared-lane configuration, which as per Section 5.4.1 is suitable for
the design user group only with low traffic volumes and low speeds (i.e., up to 30 km/h if traffic volume
less than 2,500 veh/day, or up to 40 km/h if traffic volume less than 1,000 veh/day). Figure 5.6.8
illustrates a mixing zone design where markings and signs instruct motorists to yield to cyclists within
the mixing zone, and require users to negotiate conflicts upstream from the intersection.
52 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
e ...... --
.. 11
...... .........
~>
~
~>
--
<>-~
\ QI
5-10 m 10-20 m
D II
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control
Guidelines for Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.8: Mixing Zone
5.6.2.3 Protected Intersections
Protected intersections provide a high level of comfort and safety for cyclists, especially at large
intersections with multiple lanes and complex signal phasing. As illustrated in Figure 5.25, they provide
dedicated space for cyclists extending into the intersections and as such can accommodate through, left-
turn, and right-turn bicycle movements in a safe and low-stress manner.
The conflict area between right turning vehicles and through cyclists at the intersection approach is
eliminated, while the conflict area at the intersection is mitigated by introducing a corner safety island.
The corner safety island orients a turning motor vehicle so that eye contact can be established between
driver and cyclist.
A protected intersection accommodates cyclist left turns in two stages. However, relative to a two-stage
turn box, a protected intersection provides greater physical protection for cyclists waiting for the second
movement, even at large intersections. A protected intersection also functions more intuitively because
it replicates pedestrian movements around the perimeter of the intersection. It is particularly beneficial
where two protected bike lanes intersect or where a protected bike lane is separated by a wide buffer
or parking lane.
With in the protected intersection, the recommended setback for the bike lane from the parallel travel
lanes is 6 m: this provides adequate space for a single motor vehicle to queue outside the path of both
through vehicles and cyclists. The presence of corner safety islands and crossrides means that the cyclist
is visible to the motorist. The corner safety island at the far side of the intersection functions as a two-
stage turn box regardless of the specific setback dimension .
June 2017 53
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
The corner radius of the corner safety island should be as small as feasible to accommodate the design
vehicle yet encourage slow motor vehicle speeds and appropriate yielding behaviour.
Protected intersections can also be paired with separate bicycle signal phases and bicycle actuation.
-·I
-·I
- I I CornerSafetylsland
Two-stage tum area
for left turning
bicyclists
·-
·-·-
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada
for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.9: Protected Intersection
5.6.2.4 Left Turn Considerations
The protected intersection design inherently accommodates bicycle left turns. Otherwise, a two-stage
left-turn queue box should be provided where cyclists can wait when turning out of the protected bike
lane as described in Section 5.6.5.
Since protected bike lanes are physically separated from the motor vehicle lanes, an early exit from the
bikeway is neither feasible nor consistent with the needs of the design user group.
5.6.3 BIKE PATHS AND MULTI-USE PATHS
This section refers to the treatment of bike paths and multi-use paths at intersections between two
roadways and at mid-block crossings.
Generally, the design treatments for these two types of bikeways are similar at intersections, since bike
paths are frequently paired with a sidewalk.
5.6.3.1 At Roadway Intersections
At roadway intersections additional accommodation is required to inform drivers that the crossing is not
only for pedestrians, but for multiple types of path users. These treatments may include, but are not
limited to:
54 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
• Including a crossride along with the crosswalk at the path crossing to accommodate a larger
variety of users.
• Incorporating design treatments such as a material change to the road surface and/or an
innovative pavement marking treatment.
• Using vertical deflection, such as a table-top path crossing (geometrically similar to a raised
crosswalk) to increase driver awareness of the crossing.
• Adding a protected signal-phase to the intersection crossing, either an advance bike/pedestrian
phase, or a restricted right/left turn phase that would eliminate many potential conflicts.
Details of crosswalk and crossride markings within the intersection are described in the TAC Bikeway
Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada 39 and the MUTCDC. 40
Bend-out and Bend-in Configurations
Designing a bend in a bike path or multi-use path alignment that parallels a roadway as it approaches an
intersection improves visibility of path users, moderates path user speeds, and alerts path users to the
presence of an intersection.
Bend-in and bend-out configurations are illustrated in Figure 5.6.10 for a multi-use path. For a bike path
I sidewalk combination it is similar, except that the bicycle and pedestrian areas are beside each other.
At the intersection crossing, there is a crosswalk for the pedestrian path; beside the pedestrian path, on
the side closer to the intersection, there is a crossride for the bike path.
Bending the path out is generally preferred, although both the bend-in and bend-out options have
advantages, as described below.
The bend-out option provides a setback from the parallel street which:
• Provides additional reaction time to drivers turning across the path.
• Allows drivers to orient their vehicles perpendicular to the path before crossing it, facilitating
two-way sight lines between drivers and path users.
• Enables a turning motor vehicle to avoid blocking through traffic while waiting for path users to
clear.
• Provides space for pedestrian queuing between the path and the curb ramp.
The bend-in option brings multi-use path users close to the street edge, which:
• Improve sightlines for driving to see people using the path.
• Allows for intuitive sharing of existing traffic signals at signalized intersections.
• Tends to require less space.
The bend-out option provides generous queuing space in comparison with the bend-in option which
provides little to no queuing space for pedestrians crossing perpendicular to the path. For intersections
with high volumes of crossing pedestrians, the bend-out option is preferable due to the increased
queuing space.
Left Turn Considerations
The left-turn movement at an intersection with a bike path or multi-use path is normally a two-stage
movement where the cyclist crosses as a pedestrian does.
June 2017 SS
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
--- --
-~~~~~~~~~~~~--1
- -
n······n (A) Bend-In Crossing
-- --
II isl -I -
1.8-
2.4 rn
(A) Bend-Out Crossing
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.10: Intersection Multi-Use Paths Crossing
5.6.3.2 At Mid-Block Crossings
At the approach to mid-block crossings, the multi-use path should be designed with speed-reducing
elements such as alignment curvature or uphill grade change in advance of the crossing. Other measures
of a non-geometric nature that may be applied include signage, textural surface contrast, and pavement
markings such as zebra crossings for pedestrians and crossrides for cyclists to warn both cyclists and
drivers of the presence of the crossing and to advise which road user has the legal right-of-way. Typical
treatment of such a crossing is shown in Figure 5.6.11.
Adequate sight distance along the roadway is required so that a motorist may react to the presence of a
cyclist within the crossride and cyclists may decide if it is safe to cross.
56 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Center Median Island
(Optionali
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control
Guidelines for Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.11: Mid-Block Multi-Use Path Crossing
Figure 5.6.12 illustrates how the sight distance is determined. Table 5.6.1 provides sight distance values
for a range of roadway widths and design speeds. For other widths and speeds, the formula provided on
the figure can be used.
June 2017 57
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
- -
-- -
W = Roadway width (m) V =Speed limit (km/h)
- - -
ii . -_ _ _ D_=_Sight distance (f!1) •I
V(W+4)
Path D=
4.32
Figure 5.6.12: Minimum Sight Distance for Multi-Use Path Crossing
Table 5.6.1: Minimum Sight Distance for Multi-Use Path Crossing
Minimum Sight Distance (D) to Approaching Vehicle (m)
Width of Roadway Design Speed (km/h)
Roadway - W (m)
so 60 70 80
7.0 130 150 180 200
10.5 170 200 230 270
14.0 210 250 290 330
17.5 250 300 350 400
21.0 290 350 410 460
Notes: Values for other roadway widths and/or design speeds may be derived from the formula
in Figure 5.6.1
58 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.6.4 BICYCLE BOULEVARDS AT ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS
One of the defining features of bicycle boulevards is they incorporate measures to facilitate through-
access by bicycles while inhibiting through access by motor vehicles. The quality of low-stress design
treatment where a bicycle boulevard, typically on local or minor collector roads, intersects with a more-
major roadway can significantly affect the functionality of the bicycle boulevard.
To restrict motor vehicle through movements on a bike boulevard at a major cross street, a median
diverter may be placed in the centre of the major street to enforce right-in, right-out maneuvers as
illustrated in Figure 5.6.13 . Median diverters can serve as refuge for cyclists and pedestrians crossing the
major street. Median diverters are compatible with bicycle-supportive signal actuation features, but
may also be implemented at unsignalized intersections. The median diverter may extend beyond the
crosswalk as long as a pedestrian cut-through is provided.
- -
Pedestrian
.
Bicycle
/Tcut-through/ refuge
crossing / re uge -
ITIIIIIIIIIl
L
--
ITIIIIIIIIIl
- ITIIIIIIIIIl
- 11111111111 -
~ -"'a,,ajor _
- Cross-Street
Cl
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control
Guidelines for Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.13: Median Diverter
5.6.5 BIKE BOXES
A bike box, as illustrated in Figure 5.6.14, is a designated area at the head of a through/turn option lane
at a signalized intersection that provides cyclists with a defined and visible space to use while waiting for
a green signal indication. Bike boxes can assist cyclists in making a left turn if they arrive at the
intersection during a red phase, as motor vehicles must queue behind the stop line upstream of the bike
box.
Bike boxes are most suitable in locations that have a large volume of cyclists, typically in built-up areas
where traffic usually moves more slowly. Bike boxes should be placed only at signalized intersections
and right turns on red must be prohibited for motor vehicles. Bicycle signal detection, typically loop or
June 2017 59
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
video detectors, must be installed within the bike box to detect the presence of cyclists and trigger the
traffic signal.
Once the signal turns green, bike boxes no longer function as a separated bikeway element. Thus, as per
Section 5.4.1, they are suitable for the design user group only with low traffic volumes and speeds (i.e.,
up to 30 km/h if traffic volume less than 2,500 veh/day, or up to 40 km/h if traffic volume less than
1,000 veh/day).
---
11111111
- =
~
4I
l 4+,O''tf
1
fl .1
r
'
~
¢
All pavement markings shown are indicative only.
Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control
Guidelines for Canada for approved guidance on
pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.14: Bike Box
5.6.6 TWO-STAGE LEFT-TURN QUEUE BOX
For a cyclist to make a normal left turn on multilane roadways, a maneuver is required across one or
more lanes of through traffic. In situations where traffic speeds may reach or exceed 50 km/h, or where
there are few gaps in traffic, such a maneuver can be difficult to execute. In such situations two-stage
turn boxes should be provided to offer the design user group a safe way to make left turns by crossing
the intersection in two stages.
A two-stage turn box is a marked space for cyclists to wait outside of the traveled portion of the
roadway. The preferred dimensions of a two-stage turn box are 2.0 m by 2.0 m, although widths as low
as 1.0 m may be considered where physical constraints exist. Common configurations place the two-
stage turn box in line with the adjacent on-street parking lane or between the bike lane and the
pedestrian crossing as illustrated in Figure 5.6.15 and Figure 5.6.16.
While two-stage turns may increase cyclist comfort in many locations, this configuration will typically
result in higher average signal delay for cyclists due to the need to receive two separate green signal
indications before proceeding (one for the through street, followed by one for the cross street). Right-
60 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
turn-on-red is also necessary for the cross-street vehicles that may have a bicycle waiting during their
red signal period. Where signal phasing requires vehicle actuation, bicycle signal detection, typically loop
or video detectors, must be installed for the two-stage turn box to detect the presence of cyclists and
trigger the traffic signal.
...·a.~
~ - '·
tet I
¢ L
111111111 ° D
-- 111fi
I
(A) Two-stage left-turn queue box (B) Two-stage left-turn queue box (C) Jughand le-style two-stage
pla cement with curbside parking placement behind curb lin e left-turn queue box behind curb
lane line at T-junction
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines
for Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.15: Two-Stage Left-Turn Queue Boxes
June 2017 61
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
----
--- - r ~
1~®~
--
- 'l&i,,.
1.....
-
- -----------1
- -----------1
ollllll 0
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.16: Protected Bike Lane and Two-Stage Left-Turn Queue Box
5.6.7 BIKEWAY FACILITIES AT ON/OFF RAMPS
For the purposes of bicycle and pedestrian access, standard intersections are always preferred over
designs that require crossings of on and off free-flowing highway ramps. On and off ramps on a free-
flowing highway present significant barriers to bicycle traffic and disrupt the connectivity of bicycle
networks. There are multiple conflict points between cyclists and motor vehicles at these locations due
to merge and diverge maneuvers. Large speed differentials between cyclists and motor vehicles also
make these conflict points potentially serious. Where required in a retro-fit situation there are various
ways to address these conflicts based on the context and characteristics of the site.
Generally, for lower speed roadway applications (50 km/h or less), ramp crossing designs with bike lanes
should be based on the cyclist having right-of-way by requiring motorists to yield. On higher speed
roadways (greater than 50 km/h), designs based on protected bike lanes or paths should give right-of-
way to motorists and require cyclists to cross with gaps in the traffic stream.
5.6.7.1 Lower-Speed Roadway (SO km/h or less) On/Off Ramps
For lower-speed merge/diverge ramp facilities, the bikeway should travel straight through the
41
merge/diverge area as illustrated in Figure 5.6.17. The TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines provides
guidance on signs and pavement markings for this configuration.
62 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
(A) On-Ramp
(B) Off- Ramp
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.17: Bikeway Crossing Low-Speed On/Off Ramps
5.6.7.2 Higher-Speed Roadway (>SO km/h) On/Off Ramps
Designating a bikeway facility across a high speed on/off ramp helps to communicate right-of-way to
both cyclists and motorists and to improve the predictability of bicycle and motor vehicle maneuvers.
Since maneuvering space is a critical factor in reducing the risk of collisions, a continuous 1.8 m wide
bikeway for each direction of bicycle travel should be constructed within the ramp. Grade separation of
the bikeway facility, as described in Section 5.6.10, should be considered at high-speed locations with
complex merge/diverge maneuvers.
For both on ramps and off ramps, Figure 5.6.18 (A&B), the bikeway facility should meet the highway
ramp at an angle approaching perpendicular (65° to 75°) to allow for greater visibility between cyclists
and motorists. In both instances, prevailing motor vehicle speeds and the presence of acceleration or
deceleration lanes should be considered in the design and placement of the bicycle crossing. Adequate
sight distance must be provided in both instances to allow motorists and cyclists to see one another and
to brake as appropriate.
June 2017 63
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
As shown in Figure 5.6.18 markings should be installed at the edge of the bikeway to indicate to the
cyclist the need to yield to motor vehicle traffic, and warning signage indicating the presence of a bicycle
crossing consistent with the MUTCDC should be directed at both cyclists and motorists. The TAC
Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines provide guidance on signs and pavement markings for this
42
configuration.
5.6.7.3 At On-Ramps (Entrance Ramps)
A bikeway facility paralleling a highway will typically encounter traffic entering on ramps along its right
side. At these locations, motorists are generally accelerating from a low speed to a higher speed as they
prepare to enter the highway, although this may not be the case at interchanges where two highways
meet. Rather than travel straight through the merge area (as for lower-speed roadway on ramps), the
bikeway should bend to meet the on ramp at an angle of 65° to 75°, as illustrated on Figure 5.6.18 (A).
The corner radius of this bend design-a modified jughandle-should have a minimum length of 6.0 m.
In some cases, on ramps are long enough that adequate time and space is available for acceleration
downstream of the bikeway crossing. In these instances, the bikeway crossing may be facilitated with
yield or stop controls to provide a dedicated crossing phase for cyclists.
5.6.7.4 At Off-Ramps (Exit Ramps)
A bikeway facility paralleling a highway will typically encounter traffic exiting to off ramps along its left
side. At these locations, motorists are generally decelerating from a high speed to a lower speed as they
prepare to exit the highway, although this may not be the case at interchanges where two highways
meet. Similar to the design for on ramp crossings, the bikeway should bend to meet the on ramp at an
angle of 65° to 75°, creating a jughandle as illustrated on Figure 5.6.18 (B). The jughandle should include
a taper length of 11 m to 14 m, a turn length of 11 m to 14 m, and a depth measured from the yield line
to the jughandle corner apex of 4 m to 6 m.
In some cases, off ramps are long enough that adequate time and space is available for deceleration
upstream of the bikeway crossing. In these instances, the bikeway crossing may be facilitated with a
yield or stop controls to provide a dedicated crossing phase for cyclists, as long as traffic queuing in front
of the crossing does not reach as far back as the highway itself.
64 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
radius: 6.0 m min.
(A) On-Ramp
-
-
(B) Off-Ramp
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.6.18: Bikeway Crossing High-Speed On/Off Ramps
5.6.8 BIKEWAY FACILITIES AT ROUNDABOUTS
A roundabout should be designed with the understanding that cyclists will be among the users. General
guidance on accommodating cyclists at roundabouts can be found in the TAC Canadian Roundabout
Design Guide 43 and TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines. 44 The CROW Design Manual for Bicycle
Traffic also has guidance for the design of bikeways at roundabouts. 45
A single-lane roundabout can be treated as a shared roadway, suitable for the design user group, only
with low traffic volumes and speeds (i.e., up to 30 km/h if traffic volume less than 2,500 veh/day, or up
to 40 km/h if traffic volume less than 1,000 veh/day). In this context, cyclists must follow the same rules
as motor vehicles with respect to yield priority. Side-by-side shared lane operation should be
June 2017 65
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
discouraged within the roundabout. Rather than including bike lanes within the roundabout, cyclists
should be directed to position themselves in the middle of the lane and operate in single-file with motor
vehicles. A bicycle bypass may also be provided for single-lane roundabouts.
Multilane roundabouts, or where traffic volumes and speeds are unsuitable for the design user group,
require additional considerations for cyclists. Complexities are introduced in multilane roundabouts
because it is difficult to control the speed of motor vehicles, and because cyclists are required to make
lane changes and merge with traffic based on their direction of travel. This heightens the potential for
conflicts with motor vehicles. In these cases, ramps should be provided upstream of the roundabout to
offer cyclists the opportunity to leave the roadway and join a bike path, multi-use path, or protected
bike lane that bypasses the roundabout and meets each leg of the intersection as described in Section
5.6.3.1 and Section 6.6.2.
5.6.9 BIKEWAY FACILITIES AT RAILWAY AND STREETCAR CROSSINGS
Railway and streetcar tracks can be especially hazardous to cyclists. The tracks may not always be flush
with the roadway surface and there can be gaps, on either side of the rail, where a bicycle wheel can be
trapped. Metal rails can also be very slippery when wet.
Often the tracks do not cross the roadway at right angles to the direction of travel. Cyclists must slow
and turn in order to cross the tracks at right angles. This can put them in conflict with other roadway
users. Where the tracks do not cross at right angles, widening the roadway at the approach to the tracks
may allow for a better crossing angle. This allows the cyclists to maneuver the bicycle into a position
perpendicular to the tracks, without interfering with other vehicular traffic. Pavement markings can be
provided to guide cyclists into the correct path for crossing the tracks. A typical crossing layout is
46
illustrated in Figure 5.6.19. For more detail including dimensions refer to MUTCDC.
In-roadway streetcar tracks running parallel to a bike lane may make exiting the bikeway to enter a turn
lane a hazardous maneuver because of the shallow crossing angle. In these cases a two-stage turn box
should be provided to orient cyclists at a right angle to the tracks. Refer to Transport Canada's Grade
47
Crossings Regulations and Grade Crossings Standards for details and requirements pertaining to grade
crossing designs incorporating bicycle facilities. The Grade Crossings Standards address, among other
things:
• Minimum sightline requirements, warning system warrants and required traffic control devices
(signs, signals and pavement markings, barriers) for at-grade railway crossings
• Maximum allowable elevation of the top of the rail with respect to the crossing surface for
public sidewalks, path or trail (designated by a road authority) or for use by persons using
assisted devices
• Maximum and minimum width and depth of flangeway gaps
• Required width of the crossing surface
• Approach alignment and spacing requirements.
66 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
stop
see detail 'A: ~block
/line
Il~den
·---··
roadway
typical
:.0 to permit
right angle
crossings detail 'A' - bikeway -
c rossing
pad area
Figure 5.6.19: Bikeway Crossing Railway I Streetcar Tracks
5.6.10 GRADE-SEPARATED BIKEWAY CROSSINGS
Grade-separated crossings, such as pedestrian-bicycle bridges, may be preferred around high-speed
on/off ramps, interchanges, highways, and other geographic barriers to improve safety and comfort for
cycl ists and motorists. Grade-separated designs incorporating a multi-use path should be considered
where approach ramp elevations are appropriate and where current or planned pedestrian and bicycle
volumes are high. Multi-use path geometric guidelines as described in Section 5.5 apply on the
approaches to the grade-separated crossing.
In addition to dedicated pedestrian-bicycle bridges, grade-separated crossings also include:
• Cantilevered paths using existing structures, such as overpasses
• Sub-grade underpasses
• Floating paths.
Additional guidance regarding grade-separated bikeway crossings may be found in the AASHTO Guide
for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 48
5.7 BICYCLE DESIGN: OTHER ELEMENTS AND DETAILS
5.7.1 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
A traffic control device is defined as any sign, signal, or pavement marking, placed or erected for the
purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding roadway and bikeway facility users. Such devices are provided
to aid the safe and orderly movement of bicycle traffic and motor vehicle traffic.
June 2017 67
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.7.1.1 Pavement Markings and Signs
The TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines detail sign and pavement marking guidelines for Canadian
bikeway facilities. The guidelines emphasize uniformity of design and application to avoid confusing-
and potentially hazardous-situations, and to ensure cyclists are able to navigate bicycle networks with
ease. The guidelines facilitate clear identification for all roadway users, making it particularly useful to
visitors and those using a facility for the first time.
A selection of the signs most widely used for bikeways is included in these guidelines. In general, these
signs conform to those in the MUTCDC. Guidance on choice of size, installation, and other details is
provided in the TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada. Guidance on pavement markings,
including lateral, longitudinal, and markings to indicate conflict zones such as intersections with general
purpose travel lanes, can be found in the MUTCDC and TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada.
In all cases, proposed sign and pavement marking designs for bicycle routes or paths must be confirmed
as enforceable under the relevant traffic regulations.
5.7.1.2 Types of Signs
As with signs for motor vehicle traffic, schemes for signing bikeways should be as simple as possible. The
objective should be to provide the minimum number of signs necessary to comply with traffic
regulations, to warn cyclists of potential hazards, and to direct cyclists to their destinations and services.
Bikeway signs are categorized as:
• Regulatory
• Warning
• Guide and information.
Regulatory signs are used to indicate to cyclists and motorists the traffic regulations which apply at a
specific time or place on a bikeway. They form the basis for traffic regulations regarding priority and
other driver behaviour. They are used to formally establish and terminate a bikeway, and to control
bicycle movements on the road, particularly at intersections. Regulatory signs should be provided on all
bikeways in accordance with relevant traffic regulations, as the minimum signage requirements.
Warning signs on bikeways inform cyclists and motorists of changes in physical conditions, traffic
regulations, moving hazards, or temporary conditions. They should only be used where a hazard is not
obvious to approaching motorists and cyclists and the provision of the sign is necessary for safety. If
installed, the sign should be far enough from the hazard to allow for a motorist or cyclist to react and to
stop based on the operating speed of the roadway or path.
Guide signs are very important to cyclists as they define the route and provide necessary information to
enable cyclists to conveniently find their way around the network.
5.7.1.3 Bicycle Signals
Bicycle-specific traffic signals can help cyclists safely operate through intersections. Elements that may
be considered in the design of bikeways and traffic signals include bicycle actuation, the use of bicycle
signal faces, and leading or lagging bicycle intervals. Further information regarding bicycle traffic signals
can be found in the MUTCDC and TAC Traffic Signal Guidelines for Bicycles.
68 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.7.2 LIGHTING
Lighting is an essential component of bicycle transportation infrastructure. The most important areas for
lighting are intersections, which need to be illuminated to allow a cyclist enough time to see the
intersection and take appropriate action in advance of the crossing. Intersection lighting also allows the
cyclist to be seen, and to see others, while crossing the intersection. Additional locations where lighting
49
is important are bridges, under and over passes, crossings, paths or trails, tunnels, and viaducts •
Where the bikeway facility is separated from the travelled way by more than 5 m, lighting design should
follow the TAC Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting 50, Chapter 16 (Off-Roadway Facilities). Lighting
may also be needed wherever there is bikeway facility signage, particularly warning signs.
The effects of incidental lighting on the multi-use path and cyclists need to be considered. The most
common example is where a path parallels a street. Headlights of oncoming vehicles can shine directly
into the eyes of cyclists causing momentary blindness. This could be hazardous to cyclists on a curving
path or in the face of oncoming bicycle traffic. In these cases, low level path lighting is recommended.
Refer to TAC Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting for appropriate lighting levels.
5.7.3 BIKE RAMPS
Bike ramps typically connect between on-street bikeways and off-street bikeways such as multi-use
paths or bike paths, and may be provided to enable bypass movements around a roundabout or
complex intersection.
Bikeway ramps should generally be constructed at an angle of no greater than 30°, with a maximum
51
slope of 8%. An example bike ramp design is illustrated in Figure 5.7.1.
June 2017 69
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
BOULEVARD "'
(n
BIKEWAY
"'b
Plan
Section
CURBLINE
BIKEWAY
Plan
3.0
Section
Figure 5.7.1: Bike Ramp
70 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.7.4 BIKEWAY FACILITIES AT TRANSIT STOPS
Where unbuffered, buffered, and protected bike lanes are adjacent to the curbline on a roadway that
also has transit stops, there will be potential conflict with transit vehicles stopping for embarking or
disembarking passengers.
Figure 5.7.2 illustrates a design treatment that allows the transit vehicle to cross a dashed bike lane line
to access the curb-side transit stop. In this situation, cyclists must either wait for the bus to complete its
activity at the stop, or pass along the left side of the stopped transit vehicle. Passing creates a potential
conflict with motor vehicles in adjacent lanes and increases the risk of collisions with transit vehicles re-
entering the flow of traffic after the stop. Similarly, a transit vehicle approaching a cyclist from the rear
must negotiate the cyclist's path when pulling to the curb.
11 I~
-
11 I~
Da shed Bike Lane _ . /
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.7.2: Bike Lane at Curbside Transit Stop
Figure 5.7.3 illustrates a bicycle bypass of a transit stop which allows cyclists to pass stopped buses on
the right side of the vehicle, between the transit stop and sidewalk, and prevent conflicts with buses
pulling to the curb. The figure shows the bypass in context with a bike lane, but a similar design
approach can be used with other bikeway types. Th is design approach provides user separation around
transit stops to simplify operations and prevent conflicts between cyclists, transit vehicles, motor
vehicles, and embarking and disembarking passengers. This is particularly helpful on corridors with high
volumes of transit vehicles and cyclists, where leapfrogging of transit vehicles and cyclists may occur.
June 2017 71
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
11 l&l
11 l§l
2.5 m min.
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5. 7 .3: Bicycle Bypass at Transit Stop
Routing the bikeway behind the transit stop creates an opportunity for a transit island. The transit island
should be large enough in both width and length to comfortably hold waiting transit riders and
accommodate users of mobility devices. The space provided should be compatible with the transit
demand at that stop and local transit agency guidelines. Considerations include the daily ridership of bus
routes serving the stop, combined headways, and peak-hour crowding. Alternately, bus shelters and
benches can be positioned on the main sidewalk to encourage waiting on the sidewalk and crossing
to/from the transit island for loading/unloading.
Conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians may increase around transit islands compared to
conventional bus stop designs. However, this tendency can be mitigated by providing generous transit
islands, clearly marking the bikeway crossing with pavement treatments and signage, and improving
sightlines near the transit stop. Railings that direct pedestrians to a single crossing location may be
appropriate where cyclist-pedestrian conflicts cannot be effectively mitigated. Additionally, a raised
crossing from the transit island to the sidewalk provides pedestrians a consistent crossing grade and
slows the speed of approaching cyclists.
5.7.5 PROTECTED BIKE LANE DELINEATORS
This section outlines the types of delineators for protected bike lanes and provides guidance on
selecting an appropriate delineator for a given roadway context. Another useful source of information
52
on delineators is the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. Figure 5.7.4 illustrates the
main types of protected bike lane delineators.
72 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
•
Flexib le Bo llard Parking Stop Planter Box
Concrete Barrier Raised Median
Figure 5.7.4: Protected Bike Lane Delineators
Raised medians are 75 mm or 150 mm high, and at least 0.3 m wide, depending on the roadway speed
as outlined in Table 5.7.1. Their width may also depend on the width of regulatory signs to be mounted
on top of the median. Raised medians can be widened (e.g., to 2 m or more) for pedestrians at transit
stops.
Parking stops are concrete or rubber pre-fabricated barriers that function similarly to curbs. They are
advantageous for pilot projects as they can be repositioned. The maximum spacing of parking stops
depends on speed and is outlined in Table 5.7.1.
Flexible bollards are pole-like barriers that can be pushed over by vehicles in the event of a collision or
by emergency vehicles if required. Flexible bollards allow water to drain across the delineation space,
which may allow a single curbside drainage system to serve both the protected bike lane and the
remainder of the travelled way. Flexible bollards, typically about 100 mm wide, should be combined
with a buffered bike lane pavement marking at least 0.3 m wide to provide adequate buffering from the
adjacent lane. Spacing of flexible bollards may range from 2 m to 5 mas outlined in Table 5.7.1.
Planter boxes increase the visual presence of the delineator, both in vertical dimension and in aesthetic
quality. They can be used in combination with pavement markings either to create a continuous
delineator or one with spaces between the planters, depending on context. They can also be used on a
seasonal basis to enhance another delineator type (e.g., installed during the growing season, then
potentially removed in winter).
June 2017 73
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Concrete barriers are designed to limit the deflection of errant vehicles into the protected bike lane, and
may be appropriate for bikeways adjacent to roadways with speeds of 60 km/h or greater. These and
other types of semi-rigid and rigid barriers are discussed in Chapter 7.
In addition to use of delineators, parked cars in an adjacent parking lane help protect the bike lane from
motor vehicle traffic. Where a delineator is adjacent to a parking lane, it should be at least 0.6 m wide to
allow passenger-side doors to open without encroaching into the bike lane. The 0.6 m space should be
differentiated from the bike lane to avoid use of the buffer space by cyclists and to restrict
encroachment by motor vehicles.
The type of delineator for a protected bike lane depends on a variety of factors, such as:
• Whether the adjacent lane is a parking lane or general purpose travel lane
• The speed of the adjacent lane, with higher speeds requiring delineators that also function as a
rigid barrier
• The available width for delineators
• Required sightlines between pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicles at intersections and
crosswalks
• Drainage requirements
• Maintenance requirements, including snow clearing
• Streetscaping objectives for the area
Table 5.7.1 outlines suitable delineators based on the type and speed of the adjacent lane.
Table 5.7.1: Delineators Based on Type and Speed of Adjacent Lane
Adjacent Lane Examples of Suitable Delineators
Parking lane • A raised median, with a width of at least 0.6 m to avoid collisions
with potential opening passenger-side car doors
• Other delineators at least 0.6 m wide
• If flexible bollards and buffered pavement markings are used,
bollards should be longitudinally spaced at a maximum of 5.0 m
• If used, parking stops should be spaced with longitudinal gaps of
2.0 m or less
General purpose lane • 75 mm raised median, minimum 0.3 m wide
50 km/h or less • Parking stops with longitudinal gaps of 2.0 m or less
• Flexible bollards longitudinally spaced at a maximum of 5.0 m,
centred laterally on 300 mm buffered bike lane pavement markings
General purpose lane • 150 mm raised median, minimum 0.3 m wide
50-60 km/h • Semi-rigid barrier (see Section 7.6.2.1)
• Flexible bollards longitudinally spaced at a maximum of 2.0 m,
centred laterally on 0.5 m buffered bike lane pavement markings
• Parking stops, longitudinally continuous
• Planter boxes
General purpose lane • Rigid barrier (see Section 7.6.2.1)
60-80 km/h
74 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
5.7.6 BIKEWAY FACILITIES AT BRIDGES OR TUNNELS
Bridges and tunnels are common and can present significant width constraints when integrating
bikeway and pedestrian facilities. Generally, the width of bikeway facilities on bridges and in tunnels
should match the approach bikeway facility and should reflect the horizontal and vertical clearances in
Section 5.5.5 and Section 5.5.6. Carrying this width across or through the structure provides a
comfortable treatment consistent with the needs and expectations of cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers.
Guidance on various design configurations to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians on bridges is
contained in Section 7.6.4.
Protective railings, fences, and barriers should be a minimum of 1.05 m and a preferred height of 1.2 m
53
to prevent cyclists from falling over the railing. Additional horizontal clearance will be required in these
locations since this height is above the bicycle handlebar height.
Where an existing bridge cannot be retrofitted to include the approach bikeway facilities, it may be
possible to accommodate cyclist and pedestrian crossings on a separate structure or a cantilever to the
existing structure.
For tunnels and some bridges, and depending on the speed of motor vehicle traffic, if space cannot be
allocated to cyclists, accommodation of cyclists may require sharing general purpose travel lanes. This
will likely limit the bikeway facility using the tunnel or bridge to a narrow range of cyclists and will not
meet the needs of the design user group. Mitigating measures such as pavement markings and
54
associated signs, Advance Warning of Bicycles signs can be used, but should be considered as interim
measures until a more appropriate facility for the design use group can be developed.
5.7.7 DUAL BIKE LANE (PASSING AREA)
Dual bike lanes are parallel bike lanes that enable cyclists to pass each other as illustrated in Figure
5.7.5. Passing areas are most useful on long uphill segments or where cyclist volumes are more than 100
per hour, since these situations tend to result in significant speed differentials between cyclists.
Dual bike lanes are compatible with various forms of bike lanes, including unbuffered bike lanes and
protected bike lanes. However, if a passing lane is to be implemented on a bidirectional protected bike
lane, physical separation between opposing cyclists is recommended to prevent confusion and remove
the risk of a head-on collision.
The geometric design of passing lanes is identical to that of bike lanes as described in Section 5.3.1.1.
However, additional pavement markings and/or signage are recommended to clarify the role of the
passing lane. This is best communicated through text that explicitly distinguishes the passing lane from
the standard bike lane and that directs faster cyclists to use the passing lane (e.g., "ride right I pass
left"). Although passing lanes may be constructed on either the right or left side of the main bike lane,
depending on the configuration of the roadway, it is best to place the passing lane adjacent to motor
vehicle traffic since users of the passing lane are more likely to be comfortable traveling in this position.
On most streets with bike lanes, this would place the passing position to the left of the main bike lane.
The combined width of the dual bike lane passing area should be 2.4 m to 3.0 m. Use of wider
dimensions may attract use by motor vehicles. For facilities designed at the upper end of the
recommended range, the addition of a physical barrier between the bike lanes and adjacent motor
vehicle traffic reduces motor vehicle encroachment, as does the provision of visible signage and
pavement markings that reserve both bikes lanes for the exclusive use by cyclists.
June 2017 75
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
The provision of dual bike lane passing areas generally requires a detailed review of conflict points and
potential mitigation measures due to the complexity of these facilities and their association with faster
speeds and larger speed differentials between users.
~ .J..
....g <> --m-- ·"45 <>
....
I I I@ .....
<>g.... ~ <>g....
<> g.... ~
<>g....
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.7.5: Dual Bike Lane Passing Area
5.7.8 BIKEWAY FACILITIES IN RURAL AREAS
For cyclists, rural roads involve different risks than urban streets, such as unlit night-time conditions,
run-off road collisions, and high motor vehicle speeds. To facilitate safe and comfortable bicycle access,
rural roadway design should mitigate these risks through lighting, signage, and the provision of bikeway
facilities as per Section 5.3 and Section 5.4.
5.7.8.1 Lighting
Night-time conditions are particularly hazardous for cyclists traveling on rural roadways because
roadway lighting is often absent. Where warranted by the methodology outlined in the TAC Guide for
the Design of Roadway Lighting, design of rural roadways with bicycle traffic should incorporate
overhead lighting that effectively illuminates the entire roadway, including shoulder areas.
5.7.8.2 Towns and Villages
Within towns and villages (e.g., areas with densities of at least 400 persons per square kilometre),
bikeway facility guidance should follow that of urban areas. Approaches to towns and villages should
include treatments to gradually lower motor vehicle speeds to the speed limit.
5.7.9 BICYCLE PARKING
Bicycle parking provides important end-of-trip functionality for bicycles and may be a component ofthe
design either in the roadside area or within the ancillary zone of the roadway.
• Bicycle racks are commonly placed in the roadside area, either in the furnishing zone (between
the roadway and sidewalk) or frontage zone (between the sidewalk and property line).
• A bicycle corral is a set of bicycle racks located inside the curb line in the ancillary zone, often in
conjunction with a motor vehicle parking lane as illustrated in Figure 5.7.6 .
76 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
Bollard
Rubber Curb
<::> ~ ~
l10.9m,I
It@ ~
@
11 2.4 m
1 ''
3.2 m
@
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway Traffic Control
Guidelines for Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
Figure 5.7.6: On-Street Bicycle Corral
The design need to integrate bicycle parking within the road right-of-way logically considers whether
ample off-road bicycle parking is available on its own, or in combination with other cycling end-of-trip
facilities (e.g., showers, lockers), in off-road locations such as residential, employment, commercial, and
institutional buildings or developments.
5.7.10 ALL-SEASON BIKEWAY MAINTENANCE
The ability to maintain bikeways in all seasons is important to allow safe bicycling mobility throughout
the year. This includes street sweeping to remove debris in the spring, summer, and fall; bikeway
surface repair and maintenance year-round; and snow clearing in winter. The design of bikeways should
take into account the operating characteristics of existing and possible future maintenance equipment
and should account for snow storage and/or snow removal.
A specific heuristic to support bikeway accessibility in all seasons could be the establishment of an all-
season bikeway priority maintenance network based on maintaining access to major employment,
education, shopping, and other destinations to a suitable standard in all seasons (e.g., priority snow
clearing and sweeping).
On rural roadways where bicycle access is to be provided, bicycle accessible shoulders and advisory bike
lanes may be plowed at the same t ime as the rest of the roadway, with for snow storage beyond the
outer edge of the bikeway facility.
June 2017 77
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
REFERENCES
1 Skene, M. and Jacobson, M .. 2012. Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, Second Edition.
Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada .
2 Transportation Association of Canada. 2014a. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada
{MUTCDC}, Fifth Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
3 For a summary and analysis, see Damant-Sirois, G., Grimsrud, M. and El-Geneidy A. 2014. "What's your
type : a multidimensional cyclist typology." In Transportation 41(6), pp. 1153-1169.
4 American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials. 2012. Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition. Washington, DC : American Association of State and Highway Transportation
Officials.
5 See Geller, R. 2009. "Four Types of Cyclists". City of Portland Bureau of Transportation .
http ://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?&a=237507 [Viewed November 11, 2016];
and Dill, J., & McNeil, N. 2013. "Four Types of Cyclists? Examination of Typology for Better
Understanding of Bicycling Behavior and Potential." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2387. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, pp. 129-138.
6 See for example, such sites as www.completestreetsforcanada.ca [updated 2015] and
www.completestreets .org [updated 2016] [Viewed November 10, 2016].
League of American Bicyclists. 2011. "Bicycle Friendly America: The Blueprint". American Bicyclist
Magazine. Jan/Feb 2011, pp. 22.
Penalosa, G., et al. 8 80 Cities, 2015. "The 8 80 Rule" [Viewed November 10, 2016]
http://www.880cities.org/images/resource/engagement-tools/the-8-80-rule.pdf.
American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials. 2012 . ''Table 2-2" Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State and
Highway Transportation Officials.
10
American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials. 2012. Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State and Highway Transportation
Officials.
11
Allingham, D. I. and MacKay, D. 1997. "Section 3.3 .1: Braking" In-line Skating Review. Phase 2 Technical
Report. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada .
12
Teschke, K., et al. 2012. "Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover
Study" . American Journal of Public Health, 102(12), pp. 2336-2343.
13
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 1998. Creating Safer Communities: An Introduction to Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design {CPTED) for Architects, Planners and Builders [online] . Catalogue Number
JS62-97 /1998. Ottawa, ON: Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)/Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC). [Viewed November 11, 2016]
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/JS62-97-1998E.pdf
June 2017 79
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
14
BC Recreation & Parks Association. 2010. Bicycle Facility Design Course Manual [on line]. [Viewed June
10, 2015]
http ://www.cite 7 .org/resou rces/ do cu ments/BFCD Consolidated Man ua I. pdf.
15
Transportation Association of Canada. 2014a. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada, 5th
Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
16
Ibid.
17
Skene, M. and Jacobson, M. 2012. Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, 2nd Edition. Ottawa,
ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
18
Ibid. Section 7.2.2.
19
Ibid. Section 8.4.
20
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC), 2014a. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Canada {MUTCDC}, Fifth Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
21
Alberta Transportation. 2013. Trails in Alberta Highway Rights-of-Way- Policies, Guidelines and
Standards. Edmonton: Alberta Transportation.
22
Refer to: National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). 2012. Urban Bikeway Design
Guide, Second Edition; Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). 1998. Canadian Guide to
Neighbourhood Traffic Calming; Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). 2012. Bikeway Traffic
Control Guidelines for Canada, Second Edition; and vela Quebec. 2010. Planning and Design for
Pedestrians and Cyclists: A Technical Guide. Montreal: vela Quebec Association.
23
Skene, M. and Jacobson, M. 2012. "Section 7.4.3" Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, Second
Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
24
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Bicycle Facilities and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Dashed Bicycle Lanes [online]. Updated: 9/24/2015 [Viewed November 11, 2016)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle pedestrian/guidance/muted/dashed bike lanes.cfm
25
For examples, see: Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO). 2013. "Figure 3.3", Ontario Traffic Manual.
Book 18: Cycling Facilities; de Groot, R. editor (CROW);. 2007. "Table 14: Option diagram for road
sections inside the built-up area," Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic (CROW); Austroads. 2014. "Figure
2.2," Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides. Publication AP-G88-14; Troels Andersen, et al. 2012. Figure
showing "cycling solutions in relations to motor traffic volume and speed", p. 53, Collection of Cycling
Concepts 2012. Cycling Embassy of Denmark.
26
Winters, M., Davidson, G., Kao, D., & Teschke, K. 2011. "Motivators and Deterrents of Bicycling:
Comparing influences on Decisions to Ride". Transportation, 38, pp. 153-168.
27
Transportation Association of Canada. 1997. "Section 3.3.1. Table 1 and Table 2", In-line Skating Review.
Phase 2 Technical Report. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
28
Skene, M. and Jacobson, M. 2012. Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, 2nd Edition. Ottawa,
ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
29
Transportation Association of Canada. 2014a. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada
{MUTCDC}, 5th Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
30
Richardson, D., Mclaughlin, D., Kowpak, D., et al. 2014b. Traffic Signal Guidelines for Bicycles. Ottawa,
ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
80 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
31
Transportation Association of Canada. 2014a. "Section C5 .3," Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Canada {MUTCDC}, Fifth Edition. Ottawa, ON : Transportation Association of Canada .
32
Skene, M. and Jacobson, M. 2012. Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, Second Edition.
Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
33
Ibid ., Figure 20, p. 77.
34
Ibid ., Figure 20, p. 77.
35
Ibid., Figure 20, p. 77.
36
Federal Highway Administration. 2015. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. Report FHWA-
HEP-15-025. Mclean, Virginia: Federal Highway Administration, pp . 77-82.
37
Ibid., pp . 102-115.
38
Ibid., p. 111
39
Skene, M . and Jacobson, M . 2012. "Section 7.3.3 and Figures 35 to 41," Bikeway Traffic Control
Guidelines for Canada, Second Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada .
40
Transportation Association of Canada. 2014a. "Figure Cl-2," Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Canada {MUTCDC), Fifth Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada .
41
Ibid. Figure 20, p. 77.
42
Ibid. Figure 20, p. 77.
43
Chartier, G., Eichenbaum, T., Jacobson, M ., et al. 2017 . "Section 2.3 .2 and Section 7.3.3," Canadian
Roundabout Design Guide. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
44
Skene, M . and Jacobson, M . 2012. "Section 8.6," Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, Second
Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada .
45
de Groot, R. editor. 2007. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW Record 25. Ede, The Netherlands:
CROW .
46
Refer to Figure A6.3 in Transportation Association of Canada . 2014a . Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices for Canada. Ottawa, ON : Transportation Association of Canada . [revision pending, 2016]
47
Transport Canada. 2014 . Grade Crossing Standards. Ottawa, ON: Transport Canada .
48
American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2012 . Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4 th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State and
Highway Transportation Officials.
49
Velo Quebec. 2010. Planning and Design for Pedestrians and Cyclists: A Technical Guide. Montreal : Velo
Quebec Association.
50
Mclean, D., Lutkevich, P., Lewin, I., et al. 2006. Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
51
City of Edmonton. 2015. " Drawing 5600 - Bikeway Slip Ramp," Design and Construction Standards,
Volume 2: Roadways. City of Edmonton.
52
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2015. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. Report
FHWA-HEP-15-025. Mclean, Virginia: Federal Highway Administration, pp . 83-88
June 2017 81
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 5 - Bicycle Integrated Design
53
American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2012. Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State and
Highway Transportation Officials.
54
Skene, M. and Jacobson, M. 2012. "Section 4.6.9" Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, 2nd
Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada .
82 June 2017
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 6 - PEDESTRIAN INTEGRATED DESIGN
June 2017
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.
Cover photos courtesy of Anthony Smith, WSP
Copyright 2017 by
Transportation Association of Canada
401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive
Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-625-2
TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM
Title and Subtitle
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 6 -Pedestrian Integrated Design
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, WSP I MMM Group Thornhill, ON L3T OAl
Jim Dowell, WSP I MMM 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 human
Planning of Transport
factors research and practices for roadway geometric design. It replaces the 1999 edition
Infrastructure
of the Guide and subsequent revisions. The Guide provides guidance to planners and
Accessibility
designers in developing design solutions that meet the needs of a range of users while
Canada
addressing the context of local conditions and environments. Design guidelines for
Design (overall design)
freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural locations are
Dimension
included as well as guidance for integrated bicycle and pedestrian design.
Disabled person
The Guide is organized into ten chapters to cover the entire design process from design Footway
philosophy and roadway classification to design parameters and specific guidelines for Junction
the safe accommodation of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on linear road elements Kerb
and at intersections. The chapters are: Design Philosophy; Design Controls, Classification Mobility (pers)
and Consistency; Alignment and Lane Configuration; Cross Section Elements; Bicycle Pedestrian
Integrated Design; Pedestrian Integrated Design; Roadside Design; Access; Intersections; Pedestrian crossing
and Interchanges. Roadside
Safety
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design provides guidance and examples on how to
Traffic restraint
integrate holistically the design of pedestrian facilities into roadway design to achieve a
Walking
balanced solution for all modes and road users. Guidance is provided on pedestrian and
wheelchair design needs, use of a framework approach to design, which subdivides the
roadside into frontage, pedestrian through and furnishing zones and specific design
elements. Integration with other design elements including adjacent roadway lane
widths, roundabouts and bridges and other travel modes is addressed.
Supplementary Information
Index is available at www.tac-atc .ca
Chiu, M., Clayton, C., Millen, G. et al. 2017. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 6 - Pedestrian
Integrated Design. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
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 I MMM 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 Roads, 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 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
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 ofTransportation Ontario
Prince Edward Island Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy
Ministere des Transports, de la Mobilite durable et de l'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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Project Steering Committee
Eric Christiansen, Manitoba Infrastructure (Co-Chair)
John Hammer, Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Co-Chair)
Ke ith 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 Dobush 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 ofTransportation and Infrastructure
Sandra Majkic, Transportation Association of Canada (Project Manager)
June 2017 iii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
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, WSPIMMM 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Foreword
BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE
In 1999 the Transportation Association of Canada relased 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 for 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.
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.
June 2017 v
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
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 6
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design provides guidance and examples on how to integrate
holistically the design of pedestrian facilities into roadway design to achieve a balanced solution for all
modes and road users. Guidance is provided on pedestrian and wheelchair design needs, use of a
framework approach to design, which subdivides the roadside into frontage, pedestrian through and
furnishing zones and specific design elements. Integration with other design elements including
adjacent roadway lane widths, roundabouts and bridges and other travel modes is addressed.
vi June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
CONTENTS
6.1 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN FOCUS ............................................................................................... 1
6.1.1 Design Users: People Walking and Wheeling .................. ......................... ......................... . 1
6.1.2 Design Integration ......... .... .............................................................................. .................... 1
6.1.3 Human Factors: Motivations and Deterrents To Walking .................................................. 3
6.2 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN NEEDS ................................................................................................ 3
6.2.1 Operating Space I Dimensions ................................................................ ............................ 3
6.2.1.1 Pedestrians .... .. ................................................ ......................... ......................... ... 3
6.2.1.2 Wheelchair Users .................. ... ............................................................................ 5
6.2.2 Safety and Security ..... ................ ........ .. .. ..................... ........ ................. ......................... ..... 5
6.2.2.1 Safety: Reducing Collisions with Pedestrians ......................... ......................... ..... 5
6.2.2.2 Security: Preventing Crime .. ..... .................... .. ...................................................... 6
6.2.3 Accessibility ............... ........ .......... ....... ... .. .................... .. ................................................ .. .... 6
6.2.3.1 Age ............. ........ .......... ....... ... .. .................... .. ...................................................... 6
6.2.3.2 Pedestrians with Disabilities ................................................................................ 7
6.2 .4 Crossing Distances .. .................... ..... ..... .. .................. ......................... .. ............................... 8
6.2.5 Speed and Volume Management ................................. ....................... ...................... ......... 9
6.2 .6 Motorist Cone of Vision, Sight Distance and Speed ........................ ......................... .. .... .. 10
6.3 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN: ROADSIDE ZONES FRAMEWORK ......................................................... 11
6.3.1 Zones of The Roadside ................ .. ............................. .. .................. .... .. ............................. 11
6.3.1.1 Frontage Zones ............. .. .... ... ......................................... .. ................................ .. 12
6.3.1.2 Pedestrian Through Zone (Clear Sidewalk) .... ....................... ..................... ........ 13
6.3 .1.3 Furnishing Zone ........... ....... .................. ......................... ......................... ......... ... 14
6.3 .2 Ancillary Space ....... ................... ... .............................................................................. ....... 14
6.3 .3 Context Considerations and Trade-Offs ............ .. ............................... ................. .. ........... 15
6.4 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN: PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ................................................................... 15
6.4.1 Crosswalks ............ .. ................................................. ................... ....................................... 16
6.4.1.1 Intersection Crosswalks .... .................... ...................... ........ ................. .............. 16
6.4.1.2 Mid-Block Crosswalks .... .................... ... .............................................................. 16
6.4.1.3 Offset Mid-Block Crosswalks ..... .. ................................................ .. ..................... 17
6.4.2 Raised Crosswalks ........... .. .............................................................................. .................. 19
6.4.3 Curb Extensions .............. .. ................................................................................................ 19
6.4.4 Corner Radii ...................... ..... ................. ......................... ......................... ...... .................. 22
June 2017 vii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.4.5 Crosswalk Location ........................................................................................................... 24
6.4.6 Curb Ramps ....................................................................................................................... 25
6.4.6.1 Parts of the Curb Ramp ...................................................................................... 25
6.4.6.2 Types of Curb Ramp ........................................................................................... 26
6.4.7 Pedestrian Signals ............................................................................................................. 28
6.4.8 Driveways and Alleys Crossing the Sidewalk .................................................................... 28
6.5 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN: PEDESTRIAN ELEMENTS AND DETAILS ................................................. 30
6.5.1 Surface Type, Grade and Cross-Slope ............................................................................... 30
6.5.2 Accessible Ramps and Stairways ...................................................................................... 30
6.5.2.1 Accessible Ramps ............................................................................................... 30
6.5.2.2 Stairways ............................................................................................................ 31
6.5.2.3 Handrails ............................................................................................................ 32
6.5.2.4 Push Ramps ........................................................................................................ 32
6.5.3 Street Hardware and Pedestrian Amenities ..................................................................... 35
6.5.4 Pedestrian Lighting ........................................................................................................... 36
6.5.4.1 Pedestrian Through Zones ................................................................................. 36
6.5.4.2 Intersections ....................................................................................................... 36
6.5.4.3 Mid-Block Crosswalks ......................................................................................... 36
6.5.4.4 Streetscapes ....................................................................................................... 36
6.5.4.5 Interaction of Pedestrian Lighting and Trees ..................................................... 36
6.5.5 Pedestrian Safety Fencing and Barriers ............................................................................ 37
6.5.6 Considerations for Rural Roads ........................................................................................ 38
6.5.6.1 Paths/Trails ......................................................................................................... 38
6.5.6.2 Walkable Shoulders ............................................................................................ 38
6.5.6.3 Lighting ............................................................................................................... 38
6.5.6.4 Towns and Villages ............................................................................................. 39
6.5.6.5 Winter Access and Maintenance Considerations .............................................. 39
6.5.7 Stormwater Features I Landscaping I Trees ..................................................................... 39
6.6 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN: INTEGRATION WITH RELATED GEOMETRIC DESIGN ELEMENTS ............. 40
6.6.1 Travel Lane Width on Collectors and Arterials ................................................................. 40
6.6.1.1 Crossing Distance and Pedestrian Visibility ....................................................... 40
6.6.1.2 Motor Vehicle Travel Speeds ............................................................................. 40
6.6.2 Pedestrian Integration at Roundabouts ........................................................................... 40
6.6.3 Pedestrian Intersection with Bikeway Facilities ............................................................... 41
6.6.4 Pedestrian Integration with Transit .................................................................................. 42
viii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.6.5 Pedestrian Integration at Bridges and Interchanges ....................................... ................. 42
6.6.6 Design and Maintenance Considerations for Winter and Wet Weather Conditions ....... 42
6.6.6.1 Design Considerations ...................................................................... .................. 43
6.6.6.2 Maintenance Considerations ... ......................... ......................... ..... ................... 43
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................44
June 2017 ix
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
TABLES
Table 6.2.1: Typical Physical and Mental Characteristics, by Age ................................................................ 7
Table 6.2.2: Potential Physical and Cognitive Conditions and Impacts on Mobility and Design .................. 8
Table 6.3.1: Design Domain: Pedestrian Through Zone ............................................................................. 13
FIGURES
Figure 6.2.1: Typical Pedestrian Dimensions ................................................................................................ 4
Figure 6.2.2: Horizontal Operating Envelope for a Person with a Service Animal ........................................ 4
Figure 6.2.3: Wheelchair User Dimensions ................................................................................................... 5
Figure 6.2.4: Relationship between Vehicle Speed and Risk of Pedestrian Death in a Collision .................. 9
Figure 6.2.5: Example Speed and Volume Management Measures .......................................................... 10
Figure 6.3.1: Zones of a Representative Urban Roadside ........................................................................... 11
Figure 6.3.2: Zones of a Representative Rural Roadside ............................................................................ 12
Figure 6.4.1: Median Refuge Islands and Offset Crosswalks at Unsignalized Mid-Block Crossings ........... 18
Figure 6.4.2: Raised Crosswalk .................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 6.4.3: Pedestrian-Motorist Sightlines at Intersection Crossings ...................................................... 21
Figure 6.4.4: Pedestrian-Motorist Sightlines at Multi-Lane Mid-Block Crossings .................. .................... 22
Figure 6.4.5: Effect of Corner Radius on Pedestrian Crossing Distance and Directness ............................. 23
Figure 6.4.6: Corner Radii and Effective Turning Radius ............................................................................ 24
Figure 6.4.7: Parts of the Curb Ramp .......................................................................................................... 26
Figure 6.4.8: Recommended Curb Ramp Configurations and Dimensions ................................................. 27
Figure 6.4.9: Driveway Crossing Styles ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 6.5.1: Stair Design ............................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 6.5.2: Stair Design for Push Ramps .................................................................................................. 33
Figure 6.5.3: Interaction between Pedestrian Lighting and Trees .......................................... .................... 37
x June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6. PEDESTRIAN INTEGRATED DESIGN
6.1 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN FOCUS
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the designer with a set of guidelines and examples of practice
for the integrated design of pedestrian facilities. This includes explicit geometric design aspects as well
as context and integrative guidelines that combine holistically to produce designs appropriate for the
needs of pedestrians and other road users.
This chapter's design focus is pedestrians: people walking on foot, wheeling by wheelchair, or applying
other forms of low-speed human locomotion. However, each design element should be integrated into a
balanced design, with all modes and road users kept in the designer's frame of reference.
The design needs of pedestrians are the basis for this chapter. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable
roadway users and require distinct design considerations relative to vehicles. Walking and wheeling is
the most universal form of travel; when motorists, cyclists and users of public transit leave the vehicle,
they are pedestrians. Well designed and maintained pedestrian facilities make access to transportation
more equitable, by allowing pedestrians to travel safely and comfortably.
6.1.1 DESIGN USERS: PEOPLE WALKING AND WHEELING
Generally, pedestrians may be defined as people walking and wheeling; the term "people" reflecting the
need to consider human factors when designing for human beings with a variety of needs. For design
purposes, pedestrians include people walking, running, or standing; manual/motorized wheelchair or
scooter users; people using canes or walkers; people pushing strollers or carts; dismounted cyclists; and
users of various other low-speed forms of human locomotion (e.g., skateboards). Some jurisdictions may
legally designate only a subset of these users as pedestrians; however, the designer should typically
consider the broadest set of design users applicable to the design context.
6.1.2 DESIGN INTEGRATION
Roads serve many functions, including provision for people who drive motor vehicles, ride bicycles, and
walk or wheel. Streets also provide public spaces for social interaction and commerce. The concept of
"complete streets" is helpful in visualizing integrated road design that is suitable for all ages, abilities,
and modes of travel, as well as fitting with the context of the land uses the road traverses. Walking is
healthy and environmentally friendly, and can help reduce dependency on automobiles. Walking also
increases the opportunity for socializing in the community, contributes to recreation, promotes
independence, and facilitates economic activity.
On-street pedestrian facilities exist in multimodal travel environments, so their design and
implementation must take into account motor vehicle traffic operations, roadside zones, pedestrian
crossings, and the combined operational characteristics of all travel modes including cyclists and transit.
Effective pedestrian integration can improve safety for all road users by designing according to the
speed differential between users. Generally, as speed differentials increase, separation between users
should increase, and conflicting movements should be more strongly controlled and clearly delineated.
Shared streets are at one end of the spectrum : they provide no distinction between the space allocated
to pedestrians and other users, and motor vehicles are obliged to travel at walking speeds. Arterial and
highway links are at the other end of the spectrum: they serve high speed motorized traffic and require
wide separation from pedestrians.
June 2017 1
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
The provision of sufficiently clear pedestrian way and crosswalk width (relative to the type and volume
of anticipated pedestrians) is the first priority, with additional pedestrian-oriented features incorporated
to further enhance and activate the space. It is important to physically and visually integrate pedestrian
elements with street hardware that typically exists within the roadside area (e .g., sign posts, signal and
streetlight poles, parking meters, utilities, drainage grates, mail boxes, vending boxes, and bicycle
parking) . The ideal pedestrian design integrates these elements in a way that reduces visual clutter and
maximizes space available and convenience for pedestrians.
There are many ways to enhance the pedestrian environment and facilitate walking as an effective and
attractive mode of transportation. Characteristics of a desirable pedestrian environment include:
• Short, easily-navigated distances between origins and destinations, sometimes involving short-
cuts not available to motor vehicles
• Continuous and direct travel between origins and destinations (i.e., reflecting pedestrian
"desire lines")
• Barrier-free, reasonably-level routes for safe and convenient passage of all pedestrians
• Adequate clear space for walking
• Protection from inclement weather, noise, and air pollution
• Adequate lighting for safety, security, and visibility
• Physical separation from other modes of travel, particularly motor vehicle traffic
• Sufficient opportunities for safe roadway crossings, with clear sight lines between pedestrians
and motorists, and appropriate traffic controls
• Attractive landscaping, effective sidewalk design, streetscape amenities including seating areas,
water fountains and washrooms, interesting adjacent land uses, natural views, or other
elements that provide openness and visual diversity
• Presence of other pedestrians
These aspects work together to provide pedestrians with a sense of comfort, protection, coherence,
security, convenience, community identity, and visual interest.
Pedestrian integrated design also encourages social interaction by providing a suitable setting in which
to stop and talk, or sit and relax. Spaces for window shopping, sidewalk cafes, and parklets are examples
where integration between buildings and the streetscape can enhance the pedestrian environment.
Some common elements of pedestrian integrated design include:
• Sidewalks, paths, or trails
• Curb ramps and curb extensions
• Pedestrian crossings and traffic controls (e.g., signals, stop signs)
• Street furniture, such as benches, trash receptacles, and planters
• Trees, shrubs, and other plant materials
• Grass and other ground cover vegetation
• Surface treatments in a variety of materials or colours
• Lighting from street lights or pedestrian-level lights
• Wayfinding elements including signage to interior pedestrian walkways, washrooms and
information kiosks
• Transit stops and shelters
• Weather protection (e.g., awnings or covered walkways)
• Public art features (e.g, sculptures, fountains, clocks, other aesthetic and architectural features)
• Banners, flags or other graphic features
2 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Successful pedestrian integrated design is typically the result of the effective collaboration of designers
with stakeholders (e .g., planners, landscape architects, utility agencies, transit agencies, operations and
maintenance personnel, community and business groups, and adjacent land owners) .
As with all aspects of roadway geometric design, engineering judgment is required in the application of
the range of treatments presented in this chapter, considering speeds, lane widths, vehicle mix, adjacent
land uses, traffic volumes, and other critical factors.
6.1.3 HUMAN FACTORS: MOTIVATIONS AND DETERRENTS TO WALKING
The comfort and safety of pedestrians is of critical importance to the design of transportation systems
and is a significant challenge to overcome, given the vulnerability of pedestrians relative to other
modes. This chapter considers the physical and perceptual capacities of pedestrians in relation to other
road users. For example, the proxemics (i.e., "personal space") concept is applied to this chapter, to
differentiate between minimum operating envelopes of pedestrians and comfortable operating
envelopes.
This chapter offers design guidance that recognizes and respects the capabilities of various road users,
and endeavours to elicit behaviour appropriate to the broad range of circumstances evident on
Canadian roadways. The technical foundation on human factors is found in Section 2.2.
To effectively integrate pedestrians, a designer must understand which road characteristics motivate or
deter potential and existing pedestrians. More information on this aspect of human factors is described
in Section 6.2.2.
6.2 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN NEEDS
6.2.1 OPERATING SPACE/ DIMENSIONS
This section illustrates the dimensions required to comfortably accommodate pedestrians and
wheelchair users. These dimensions are relevant to the geometric design of roadside zones, including
sidewalks and intersection corners, and to the design of crosswalks and curb ramps.
6.2.1.1 Pedestrians
As shown in Figure 6.2.1 and Figure 6.2.2, the typical width of a pedestrian is 0.5 m, measured at the
shoulders. To allow for lateral sway while walking, the horizontal operating envelope of a pedestrian is
0.75 m. For a pedestrian accompanied by a child, a pedestrian with a service animal, or a pedestrian
with wheeled luggage, the horizontal operating envelope is 1.2 m.
The lateral width of two pedestrians travelling abreast is 1.5 m to 1.8 m. The lower value of 1.5 m is
based on multiplying the horizontal operating envelope of a single pedestrian by two. The upper value
of 1.8 m is based on the human factor of personal space (proxemics), which has been studied sparsely
1
over the years though with consistent findings suggesting a lateral personal space allowance of
approximately 0.8 m is appropriate between pedestrians. This personal space allowance of 0.8 m is
added to the 0.5 m shoulder width of each pedestrian to yield a lateral width of 1.8 m for two side-by-
side pedestrians.
The lateral width of three pedestrians travelling abreast is 2.25 m to 3.0 m, with the lower value based
on horizontal operating envelopes and the higher value based on proxemics, as above.
The vertical operating envelope for a pedestrian is 2.1 m.
June 2017 3
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Horizontal Operating Envelopes
I,. 0.75m., .I
1.5-1.8 m
I,. •I
2.25 -3.0 m
,- - - - r - - - - - 1- - - - - - - r- - - - - - 1 t
1
Vertical
Eye Level_.:.. I •
Operating
1.3 -1~7 m , Envelope
2!1 m
Horizontal Operating
Envelope with Child
1.2m
Figure 6.2.1: Typical Pedestrian Dimensions
...
... ... ... ...
...... ... ----~
~
1.2 m
Figure 6.2.2: Horizontal Operating Envelope for a Person with a Service Animal
4 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.2.1.2 Wheelchair Users
Wheelchair and scooter users can be propelled in a number of ways . On manual wheelchairs, users
propel and brake themselves using push rims attached to the rear wheels. Alternatively, a second
individual can control the wheelchair using handles attached to the back of the chair. Power wheelchairs
and scooters use battery power and a small motor to move.
As shown in Figure 6.2.3, the design width of a person using a manual wheelchair or equivalent scooter
is 0.75 m; to allow for variat ions in lateral positioning, the horizontal operating envelope is 0.9 m. The
lateral width required for a manual wheelchair or equivalent scooter to make a 180° turn is 1.5 m;
scooters or wheelchairs with longer wheelbases may require a width of 2.25 m. These dimensions are
2
consistent with Canadian Standards Association accessible design standards.
The lateral width required for two wheelchairs to pass is 1.8 m, based on multiplying the horizontal
operating envelope of a single wheelchair user by two .
Horizontal Operating
Envelope
0.9m
I• •I
• - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - -
I I
I
~--'--Eye Level
1.1 m
Wheelchair
Width
0.75m - --' Operating Space for
180° Turn
1.5m
Two Wheelchair Users
1.8m
Figure 6.2.3: Wheelchair User Dimensions
6.2.2 SAFETY AND SECURITY
The guidelines in this chapter are intended to integrate with overall roadway design to recognize and
respond to the needs of pedestrians, reducing the potential for collisions and creating a setting that is
designed and perceived as comfortable and safe. Pedestrians tend to perceive safety and security as
freedom from the threat of crime and injury. Geometric design can contribute to reducing the potential
for crime and injury, and improve perceptions of safety and security by:
• Applying design principles to reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian collisions and
• Applying strategies for crime prevention .
June 2017 5
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.2.2.1 Safety: Reducing Collisions with Pedestrians
Collisions with pedestrians can occur both between intersections and at intersections. To provide
suitable conditions for pedestrians, pedestrian through zones and crossings should alert motorists to the
presence of pedestrians. Designs emphasizing simplicity over complexity tend to facilitate predictable
movements among all road users. To help reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian collisions, the
design of a pedestrian facility should:
• Provide adequate separation between pedestrian through zones and vehicular traffic
• Manage vehicle speeds and volumes
• Accommodate pedestrians at crossings.
One way of assessing the expected safety performance of a facility or treatment is to apply collision
modification factors (CMFs) during the design process. CMFs are discussed in Chapter 1.
6.2.2.2 Security: Preventing Crime
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a suite of design strategies that can reduce
the threat of crime to pedestrians. Three CPTED strategies are relevant to the design and operation of
transportation facilities:
• Natural surveillance reduces opportunities for crime by maximizing visibility and fostering
positive social interaction . Design strategies include:
o Encouraging slower passing motor vehicle traffic so that it can act as a surveillance asset
o Avoiding poorly placed lights that create blind spots for potential observers
o Placing lighting at proper heights so it illuminates the faces of people using the space
o Configuring landscaping and other physical elements to maintain sight lines and avoid
blind spots.
• Natural access control provides connectivity so that pedestrians have options to maintain
movement and avoid areas that are isolated
• Territorial reinforcement promotes a sense of ownership by inviting use of public space . Design
strategies include :
o Placing amenities (e.g., seating and shade trees) in common areas to attract larger
numbers of desired users and
o Maintaining sidewalks, street furniture, and landscaping such that they communicate an
alert and active presence occupying the space.
For additional information regarding CPTED, refer to guidelines or practices documented by the relevant
local jurisdiction, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's overview of the Canadian perspective on
3
CPTED strategies.
6.2.3 ACCESSIBILITY
The characteristics of pedestrians vary greatly and the transportation network should accommodate
pedestrians of a variety of ages and abilities.
6.2.3.1 Age
Age is one major factor that affects pedestrians' physical characteristics, walking speed, and
environmental perception. Table 6.2.1 summarizes common pedestrian characteristics for different age
groups. Children have lower eye height and walk at different speeds than adults. Children also perceive
6 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
the environment differently at various stages of their cognitive development so their behaviour may be
unpredictable. In Canada, the average age is increasing and, as the population ages, the number of
people using mobility assistive devices (e.g., manual wheelchairs, power wheelchairs, and walkers) also
tends to increase. For a comparison of pedestrian walking speed by age, refer to the TAC Pedestrian
Crossing Control Guide. 4
Table 6.2.1: Typical Physical and Mental Characteristics, by Age
Age Characteristics
0-4 • Learning to walk
• Requires constant adult supervision
• Developing peripheral vision and depth perception
5-8 • Requires proximate adult supervision
• Increasing desire to be independent
• Poor depth perception
9-13 • Inexperienced at identifying hazards
• Sense of invulnerability
• Unfamiliar with the task of driving
• More likely to "dart out"
14-23 • Improved awareness of traffic environment
• Inexperienced at identifying hazards
• Sense of invulnerability
• More likely to engage in risk-taking behaviour
24-40 • Active, peak awareness of traffic environment
41-65 • Slowing reflexes
65+ • Difficulty crossing street
• Vision loss
• Slower walking speeds
• Difficulty hearing vehicles approaching from behind
• Can lack in endurance and require periodic rest breaks
6.2.3.2 Pedestrians with Disabilities
Pedestrians of any age may require assistive devices for mobility, sight, hearing, or other impairments.
Table 6.2.2 summarizes a number of physical and cognitive conditions, how they affect personal
mobility, and thus pedestrian integrated design. The design considerations outlined in the table are
integrated throughout the design guidance in this chapter.
June 2017 7
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Table 6.2.2: Potential Physical and Cognitive Conditions and Impacts on Mobility and Design
User Group Mobility Characteristics Design Consideration
Wheelchair and • Difficulty propelling over uneven or • Firm, stable surfaces and structures,
Scooter Users soft surfaces. including ramps or beveled edges.
• Difficulty travelling on increased • Cross-slopes of 2% or less.
longitudinal slopes or cross-slopes. • Sufficient width and maneuvering
• Require wider path of travel. space.
Walking Aid Users • Difficulty negotiating steep grades and • Smooth, non-slip travel surface .
cross slopes; decreased stability. • Longer pedestrian signal cycles, shorter
• Slower walking speed and reduced crossing distances, median refuges, and
endurance; reduced ability to react. street furniture.
• Sufficient width for two pedestrians
side by side, so that one person can be
physically guided by another person.
Pedestrians with a • Less able to detect hazards at locations • Highly visible pedestrian signals and
Hearing with limited sight lines (e.g., driveways, markings.
Impairment angled intersections, channelized right
turn lanes) and complex intersections.
Pedestrians with a • Limited perception of path ahead and • Accessible text (larger print, raised text,
Vision Impairment obstacles. color and contrast) .
• Reliance on memory. • Width of at least 1.2 m to
• Reliance on non-visual indicators (e.g., accommodate pedestrians with a
sound and texture). service animal or cane.
• Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) .
• Guide strips and tactile warning
indicators, safety barriers, and lighting.
Pedestrians with a • Varies greatly. Can affect ability to • Signs with pictures, universal symbols,
Cognitive perceive, recognize, understand, and colours, rather than text.
Impairment interpret, and respond to information.
6.2.4 CROSSING DISTANCES
Pedestrian crossing distance includes the curb to curb distance plus the distance between where the
pedestrian typically stands (back of the ramp) and the curb. In some cases an allowance for the length
of the pedestrian (e .g. a wheelchair) is also made.
For pedestrian safety and comfort, crossing distances at intersections should be minimized, to decrease
prolonged exposure to motor vehicle traffic from the combination of slow walking speeds and long
crossing distances. Design elements such as curb extensions (Section 6.4.3), smaller corner radii (Section
6.4.4), median refuge islands, fewer travel lanes, and narrower travel lanes (Section 6.6.1) can all
contribute to reduced pedestrian crossing distances which reduce pedestrian exposure and crossing
times. They also may have a calming effect on motor vehicle traffic, which results in reduced speeds and
slower motor vehicle turning movements.
8 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.2.5 SPEED AND VOLUME MANAGEMENT
Speed and volume management (collectively referred to as "traffic calming") tends to improve
pedestrian comfort and safety. Design guidance for traffic calming measures is available in various
5
relevant publications.
In the event of a collision involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian, lower motor vehicle speeds
correlate with increased pedestrian survival rates, as shown in Figure 6.2.4, which summarizes data
from collision studies undertaken over the last 30 years. Collisions at 30 km/h or less correlate with a
lower probability of death, whereas at motor vehicle speeds above 40 km/h, the probability of death
increases significantly .
..c
+J
cu
Q.) 0.8
-
"O
0
>.
:!::::'.
0.6
:.0 0.4
cu
.0
0
I-
0..
0.2
0 I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Impact speed (km/h)
6
Figure 6.2.4: Relationship between Vehicle Speed and Risk of Pedestrian Death in a Collision
Lower volumes of motor vehicles tend to improve pedestrian comfort by reducing exposure to motor
vehicles and associated noise/exhaust.
Figure 6.2.S illustrates some example speed and volume management measures, which may impact the
horizontal and/or vertical movement of motor vehicles. Selection of appropriate measures should
consider the road classification and function, as not all measures are appropriate in all contexts.
Some example speed management measures include speed tables/humps, raised crosswalks,
neighbourhood traffic circles, pinch-points, neck-downs, raised centre islands, reallocating or removing
general purpose lanes, narrowing lane widths, adding curb extensions, and reducing corner radii.
Volume management measures control access into and out of streets at intersections. Example volume
management measures include right-in/right-out control, partial street closures, diagonal diverters, and
median diverters. These techniques are designed to apply to motor vehicles only-not bicycles or
pedestrians.
June 2017 9
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
O~~O(EJ
D~O Diverter
0
D'"""'
~ Neighbourhood
Dl Trnfi' l l , ~: :., 0
Figure 6.2.5: Example Speed and Volume Management Measures
The following circumstances may warrant speed and/or volume management:
• Areas with moderate to high pedestrian activity
• Roadways with a speed limit of 30 km/h or less (e.g., local streets) to promote compliance
• Local streets with a high volume of vehicles due to shortcutting
• Corridors with a history of preventable pedestrian collisions
• Roadways with a history of speeding violations .
Application of traffic calming techniques should always consider potential effects on other modes, such
as emergency response vehicles, transit, and goods movements.
6.2.6 MOTORIST CONE OF VISION, SIGHT DISTANCE AND SPEED
As motor vehicle speeds increase, so does the stopping sight distance (Section 2.5.3). As illustrated in
Figure 2.2.3, increasing speed also narrows the visual field and limits the perception of surrounding
activity. Slower speeds will promote visibility, increase awareness of potential conflicts, and reduce
stopping sight distances. Sightlines are considered in the design of intersection and mid-block crosswalks
in Section 6.4.1.
10 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.3 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN: ROADSIDE ZONES FRAMEWORK
In urban areas especially, the roadside is more than an area for pedestrians to travel through: it provides
places for people to interact, with spaces for standing, visiting, and sitting. Roadways should contribute
to the context and character of adjacent neighbourhoods and business districts, and they have the
potential to strengthen their identity and be a place where people of all ages and abilities can safely
participate in public life. Use of appropriate design criteria to improve the pedestrian environment can
contribute to that potential.
6.3.1 ZONES OF THE ROADSIDE
Roadside refers to the area between the curb, or pavement edge, and the adjacent property line. The
roadside generally includes three functional zones: frontage zone, pedestrian through zone, and
furnishing zone.
Land use context, street type, user type, and user demand influence the width and content of each
zone. These context considerations also dictate whether a particular zone is needed, since it is not
essential to provide all three zones on all roadways. Urban streets, particularly in a commercial setting,
benefit from having all three zones; rural roads may not require any of these elements, but may have a
walkable shoulder area, which can be considered the pedestrian through zone. Urban and rural roadside
zones are illustrated in Figure 6.3.1 and Figure 6.3.2.
Pmpeny
Li ne
/
Pedestrian Through
Zone Frontage
(Clear Sidewalk) Zone
Anci llary Space Roadside
Figure 6.3.1: Zones of a Representative Urban Roadside
June 2017 11
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Roadside Shoulder General Shoulder Sideslope Drainage Backslope :
Purpose Channel
Lanes
•-----Roadside
'"'I ., :
Property Line~
Figure 6.3.2: Zones of a Representative Rural Roadside
Particularly in urban areas, although also applicable to rural areas, the design of elements defining the
zones of the roadside should integrate the needs of pedestrian with disabilities. For example, the edges
of the pedestrian through zone should be evident to visually-impaired pedestrians by a change in
surface type or tactile edge, and should mitigate tripping hazards.
There are numerous elements of the roadside (e.g., street furniture, planters, bicycle parking, other
hardware) that can potentially be situated in either the furnishing zone, the frontage zone or the
ancillary space. The selection of the location of these elements depends on the context of the street and
the widths available in each of these zones. Considerations of roadside safety are discussed in Chapter 7
for both urban and rural areas, with specific guidance on the placement of streetscape elements in
urban environments included in Section 7.7.
6.3.1.1 Frontage Zones
Located adjacent to the property line, the frontage zone provides pedestrians with a functional offset
distance from adjacent lands, and provides clearance from building fronts, doors, utilities, and
architectural features. The frontage zone can be used as a support and/or extension of the active land
uses along a street, and may provide an opportunity for ground floor retail displays, cate seating,
landscaping, planters, temporary signage, lineup areas, and other activities to support active use of the
street by people and businesses.
The recommended width of the frontage zone is 0.5 m to 3.0 m. The lower end of this range provides
basic functionality, while the upper end allows for additional pedestrian-oriented uses of the roadside
space.
The width of the frontage zone is also influenced by physical conditions at the property line. Generally, a
greater width is appropriate from building edges than from lawns or pavement. The latter of which may
require no frontage zone at all. Involvement of the adjacent land owners and business operators often
contributes significantly to the design and use of the frontage zone.
12 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Circumstances where a wider frontage zone (approaching 3 m) is appropriate include, in urban areas,
locations where outdoor seating is present (e.g., patios) or where pedestrian queuing is expected (e.g.,
outside of theatres). In rural areas, these circumstances include areas where very large setbacks have
been provided for future road widening, to enhance privacy on adjacent properties, and to avoid cutting
existing trees along the edge of the right-of-way.
6.3.1.2 Pedestrian Through Zone (Clear Sidewalk}
The pedestrian through zone is the area intended to be clear and navigable for pedestrian travel, free of
permanent and temporary obstructions. It is considered as the area of clear sidewalk and does not
include the frontage or furnishing zones which may often be part of the overall sidewalk width.
Design domain dimensions for the pedestrian through zone are shown in Table 6.3.1.
Table 6.3.1: Design Domain: Pedestrian Through Zone
Design Domain
Recommended Range
Practical Recommended Recommended Practical
Parameter Lower Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
Width (m), pedestrian through
Roadside
zone, peak pedestrian flow rate < 1.5 1.8 2.0
width
400 ped/15 min
Width (m), pedestrian through
2.25 - 3.0 or based on crowd Roadside
zone, peak pedestrian flow rate > 2.0
capacity and maneuvering space width
400 ped/15 min
For pedestrian volumes less than 400 pedestrians in the peak 15 minutes, the recommended width for
the pedestrian through zone is 1.8 m to 2.0 m. The lower end of this range accommodates a reasonable
width for two pedestrians or wheelchairs to pass, and enables wheelchair users to turn around {180Q).
The higher end of this range also allows a pedestrian to pass another pedestrian accompanied by a child,
a pedestrian with a service animal, or a pedestrian with wheeled luggage. A clear sidewalk width of at
least 1.8 mis also advantageous for snow clearing operations and assists in preventing plow damage to
street hardware and streetscape elements.
The practical lower limit of the width of the pedestrian through zone is 1.5 m. This is the minimum width
required for two pedestrians to pass each other, or for a wheelchair user to turn around {180Q). If the
pedestrian through zone is narrower than 1.5 m, it loses much of its capability to support two-way
pedestrian travel. Pedestrian through zones between 1.5 m and 1.8 m in width should be used only
under constrained conditions and for short distances (e.g., less than 100 m), and when reasonable
consideration has been given to context and trade-offs, as described in Section 6.3.3.
For pedestrian volumes greater than 400 pedestrians in the peak 15 minutes, the recommended width
of the pedestrian through zone is typically greater than 2.0 m to provide increased capacity and
maneuvering space. Where more than two pedestrians are likely to pass one another, a width of at least
June 2017 13
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
2.2S m to 3.0 m is recommended, to allow three pedestrians to travel abreast. For additional
information regarding the width of pedestrian through zone required to provide adequate pedestrian
7
capacity, refer to the New York City Pedestrian Level of Service Study •
Where a pedestrian through zone width is selected less than the recommended width based on
pedestrian volumes, a passing section of at least the full recommended width should be provided every
30 m to 60 m.
6.3.1.3 Furnishing Zone
The furnishing zone is located between the curb or pavement edge and the pedestrian through zone. It
provides space for elements such as signs, light and signal poles, landscaped boulevards, street trees,
transit stops, benches, bicycle parking, and other hardware and street furniture. Furnishing zones should
be provided wherever practical; they are recommended on commercial streets, or where adjacent
traffic speeds are SO km/h or higher. Rural roads typically do not include a furnishing zone, except in
towns/villages.
The recommended width of the furnishing zone is 0.5 m to 3.0 m. The lower end of this range provides
basic functionality, while the upper end allows for additional pedestrian-oriented uses of the roadside
space. A wider furnishing zone (approaching 3 m or more) may be suitable:
• On high-speed, high-volume streets (i.e., where adjacent traffic speeds are SO km/h or higher
and volumes are 4,000 vehicles per day or higher), for pedestrian comfort
• On streets with transit service (typically collectors and arterials) for potential transit facilities
such as passenger landing pads or bus shelters
• On roadways with larger corner radii, to offset the sidewalk to the location of the curb ramp
and crosswalk
• On retail streets, for street furniture
• In regions with heavy snowfall, for snow storage
• On rural roadways, to locate pedestrians outside the clear zone.
Section 6.5.7 provides guidance on surface treatments for different widths of furnishing zones.
6.3.2 ANCILLARY SPACE
Ancillary space, if present, is located within the roadway portion of the right-of-way, between the
travelled way and the curb or pavement edge. Its function is ancillary (i.e., providing something
additional to a main part or function) to either the roadway or the adjacent roadside. The use of this
flexible space can vary along a street corridor or an individual block face, and may include elements such
as motor vehicle or bicycle parking, loading zones, designated disabled parking, curb extensions, transit
stops, parklets, or patios. Many of the elements listed as uses in the furnishing and/or frontage zones
may be suitable for the ancillary space.
Curb extensions and parklets are two potential pedestrian features suitable for the ancillary space. Curb
extensions minimize crossing distance for pedestrians, improve sightlines for drivers, and reduce
pedestrian exposure to motor vehicle traffic. They have the additional benefit of providing a protective
envelope for on-street parking areas (for both motor vehicles and bicycles). Parklets are small urban
parks located in the ancillary space that provide a recreational space for pedestrians to sit and relax.
Rural roads generally do not include an ancillary space. They may have a shoulder in the corresponding
space between the travelled way and the roadside, which has a different functionality.
14 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
The width of the ancillary space depends on the context of the street and the desired street elements
within the space; a width sufficient for a parking lane is suggested, since most or all other elements can
be accommodated within that dimension.
Roadsides lacking both ancillary space and a furnishing zone will position the pedestrian through zone
adjacent to moving motor vehicles, which negatively affects the safety and comfort of pedestrian travel.
On commercial streets, or where adjacent traffic speeds are 50 km/h or higher, provision of ancillary
space and/or a furnishing zone is recommended.
6.3.3 CONTEXT CONSIDERATIONS AND TRADE-OFFS
The design of roadways and evaluation of trade-offs, particularly in retrofit situations, requires the
designer's judgement and consideration of the needs of the design user group. In all cases, context
considerations and trade-offs will be affected by jurisdictional policy and modal priorities.
The designer should take care to ensure that pedestrian needs are integrated and not unduly hindered
by the design of other roadway elements. For example, where cross-sectional space is limited, the
following application heuristics could be considered for urban roadways.
• General purpose travel lanes or turn bays could be narrowed or removed, taking into
consideration the recommended lane widths for passenger vehicles, freight, and transit
movement.
• If available width is insufficient to accommodate all three zones of the roadside, the pedestrian
through zone width should be preserved and the width of the frontage zone or furnishing zone,
in that order, reduced.
• Ancillary space could be left out of the design so the pedestrian through zone is preserved and
the furnishing zone increased.
In urban areas, these trade-offs often involve incremental adjustments to street elements rather than
removal of entire zones. The width of each functional zone should generally be selected from the
recommended range outlined in Section 6.3.3 based on contextual factors. If the width of a roadside
zone is too low to provide the functionality of that zone, it may be preferable to leave it out in order to
provide suitable functionality of other design elements.
6.4 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN: PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
The management and integration of pedestrian spaces that intersect with the roadway network is of
particular importance to pedestrian design. At these locations, pedestrians are required to cross the
path of other road users and vice versa, creating conflict points that must be mitigated to provide a
comfortable and safe pedestrian environment. These conflict points occur:
• On the roadway, at intersection and mid-block crosswalks and
• On the sidewalk, where driveways and alleys cross the sidewalk.
Since pedestrians are the most vulnerable road user group, their design needs should promote safety
and comfort by managing motor vehicle speeds, improving visibility and sightlines, reducing pedestrian
crossing distance, increasing crossing directness and providing accessible spaces.
Design principles for safe and attractive pedestrian crossings include:
June 2017 15
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
• Pedestrian crossings should be available at appropriate intervals. The pedestrian demand to
cross the roadway along direct desire lines should be matched by the availability of crossing
opportunities.
• Pedestrian crossings should be clear and visible. The location along with possible markings,
materials, and illumination of the crossing should make it easily identifiable and allow
pedestrians to see and be seen by traffic, both while waiting to cross and while crossing.
• Pedestrian crossings should be direct and accessible to all pedestrians.
• Pedestrian crossings should be as short as possible.
6.4.1 CROSSWALKS
Crosswalks are a designated area for pedestrians to cross a roadway, either at intersections or mid-
block.
6.4.1.1 Intersection Crosswalks
In many jurisdictions, all legs of an intersection are considered to contain crosswalks by default, whether
or not they are marked. If a crosswalk at an intersection is unmarked, it is typically defined by the space
within the extension of lines directly connecting the sidewalks on opposite sides of the roadway. Should
a sidewalk or sidewalks not exist, the crosswalk would connect the space located between the curb line
or edge of roadway and the adjacent property line.
At signalized intersections, all crosswalks should be marked. At unsignalized intersections, crosswalk
markings, such as zebra and/or twin parallel line pavement markings, may be used in accordance with
the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada (MUTCDC), TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control
Guide 8 , and local similar procedures.
Additionally, consideration should be given to crosswalk markings under the following conditions:
• At an offset or complex intersection, to show pedestrians the shortest route across with the
least exposure to vehicular traffic and conflicts
• At an intersection with visibility constraints, to position pedestrians where they can best be
seen by oncoming traffic
• At an intersection within a school zone.
The components of different types of crosswalks are provided in Tables 3A through 3F of the TAC
Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide 9 •
Prohibiting pedestrian crossing at an intersection leg is sometimes implemented for safety or
operational reasons. This practice should only be justified based on the needs of all intersection users,
and should consider negative impacts on pedestrian walking distance and delay. Non-compliance can be
a problem. See Section 6.5.5 for guidance with regard to physical barriers to assist with compliance, if
the prohibition is fully justified.
Crossing distance on wide roadways can be reduced through the use of curb extensions as discussed in
Section 6.4.3 or median refuge islands. Median refuge islands break the crossing into shorter individual
10
segments, and are described in TAC Synthesis of Practices for Median Design • The minimum width of a
median intended to function as a pedestrian refuge island is 2.4 m.
6.4.1.2 Mid-Block Crosswalks
Mid-block crosswalks legally establish pedestrian right-of-way at a mid-block location, often associated
with connecting a multi-use path across a street. Mid-block crosswalks must be marked with pavement
16 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
markings and signage, at a minimum . Raised medians and median refuge islands also provide a place for
pedestrians to take refuge when crossing mid-block and looking for a gap in traffic to cross. Locations
where mid-block crossings may be warranted include:
• Long blocks (i.e ., longer than a local guideline value; typically 100 m to 200 m) with
destinations on both sides of the roadway (e.g., schools, shopping centres, and parks)
• Locations with heavy pedestrian traffic (e.g., adjacent to mid-block transit stops)
• Blocks with a history of pedestrian collisions .
The decision to establish a crosswalk at a mid-block location should be determined by an engineering
study or warrants. Factors to consider include vehicular volumes and speeds, roadway width and
number of lanes, stopping sight distance and sightlines, distance to the next controlled crossing, night-
time visibility, grade, origin-destination of trips, left turning conflicts, and pedestrian volumes. The
engineering study will indicate whether traffic control is required through pedestrian-activated traffic
signals or alternating amber flashing beacons. Details on conducting a crosswalk engineering study are
11
found in the TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide •
6.4.1.3 Offset Mid-Block Crosswalks
An offset mid-block crosswalk is a design that can be used on mid-block crossings with a median refuge
island, in which the crosswalk is offset on either side of the median, as shown in Figure 6.4.1 (B). On a
two-way street, the median design guides pedestrians (using appropriate signs, markings, and design
12
cues) to the right, directing their view toward approaching traffic • This design approach encourages
eye contact between pedestrians and motorists, particularly at unsignalized crossings. It can also be
used at intersection locations, particularly where pedestrian crossings are long or complex.
June 2017 17
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6- Pedestrian Integrated Design
_-ff
·.
(A) Without a median refuge island, a pedestrian must scan both directions
simultaneously to locate a gap in the traffic flow.
§1 []
(J /§
...
··· ···- ~~--~
(B) With a median refuge island, a pedestrian can scan a single direction at a
time to locate a gap in the traffic flow. Offset crosswalks promote visibility
between pedestrians and motorists by orienting the view of users toward
approaching traffic.
Note: Median island created through localized widening and/or narrowing of
lane widths and/or boulevards.
Figure 6.4.1: Median Refuge Islands and Offset Crosswalks at
Unsignalized Mid-Block Crossings
18 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.4.2 RAISED CROSSWALKS
A raised crosswalk, such as that shown in Figure 6.4.2, is a marked pedestrian crossing that elevates
pedestrians to the same grade as the curb, giving pedestrians greater prominence as they cross the
street. The purpose of raised crosswalks is to reduce vehicle speed and improve visibility for pedestrians
and motorists. Raised crosswalks should be used where a special emphasis on pedestrians is desired,
and are appropriate at intersections or mid-block crossings. Implementation should be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis. 13
Geometric requirements for raised crosswalks are similar to that of speed humps. Like a speed hump,
raised crosswalks have a traffic slowing effect which may affect emergency response and transit
14
routes.
Tactile
Walki~g
Surface
Figure 6.4.2: Raised Crosswalk
6.4.3 CURB EXTENSIONS
Curb extensions provide a physical and visual narrowing of the roadway at a pedestrian crossing. They
can be appropriate at either intersections or mid-block locations. In many jurisdictions, adjacent parking
is restricted (e.g, within 10 m of an intersection or mid-block crossing) to maintain sightlines. Curb
extensions help to fill this unused space and are a key element in enhancing sightlines between
pedestrians and motor vehicle drivers.
Curb extensions are beneficial to pedestrians because they:
• Improve sightlines between motorists and pedestrians
• Decrease the roadway crossing distance for pedestrians, expediting crossings and reducing
traffic exposure
• Reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing the roadway width
• Increase the amount of pedestrian queuing space
• Increase the amount of landing space available at the top of curb ramps
• Provide opportunities for pedestrian amenities and low landscaping in the adjacent furnishing
zone
• Provide protection for parked motor vehicles and help to define the edges of curbside parking
areas.
June 2017 19
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
The following guidance applies to curb extensions:
• Curb extensions should generally extend at least 1.5 m to 2.2 m out from the curb line;
however, this width depends on the width of the curbside lane and may be extended to fill the
entire available space defined by the parking lane. The curb extension, including its associated
gutter, may be flush with the edge of the adjacent travel lane, but must not encroach into the
travelled way.
• A typical radius for the transition curve from the main curb line to the extension is 3.0 to
15
5.0 m • This allows street cleaning equipment to maneuver appropriately along the edge of
the curb extension. The radius should be confirmed and based on operating specifications and
characteristics of local street sweeping and snow clearing equipment.
• The curb extension should include appropriate visual markers, such as landscaping and signage.
• Curb extensions can be extended to incorporate far-side or near-side transit stops and
associated amenities within the curb extension area.
• At intersections, the curb radii and roadway widths should be checked to ensure that they
accommodate the types of turning vehicles expected (Section 2.4). Curb extensions may
tighten the effective turning radius by eliminating the potential to use the curbside parking
lane to accommodate some of the turning movement.
Figure 6.4.3 illustrates how curb extensions allow pedestrians to position themselves to be more visible
to drivers. The curb extension effectively eliminates the visual obstruction posed by the parked motor
vehicle and positions the pedestrian closer to the straight-line view of the driver.
20 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Without Curb Extension: Line of sight
blocked by
= = parked car
T l
With Curb Extension: Line of sight
not blocked
by parked car
= =
ID : I)zj- - ___ _ Shortened
T T T~IU~::""'I crossing
--- distance
R= 3.0 to 5.0 m
Figure 6.4.3: Pedestrian-Motorist Sightlines at Intersection Crossings
Figure 6.4.4 illustrates sightline interactions in the context of a mid-block crossing of a multi-lane street.
Here, as in the intersection example, pedestrian-motorist sightlines are improved by allowing
pedestrians to move out from behind parked cars into a more visible space. However, so that vehicles in
the curb lane yielding to crossing pedestrians do not block pedestrian-motorist sightlines, advance yield
16
lines may be installed to provide a setback of 6 m to 15 m between the crosswalk and yielding vehicles.
This replicates the effect of restricting parking within 10 m of an intersection and promotes clear
sightlines between pedestrians and motorists in all travel lanes. Signage and pavement markings for
17
mid-block crossings should comply with the MUTCDC.
June 2017 21
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Shortened crossing
distance
'=dl~..-..!L J
§I tll
1=~~~~~~~~~~~=c::::::::J~~~~~~~~~~~~==1
H 6.0-15.0 m f===J Line of sight not
II J ~................ -----+~~ blocked b.:::,ped car
Ill l)l:::f '~
~ .... .... c::::::::J
=
l---r_ _ _T;l~
l ,,.,.,l~=-~I:§~,........ r TllJ I § 1
Figure 6.4.4: Pedestrian-Motorist Sightlines at Multi-Lane Mid-Block Crossings
6.4.4 CORNER RADII
The corner radius is constructed to connect the curbs of two intersecting streets. The size of the corner
radius can significantly affect pedestrian comfort and safety. Corner radius influences:
• Available pedestrian queuing space
• Pedestrian crossing distance
• Pedestrian crossing directness
• Pedestrian and motorist sightlines and visibility
• Speed of turning motor vehicles.
In general, a smaller corner radius provides more pedestrian queuing space, facilitates a shorter crossing
distance, enables straight and direct connections between the sidewalk, curb ramp and crosswalk, and
increases the visibility of pedestrians. A small corner radius may also encourage slower motor vehicle
turning speeds. Figure 6.4.5 illustrates the effect of corner radius on pedestrian crossing distance and
directness. As corner radius increases, the pedestrian crossing distance increases or directness is
reduced to minimize crossing distance. Changes in directness of crossing can impact visibility and
likelihood of pedestrians crossing within the marked crosswalk.
22 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
I~
_m
(A) A 5 m corner radius allows for both short crossing distance and pedestrian directness
+6 m
-r·:
crossing distance
I( •I Crossing
(~~:~"'=
Pedestrian Poth Setbacik
Radius=
10m
(B) A 10 m radius necessitates a trade-off between crossing distance and directness for pedestrians
+ 11 m
crossing distance
I+-------
(C) A 15 m radius necessitates a trade-off between crossing distance and directness for pedestrians,
and may lead to higher motor vehicle turning speeds
Figure 6.4.5: Effect of Corner Radius on Pedestrian Crossing Distance and Directness
During the design phase, the chosen radius should be the smallest possible for the design vehicle and
circumstances. Mitigation techniques for freight, transit, and emergency vehicles around small-radius
corners should be considered and can be accommodated by considering the effective turning radius.
Corner radii at intersections should be designed based on analysis of effective turning radii. The
effective turning radius (Figure 6.4.6) is based on the travel path typically used by a motor vehicle to
navigate around a corner, and is larger than the constructed corner radius. Wide curbside travel lanes
and on-street parking or bicycle lanes contribute to a larger effective turning radius as does the
availability of multiple receiving lanes. Recognizing the effective turning radius allows the designer to
select a corner radius that is substantially smaller than selecting a corner radius to match the turning
radius required by the design vehicle. This means that the pedestrian benefits of a small corner radius
may be realized without affecting motor vehicle movements.
June 2017 23
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
[] I§
1§
'
I
'
:~
Figure 6.4.6: Corner Radii and Effective Turning Radius
6.4.5 CROSSWALK LOCATION
One of the design features of integrating pedestrians at intersections is the location of any crosswalk
markings. The location of crosswalk markings is impacted by corner radii (Section 6.4.4) and the width of
the crosswalk which subsequently affects the type and placement of curb ramps (Section 6.4.6).
Smaller corner radii (5 m or less) benefit pedestrians by allowing for the selection of a crosswalk location
that maintains the shortest practicable crossing distance, typically provides a direct trajectory from
sidewalk to crosswalk, and maintains good visibility of pedestrians.
With larger corner radii (above 5 m), the location of the crosswalk necessitates consideration of trade-
offs between pedestrian crossing distance, crossing directness and visibility. Increased corner radius
increases the pedestrian crossing distance unless the crosswalk location is set back further from the
intersection, which affects crossing directness and visibility as shown in Figure 6.4.5.
In balancing the crossing distance and directness, the intersection side of a typical 2.5 m wide crosswalk
should initially be offset a minimum of 0.6 m from the face of the parallel roadway curbline. The
crosswalk can then be moved around the curb return as necessary to achieve a balance of crossing
distance and directness. The amount of adjustment will depend on the radius of the curb return. In
addition to balancing crossing distance and directness, it is desirable to provide adequate distance
between the curb ramps to allow for development for the full height of a 150 mm between the curb
ramps on that corner. A minimum distance of 3 m for the tapers down to the curb ramps is typically
desired.
The curb ramp should be centred in the crosswalk. Where pedestrian crossing volumes are more than
600 pedestrians per hour, a crosswalk wider than the typical 2.5 m minimum width may be warranted. If
24 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
the crosswalk is wider than the typical minimum of width 2.5 m, the additional width should typically be
18
added to the intersection side of the crosswalk rather than towards the leg of the intersection.
6.4.6 CURB RAMPS
A curb ramp is a graded transition between the sidewalk and the street, linking the sidewalk seamlessly
with the pedestrian crossing that it serves. Before curb ramp design takes place, the location and width
of the crosswalk and sidewalk being linked by the curb ramp should be determined by referring to the
optimization of crossing distance and diversion in Section 6.4.5.
The following general guidance applies to curb ramps at crosswalks:
• A dedicated curb ramp should, where practicable, be provided for each individual crosswalk.
• A crosswalk should be at least as wide as its curb ramp(s).
• Curb ramps should optimally be centred in the crosswalk (i.e., the curb ramp should meet a
crosswalk roughly at its centerline).
• Different types of curb ramps may be used for different corners of the intersection (e.g., a
perpendicular curb ramp on one corner may lead into the same crosswalk as a fully depressed
curb ramp on the other corner).
• Curb ramps should be equipped with tactile walking surface indicators (TWSls), whether they
are located at an intersection or mid-block, to make the pedestrian aware they are entering a
hazard area and direct their travel through the area.
Design guidance for curb ramps is based on the national-level guidance from the Canadian Standards
19 20 21
Association. Similarly, at the provincial level, Ontario has legal , regulatory, and related design
22
references pertaining to accessibility for people with disabilities that provide valuable information for
any designer.
6.4.6.1 Parts of the Curb Ramp
A curb ramp consists of several parts that provide smooth transitions, places of refuge, and tactile
guidance for the pedestrian. The shape and positioning of these elements varies according to curb ramp
type and geometric constraints. These parts are illustrated in Figure 6.4.7 and include:
• Ramp-the transitional slope between two surfaces (typically a sidewalk and a roadway
crosswalk). The ramp should have a maximum slope of 1:12 (8.3%) in new locations and a
maximum slope of 1:10 (10%) in existing areas. The recommended width of the ramp, exclusive
of flared sides, is 1.5 m to provide continuity with the practical lower limit of the pedestrian
through zone. The recommended minimum width is 1.2 m based on guidance from the
23
Canadian Standards Association. In constrained conditions, the practical lower limit width is
0.9 m which accommodates the operation of a single wheelchair.
• Landing - a flat surface at the top of a curb ramp that provides a space for refuge and
maneuvering. The landing should be at least 1.2 m long and as wide as the ramp. If the ramp
lands on an area where a pedestrian may have to change direction (e.g., a constrained corner),
the landing should be at least 1.5 m long. In some existing locations, it may not be possible to
provide a landing. Larger landings should be provided, where possible.
• Flare -the sloped edge between the ramp and the adjacent sidewalk. A flare is not an ideal
travel surface for a wheelchair user, but provides a flexible and detectable means for
pedestrians to access the ramp from the side, rather than the landing. Flare grades may be
somewhat steeper than ramps (up to 10%).
June 2017 25
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6- Pedestrian Integrated Design
• Approach - the sidewalk panel(s) adjacent to the curb ramp . The approach area is at the same
grade as the sidewalk and landing.
• Tactile walking surface indicator (TWSI) - a warning treatment that alerts the pedestrian to the
presence of a street crossing through a tactile surface and/or contrasting colour. TWSls may
also enhance the sidewalk-crosswalk interface by guiding pedestrians with visual or other
disabilities to and from the crosswalk with directional grooves. Examples of TWSI materials
include tactile dome pads or directional tiles. The entire curb ramp may be surfaced with a
TWSI, although the ramp-roadway interface, where the ramp meets moving traffic, is a priority
location for TWSI installation. TWSls should comply with Canadian Standards Association
guidance (CSA, 2012). A curb ramp should be hard surfaced and comply with requirements
described in Accessible Design for the Built Environment (CSA, 2012).
Figure 6.4.7: Parts of the Curb Ramp
6.4.6.2 Types of Curb Ramp
Two types of curb ramp are recommended: perpendicular curb ramps and depressed corners. Curb
ramp selection depends on both the corner radius context and intended pedestrian function. Figure
6.4.8 illustrates the application of perpendicular curb ramps and the application of a depressed corner in
a small-radius scenario to align with crosswalks.
Perpendicular curb ramps, shown in Figure 6.4.8 (A), enhance safety and mobility for pedestrians in
many ways. They mitigate pedestrian crowding by separating sidewalk users by direction of travel and
reduce amb iguity for drivers about which crosswalk pedestrians intend to use. Perpendicular curb ramps
allow wheelchair users and visually impaired people to directly enter the crosswalk rather than entering
the roadway at an angle. Perpendicular curb ramps also reduce encroachment by turning motor vehicles
as compared with a fully depressed corner.
Depressed corners, shown in Figure 6.4.8 (B) are appropriate for constrained situations where the ability
to construct perpendicular curb ramps is limited by corner radii and/or sidewalk width . Depressed
corners offer wheelchair users the ability to enter the marked crosswalk along a straight trajectory, since
the full corner depression allows for flexible positioning. However, fully depressed corners lack the
26 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
separation offered by perpendicular curb ramps, channelling pedestrians into a single ramp area. This
requires pedestrians to share space more readily and presents some ambiguity for drivers about which
direction queued pedestrian intend to travel. Depressed corners are also at risk of encroachment by
turning motor vehicles-particularly large vehicles such as trucks and buses-due to the lack of a curb
along the corner radius the corner.
To form a section of full curb height of 150 mm between perpendicular curb ramps, a minimum of 3 m
of separation between the curb ramps is required for the flares along the arc. On corner radii greater
than 5 m or when sidewalks are separated from the curb by a furnishing zone, perpendicular curb ramps
should be used, and crosswalk locations chosen accordingly as discussed in Section 6.4.5. The sidewalk
should be adjusted to lead to the perpendicular curb ramp. However, in highly constrained situations,
such as a 5 m radius corner with narrow sidewalks and no furnishing zones, it is difficult to achieve
separation between the two perpendicular curb ramps without substantial offsetting from the corner. If
such offsetting requires significant pedestrian diversion, a depressed corner should be used instead.
(A) Parallel Curb Ramp
(B) Depressed Corner Ramp
Up to 10mm lip
~
Figure 6.4.8: Recommended Curb Ramp Configurations and Dimensions
June 2017 27
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.4.7 PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS
Pedestrian signal indicators display whether pedestrians have adequate time to begin crossing a
roadway at a signalized crosswalk. All traffic signals should be equipped with pedestrian signal
indicators, except where the pedestrian crossing is prohibited by signage. Where feasible, and
particularly in areas with high pedestrian volumes (e.g., central business districts, routes to schools), the
pedestrian signal indication should be displayed automatically as part of the signal phasing. Pedestrians
should not be required to actuate the signal. Where pedestrian volumes are high, a separate pedestrian-
only signal phase may be beneficial.
Pedestrian crossing time includes the observation reaction time, the walking time at an assumed
walking speed plus a safety margin. Providing adequate pedestrian crossing time is a critical element of
24 25
the walking environment at signalized intersections. The MUTCDC and the Canadian Capacity Guide
recommend traffic signal timing to accommodate pedestrians. In general, the length of a motor vehicle
signal phase with parallel pedestrian movements should provide sufficient time for a pedestrian to
safely cross, including both a sufficient "walk" interval and necessary pedestrian clearance time.
Leading pedestrian intervals provide pedestrians with a head start sufficient to cross the first lane of
traffic. A period of 3 to 7 seconds is given to enter the crosswalk, where they are more visible to
motorists, before vehicles on the parallel approach are permitted to enter the crosswalk.
Extended pedestrian clearance intervals and/or leading pedestrian intervals may be appropriate at
crosswalks with high volumes of pedestrians and turning motor vehicles, parked cars, or where the
population demographics indicate a high proportion of slower-moving pedestrians. (e.g., near seniors'
residences, schools, hospitals).
Countdown pedestrian signals are beneficial to pedestrians, as they help pedestrians identify how much
time remains to finish crossing the intersection before the signal phase ends. Location conditions and
26
operational details for countdown pedestrian signals are described in the MUTCDC. Countdown
pedestrian signals may also provide information to motor vehicle drivers, and can lead to changes in
driver and pedestrian behaviour. Therefore, it is prudent to follow up the installation of countdown
pedestrian signals with appropriate education and enforcement initiatives, to maximize the safety and
operational performance of the intersection.
These and other aspects of pedestrian signals are also described in the TAC Pedestrian Crossing Control
27
Guide.
6.4.8 DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS CROSSING THE SIDEWALK
Where driveways and alleys cross the sidewalk, they create conflict points between pedestrians and
motor vehicles. Management of these conflicts is important for pedestrian safety. In addition to
guidance on access management in Chapter 8, driveway and alley crossings of sidewalks should be
designed to include elements that reduce the speed of the crossing motor vehicles (e.g. raised
crosswalks) and/or the frequency of motor vehicle accesses. The number of motor vehicle conflicts
across sidewalks at access points can be reduced by consolidating multiple access points into a fewer
number of access points and/or reducing the number of conflict points at each access by restricting left
turns into or out of the access.
There are generally two styles of driveway crossings of the sidewalk: driveway apron and intersection.
• Driveway apron style crossings maintain the sidewalk grade and material through the crossing.
This style often requires motorists to mount a driveway apron, then cross the pedestrian
28 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
through zone, as illustrated in Figure 6.4.9 (A and B). The advantage of driveway apron style
crossings is that crossing motor vehicles must navigate a change in grade slowing them at the
conflict point.
• Intersection style crossings are constructed similar to a street cross ing, as illustrated in
Figure 6.4.9 {C and D), with curb ramps for pedestrians to transition to street level. This style of
crossing requires pedestrians to navigate a grade change via a curb ramp and reduces the
potential to reduce motor vehicle speeds. To support pedestrian right of way at intersection
style crossings, raised crosswalks and/or traffic controls (stop signs or traffic signals) can be
used.
A) Furniture zone maintains B) Front portion of curb tight
sidewalk continuity sidewalk dips
C) Entire sidewalk dips D) Sidewalk crosses as an
intersection crosswalk
Figure 6.4.9: Driveway Crossing Styles
There are two ways of achieving the driveway apron style crossing for pedestrians as illustrated in Figure
6.4.9 (A and B) . In Figure 6.4.9 (A), the furnishing zone is wide enough to maintain sidewalk continuity,
with the driveway grade change occurring within the furnishing zone itself. Figure 6.4.9 (B) shows a
sidewalk that is not separated from the travelled way by a furnishing zone or is separated by a narrow
furnishing zone that cannot accommodate the full grade change for the driveway apron. In this example,
June 2017 29
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
the back portion of the sidewalk maintains its normal crossfall while the front portion of the sidewalk is
steepened to accommodate the driveway.
Figure 6.4.9 (C) illustrates dipping the entire sidewalk at the driveway approaches to keep the cross-
slope constant. A constant cross-slope may also be achieved by ramping the sidewalk down to the street
level and striping an intersection-style crosswalk as illustrated in Figure 6.4.9 (D).
6.5 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN: PEDESTRIAN ELEMENTS AND DETAILS
28
For many of the design elements in this section, the Canadian Standards Association provides relevant
national-level guidance that supports the guidance herein. Similarly, at the provincial level, Ontario has
29 31
legal , regulatory3°, and related design references pertaining to accessibility for people with
disabilities that provide valuable information for any designer.
6.5.1 SURFACE TYPE, GRADE AND CROSS-SLOPE
Walking surfaces should be firm, even, and allow for good traction in all weather conditions. The
maximum recommended grade for sidewalks is 1:20 (5%), although steeper grades up to 1:12 (8.3%),
inclusive of landings, are acceptable if intermittent landings are provided at intervals of no more than
9.0 m.
A common practice for a sidewalk in a road right-of-way is to follow the grade of the adjoining roadway.
If the grade of the roadway exceeds the maximum recommended grade, then the adjacent sidewalk is
not considered accessible. If practical, it would be supplemented by an accessible ramp. On steep
grades, the designer may also choose to provide a stairway for pedestrian comfort and safety,
particularly where slippery conditions exist, with a parallel pedestrian way that has accessible grades.
Cross-slopes should provide adequate drainage while allowing comfort and traction for pedestrians,
especially wheelchair users. A cross-slope of 2.0% is recommended, although cross slopes of 0.6% to 5%
and up to 8% across short driveways are acceptable.
6.5.2 ACCESSIBLE RAMPS AND STAIRWAYS
The designer should refer to local regulatory requirements for accessible pedestrian ramps and
stairways design, which may differ from national references.
6.5.2.1 Accessible Ramps
An accessible ramp provides a walking surface of moderate slope, and should be designed to
accommodate all types of pedestrians. Detailed guidance regarding exterior ramps is provided by the
CSA Accessible Design for the Built Environment 32 and the GAATES Illustrated Technical Guide. 33 High-
level geometric guidance for pedestrian accessibility on exterior ramps includes:
• Minimum width of at least 1.2 m, with a minimum clear width (between handrails and any
obstructions) of at least 0.90 m. Where space is required for two wheelchairs to pass, wider
ramps of at least 1.8 m should be provided.
• Grade between 1:20 (5%) and 1:15 (6.7%) and a cross slope of no more than 1:50 {2%).
• Landings at least 1.5 m in length should be provided. The recommended size is 1.8 m in length
to accommodate most manual and some motorized wheelchairs, or 2.25 m in length to
accommodate most types of wheelchairs likely to be used.
30 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.5.2.2 Stairways
A stairway comprises a flight of stairs, handrails, and landings (Figure 6.5.1). Stairways are effective in
traversing significant vertical heights within a limited horizontal distance. However, stairways present a
barrier to persons using wheelchairs and should be equipped with push ramps if intended to
accommodate dismounted cyclists and people pushing strollers. Detailed guidance regarding exterior
stairways is provided in CSA Accessible Design for the Built Environment. 34 High-level geometric guidance
for pedestrian accessibility on stairways includes:
• The minimum width of a stairway is 1.1 m.
• The minimum width and length of a stairway landing is 1.1 m.
• Stairs should be at a constant grade, with uniform run and rise dimensions from top to bottom.
For barrier-free design, stair runs should be at least 280 mm and risers at most 180 mm,
35
providing a maximum grade of 64%. Stair runs are normally at least 280 mm and no more than
355 mm, exclusive of nosing (an abrasive anti-slip treatment on the edge of the stair tread).
Risers are typically at least 125 mm and no more than 180 mm. A 355 mm run combined with a
150 mm riser allows a relatively steep slope (42% grade) to be traversed while affording a
comfortably long run. Typical rise and run dimensions are provided in Figure 6.5.1.
• The maximum vertical rise without a landing is 3.7 m. Where landings are provided, each landing
should be as wide as the stairway itself and have a minimum length of 1.1 m.
• Stairs and landings are surfaced with a slip-resistant finish or are provided with slip-resistant
strips protruding no more than 1 mm above the surface of each tread. A slope of 1% toward the
forward edge of each run is desirable for drainage.
• A tactile walking surface indicator should be located at the top of the stairs and extend the
entire width of the stairway. The tactile walking surface indicator should be between 600 mm
and 650 mm in depth and set back approximately one tread depth from the edge of the top
36
stair.
June 2017 31
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Figure 6.5.1: Stair Design
6.5.2.3 Handrails
Handrails should be provided on both sides of a ramp or stairway. Where the distance between the
handrails is greater than 2.2 m, an intermediate handrail should be constructed 920 mm to 1,000 mm
37
away from one of the handrails. Handrail heights should be in the range of 860 mm to 920 mm, as
measured vertically from the edge of the stair treads or the surface of the ramp. Handrails should
extend horizontally by an additional 300 mm on both the top and bottom landings of the stairway or
ramp.
6.5.2.4 Push Ramps
Push ramps are used to make stairways accessible to strollers and/or dismounted cyclists, as illustrated
in Figure 6.5.2. Push ramps for strollers may also be used by dismounted cyclists; however, push ramps
for dismounted cyclists are not compatible with strollers.
32 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Tactile
Wa lking
Surface
(A) Narrow stairs (:52.2 m):
Bicycle push ramp
Ta ctil e
Walki ng
Surfa ce
(8) Wide stairs (>2.2 m):
Stroller push ramp and
supplemental handrail
Note: Informational signage to explain purpose/use of bicycle push ramp and stroller push ramp
should be provided
Figure 6.5.2: Stair Design for Push Ramps
The following guidelines apply to push ramps:
• Push ramps should typically be 250 mm to 300 mm wide, although widths may range from
100 mm (in the case of a channel for bicycles) to 300 mm (in the case of push ramps adjacent to
a handrail). Widths greater than 300 mm should be avoided as they may encourage cyclists to
ride down the ramp without dismounting.
June 2017 33
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
• Push ramps can be constructed of concrete, built from standard lumber dimensions (e.g.,
2"x12") or selected from prefabricated metal channels (i.e., runnels or wheeling ramps).
• Where push ramps are to be installed, a stairway slope of 25% or less is desirable. Installing push
ramps on stairway slopes greater than 34% requires engineering judgement, as bicycles and
strollers may become difficult to control.
• Push ramps may be installed in the middle of a stairway or at the edge(s). The middle of the
stairway is recommended where space permits, to position the push ramp where it is less likely
to interfere with pedestrian access to handrails, and less likely to create conflicts between
bicycle pedals and stairway handrails.
• Dedicated handrails are not required adjacent to push ramps. However, they may be installed
on one or both sides of a push ramp where support is desired, or to provide separation from the
rest of the stairway. Tactile warning indicators on stairway approach landings, monolithic
casting with the stairs, and contrasting colours are additional strategies to demarcate a push
ramp, particularly when constructed in the middle of a stairway.
• If a wide stairway features an intermediate handrail (920 mm to 1,000 mm from one of the edge
handrails), the area bounded by these handrails is prioritized for accessible use. Push ramps
must not be installed within this area. However, they may be installed adjacent to the
intermediate handrail in the main stair area.
• Stairways with high volumes of strollers and/or dismounted cyclists may benefit from multiple
push ramps to reduce conflicts between users traveling in opposite directions.
Push Ramps for Strollers: Push ramps for strollers are configured as follows:
• Two even ramp surfaces, each approximately 250 mm wide, are positioned with a clear spacing
of 400 mm to 500 mm. This spacing and width accommodates a typical stroller with wheel
spacing of 600 mm.
• Runnels, which are channels sometimes provided for bicycle wheels, should generally not be
used on push ramps for strollers, because they do not provide adequate flexibility in wheel
spacing.
• Push ramps for strollers may not be constructed directly underneath handrails, since strollers
cannot be leaned.
• Due to its overall width (approximately 1 m), a push ramp for strollers installed immediately
adjacent to a handrail will reduce the effectiveness of the handrail for other stair users. This
situation may be mitigated by providing a clear width of at least 1,000 mm between the push
ramp edge and the handrail, or by constructing an additional handrail elsewhere on the stairway
to provide, at minimum, two accessible handrails for pedestrians not using push ramps.
Push Ramps for Dismounted Cyclists: A standalone push ramp makes stairways accessible to
dismounted cyclists. A number of bicycle-only configurations of push ramps are possible:
• The most basic configuration of push ramp for bicycles is an even surface built of wood,
concrete, or metal, running on either or both sides of the stairway. If a bicycle push ramp is
adjacent to handrails, it should be 300 mm wide to provide adequate room for bicycle pedals.
34 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
• To help position bicycle pedals away from the handrail supports, a channel known as a runnel
may be used. Runnels are typically 100 mm wide and SO mm deep, with either a rectangular or
rounded section, to accommodate the width of bicycle tires.
• Runnels using metal channels (e.g., ClOO x SO) can be bolted onto an existing push ramp for
bicycles, or bolted directly onto the stairs. Runnels can also be cast into concrete push ramps as
a depressed notch (typically rounded, and SO mm to 100 mm wide). If a runnel is adjacent to
handrails, it should be positioned with a lateral clear spacing of 17S mm to 200 mm from the
nearest handrail support.
0
• Runnels installed at a slight angle (approximately lS towards the centre of the stairway) enable
dismounted cyclists to lean their bicycle away from the handrail as they travel up or down the
stairs.
6.5.3 STREET HARDWARE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES
Street hardware refers to the fixtures found along and within a street right-of-way, including traffic signs
and signals, utilities, hydrants, mail boxes, and parking meters. Pedestrian amenities, sometimes
referred to as street furniture, are elements which aid pedestrian comfort, convenience, and safety.
Pedestrian amenities include:
• Benches and other seating areas
• Waste and recycling receptacles
• Lighting
• Wayfinding signage
• Transit shelters
• Bicycle racks
• Drinking fountains
• Public washrooms
• Fountains, clocks, public art, and other aesthetic and architectural features
• Street trees.
The proper planning of street hardware and pedestrian amenities is important to pedestrian integrated
design, yet should not conflict with the safe and orderly movement of pedestrians, cyclists, and motor
vehicles. Sight lines of pedestrians and other road users should not be obstructed by street hardware or
pedestrian amenities.
Benches and seating areas should be located in the furnishing zone (outside of the pedestrian through
zone) to accommodate pedestrian flow and accessibility. If adjacent to a parking lane or commercial
loading area, seating areas should minimize interference with loading and unloading activities.
Street trees provide aesthetic and environmental values, calm traffic, and improve safety for
pedestrians. Trees add visual interest to streets and narrow the street's visual corridor, which may
encourage drivers to slow down. They also improve air quality and provide shade and protection from
the elements.
It is generally desirable to group elements in the furnishing zone to avoid clutter and ensure adequate
clear space for walking. For example, seating, waste receptacles, and wayfinding signage can be
integrated into planter designs, and placed adjacent to utility boxes. By grouping elements together it is
possible to create compact, functional areas that provide many services to pedestrians and other road
users.
June 2017 35
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.5.4 PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
Lighting improves visibility for pedestrians and all road users and can be provided in pedestrian through
zones with moderate to high pedestrian activity, intersections where warranted, and all mid-block
crosswalks. Lighting is also used in streetscapes that have a significant pedestrian population to provide
continuity and cohesiveness, and to enhance both safety and security.
6.5.4.1 Pedestrian through Zones
Lighting of the pedestrian through zone is directed over the sidewalk to illuminate both the surface of
the pedestrian through zone and pedestrians themselves.
Where the pedestrian through zone is no more than 5.0 m from the edge of travelled way, pedestrian
illumination is designed as part of roadway lighting. Illumination for pedestrians is required for
moderate to high night-time pedestrian activity, typically defined as 10 or more pedestrians on both
sides of a roadway in a typical block over the highest average night-time one-hour period. Details on this
methodology are provided in the Section 9.1.3 of the TAC Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting.38
Where the pedestrian through zone is more than 5.0 m from the travelled way, it is designed according
to the TAC Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting, Chapter 16. Pedestrian lighting is typically installed
in the furnishing zone or frontage zone. When constructed in the furnishing zone, lighting contributes to
the effective buffer between the sidewalk and the street, helping to define the bounds of the pedestrian
area. Pedestrian lighting can also be provided from the frontage zone via light fixtures attached to
adjacent buildings.
Lighting of pedestrian tunnels is discussed in the TAC Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting, Chapter
16.
6.5.4.2 Intersections
Warrants for lighting at intersections are provided in Chapter 10 of the TAC Guide for the Design of
Roadway Lighting. 39
6.5.4.3 Mid-Block Crosswalks
All mid-block pedestrian crosswalks should be considered for pedestrian lighting. Design guidance for
lighting at mid-block crosswalks is provided in the TAC Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting, 40
Chapter 12. Carefully designed illumination of pedestrian areas improves pedestrian visibility to drivers.
6.5.4.4 Streetscapes
On streetscapes that have a high volume of pedestrian traffic, additional lighting may enhance the
pedestrian experience. Design guidance on streetscape lighting is provided in the TAC Guide for the
Design of Roadway Lighting, Chapter 18, 41 and the JES Lighting Handbook. 42
6.5.4.5 Interaction of Pedestrian Lighting and Trees
It is desirable to position trees midway between streetlight poles and to prune the lower branches so
that unobstructed light reaches a point at least 1.8 m above the mid-span points as illustrated in Figure
6.5.3.
36 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
plan view Notes : p =criti cal mid-s pan point
(1.8 m min .)
s =pole spacing
perspective
Figure 6.5.3: Interaction between Pedestrian Lighting and Trees
6.5.5 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY FENCING AND BARRIERS
Fencing can be used to buffer pedestrians from adjacent land uses or motor vehicle traffic.
A physical barrier between the travelled way and adjacent sidewalk, multi-use path, or walkable
shoulder may be appropriate for the protection and separation of pedestrians using roads with high
motor vehicle speeds and/or volumes. Design guidance for such barriers can be found in Section 7.6.2
and Section 7.7.3.
June 2017 37
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Where strong desire lines result in pedestrians short-cutting across hazardous roads or intersections,
fencing can act as a barrier and channel pedestrians toward designated crossings. However, fences
should only be used in this manner after design-based approaches to improve pedestrian safety and
accessibility have been exhausted (e.g., relocating origins/destinations such as bus stops, or adding
intersection design elements).
Fencing is subject to evaluation as a roadside hazard and care should be taken to minimize the collision
severity if the fence is struck by an errant vehicle. For example, some fence designs impart risk of
spearing from horizontal railings. Assessments of this nature are described further in Chapter 7.
The position of fencing adjacent to a roadway normally considers the lateral clearance requirements as
well as the space required for passengers to disembark from vehicles parked at the curb. Fences must
not interfere with vehicle-pedestrian or vehicle-vehicle sightlines needed at intersections and other
conflict points.
Fencing can be provided in a variety of types, heights, and materials. In some contexts, bollards can
provide the desired separation or protection. Refer to CSA's B651 (Accessible Design for the Built
Environment) for guidance related to bollards.
6.5.6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR RURAL ROADS
For pedestrians, rural roads involve different risks than urban streets, such as unlit night-time
conditions, run-off road collisions, and high motor vehicle speeds. To facilitate safe and comfortable
pedestrian access, rural roadway design should mitigate these risks through lighting, signage, and the
provision of pedestrian through zones in the form of multi-use paths/trails or walkable shoulders.
On rural roadways with speed limits of 70 km/h or more, multi-use paths/trails are more suitable than
walkable shoulders, since they place pedestrians further away from potential errant vehicles. On rural
roadways with speed limits of 60 km/h or less and only occasional pedestrians, walkable shoulders may
be considered. These heuristics provide a starting point for an integrated roadside safety cost
effectiveness analysis, discussed in Chapter 7.
6.5.6.1 Paths/Trails
Paths are paved with a hard surface, whereas trails need not be paved. In a rural context, paths/trails
are often multi-use (i.e., used by all active transportation modes). The design of multi-use trails follows
the same principles as multi-use paths, which are designed according to the guidance in Section 5.3.1.4.
Multi-use paths/trails in rural areas may provide the additional benefit of accommodating recreational
users, such as cross-country skiers or snowshoe users.
6.5.6.2 Walkable Shoulders
If pedestrian accommodation is a desired design feature for a lower speed roadway, shoulders should be
provided on both sides of the road and should be at least 1.2 m wide. This accommodates the operating
envelope for a single pedestrian travelling within the shoulder width. If shoulders are also to be
accessible to cyclists, refer to Section 5.3.2.5. A paved surface is recommended in order to
accommodate the full range of pedestrians.
6.5.6.3 Lighting
Night-time conditions are particularly hazardous for pedestrians traveling on rural roadways because
roadway lighting is often absent. Where warranted by the methodology outlined in the TAC Guide for
38 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
43
the Design of Roadway Lighting , design of rural roadways with pedestrian traffic should incorporate
overhead lighting that effectively illuminates the entire roadway, including shoulder areas.
6.5.6.4 Towns and Villages
Within towns and villages (e .g., areas with densities of at least 400 persons per square kilometre),
sidewalk guidance should follow that of urban areas. Approaches to towns and villages should include
treatments to encourage a gradual reduction in motor vehicle speeds to be consistent with the posted
speed limit.
6.5.6.5 Winter Access and Maintenance Considerations
General design and maintenance considerations for winter conditions are addressed in Section 6.6.6.
On rural roadways where pedestrian access is to be provided, special care should be taken to avoid
obstructing the pedestrian through zone with snow. Adequate storage space should be provided to
prevent snow windrows from encroaching into the pedestrian through zone. In many cases, walkable
shoulders may be plowed at the same time as the rest of the roadway, allowing for snow storage on the
outer edge of the pedestrian through zone.
6.5.7 STORMWATER FEATURES/ LANDSCAPING/ TREES
Green stormwater features include bio-retention swales (bioswales), rain gardens, tree grates, and
pervious surfaces (e.g., grass, pervious concrete, asphalt, and pavers). Bioswales are natural landscape
elements that manage water runoff from paved surfaces. Plants in the swale trap pollutants and silt,
preventing them from entering a river system. Tree grates are normally provided for trees planted
within a hard surfaced pedestrian area. Their use maximizes the available pedestrian travel space while
allowing water infiltration and proper gas exchange at the air/soil contact zone.
Care must be taken to locate trees where the root systems have room to expand while not disrupting
underground utilities, above-ground utilities, street lights, or adjacent roadway or sidewalk surfaces.
Tree spacing and root accommodation techniques will vary based on the species of tree, available space,
and nearby utilities.
A minimum setback of 750 mm from the curb face to the tree trunk face is generally desirable although
additional setback may be required as outlined in Section 7.7. This provides a suitable minimum
clearance for passengers to open a vehicle door and exit/enter reasonably unimpeded, reduces the
frequency of splashed salt and other harmful materials contacting the tree trunk, and minimizes the
intrusion of root growth into the road subgrade.
• Furnishing zones less than 2.0 m wide are difficult to maintain as a narrow strip of grass.
Concrete or asphalt materials are typically used to surface the area.
• For furnishing zones approximately 2.0 m to 4.5 m wide, grass is the most common surface
treatment.
• For furnishing zones wider than 4.5 m, the use of shrubs and trees, together with grass, are
common landscape treatments.
June 2017 39
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.6 PEDESTRIAN DESIGN: INTEGRATION WITH RELATED GEOMETRIC DESIGN
ELEMENTS
6.6.1 TRAVEL LANE WIDTH ON COLLECTORS AND ARTERIALS
Selection of travel lane widths has previously focused on the needs of motor vehicles and drivers.
Increasingly, this approach is shifting toward a "complete streets" ethic that seeks to balance safety,
access, and comfort for all road users.
Traffic lanes wider than 3.2 m may offer drivers a wider margin for error and a greater perceived sense
44
of comfort, but wider traffic lanes tend to allow drivers to travel at higher speeds and are incompatible
with efforts to reduce roadway crossing distances and maximize the space available for pedestrians.
Passenger vehicles can operate within 2.7 m to 3.0 m lanes. However, a lane width of approximately
3.3 m is recommended for trucks and transit vehicles. Pedestrian-oriented lane design should seek
general purpose travel lane widths in the 3.0 m to 3.3 m range, while accounting for large vehicle access.
In many cases, a hybrid approach is feasible whereby inner lanes are reduced to approximately 3.0 m
and wider curbside lanes are maintained for the purpose of large vehicle access. For general guidance
regarding lane widths, and for target widths on truck and transit routes, the designer should refer to
Section 2.4 and Section 4.2.
Pedestrians are among the prime beneficiaries of narrower travel lane widths. Some of the major
benefits of narrower lane widths for pedestrians are reduced crossing distance, additional pedestrian
space in the roadside, increased visibility, and slower motor vehicle travel speeds.
6.6.1.1 Crossing Distance and Pedestrian Visibility
The narrowing of general purpose travel lanes may allow for an overall narrowing of the street cross-
section. This effect is beneficial for pedestrians, who have shorter distances to cross and decreased
exposure to motor vehicle traffic and may increase space in the roadside area (i.e., the sidewalk,
furnishing zone, and frontage zone) or for other ancillary uses (e.g., motor vehicle parking, bicycle
corrals, and parklets). The reduction in travelled way width, and incorporating pedestrian design
elements such as curb extensions, also increases the visibility of pedestrians at intersections.
6.6.1.2 Motor Vehicle Travel Speeds
Limiting motor vehicle travel speeds is a key strategy in providing a safe walking environment. Wider
travel lanes are correlated with faster motor vehicle speeds, with each additional 0.1 m of lane width
45
resulting in faster travel speeds of approximately 1.5 km/h. Slower travel speeds provide motorists
46
with more reaction time and improve their sightlines, making pedestrian collisions less likely.
Moreover, when a collision occurs, it is far less likely to result in injury or death when motor vehicle
speeds are low. Research demonstrates that the severity of collisions increases exponentially with
47
motor vehicle speed. The probability of a pedestrian fatality reaches 10% at an impact speed of
37 km/h, 25% at 51 km/h, 50% at 68 km/h, 75% at 80 km/h and 90% at 93 km/h. Collisions involving
48
light trucks, which are common in Canada, result in more severe injuries than collisions involving
passenger cars. The additional severity of a light truck-pedestrian collision is equivalent to a passenger
49
car traveling approximately 10 km/h faster. To the extent that narrowed travel lanes reduce motor
vehicle travel speed, they are an asset for pedestrian safety.
6.6.2 PEDESTRIAN INTEGRATION AT ROUNDABOUTS
Roundabouts generally make it easier and safer for pedestrians to cross a major street by reducing the
number of conflict points with motor vehicles, slowing traffic, improving sight angles, and providing
40 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
opportunities for pedestrian refuge islands. However, roundabouts have constant vehicular traffic flow
and rely upon the judgment of pedestrians to discern gaps in the traffic stream. For this reason,
pedestrians with slower travel speeds (e.g., children, elderly, and persons with disabilities) may prefer
stop-controlled or signalized intersections to stop motor vehicles and provide positive guidance in the
50
form of visual and audible signals.
Multi-lane roundabouts present greater challenges than single-lane roundabouts because they extend
crossing distances, which increases exposure to motor vehicle traffic, and introduce the potential for
51 52
multiple-threat collisions with outer- and inner-lane vehicles. When pedestrian activity is high, a
stop-controlled intersection or single-lane roundabout is recommended over a multi-lane roundabout.
Strategies to improve pedestrian safety at roundabouts of all types include:
• Requiring motorists to yield to pedestrians at all crossing points and reinforcing this
requirement with advanced yield markings, located 6.0 m to 15.0 m from the crosswalk.
• Designing the roundabout to reduce veh icle speeds (i.e., by limiting the radius of the traffic
circle and relying on a mountable centre apron to accommodate larger vehicles).
• Minimizing the number of travel lanes on the approaches and departures ,ideally to one per
direction, to reduce crossing distances.
• Constructing pedestrian refuge islands to enable lane-by-lane crossing.
• Installing marked and/or raised crosswalks to increase pedestrian visibility and slow motor
vehicle traffic.
• Offsetting crosswalks away from the roundabout to reduce crossing distances.
• Supplementing crosswalks with rapid flashing beacons.
At multi-lane roundabouts, full grade separation (i.e., undercrossing) can be considered if the design
strategies described above are insufficient to enable safe pedestrian crossings. However, designers
should be aware that grade separation is costly and may introduce accessibility and security challenges.
For detailed design guidance regarding roundabouts, including accessible design features, refer to the
53
TAC Canadian Roundabout Design Guide.
6.6.3 PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION WITH BIKEWAY FACILITIES
Where a sidewalk or footpath intersects with bikeway facilities, the design of the intersection should
intuitively suggest pedestrian priority since pedestrians are the slower and more vulnerable of the two
user groups. Depending on context, this may be accomplished using signage, a marked and/or raised
crosswalk, coloured or textured paving, or other specialized pavement markings (e.g., yield lines). Other
strategies to promote pedestrian safety at intersections with bicycle facilities include:
• Continuing the striping, pavement materials, and/or grade (i.e. raised crosswalk) of the
pedestrian facility across the conflict zone.
• Signing the pedestrian crossing as such using a Yield to Pedestrians sign (RB-39}, as per
Section A2.2.5 of the MUTCDC.
• Other approaches described in Chapter 5.
June 2017 41
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
6.6.4 PEDESTRIAN INTEGRATION WITH TRANSIT
Bus stops should have safe access via sidewalks and appropriate street crossing locations. The amount
of sidewalk space around a bus stop should accommodate the expected ridership levels while allowing
for the passage of pedestrian traffic. Bus stops with insufficient queuing space are candidates for
implementation of a bus bulb or dedicated waiting area.
Bus stop design should include accessible pads that allow for buses to load passengers in wheelchairs.
Seating, shelter, landscaping, and wayfinding (e.g., route and area maps) are other potential design
amenities at bus stops. These amenities must not obstruct the passage of boarding and alighting transit
passengers. The furnishing zone must be clear of design obstructions adjacent to locations where bus
doors are likely to be positioned at a transit stop.
Bus stops can be located at near-side, far-side, and mid-block locations. Choosing a location for design
purposes should consider pedestrian walk times and delay, location of pedestrian crossings, sight
distances, intersection capacity, transit operations, and waiting area capacity.
For further information on geometric design integration of transit with pedestrian facilities, refer to local
guidance or the following U.S. resources:
• Bus stop location and design - AASHTO Guide for the Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on
Highways and Streets 54 , Section 5.2; and FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies 55 ,
Section 3.6.
• Light rail and streetcar facility stop and station design -AASHTO Guide for the Geometric Design
of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets, Section 6.4.
• Pedestrian and bicycle access to transit facilities -AASHTO Guide for the Geometric Design of
Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets, Chapter 7.
6.6.5 PEDESTRIAN INTEGRATION AT BRIDGES AND INTERCHANGES
Either to provide basic pedestrian access (e.g., in a rural context), or to accommodate higher volumes of
pedestrians (e.g., in an urban context), pedestrian accommodation across bridges and interchanges is an
important design element. Pedestrian design treatment for bridges is addressed in Section 4.10.1.3.
At interchanges, standard intersections, for the purposes of bicycle and pedestrian access, are always
preferred over designs that require crossings of on and off free-flowing interchange ramps. Basic
interchange configurations that are more suitable for pedestrian crossings are identified in Chapter 10 in
Figure 10.8.9 and Figure 10.8.11.
Pedestrian design treatments should be incorporated to facilitate pedestrian crossings and maintain the
continuity of pedestrian routes at interchanges. Key design considerations include having sidewalks
leading to the crossing, providing the pedestrian crossing at a right angle to the on/ off ramp, pavement
markings and signs to designate the pedestrian crossing, and curb ramps. Design guidance for these
elements is included in various sections of this chapter including Sections 6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.5, and 6.4.6.
6.6.6 DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS FOR WINTER AND WET WEATHER
CONDITIONS
Cities should anticipate pedestrian activity year-round, even in inclement conditions. In most Canadian
cities, winter conditions present a specific challenge for pedestrian facility maintenance. Safe and
comfortable accommodation of pedestrians during the winter months is important, and depends on
thoughtful roadway design as well as a strategic snow removal and de-icing program that includes
appropriate equipment and prioritization .
42 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
Some of the issues associated with winter maintenance are discussed here, along with design strategies
and potential mitigation measures to reduce the hazard and inconvenience associated with snowy or icy
winter conditions. Many of the design strategies and potential mitigation measures are also applicable
to improving conditions during wet weather.
6.6.6.1 Design Considerations
Roadway plowing often results in accumulated snow in the roadside area. To prevent overlap of
accumulated snow with the pedestrian through zone, an adequate furnishing zone should be provided
(Section 6.3.1), taking into consideration local snowfall amounts and operational practices. Within the
furnishing zone, adequate longitudinal space should be provided between streetscape elements, such as
street furniture and trees, to accommodate the anticipated level of stored snow.
Curb ramps are susceptible to snow and ice accumulation due to their slopes. In cities with substantial
accumulation of snow and ice, designs that eliminate the need for curb ramps could be considered. For
example, at intersections, raised crosswalks (Section 6.4.2) provide a continuous, level crossing that
resists snow and ice accumulation in the pedestrian through zone. Similarly, at driveways, crossing styles
that maintain an even grade for pedestrians (Section 6.4.8) are an option. In both examples, pedestrians
also benefit from increased visual prominence and traffic calming effects that encourage motorists to
maneuver cautiously in slippery winter conditions.
The placement and alignment of drainage grates should consider the potential for clogging and
obstruction, which may cause accumulation of water. Drainage grates should generally be avoided
adjacent to a curb ramp.
The provision of pedestrian amenities, such as lighting, street furniture, and heated patios, is a means to
encourage pedestrian activity year-round by increasing comfort. Features such as awnings and street
56
trees can help reduce wind speeds along the street.
6.6.6.2 Maintenance Considerations
Winter weather conditions of accumulated snow, ice, and windrows can reduce pedestrian operating
space on sidewalks. In order to maintain the functionality of a given pedestrian through zone design,
maintenance practices should provide an accessible pedestrian through zone throughout the winter
season. At intersections, the presence of accumulated snow affects access to crosswalks and crossing
directness. In both cases, the pedestrian through zone, including sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks and
median refuge islands, should be kept free and clear of snow debris so as to not impede safe pedestrian
crossings.
Winter maintenance strategies should be tailored to local climates, with consideration for the expected
amount and frequency of snowfall, mean winter temperature, humidity, and the presence and intensity
of sunlight.
Agencies that experience significant snow events should employ a proactive or anti-icing strategy, and
have a plan for the removal of de-icing surface material debris that accumulates in and around
pedestrian facilities and sidewalks. Additional sweeping is particularly important in the spring to remove
accumulated debris from the winter.
Curb ramps that feature tactile walking surface indicators, such as truncated domes, may pose a
challenge for snow removal vehicles. Shovelling is an effective way to clear curb ramps without
57
damaging tact ile features, but may present logistical challenges for cities. Additional alternatives could
include using sweeper-style snow removal equipment instead of plows or shovels.
June 2017 43
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
REFERENCES
1 For example, see Hall, E. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday; and Frohnwieser, A.,
Hopf, R., Oberzaucher, E. 2013. " Human Walking Behavior -The Effect of Pedestrian Flow and Personal
Space Invasions on Walking Speed and Direction." Human Ethology Bulletin 28 (3), pp. 20-28.
2 Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2012 . "Section 4.1", Accessible Design for the Built Environment.
Report CSA B651-12. Mississauga, ON : CSA Group, formerly Canadian Standards Association.
3 Royal Canadian Mounted Police . 1998. Creating Safer Communities: An Introduction to Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design {CPTED) for Architects, Planners and Builders. Catalogue Number JS62-
97 /1998. Ottawa, ON : Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)/Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC). http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/JS62-97-1998E.pdf [Viewed
November 11, 2016]
4 Skene, M . and Jacobson, M . 2012. Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide, Second Edition. Ottawa, ON :
Transportation Association of Canada, p. Sl-3.
5 Refer to National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). 2012 . Urban Bikeway Design
Guide, Second Edition; Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). 1998. Canadian Guide to
Neighbourhood Traffic Calming; Skene, M . and Jacobson, M. 2012. Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for
Canada, Second Edition; and Velo Quebec. 2010. Planning and Design for Pedestrians and Cyclists: A
Technical Guide. Montreal, QC: vela Quebec Association.
6 See Peden, M. et al. 2004. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Geneva : World Health
Organ ization (WHO); and Richards, D.C. September 2010. Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal
Injury: Pedestrians and Car Occupants. Road Safety Web Publication No. 16. London UK: Department for
Transport.
7 Bloomberg, M.R., and Burden, A.M . April 2006. Pedestrian Level of Service Study Phase I. New York NY:
City of New York Department of City Planning, Transportation Division .
8 Skene, M . and Jacobson, M . 2012. " Figure 24," Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide, Second Edition.
Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada, p. S2-43.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid . Section 11.2.
11 Ibid. p. S2-4
12
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2009. Pedestrian Safety and ITS-Based Countermeasures
Program for Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities, Injury Conflicts, and Other Surrogate Measures Draft
Zone/Area-Wide Evaluation Technical Memorandum. Report DTFH61-96-C-00098. Mclean, Virginia :
Federal Highway Administration.
13 See: Transportation Association of Canada (TAC), 1998. Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic
Calming; and Skene, M. and Jacobson, M . 2012. Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide, Second Edition .
Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
14 Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). 1998. Figure 4 .1.Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic
Calming . Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
15 Ibid.
June 2017 45
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
16 Transportation Association of Canada (TAC), 2014. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada
{MUTCDC}, Fifth Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
17 Ibid.
18 Department for Transport (DfT). April 1995. "Local Transport Note 2/95," The Design of Pedestrian
Crossings. Norwich UK: Department for Transport.
19 Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2012 . Accessible Design for the Built Environment. Report CSA
B651-12. Mississauga : CSA Group, formerly Canadian Standards Association .
20 Province of Ontario. 2005-2016. "S.O. 2005, c. 11," Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act
(ADDA). Toronto: Province of Ontario.
21 Province of Ontario. 2005-2016. "Regulation 191/11," Integrated Accessibility Standards. Toronto:
Province of Ontario.
22 Global Alliance on Accessible Technologies and Environments (GAATES) . 2014. The lflustrated Technical
Guide to the Accessibility Standard for the Design of Public Spaces. Ottawa, ON : Global Alliance on
Accessible Technologies and Environments.
23 Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2012 . Accessible Design for the Built Environment. Report CSA
B651-12. Mississauga: CSA Group, formerly Canadian Standards Association .
24 Transportation Association of Canada (TAC), 2014. "Section B4.2.2 - Pedestrian Clearance." Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada {MUTCDC}, Fifth Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation
Association of Canada .
25 Teply, S., Allingham, D., Richardson, D., and Stevenson, B. 2008. " Section 3.4.1- Pedestrians," Canadian
Capacity Guide for Signalized Intersections. 3'd Edition. Kitchener, ON : Canadian Institute of
Transportation Engineers.
26 Transportation Association of Canada. 2014. "Section B5.2.1 - Pedestrian Countdown Signals," Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada {MUTCDC}, Fifth Edition. Ottawa, ON: Transportation
Association of Canada .
27 Montufar, J., Regehr, J., Bahar, G., Patmore, K., and Zegeer, C. 2012. Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide,
Second Edition. Ottawa, ON : Transportation Association of Canada.
28 Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2012 . Accessible Design for the Built Environment. Report CSA
B651-12. Mississauga : CSA Group, formerly Canad ian Standards Association .
29 Province of Ontario. 2005-2016. "S.O. 2005, c. 11," Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act
(ADDA). Toronto: Province of Ontario.
30 Province of Ontario. 2005-2016. "Regulation 191/11," Integrated Accessibility Standards. Toronto:
Province of Ontario.
31 Global Alliance on Accessible Technologies and Environments (GAATES) . 2014. The lflustrated Technical
Guide to the Accessibility Standard for the Design of Public Spaces. Ottawa, ON: Global Alliance on
Accessible Technologies and Environments.
32 Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2012 . Accessible Design for the Built Environment. Report CSA
B651-12. Mississauga : CSA Group, formerly Canadian Standards Association .
33 Global Alliance on Accessible Technologies and Environments (GAATES) . 2014. The lflustrated Technical
Guide to the Accessibility Standard for the Design of Public Spaces. Ottawa, ON: Global Alliance on
Accessible Technologies and Environments.
46 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
34 Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2012 . Accessible Design for the Built Environment. Report CSA
B651-12. Mississauga : CSA Group, formerly Canadian Standards Association.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Mclean, D., Lutkevich, P., Lewin, I., et al. 2006. Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
39 Ibid .
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Dilaura, D., Houser, K., Mistrick, R., and Steffy, G. 2011. Lighting Handbook 10th edition: reference and
application. New York NY: Illuminating Engineering Society.
43 Mclean, D., Lutkevich, P., Lewin, I., et al. 2006. "Section 9.1.3," Guide for the Design of Roadway
Lighting. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
44 Fitzpatrick, K., Carlson, P., Brewer, M., Wooldridge, M. 2000. "Design Factors That Affect Driver Speed
on Suburban Streets," Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
No. 1751. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 18-25.
45 Ibid.
46 Karim, D. 2015 . " Narrower Lanes, Safer Streets," presented at the Canadian Institute of Transportation
Engineers {CITE} 2015 Regina Conference. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers.
47 Ibid.
48 Natural Resources Canada (NRC), 2009. "Pickup Trucks, SUVs, Vans, and St ation Wagons accounted for
50% of the passenger vehicle fleet in 2009,"Canadian Vehicle Survey. Ottawa, ON: Natural Resources
Canada .
49 American Automobile Association (AAA), 2011. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of Severe Injury or
Death. Heathrow FL: American Automobile Association.
50 Chartier, G., Eichenbaum, T., Jacobson, M ., et al. . 2017 . Canadian Roundabout Design Guide. Ottawa,
ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
51 Ibid .
52 For example, see City of Toronto. January, 2015. Vehicle Travel Lane Width Guidelines. Version 1.0.2. The
City of Toronto defines high pedestrian activity as either 1) a ratio of pedestrian crossing volumes to
vehicular volumes of at least 1:5, or 2) eight-hour pedestrian crossing volumes of at least 3,500.
53 Chartier, G., Eichenbaum, T., Jacobson, M ., et al. 2017. Canadian Roundabout Design Guide. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
54 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials . 2014. Guide for Geometric Design
of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
55 Nabors, D., Schneider, R., Leven, D., Lieberman, K., Mitchell, C. 2008. Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit
Agencies. Mclean, Virginia: Federal Highway Administration.
June 2017 47
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 6 - Pedestrian Integrated Design
56 City of Edmonton. 2015. For the Love of Winter: Design Guidelines For Transforming Edmonton Into A
Great Winter City. Edmonton: City of Edmonton.
57 Huber, T., Luecke, K., Hintze, M., Coffman, V., Toole J., and Vanoosten, M. 2013. Guide for Maintaining
Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety. Mclean, Virginia: Federal Highway Administration.
48 June 2017
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 7 - ROADSIDE DESIGN
June 2017
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
Transportation Association of Canada
401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive
Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-627-6
TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM
Title and Subtitle
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
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, WSP I MMM Group Thornhill, ON L3T OAl
Jim Dowell, WSP I MMM 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 human
factors research and practices for roadway geometric design. It replaces the 1999 edition Planning of Transport
of the Guide and subsequent revisions. The Guide provides guidance to planners and Infrastructure
designers in developing design solutions that meet the needs of a range of users while Canada
Central reserve
addressing the context of local conditions and environments. Design guidelines for
freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural locations are Design (overall design)
included as well as guidance for integrated bicycle and pedestrian design. Hard shoulder
Layout
The Guide is organized into ten chapters to cover the entire design process from design
Roadside
philosophy and roadway classification to design parameters and specific guidelines for
Run off the road (accid)
the safe accommodation of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on linear road elements
Rural area
and at intersections. The chapters are: Design Philosophy; Design Controls, Classification
Safety
and Consistency; Alignment and Lane Configuration; Cross Section Elements; Bicycle
Safety fence
Integrated Design; Pedestrian Integrated Design; Roadside Design; Access; Intersections;
Urban area
and Interchanges.
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design introduces road safety concepts and the use of quantitative
analysis to evaluate roadside safety design options. The fundamental concept of the
clear zone is outlined and how the concept can be applied through provision of
appropriate cross section and drainage elements to allow for driver recovery. Mitigation
and protection techniques to reduce the severity of fixed-object collisions with roadside
furniture including signs, luminaires and traffic barriers are outlined. A discussion of
roadside design in urban environments and for low volume roads is also included.
Supplementary Information
Index is available at www.tac-atc.ca
Chiu, M., Clayton, C., Millen, G. et al. 2017. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapterl- Roadside Design.
Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
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 I MMM 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 Roads, 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 7 - Roadside Design
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Project Steering Committee
Eric Christiansen, Manitoba Infrastructure (Co-Chair)
John Hammer, Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Co-Chair)
Ke ith 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 Dobush 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Foreword
BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE
In 1999 the Transportation Association of Canada relased 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 for 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 th is Guide.
June 2017 v
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
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 7
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design introduces road safety concepts and the use of quantitative analysis to
evaluate roadside safety design options. The fundamental concept of the clear zone is outlined and how
the concept can be applied through provision of appropriate cross section and drainage elements to
allow for driver recovery. Mitigation and protection techniques to reduce the severity of fixed-object
collisions with roadside furniture including signs, luminaires and traffic barriers are outlined. A
discussion of roadside design in urban environments and for low volume roads is also included .
vi June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
CONTENTS
7.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
7.1.1 Introduction to Roadside Design ..... ... .......... .................. .......... .................. .......... .................. 1
7.1.2 Urban Situations .. .... .. ............ ................. .......... .................. .......... .................. ......... ............... 1
7.1.3 Opportunities to Reduce Roadside Obstacles .................. ... ........... .. ... ... .... .... ............... ... ... .. 2
7.1.4 The Forgiving Roadside .... ................... ......... ................... ............ ................ ........... ............... 2
7.1.5 The Design Focus ... .................... .... .... ............. ............... ............. .................. ......... ............... 2
7.1.6 Human Factors Contributing To Run-Off-Road Collisions .. ................... ..... .... ................... .... 3
7.1.6.1 Horizontal Curves ......... .... ... ...................... .. .... .................... .. ... ... .................... ... .... . 3
7.1.6.2 Loss of Directional Control .. .......... .................. ......... ................... .......... .................. 3
7.1.6.3 Driver Incapacitation, Inattention, and Distraction ................... ......... .................... ... 3
7.1.7 Roadside Safety Guideline: Format .............. .. .. .. .......... ........... .. ... .. ........ .. ........... .. .. .. .... ... .... . 4
7.1.8 Chapter Outline ... .... .. ................... ... .... ... .......... ............... ... .......... .................. ......... ............... 4
7.2 EXPLICIT ANALYSIS OF ROADSIDE SAFETY FEATURES ........................................................... 4
7.2.1 What Does It Involve? .......... ...... ..... .... .............. .. .. ..... ...... ............. .. .. ...... ... ... .......... .. ...... .. .... . 4
7.2.2 Overview of Collision Prediction Models ................................................................................ 5
7.2.3 Overview of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ................. .. ... ..................... ... .. .. ..................... ... .... . 5
7.2.4 Integrated Roadside Safety Cost-Effectiveness Analysis .... .. .. .. .... ... ................... .. .. ........... ... 6
7.2.4.1 Introduction ............ ................ ......... .......... ... .... .. .... .... .................... ... ..... ........... .. .... . 6
7.2.4.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis Overview ............... ... .... .................... ... .. ... .................... ... .... . 6
7 .2.4.3 The Benefit-Cost Analysis Procedure ............ .......... .................. .......... .................. . 6
7.2.4.4 Encroachment Module .......... .......... .................... ... .... .......... ... .. ... ..... ..... .......... ... .... . 7
7.2.4.5 Collision Prediction Module ............ .. .. .. .... ... ...................... ....... ... .......... .. .. .. .... ... .... . 7
7.2.4.6 Severity Prediction Module .. ...... ... ...................... ... .............. ... .. ... ..... ............... ... .... . 8
7.2.4.7 Benefit-Cost Module .............. ......... .. ... ..... .. .. .................. .. ... ..... ................. .. .... ... .... . 8
7.3 THE CLEAR ZONE CONCEPT .......................................................................................................... 8
7.3.1 Overview ... ................... ......... ................... ...... ... ............... .... ..... .... ........................ .... .............. 8
7.3.2 Elements of the Clear Zone ......... .... .... .................... ... .... .................... ... .. ... ............. ............... 8
7.3.3 Factors Influencing the Clear Zone Design Domain .. .................... ... .... ..................... ... .... ..... 9
7.3.3.1 General Advice ...... ................. ... ..... .......... ... .... .. .... .... .................... ... ..... .................. 9
7.3.4 Design Domain: The Clear Zone ..... ... .......... .... ... .. ......... .......... .. ... .. ... ..... ....................... ... ... 11
7.3.4.1 Design Domain : Quantitative Aids ............ ... ... .......... .................. .......... ................. 11
7.3.4.2 Design Domain : Application Heuristics ...... .. ...... .... ........... .. ... ... .... .... ... .................. 13
7.3.4.3 Emerging Research ..... ..... .... .................... ... .... ..................... .. .. ... .............. .. ... ....... 14
7.3.4.4 Benefit-Cost Analysis for Clear Zone: Example .............. ... ... ... .... .... .......... .... .... ... 14
June 2017 vii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.4 APPLYING THE CLEAR ZONE CONCEPT ..................................................................................... 17
7.4.1 Roadside Slopes ..... .. ........... ... .... .... .... ............ ... ..... .. ..... .. .. ......... ... .... ... .. ... .... ...... ... .. ..... ... ... 17
7.4.1 .1 Clear Zone Application Heuristics: Parallel Slopes .... .... .... .... .... ...... ... ... ... ..... .... ... 18
7.4.1 .2 Clear Zone Application Heuristics: Cross Slopes .. ..... .... .... .... .. .... .... ... ... ........ .... ... 19
7 .4.1 .3 Clear Zone Application Heuristics: Cut Slopes .. .... ..... .... .... .... ............. ... ........ .... ... 20
7.4.1.4 Clear Zone Application Heuristics: Roadside Channels ..... .... ......... .. .. ... ... ..... .... ... 20
7.4.1 .5 Emerging Research .. ... ..... .............. ..... ............ ............ .... ..... .... ... ..... ..... ..... ....... .. .. 23
7.4.2 Drainage Features ... .. ........... ... .... .... .... ... ......... ... ..... ... .... .. .. ......... ... .... ... .. ... .... ......... .. ..... ... ... 27
7.4.2 .1 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Curbs ....... ..... .... .... .... ............... ... ...... .... ... 27
7.4.2 .2 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Transverse Culverts ......... ... .. ... ... ..... ....... 29
7.4.2 .3 Traversable Designs .... ..... .... .......... ..... ........ .... ............ .... ... .... .. ................. ...... ... ... 29
7.4.2.4 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Longitudinal Culverts ...... ..... .. ... ... ..... ....... 30
7.4.2 .5 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Inlets ........ ..... .... .... .... ............. ... ........ .... ... 31
7.5 SIGN, LUMINAIRE, AND OTHER SUPPORT .................................................................................. 31
7.5.1 Basis For Design ..... ............. ... ........ .... ............ ... ........ .... .. .......... .... .... ... .. ... ... ......... ... ..... ... ... 31
7.5.2 Breakaway Supports : General Comments .. ... ... ... .. .... ... ........... ..... ... ....... .. ........... .... .... ..... ... 32
7.5.3 Design Domain : Overview .... ... ........ .... ............ ... ........ .... .. .......... .... .... ... .. ... ... ......... ... ..... ... ... 32
7.5.4 Design and Location Heuristics: Breakaway I Non-Breakaway Signs .. ......... .. .. ... ... ..... .... ... 32
7.5.5 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Sign Supports ........ ..... ........ .... ............. ... .... .... .... ... 33
7.5.5.1 Overhead Signs ..... .. .. ..... ...... .............. ...... ... .... ............... ... .. ... .. ... .............. ....... .. ... 33
7 .5.5.2 Large Roadside Signs ...... ... .. .... ... ... .... ........ ...... .... ... .. ..... ... ... ... .. .. .... ..... ..... .... .... ... 33
7.5.5.3 Small Roadside Signs ...... .... .......... ..... ........ .... ............... ..... ..... ................. ...... ... ... 34
7.5.6 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Luminaire Supports ..... .... .... ... ........... ... ... ........ .... ... 34
7.5.7 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Traffic Signals and Service Devices .. .. ...... ..... ....... 35
7.5.8 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Utility Poles .. .......... .... ...... ... ................... ... .. ........ ... 36
7.5.9 Roadside Vegetation Considerations: Best Practices ............ ... ........ .... ............. ... .... .... .... ... 36
7.6 TRAFFIC BARRIERS ....................................................................................................................... 38
7.6.1 BasisForDesign ..... ............. ... ........ .... ............ ... ........ .... ... ......... .... .... ... .. ... ... ......... ... ..... ... ... 38
7 .6.1 .1 Barrier Applications .. ... ..... ... .. .... ..... ..... ........ .... .. .... .... ...... ...... ... ... ..... ..... ..... ........ ... 38
7 .6.1 .2 Determining the Need .. ..... .... .......... .... .... ..... ................... ..... ..... ................ .. ..... ... ... 39
7.6.1 .3 Performance Requirements .......... ... .... ........ .... .......... ..... ... ....... ... .......... ... .. ..... ... ... 40
7.6.2 Roadside Barriers : Design Domain And Examples ... ...... .... ..... ........ ...... .... .... ... ... .... .... ... .. ..40
7.6.2 .1 Technology Overview .. ..... ... ........... .... ...... ... .............. ..... ... ....... ... .......... .... ...... ... ... 40
7 .6.2 .2 Embankment Warrants ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ........ .... .. .... .... ...... ....... .. ... ..... ..... ..... ........ ... 41
7.6.2 .3 Roadside Obstacle Warrants ......... .. .... ... ..... .... ......... .. ..... ... .... .. ... .......... ..... .... .... ... 43
7.6.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Warrants .... .... ........ ... .......... .. ..... ... .... .. .. ......... ... .... .... .... ... 43
7.6.2 .5 Barrier Selection Criteria .. ... ......... ... .... ........ .... ......... .. ..... ... .... .. ... .......... ..... .... .... ... 44
7.6.2 .6 Zone of Intrusion .... ... ........ .... ............. .. ........ .... ............ .... .... ... .. ... ............ ... ..... ... ... 45
7.6.2 .7 Placement Heuristics ... ..... ... .. .... ..... ..... ........ .... .. .... .... ...... ...... ... ... ..... ..... ..... ........ ... 46
7.6.2 .8 Lateral Offsets ........ .. ........ .... ............ ... ........ .... ............ .... .... ... .. ... ............ ... ..... ... ... 47
7.6.2 .9 Terrain Effects ........ .. ........ .... ............. .. ........ .... ............ .... .... ... .. ... ............. .. .. ... ... ... 48
7.6.2 .10 Flare Rate .............. ... ........ .... ..... ..... ..... ........ .... .. .... .... ...... .... ... .. ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ... 49
7.6.2 .11 Length of Need ...... ... ........ .... ............. .. ........ .... ............ .... .... ... .. ... ............ ... .. ... ... ... 49
viii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.6.3 Median Barriers : Design Domain .. ..... .......... .... .. ... ......... .............. .. .... ..... ............. ... .. ... ..... ... 57
7.6.3.1 Commonly Used Barriers .... ...... ... ... .... ............ .. .... ... .. ..... ... .... .. ... ..... ..... ..... .... .... ... 57
7.6.3.2 High Tension Cable Barriers .... .... ... .... ........ .... ......... .. ..... ... .... .. ... ....... ... ..... .... .... ... 59
7 .6.3.3 Barrier Warrants .... ... ........ .... ..... ..... ..... ........ .... .. .... .... ...... .... ... .. ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ... 59
7 .6.3.4 Trends ... .... .. ...... .. ...... .... .... .... ...... ... .. .... ..... ... .... .. ......... .. ... .... ..... ... .............. ..... .... ... 61
7 .6.3.5 Explicit Evaluation of Safety: Median Barrier and Width .... .... ......... .. .. ... ... ..... .... ... 62
7.6.3.6 Barrier Selection Criteria .. ... ......... ... .... .... .... .... ...... ... .. ..... ... ...... ... ..... ..... ..... .... .... ... 62
7.6.3.7 Placement Heuristics ... ..... .... .... ...... ..... ........ .... ............ .... ....... .. ... ....... ..... ... ........ ... 63
7.6.3.8 Terrain Effects ....... ... ........ .... ............ ... ........ .... ............ .... .... ... .. ... ............ ... ..... ... ... 63
7.6.3.9 Flare Rates ........ ...... ..... .... .................. ...... ... .... ............... .... .... .. ... .............. ..... .... ... 66
7.6.3.10 Rigid Objects ......... ... ........ .... ............ ... ........ .... ............ .... .... ... .. ... ............ ... ..... ... ... 66
7.6.4 Bridge Railings/Transitions : Design Domain ... .............. .. ......... .... ............. ........... ..... ........... 66
7.6.4.1 Technology Overview .. ..... .... .... ... .... .... ........ .... ......... .. ..... ... .... .. ... .. ..... ... ..... .... .... ... 66
7.6.4.2 Warrants ... ... ........ .... .. ... .... .... .............. ..... .... .... .. ............. ... .. .. ... ... .... .......... ....... .. ... 66
7.6.4.3 Multi-modal Configurations ... ..... ..... ..... .... .... .... .. .... .... ...... ....... .. ... ..... ..... ..... ........ ... 67
7 .6.4.4 Placement Heuristics ... ..... .... .......... ..... ........ .... ............ .... ....... .. ... ............ ... ........ ... 73
7.6.5 End Treatment/Crash Cushions: Design Domain .. .... ...... .... ..... ........ .... .. .... ....... ... .... .... .... ... 73
7.6.5.1 Technology Overview .. ..... ... .... ..... ... .... ........ ..... .... ...... ..... ... .... .. .... ..... ..... .... .... .... ... 73
7.6.5.2 End Treatments : Application Heuristics .. .... .............. ..... .... ...... ............. ... .. .. .. .... ... 74
7.6.5.3 Crash Cushion : Application Heuristics .... .... ...... .... ..... ..... ... .... .. .... .... ... ... .... .... .... ... 75
7.7 ROADSIDE DESIGN IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS ........................................................................ 76
7.7.1 Overview ... ... ..... ... .... .. .. ......... ... .... .... .... .... ......... .. ..... ... .... .. ... ......... .. .... .... .... .... .......... ...... ...... 76
7.7.2 Application Heuristics ........... ... .... .... .... ... ......... ... ..... ... .... .. .. ......... ... .... ... .. ... .... ......... .. ..... ... ... 76
7.7.3 Use Of Roadside Barrier ...................................................................................................... 77
7.8 ROADSIDE DESIGN FOR LOW VOLUME RURAL ROADS .......................................................... 77
7.8.1 Overview ... ... ..... ... .... .. .. ......... ... .... .... .... .... ...... ... .. ..... ... .... .. ... ..... .... .. .... .... .... .... ...... .... ...... ...... 77
7.8.2 The Importance Of Cost-Effectiveness ....... ... .... .... .... ... .......... .. ..... ... .... .. .. .......... .. .... .... .... ... 78
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 79
June 2017 ix
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
TABLES
Table 7.3.1: Clear Zone Distances (m) ..... .................. ......... ................... ........... .. ... ..... ... .... .......... .. ... .. ...... . 12
Table 7.3.2: Horizontal Curve Adjustments for Clear Zone Distances ................ .. .... .. .. ..................... ... .... . 13
Table 7.3.3: Results of RSAP Analysis Example .... .. .... ..... ........... .. ...... .... .... ...................... ...... ............ ..... . 16
Table 7.3.4: Results of Benefit-Cost Analysis ................ ...... ................ ... ..................... ... .... .................... ... . 17
Table 7.4.1: Appropriate Curb and Barrier System Combinations (Barrier System behind Curb) .... ... ...... 28
Table 7.6.1: Barrier Test Levels and Conditions ...... ...................... ..... .. .... .... ............ ... ... ... .. ..... ............ .... .. 40
Table 7.6.2: Examples of Roadside Barrier Technologies ............... ............. .. .... .. .. .. ................... .. ..... .. .. .... 41
Table 7.6.3: Technology Selection Criteria for Roadside Barriers .. .... ......... ................... ......... ................... 44
Table 7.6.4: Suggested Shy Line Offset Values ......... .......... ............... ............. .................. ......... ............... 48
Table 7.6.5: Flare Rates for Barriers Placed Beyond the Shoulder .................... ... .... .......... .. ... .. ... .... .... ..... 49
Table 7.6.6: Encroachment Distances for Various Design Speeds .... ......... ................... ......... ................... 50
Table 7.6.7: Extension Length for Unanchored Guide Rails ........ ... .... .................... ... .. ... .................... ... .... . 55
Table 7.6.8: Examples of Median Barrier Technologies ... ... .. .. .... .. .. .. ................... .... ... ............. .. ... ..... .. .. ... . 58
x June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
FIGURES
Figure 7.3.1 : Roadside Recovery Zone .... .................. ........... .. .. .. .... .. ... .. ........... .. ... ..... ... .... .......... .. ... .. ...... ... 9
Figure 7.3.2 : Clear Zone Encroachment Probability ............. ............... ............. ................. .......... ............... 10
Figure 7.3.3 : Treatment Options for Bridge Pier .. ... .. .... ..... ........... .. ...... .... .... ...................... ...... ............ ..... . 15
Figure 7.4.1 : Categories of Roadside Slopes ................ ...... ................ ..................... ... .. .. .. ........... .. ... .. ....... 18
Figure 7.4.2 : Preferred Cross Sections for Channels with Abrupt Slope Changes ... .................... .... .... ..... 21
Figure 7.4.3 : Preferred Cross Sections for Channels with Gradual Slope Changes ....... .... .......... ..... ... ..... 22
Figure 7.4.4 : Example A (Tangent Section of Highway) ........... .... .. .. ............................. ............. .. ...... ... ... . 23
Figure 7.4.5 : Example B ...... ............... ............ ................ ............ .......... .... ............. .................. ......... ........... 24
Figure 7.4.6 : Example C ........... ... .. ... .................... ... .... .............. .......... .... ............. .................. ......... ........... 25
Figure 7.4.7 : Example D ........... ... .. .. ..................... ... .... ............... .. .. ..... .... .............. .. ... ............ ........... .. .. ..... 26
Figure 7.4.8 : Example E ...... ............... ............ ................ ............ ................ ........... .................. ......... ........... 26
Figure 7.4.9 : Safety Treatment of Transverse Pipes and Culverts ....... ....... .................... ........ ................... 29
Figure 7.4.10: Safety Treatment of Longitudinal Pipes and Culverts .. ... ... ... .......... .. ......... ... ...................... 31
Figure 7.5.1 : Impact Performance ................... .... .... .................... ... .... .................... ... .. ... .................... ... .... . 34
Figure 7.5.2 : Breakaway Luminaire Support (Base Options) ............... ........ ................... ......... .................. 35
Figure 7.5.3 : 1999 Fatal Tree Crashes by Functional Class .............. .......... .. ... .. ........ .. ..................... ... .... . 37
Figure 7 .6.1 : Sample Embankment Warrant Guides ......... .................. ..... .... ........... .... .. .. .... ..... ........... .. .... . 42
Figure 7.6.2 : Zone of lntrusion ........... ............ ................ ............ .......... .... ..................... .. .... .... .................... 45
Figure 7.6.3 : Sample Zone of lntrusion ..... .................. ........... .. .. .. .... .. ... .. ........... .. ... ..... ... .... .......... .. ... .. ...... . 46
Figure 7.6.4 : Roadside Barrier Installation Elements ...... .................. ... .... .......... ... ...... .... .... ... ................. ... 47
Figure 7.6.5 : Roadside Barrier Length of Need ... .... .................... ... .... ..................... .. .. ... ..................... .. .... . 50
Figure 7.6.6: Roadside Barrier Approach Length ....................................................................................... 52
Figure 7.6.7 : Roadside Barrier Approach Length for Opposing Traffic ........... ... ... ... ... .... ............ ...... ... ...... 53
Figure 7.6.8 : Determining Barrier Length of Need on a Curve .... ... .... .................... ... .. ... .................... ... .... . 54
Figure 7.6.9 : Calculating Length of Need - Two Lane, Two Way Roadway ............... ............ ................ ... 56
Figure 7 .6.10: Calculating Length of Need - One Way Roadway .... ...... ...... ................ ..... .... .......... .... ... .... 57
Figure 7.6.11 : High-Tension Cable Median Barrier Installation ..... ... ... .......... .................. .......... ................. 59
Figure 7.6.12 : Median Barrier Warrants for Freeways and Expressways ................... .......... .................. ... 60
Figure 7.6.13: Caltrans Median Barrier Study Warrant for Freeways (adapted) .. ... ... ................... ...... ... .... 61
Figure 7.6.14: Typical High-Tension Cable Barrier Median Installation- Slopes 6:1 or Flatter ............. ... 65
Figure 7 .6.15: Bridge with No Sidewalk ... ................... ......... ................... ............ ................ ........... ............. 68
Figure 7 .6.16: Bridge with Raised Sidewalk .............. ......... ................... ..... .... .................... ... ..... ................ 70
Figure 7 .6.17: Bridge with Raised Sidewalk Separated by a Barrier .................... ... ... ...................... ... .... ... 72
June 2017 xi
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
xii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7. ROADSIDE DESIGN
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.1.1 INTRODUCTION TO ROADSIDE DESIGN
Canadian research shows that collisions with fixed objects account for approximately 30% of all fatal
1
collisions in Canada and the United States. The same research also points out that an additional 10% of
road fatalities are attributable to non-collision rollovers caused by loose shoulder material, a sudden
change in roadside slope, or similar roadside factors. These statistics indicate that the roadside
environment and its design have a vital role to play in improving road safety.
Designers are expected to minimize the possibility of roadside encroachment by vehicles, through the
design principles outlined throughout this Guide. The contents of Chapters 3, 4, 9 and 10 provide
direction to the designer in this matter.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Roadside Design
Guide (2011) notes that a vehicle will leave the roadway and encroach into the roadside for many
reasons, including:
• Driver fatigue
• Driver distractions or inattention
• Excessive speed
• Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol
• Collision avoidance
• Adverse road conditions such as ice, snow, or rain
• Vehicle component failure
• Poor visibility.
Regardless of the reason for a vehicle leaving the roadway, a roadside environment free of fixed objects
and with stable, flattened slopes enhances the opportunity for motorists to regain control of their
vehicles and reduce collision severity. The forgiving roadside concept allows drivers of errant vehicles
leaving the roadway an opportunity to recover and supports a roadside design in which the serious
consequences of roadside encroachments are reduced.
Through decades of experience and research, the application of the forgiving roadside concept has been
2
refined to the point where roadside design is an integral part of the transportation design process.
7.1.2 URBAN SITUATIONS
For arterials and other non-controlled roadways in an urban environment, rights-of-way are typically
narrower and, in many cases, establishing a clear zone using the guidance in this section is either not
3
practical or sometimes not desirable from the perspective of street character and context. These
environments are characterized by sidewalks, enclosed drainage, numerous fixed objects (e.g., signs,
utility poles, fire hydrants, street furniture), and frequent traffic stops. These environments also typically
have lower operating speeds and often include on-street parking and bicycle facilities. Clear zone and
barrier guidance appropriate to these situations are discussed in Section 7.7.
June 2017 1
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.1.3 OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE ROADSIDE OBSTACLES
When, despite appropriate designs, roadside encroachments occur, a number of design options can
reduce roadside obstacles and mitigate the consequences of these roadside encroachments. These
include, in order of priority:
1. Remove the obstacle
2. Redesign the obstacle so it can be safely traversed
3. Relocate the obstacle to a point where it is less likely to be struck
4. Reduce the impact severity by using an appropriate breakaway device
5. Shield the obstacle with a longitudinal traffic barrier designed for redirection or crash cushion
6. Delineate the obstacle if the above alternatives are not appropriate or possible.
This Chapter provides the designer with guidance on the development and design of roadside
environments, which include elements to allow the vehicle operator to recover from leaving the
roadway and features to reduce the severity of run-off-the-road collisions. It also provides tools for
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of such design elements so the designer can realistically consider a full
range of options for developing an appropriate level of safety on the road.
7.1.4 THE FORGIVING ROADSIDE
The "forgiving roadside" concept is the approach of accommodating errant vehicles that leave the
roadway by incorporating design elements which reduce the consequences of such departures. This
concept has now become an integral part of the final road design product and the process which leads
up to it. The authors of Transportation Research Circular 435 note:
"Basically, a forgiving roadside is one free of obstacles that could cause serious injuries to occupants of
an errant vehicle. To the extent possible, a relatively flat, unobstructed roadside recovery area is
desirable, and when these conditions cannot be provided, hazardous features in the recovery area
4
should be made breakaway or shielded with an appropriate barrier."
7.1.S THE DESIGN FOCUS
The focus of the design measures outlined in this Chapter is one of recovery and mitigation.
This focus is addressed in the context of two needs, which are the keys to the effective consideration of
safety in the roadside design process:
1. The need for the explicit evaluation of design trade-offs with an effect on road safety. In the
traditional design process, attention to safety has usually been implicit, not explicit. Designers
typically assumed that a road designed to meet "minimum standards" would be "safe". Emerging
knowledge in the field of road safety in the mid-1990s raised the awareness of the relationships
between geometric design criteria and collision occurrence, leading to the introduction of the
design domain concept in the 1999 edition of the Guide. The adoption of this concept encouraged
increased use of technical evaluation of the safety implications of geometric design decisions.
2. The need to recognize that the design of the roadside environment is a highly complex and
probabilistic process. There are many levels of interaction between different roadside design
components; between roadside elements and other aspects of the facility design; and between the
road itself, the driver, and the vehicle. As a result, information touching on road design issues
necessarily is available from many sources. Designers should not rely on this Guide as the sole
2 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
source of information on roadside design issues, particularly when dealing with unusual or local
conditions which depart from generally accepted situational norms.
7.1.6 HUMAN FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO RUN-OFF-ROAD COLLISIONS
7 .1.6.1 Horizontal Curves
Horizontal curves are a major location for run-off-the-road collisions, which makes them an important
location for roadside design. Run-off-the-road collisions are four times more prevalent on curves than
5
on tangents. In curves, driver workload is high due to both steering and visual search demand, making
speed critical. Speed is determined by curve radius and the lateral acceleration experienced by the
vehicle. The greater the curve deflection angle, the larger the reduction in speed and the more likely it is
that edge line encroachments will occur for right curves, and centreline encroachments will occur for
6
left curves.
7
Drivers tend to underestimate the curvature of smaller radius curves. This can lead to inappropriately
high entry speeds that increase the risk of run-off-the-road collisions. For this reason, smaller radius
curves that are inconsistent with general roadway character should be avoided whenever possible. For
example, driver expectations are violated when a sharp curve follows a series of gentle curves. This may
result in drivers adopting inappropriately high entry speeds.
7 .1.6.2 Loss of Directional Control
A loss of directional control followed by a run-off-the-road collision is more likely in wet, icy, or reduced
visibility conditions. Designers can reduce the potential for such conditions through a range of
coordinated design elements such as the vertical profile, horizontal alignment, and cross section.
Notwithstanding their design efforts, designers should ensure that the results of run-off-the-road
collisions are mitigated by the use of a forgiving roadside.
While some research suggests rumble strips may contribute to driver surprise and loss of control, the
8
literature clearly indicates that rumble strips are beneficial to drivers' safety.
7.1.6.3 Driver Incapacitation, Inattention, and Distraction
About a third of run-off-the-road collisions are associated with driver incapacitation (e.g., drowsiness or
intoxication) or driver inattention (internal or external distraction). The increased crash risk associated
with alcohol has been known for many years. Fatigue is also recognized as a problem, and driver
inattention is common. For experienced motorists, driving is generally a relatively automated activity
leading to the mind being focused on matters other than driving.
Drowsiness, intoxication, distraction (e.g., use of mobile devices), or simply daydreaming can easily lead
to momentary inattention to the road path and a run-off-the-road collision. Shoulder edge rumble strips
have an alerting effect on drivers and have been shown to decrease single-vehicle run-off-the-road
9
collisions by 18% on rural and urban freeways combined, and by 21% on rural freeways.
Centreline rumble strips appear to be equally effective in addressing inattention-related collisions.
Approximately 90% of head-on collisions are due to inadvertent movement into the opposing lane.
Some of these are likely due to drivers nodding off at the wheel. Centreline rumble strips on rural two-
10
lane roads are associated with a 25% reduction in frontal/opposing direction sideswipe collisions.
These measures have significant road safety effects with low implementation costs.
June 2017 3
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.1.7 ROADSIDE SAFETY GUIDELINE: FORMAT
The guidelines in this Chapter are presented in a consistent format. While not all topics are amenable to
identical treatment, each major section generally consists of the following elements:
• A discussion of the theoretical and/or empirical basis for the topic
• A review of design considerations, and where applicable, discussion of the appropriate
design domain
• Worked examples as appropriate.
7.1.8 CHAPTER OUTLINE
This brief introduction to road safety concepts is followed by an overall discussion of the use of
quantitative analysis for the evaluation of roadside safety design options. The fundamental concept of
the clear zone is then outlined in a stand-alone section after which the chapter turns from the
presentation of foundation principles, to their application in practice.
The second major portion of the chapter is divided into three parts, each of which treats a different
aspect of the roadside safety application problem. Focusing initially on the question of recovery, Section
7.4 presents applications of the clear zone concept to both the cross section of the road and associated
drainage provisions. Section 7.5 turns to mitigation and protection, providing a discussion of techniques
for reducing the severity of fixed-object collisions through the proper design of roadside furniture.
Roadside design in urban environments and for low volume rural roads is discussed in Section 7.7 and
Section 7.8, respectively.
7.2 EXPLICIT ANALYSIS OF ROADSIDE SAFETY FEATURES
7.2.1 WHAT DOES IT INVOLVE?
The design of the roadside environment is a complex problem. Evaluating alternative designs and
choosing between them is a difficult task which involves degrees of uncertainty with respect to the
occurrence of collisions, their outcomes in terms of severity, and the real costs of the property damage,
injuries, and fatalities which can result. Nonetheless, as noted earlier, such analysis provides an explicit
framework for considering design trade-offs. This is a much more desirable approach to roadside safety
design than meeting arbitrary "standards" whose underpinnings may or may not be appropriate to a
given situation. Such a framework is also a requisite foundation for the value engineering exercises that
often form part of the road design process.
An explicit framework for roadside safety analysis must necessarily recognize local agency needs,
policies, and practices within the specifics of its approach. However, it is generally accepted that any
such process will be built on two fundamental toolsets:
• Predictive models which provide a way of estimating collision frequencies and severities
under a wide variety of conditions.
• Cost-effectiveness models which provide a way of quantifying the life-cycle costs (and
benefits} associated with any given set of safety measures.
Predictive models have been developed and deployed by a number of agencies in North America . While
the latest editions of the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide and Highway Safety Manual probably
represent the most current and widely accepted effort in this regard, designers should be aware that the
state of the art in this area is continually developing and should be monitored regularly for new models
4 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
and techniques that may apply to their design challenges. The techniques presented in this Guide are
founded in part on the AASHTO work, but also recognize many practices drawn, where possible, from
the Canadian context.
The techniques of cost-effectiveness analysis are well established and are applied for a variety of
purposes in transportation and highway design agencies. A number of alternative approaches are
available but most commonly the tools used by transportation agencies are built on life-cycle costing
models and use present worth or annualized cost techniques as their underlying analysis methodology.
All of these approaches are built on fundamental assumptions regarding parameters such as discount
rates and unit collision costs. In order to enforce consistent and comparable results across the
transportation agency, these basic assumptions are usually set as a matter of policy and represent a
"given" for designers to use in their analyses.
7.2.2 OVERVIEW OF COLLISION PREDICTION MODELS
Predictive models are used to provide at least three levels of information to the designer:
• Estimates of the numbers of encroachments (an errant vehicle leaving the roadway) likely to
occur. Designers must recognize that these estimates are probabilistic in nature-in spite of
the deterministic form which they often take-and make appropriate provisions in their
roadside designs for this fact. Additional discussion of this issue is provided in Section 7.2.4.
• Estimates of the number of collisions likely to occur because of the encroachments. Every
encroachment does not necessarily result in a collision, since many vehicles will normally
recover within a certain distance, without incident. Critical factors used in these models
include: the angle of departure from the roadway, the speed of the vehicles involved, and the
type of vehicles involved. Again, the probabilistic nature of these models must be kept in mind.
• Estimates of the severity of the collisions that occur. Once an estimate of the number of
collisions that can be expected to occur at a given location is available, it is usually converted
into an equivalent dollar cost by applying a parameter such as a severity index (SI). This
parameter usually varies with the speed and type of vehicle, the angle of incidence of the
collision, and the type of object struck. Different scales are used by different agencies to
11 12
estimate SI; however, both AASHT0 and NCHRP provide representative sets of these
indices.
Additional discussion on these concepts, suggested models for their application, and worked examples
of their use are provided in subsequent sections.
7.2.3 OVERVIEW OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Transportation agencies have traditionally used cost-effectiveness analysis models to address many
different types of investment decisions, including the analysis of site-specific alternative safety
treatments. AASHTO, TAC, provincial and state transportation agencies, and independent research
efforts have all contributed to the state of knowledge in the use of these techniques. The engineering
economy aspects of such models are usually based on life-cycle cost analysis, and designers must
consider that analysis outcomes can be substantively influenced by assumptions with respect to both
the specific technique used, and many of the basic input parameters. In many instances, a number of
input parameters (e.g., discount rates; monetary values to be used for fatalities, personal injury and
property damage types of collisions) should be defined in agency policy, reviewed on a regular basis to
ensure their appropriateness, and revised and deployed promptly to ensure consistency with the agency
and political objectives that influence such safety investment decisions.
June 2017 5
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.2.4 INTEGRATED ROADSIDE SAFETY COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
7 .2.4.1 Introduction
Many agencies have developed integrated approaches to roadside safety cost-effectiveness
13 14 15 16 17
analysis. In general, all of the approaches involve four distinct elements:
• An encroachment module: to estimate the expected encroachment frequency given road
and traffic data
• A collision prediction module: to assess if an encroachment would result in a collision
• A severity prediction module: to estimate the severity and approximate costs for each
collision
• A benefit-cost module: to calculate the incremental benefit/cost ratios between each pair
of safety alternatives.
A typical exam pie of the structure of such an approach is described below, based on the Roadside Safety
18 19
Analysis Program (RSAP) process.
7 .2.4.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis Overview
Benefit-cost analysis is an analytical approach to solving problems of choice. To carry out the analysis,
objectives must be defined, alternative ways of achieving each objective need to be identified, and for
each objective, the alternative that yields the required level of benefits at the lowest cost are
20
determined. In the past, the term "cost-effectiveness analysis" was often used as a synonym for
benefit-cost techniques when the benefits or outputs of the alternatives could not be quantified in
terms of dollars. However, more recently, the two terms have been used interchangeably, and road
safety cost-effectiveness analysis techniques uniformly quantify outputs in monetary terms. In addition,
the road safety use of the term "cost-effectiveness analysis" generally also implies a suite of techniques
21
incorporating the four modules noted above. Mak et al. point out:
"Highway agencies are continually faced with decisions relating to roadside safety, from the use and
selection of specific roadside safety features and appurtenances at spot locations and along highway
sections, to the development of warrants and policies on a system-wide basis. When assessing the use
of roadside safety devices, an engineer has to weigh the relative benefits and costs associated with the
safety improvement."
In many instances, such decisions are guided by well-established and proven practices. However there
are also times when the choice of safety treatment is not obvious and it is in these cases that cost-
effectiveness analysis is widely accepted as an appropriate approach. With increasing emphasis on the
explicit evaluation of safety, this acceptance is continuing to grow, particularly as increasingly
sophisticated collision prediction models make the task of quantifying outputs more consistent and
reliable.
7.2.4.3 The Benefit-Cost Analysis Procedure
The basic concept underlying cost-effectiveness analysis is that public funds should only be invested
where the expected benefits exceed the direct costs of the project. From a road safety standpoint,
benefits are measured in terms of reductions in collision or societal costs due to decreases in the
number or severity of collisions. The cost side of the equation includes initial installation, maintenance,
and infrastructure repair costs associated with collisions. Both of these are dealt with over a defined
analysis period which should generally reflect the life cycle of the project.
6 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
While there are several different formulations for benefit-cost analysis, the technique used in road
safety projects is incremental benefit-cost analysis. In this approach, an incremental benefit-cost ratio
between the additional benefits and costs associated with an improvement option over the existing
condition and/or another improvement option is normally used as the primary measure of whether or
not a safety-related investment is appropriate. The mathematical formulation is shown below:
(7.2.1)
(B/Ch-1 =
Where :
(B/Clz-i Incremental B/C ratio of alternative 2
compared to alternative 1
Annualized collision or societal cost
of alternatives 1 and 2
Annualized direct cost of alternatives
1and2
When the incremental benefit-cost ratio is greater than 1, the benefits (i.e., reduction in collision cost)
of alternative 2 are greater than the increased costs associated with that improvement.
Collision costs may be estimated in a number of ways. For example, the RSAP v3 uses an encroachment
probability model based on the concept that run-off-the-road collision frequency can be directly related
to the encroachment frequency and that the severity of run-off-the-road collisions is related to certain
encroachment characteristics, such as the speed and angle of encroachment of the vehicle.
7 .2.4.4 Encroachment Module
In RSAP, the module uses road and traffic information to estimate the expected encroachment
frequency along a highway segment. First, base encroachment rates are calculated based on highway
type and traffic volume. These are then modified to account for specific highway characteristics, such as
horizontal and vertical alignment, number of lanes, and the annual traffic growth factor. In the final
step, the base encroachment rates and the adjustment factors are combined to determine
22 23
encroachment frequencies for the highway section under study.
7.2.4.5 Collision Prediction Module
The collision prediction module provides estimates of collisions that result from encroachments. RSAP
uses a stochastic model to simulate vehicles running off the roadway within the highway under study. By
randomly assigning values to the location along the highway, lane of origin, direction of encroachment,
vehicle type, vehicle speed and angle, vehicle orientation, and lateral extent of encroachment to each
event, the module predicts an encroachment path and an impact envelope. The presence of obstacles
within the impact envelope is then assessed and the determination of whether or not a collision will
occur is made. If a collision is predicted to occur, its severity and associated cost are determined by the
24 25
severity prediction module.
June 2017 7
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.2.4.6 Severity Prediction Module
Each collision predicted by the previous module is associated with a particular roadside feature or
hazard, vehicle type, impact speed, impact angle, and vehicle orientation. This data is used by the
severity prediction module to estimate the severity and costs of each collision. The severity is expressed
in terms of a SI, which is then converted into collision cost figures using values provided by the user.
Recent models (e.g., RSAP v3) have refined the severity prediction by incorporating severity distributions
of police-level reported collisions. The module also generates costs related to the repair of roads ide
hardware because of the collision.
7.2.4.7 Benefit-Cost Module
The data generated from the process described above is then used to calculate average annual collision
costs during the project life for all simulated collisions, for each alternative. Benefits derived from a
safety improvement are measured in terms of reduced collision costs. The direct costs, which include
installation costs as well as maintenance and infrastructure repair costs arising from collisions, are also
normalized to an annual basis throughout the project life . The incremental benefit-cost ratios between
each pair of safety alternatives are then calculated using the equation presented in Section 7.2.4.3.
Software tools have been developed to facilitate the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in the safety
improvement evaluation process. AASHTO currently provides such software with its Roadside Design
Guide.
7.3 THE CLEAR ZONE CONCEPT
7.3.1 OVERVIEW
A highway design with a forgiving roadside recognizes that drivers do occasionally run off the road, and
that serious collisions will be reduced if a reasonable recovery zone, free of obstacles, is provided. If the
obstacles cannot be removed from the recovery zone, they need devices to protect vehicles that might
collide with them . This practice has been embodied in a concept which is known as the clear zone : it
represents the minimum recovery area that should be provided for a given design situation. It is
recognized that in an urban environment, and sometimes suburban environments, the concept of clear
zone is not necessarily applicable due to competing objectives and street contexts. This is discussed in
Section 7.7. In addition, in low volume rural settings, the application of the clear zone concept may not
be cost-effective. This is discussed further in Section 7.8.
The knowledge gained during more than two decades of experience with the forgiving highway concept,
and specifically the clear zone, now enables engineers to estimate their safety effects more precisely.
This experience forms the basis for the types of collision prediction models discussed earlier.
7.3.2 ELEMENTS OF THE CLEAR ZONE
The clear zone falls within an area called the recovery zone. The recovery zone is the total unobstructed
traversable area available along the edge of the road and by convention it is measured from the edge of
the closest through travel lane. In cases where the edge of the through lane is adjacent to an auxiliary
lane (speed change lane), the clear zone is measured from the nearside edge of the through lane. If the
auxiliary lane is a continuous lane between interchanges, the clear zone should be measured from the
outside edge of that auxiliary lane.
The recovery zone may have recoverable slopes, non-recoverable slopes, and a clear run-out area . The
elements of the clear zone are described below and illustrated in Figure 7.3.1.
8 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
• Recoverable slopes are those on which a driver may, to a greater or lesser extent, retain or
regain control of a vehicle.
• A non-recoverable slope may be traversable, but a vehicle will continue to the bottom.
• A clear run-out area is located at the toe of a non-recoverable slope, and is available for
safe use by an errant vehicle.
There is also provision for a smooth transition between slopes to allow for the safe passage of vehicles.
If the clear run-out area ends at or close to a major hazard (e.g., water body, severe drop off, rock face,
etc.), the designer should consider extending the run-out area a suitable distance further or shielding
the hazard with an appropriate barrier at the end ofthe run-out area. Figure 7.3.1 illustrates the clear
zone concept in the context of the roadside recovery zone.
recovery zone
-
I
clear zone distance
I
travelled way shoulder recoverable slope non-recoverable clear runout
slope area Q)
13
Ctl
en
.c
0
---~
Notes: 1. if the clear zone distance ends on a non-recoverable slope a clear runout area is
required . It is desirable that the clear runout area be greater than or equal to the
Clear Zone Distance minus the Shoulder Width and Recoverable Slope.
2. See Section 7.4 for further discussion of recoverable and non-recoverable slopes.
Figure 7.3.1: Roadside Recovery Zone
The clear zone is the total, fixed object-free area available to the errant vehicle from the edge of the
through travel lane. The design domain for the clear zone width has been found to depend on traffic
volume and speed, road geometry, embankment height, side slope, and environmental conditions such
as snow, ice, and fog. The wider the clear zone, the lower the frequency and severity of collisions with
fixed objects. However, there is a point beyond which any further expenditure to move or protect the
fixed objects is not warranted because the marginal risk reduction is too small.
7.3.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE CLEAR ZONE DESIGN DOMAIN
7.3.3.1 General Advice
When originally introduced, the clear zone concept dictated a single value and was based on limited
observations taken from a research facility context. The concept was formally introduced in the 1974
June 2017 9
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
version of the AASHTO report Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety,
where the authors noted:
" ... for adequate safety, it is desirable to provide an unencumbered roadside recovery area that is as
wide as practical on a specific highway section. Studies have indicated that on high-speed highways, a
width of 9 metres or more from the edge of the travelled way permits about 80 percent of the vehicles
26
leaving a roadway out of control to recover ... "
The last portion of this statement requires emphasis. Provision of the recommended clear zone does not
guarantee that all vehicles will not encroach further than the recommended clear zone distance. Quite
the contrary, the clear zone principle embodies the explicit fact that some substantial portion of the
27
vehicles that encroach will go beyond the clear zone itself, as illustrated Figure 7.3.2.
100
90
'\
\
-
~
~
80
\
a.> 70
'\
(.)
c
a.>
"C
a.> 60
a.>
(.)
x
a.> 50
\
.......
0 \ \.
~ 40
'"
:0
Ctl
.c
0
..... 30
CL
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8
"
10
..........._
12
r--.......... ..............
14 16
"---
19 20
lateral extent of encroachment (m)
Figure 7.3.2: Clear Zone Encroachment Probability
Early after its introduction, it became apparent that a single value of 9.0 m for the clear zone distance
was not always appropriate. Steeper embankment slopes tended to increase vehicle encroachment
distances. Conversely, on low-volume or low-speed facilities, the 9.0 m distance was excessive and could
seldom be justified. As a better understanding of the wide range of factors that influence the limits of its
design domain was gained, the concept of clear zone evolved and design practice moved to a variable
distance definition.
In this Guide, the concepts reflected in the 2011 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide have been retained.
Where sound, factual research was available, the application of the concepts has been modified to
10 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
better conform to Canadian conditions and practice as appropriate. In this context, the clear zone design
domain reflects the influence of:
• Design speed
• Traffic volumes
• The presence of cut or fill slopes
• The steepness of slopes
• Horizontal curve adjustments.
Although a clear and unambiguous guide to appropriate limits to and adjustments for the design domain
of the clear zone is provided in Section 7.3.4, designers must recognize the limitations of the underlying
work which provides the basis for this definition. In discussing the set of curves it uses to define its
variable clear zone recommendations, AASHTO provides a thoughtful caution to designers:
" ... the numbers obtained from these curves represent a reasonable measure of the degree of safety
suggested for a particular roadside; but they are neither absolute nor precise. In some cases, it is
reasonable to leave a fixed object within the clear zone; in other instances, an object beyond the clear
zone distance may require removal or shielding. Use of an appropriate clear zone distance amounts to a
28
compromise between maximum safety and minimum construction costs."
In this context, the explicit analysis of alternative clear zone design approaches becomes essential.
7.3.4 DESIGN DOMAIN: THE CLEAR ZONE
Design domain guidance for the clear zone is presented in two parts: a quantitative guide to generally
accepted values used for the clear zone under varying circumstances and a set of heuristics and/or
practices which should be considered by designers in applying these values. The former must not be
used without the latter.
7.3.4.1 Design Domain: Quantitative Aids
The first part takes the form of two tables: Table 7.3.1 provides clear zone distances (in metres from the
edge of the driving lane) according to design speed, traffic volume, and cut or fill slope values. The
numbers in Table 7.3.1 are taken from the 2011 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide and suggest a range to
be considered-not the precise distance to be held as absolute. 29 Designers must consider site-specific
conditions and practicality in making their choice. This is a particular concern in constrained urban areas.
Refer to Section 7.7 for guidance on the application of clear zone in such cases.
Table 7.3.2 provides adjustment factors to be applied on the outside of curves where radius values are
900 m or less.
June 2017 11
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Table 7.3.1: Clear Zone Distances (m)
Design Fill Slopes Cut slopes
Speed Design ADT 6:1 or
6:1 or flatter 5:1to4:1 3:1 3:1 5:1to4:1
(km/h) flatter
Under750 2.0- 3.0 2.0-3.0 See note 1 2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0
750-1,500 3.0- 3.5 3.5-4.5 " 3.0-3.5 3.0-3.5 3.0-3.5
~ 60
1,500 - 6,000 3.5-4.5 4.5-5.0 " 3.5-4.5 3.5-4.5 3.5-4.5
II
> 6,000 4.5- 5.0 5.0-5.5 4.5-5.0 4.5-5 .0 4.5-5.0
Under750 3.0- 3.5 3.5-4.5 " 2.5-3.0 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5
750-1,500 4.5- 5.0 5.0-6.0 " 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.5 4.5-5.0
70-80
II
1,500 - 6,000 5.0- 5.5 6.0-8.0 3.5-4.5 4.5-5.0 5.0-5.5
> 6,000 6.0- 6.5 7.5-8.5 " 4.5-5.0 5.5-6.0 6.0-6.5
Under 750 3.5-4.5 4.5-5.5 " 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 3.0-3.5
750-1,500 5.0- 5.5 6.0-7.5 " 3.0-3.5 4.5-5 .0 4.5-5.0
90
1,500 - 6,000 6.0- 6.5 7.5-9.0 " 4.5-5.0 5.5-6.5 5.0-5.5
> 6,000 6.5- 7.5 8.0-10.0 " 5.0-5.5 6.0-6.5 6.0-6.5
Under750 5.0- 5.5 6.0-7.5 " 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.5 3.0-3.5
750-1,500 6.0- 7.5 8.0-10.0 " 3.5-4.5 5.0-5.5 5.0-5.5
100
1,500 - 6,000 8.0-9.0 10.0-12.0 " 4.5-5.5 5.5-6.5 6.0-6.5
> 6,000 9.0-10.0 11.0-13.5 " 6.0-6.5 7.5-8.0 8.0-8.5
Under750 5.5- 6.0 6.0-8.0 " 3.0-3.5 4.5-5.0 4.5-5.0
750-1,500 7.5-8.0 8.5-11.0 " 3.5-5.0 5.5-6.0 6.0-6.5
;:: 110
1,500 - 6,000 8.5-10.0 10.5-13.0 " 5.0-6.0 6.5-7.0 8.0-8.5
> 6,000 9.0-10.5 11.5-14.5 " 6.5-7.5 8.0-9.0 8.5-9.0
Notes : 1. Since recovery is less likely on the unshielded, traversable 3:1 slopes, fixed objects should not be present near
the toe of these slopes. Recovery of high-speed vehicles that encroach beyond the edge of the shoulder may be
expected to occur beyond the toe of slope (see Section 7.3.4.2 for more information).
2. For low volume roads, it may not be practical to apply even the minimum values found in this table. Refer to
Section 7.8.
3. For higher design speeds than those shown above, or where investigation reveals a high probability of
continuing crashes, it may be necessary to use higher clear zone values.
12 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Table 7.3.2: Horizontal Curve Adjustments for Clear Zone Distances30
Radius Design Speed (km/h)
(m) 60 70 80 90 100 110
900 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2
700 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3
600 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4
500 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4
450 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5
400 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4
350 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
300 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5
250 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5
200 1.3 1.4 1.5
150 1.4 1.5
100 1.5
Note: The clear zone horizontal curve adjustment factor is applied to the outside of curves only. Curves with a
radius greater than 900 m do not require an adjusted clear zone.
Adjusted clear zone distance on the outside of a horizontal curve is determined using the following
equation:
(7.3.1)
Where:
CZc adjusted clear zone distance on
outside of curve (m)
Le clear zone distance (m)
(from Table 7.3.1)
Kcz curve adjustment factor
(from Table 7.3.2)
7.3.4.2 Design Domain: Application Heuristics
The quantitative elements of the clear zone design must not be used in isolation. As AASHTO stresses,
they are neither an absolute nor a precise measure of the degree of safety suggested for a particular
roadside. Nor are they sufficient by themselves to define the design domain for the clear zone. These
numbers must be applied in the context of situation-specific factors and good design practice. The
following design heuristics are included as one means of illustrating such practice and providing
additional definition to the design domain for this parameter:
1. The values in Table 7.3.1 provide only a framework for the designer to work with in looking at
ranges of clear zone dimensions to use. They are not absolute, and must be considered in the
context of site-specific conditions and practicality.
June 2017 13
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
2. The evaluation of alternative clear zone design approaches should be carried out using a well-
defined cost-effectiveness analysis procedure such as that provided by the AASHTO RSAP or
other similar procedures. Alberta is one of the Canadian jurisdictions currently using RSAP. Such
analyses would normally consider alternatives, such as the use of roadside barrier, if provision of
the recommended clear zone is not cost effective.
3. On unshielded, traversable 3:1 slopes, determination of the width of the recovery area at the
toe of the slope should consider right-of-way availability, environmental concerns, economic
factors, safety needs, and collision histories. In addition, the distance between the edge of the
travel lane and the beginning of the 3:1 slope should influence the recovery area provided at the
toe of the slope.
4. Increasing inadequate superelevation on curves provides an alternative way of increasing road
safety within a horizontal curve except where snow and ice conditions limit the use of such
increases.
5. Applying the clear zone concept on flat and level roadsides is relatively simple. The situation is
more problematic in fill or cut sections where roadside slope may be positive, negative, or
variable, and where roadside channels exist. Designers should refer to Section 7.4 for additional
guidance in such situations.
7.3.4.3 Emerging Research
At the time of the preparation of this Guide, relevant research on the development of cost-effective
clear recovery area guidance was underway in the United States. The progress of this work should be
31
monitored for potential future updates to the Guide.
7.3.4.4 Benefit-Cost Analysis for Clear Zone: Example
This example calculation illustrates the application of benefit-cost analysis using the AASHTO RSAP
toolset. RSAP is calibrated to a number of roadway classifications. It first applies a collision prediction
module which calculates the vehicle swath and the roadside objects likely to be impacted in a crash,
considering the speed and angle (S/A) of the errant vehicle path. RSAP then uses a severity prediction
module to assess occupant risk during the collision event, using predefined or user-defined severity
tables. This example looks at a four-lane divided freeway.
Problem Statement:
A bridge pier located within the median of a four-lane freeway is to be evaluated for shielding.
Determine which treatment option is most cost-effective:
• Option 1: Do nothing
• Option 2: Shield with a steel beam guiderail installation equipped with crashworthy end-
treatments
• Option 3: Shield with a crash cushion installation.
Given:
• 4-lane divided rural freeway
• Pier centred in a 23 m median
• Traffic volume= 70,000 (average annual daily traffic - AADT)
• 1% annual traffic growth
• 10% trucks
• 100 km/h posted speed.
14 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Benefit-Cost Analysis Parameters:
• 25 year design life and
• 4% discount rate.
• Societal cost of collisions (example only; these costs vary from agency to agency):
o Fatal = $2,600,000
o Serious Injury= $180,000
o Moderate Injury= $36,000
o Minor Injury= $19,000
o Property Damage Only= $2,000.
OPTION 1: Do Nothing OPTION 2: Barrier OPTION 3: Crash Cushion
Installation= $0 Installation= $37,400 Installation= $51,000
Crash
cushion
system
Bridge Bridge
piers piers
........§ ...........
••
I~
Steel
Beam
•• Guiderail
(SBGR)
········ ~r ········
Structure "<--'<---
160m 3m 10m
Steel
Beam
Guiderail
Figure 7.3.3: Treatment Options for Bridge Pier
Analysis Results
Table 7.3.3 summarizes results from the quantitative analysis of annual collision costs associated with
various median bridge pier protection alternatives.
June 2017 15
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Table 7.3.3: Results of RSAP Analysis Example
Annual Collision Average Annualized Annualized Total
Protection
Frequency Collision Collision Cost Installation Annualized
Alternative
(collisions/year) Severity (SI) ($) Cost($) Cost($)
Option 1:
0.393 5.76 to 6.53 61,200 - 61,200
Do Nothing
Option 2:
9.519 2.99 to 4.14 223,400 2,400 225,800
Roadside Barrier
Option 3 :
2.532 2.99 to 4.14 59,000 3,300 62,300
Crash Cushion
The average severity of collisions resulting from each protection alternative is generated from the RSAP
software and is displayed as a severity index (SI) value. The SI is a number that ranges from 0 to 10 and is
used to estimate the societal costs associated with an average collision with a given feature . Lower
values of the SI are associated with minor property damage type collisions. As the SI climbs, the
proportion of collisions involving greater degrees of personal injury and death increases.
Although doing nothing (Option 1) results in the lowest expected collision frequency, the resulting range
of the collision SI is increased, resulting in higher collision costs.
By shielding the median piers with a roadside barrier installation (Option 2), the resulting range of
collision SI is reduced; however, the expected collision frequency increases as a result of the barrier
being located closer to the traffic stream. This alternative resulted in the highest annual collision cost.
The crash barrel attenuation system alternative (Option 3) appears to offer the lowest annual collision
cost of the alternatives examined. Although the expected collision frequency associated with this
alternative is higher than Option 1 due to its larger footprint, the resulting collision severity is greatly
reduced. This results in an overall reduction in collision costs.
Benefit-Cost Analysis Outputs
The B/C ratio may be positive or negative. If the benefits are positive (i.e., a reduction in collision costs),
the B/C ratio is positive. If the benefits are negative (i.e ., an increase in collision costs), the B/C ratio is
negative.
Table 7.3.4 presents the incremental benefit-cost ratios associated with the various treatment options
discussed in the above example. The number at the intersection of row 1 and column 2 is the benefit to
cost (B/C) ratio of option 2 to option 1. Similarly, the B/C ratio of option 3 to option 1 is the number at
the intersection of row 1 and column 3 and the B/C ratio of option 3 to option 2 is the number at the
intersection of row 2 and column 3.
16 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Table 7.3.4: Results of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Treatment Option
Treatment
Option
1 2 3
1 0 -67.6 1.9
2 0 0 187.1
3 0 0 0
Summary and Conclusion
The B/C ratio for installing a guiderail (option 2) over existing conditions (option 1) is -67.6. The negative
B/C ratio indicates that this safety treatment actually increases the collision cost and is not cost-
beneficial. The B/C ratio for installing crash cushions (option 3) at the bridge piers over existing
conditions (option 1) is 1.9, indicating that this safety treatment is cost-beneficial. The B/C ratio for
installing crash cushions (option 3) at the bridge piers over installing a guiderail (option 2) is 187.1, but is
not relevant as option 2 is eliminated as a viable option in the comparison to option 1. Therefore, option
3 is the most cost-effective treatment option in this example.
7.4 APPLYING THE CLEAR ZONE CONCEPT
7.4.1 ROADSIDE SLOPES
Roadside slopes occur because of many features of the design of both the roadway cross section and its
longitudinal alignment. They are important to the designer because of their influence on the distance
and direction of vehicles encroaching on the roadside, and as a result, on the potential frequency and
severity of collisions. Roadside slopes are broken into the categories outlined in Figure 7.4.1. Discussions
of the application of clear zone principles to roadside slopes are set out in accordance with the
breakdown shown in Figure 7.4.1.
June 2017 17
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Roadside Slope
I
J, J, J,
Roadside Channels
Embankment Slopes Cut Slopes
(transition from
(negative grade) (positive grade)
negative to positive)
I
J, J,
Parallel Slopes Cross Slopes
(parallel to (perpendicular to
flow of traffic) flow of traffic)
Hierarchy
Transverse Cut Slope
I Cross
Parallel
Slope
Slope
- -
-~,,-=.==r===========::::;;;;--1
__ ! ""II;:
.... _,,,,,. ,,,,,.
f--
Original or natural grade
Roadside
Channel
Cross Section
Figure 7.4.1: Categories of Roadside Slopes
7.4.1.1 Clear Zone Application Heuristics: Parallel Slopes
The defining characteristics of a roadside slope are its grade and direction: the former having a
significant influence on the ability of a driver to regain control of their errant vehicle. This influence
results in the following generally accepted set of safety-related definitions which are most commonly
applied for parallel slopes :
• A recoverable slope is an embankment slope of 4:1 or flatter. Drivers encroaching on such
a slope can generally stop their vehicles or slow them down and return to the roadway
without incident. The clear zone can end on recoverable slopes without the need for a
recovery area at the foot of the embankment. Fixed obstacles will not normally extend
above the embankment within the clear zone distance.
• A non-recoverable slope is an embankment slope between 3:1 and 4:1. In this case, the
slope is usually traversable, but drivers of errant vehicles are not generally able to stop the
vehicle or return to the roadway safely. Since most vehicles encroaching upon non-
recoverable slopes will reach the toe of these slopes, the clear zone distance cannot
logically end on such slopes; therefore, a clear run-out area is necessary at the toe of the
slope. Fixed obstacles will not normally be constructed along such slopes.
18 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
• A critical slope has an embankment slope steeper than 3:1. Vehicles encroaching on these
slopes are likely to overturn. If such slopes begin within the clear zone distance, a traffic
barrier may be warranted if the slope cannot be readily flattened.
Designers must keep in mind many key design domain application heuristics (some of which are
illustrated in the worked examples in this section).
1. For recoverable slopes of 4:1 or flatter, the clear zone distance may be obtained from Table
7.3.1; however, designers must remember that these numbers are neither absolute nor precise.
2. Clear zone distances on embankments with variable side slopes, ranging from flat to 4:1, may be
averaged on a weighted basis to produce a composite clear zone distance.
3. The design of roadside slopes on new construction or major rehabilitation/reconstruction
should embody a number of desirable features, including:
o Smooth slopes with no significant discontinuities or protruding fixed objects
o A rounded top of slope so that vehicles encroaching across it do not become partially or
fully airborne
o A rounded toe of slope that will allow errant vehicles to traverse this area easily
In addition to the safety benefits which accrue from such practices, roadside maintenance is
considerably facilitated if these guidelines are followed.
4. On rehabilitation projects, because of environmental considerations, right-of-way constraints, or
other limiting factors, it may not be cost-effective or practical to fully comply with the guidelines
set out in this Chapter. In such instances, input from police and other emergency response
providers, collision records, collision inspections, highway maintenance records, citizen
complaints, and other sources of data can help pinpoint areas within the project that have
identifiable safety problems related to clear zone width where available resources can be most
effectively directed.
5. Non-recoverable slopes must be carefully considered. As noted above, they are desirably kept
smooth and free of fixed objects since the majority of vehicles that encroach on such slopes will
continue to the bottom. This necessitates the provision of a clear run-out area at the toe of the
slope. To determine the extent of this area, the available distance from the edge of the travelled
way to the transition (breakpoint) between the recoverable slope and the non-recoverable
slope is subtracted from the recommended clear zone distance. The latter is determined based
on the steepest recoverable slope before or after the non-recoverable slope.
6. Critical embankment slopes will cause most vehicles to overturn, and should be treated with
roadside barrier if they begin within the clear zone distance and meet the appropriate warrants
for shielding.
7.4.1.2 Clear Zone Application Heuristics: Cross Slopes
Cross slopes are embankment slopes created by median crossovers, driveways, intersecting side roads,
or other features. They are generally more critical to errant vehicles because they tend to be struck
head-on. Cross slopes constitute an obstacle in the roadside, and a number of points should be noted by
designers.
1. For high speed facilities (typically defined as 80 km/h or greater), cross slopes of 6:1 or flatter
are recommended and 10:1 are desirable-particularly for the portion of the embankment that
is adjacent to traffic. As distance increases from the travelled way, this slope may then be
transitioned to a steeper value.
June 2017 19
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
2. While 10:1 cross slopes are generally desirable, they are often impractical because of width
restrictions and the maintenance problems associated with long tapered ends of pipes or
culverts.
3. Safety treatments for drainage structures, which should be considered when dealing with cross
slopes, are discussed in Section 7.4.2.
7.4.1.3 Clear Zone Application Heuristics: Cut Slopes
Cut slopes (backslopes) are present when the roadway is in a cut section . In such cases, the backslope
may be traversable depending on its relative smoothness and the presence of fixed obstacles. Some
general heuristics to be considered by designers with respect to cut slopes include :
1. If the slope between the roadway and the base of the backslope is traversable, rounding is
provided, and the backslope is traversable and obstacle-free, the backslope may not represent a
significant obstacle, regardless of its distance from the roadway.
2. A steep, rough-sided rock cut should begin outside the clear zone or be shielded .
7.4.1.4 Clear Zone Application Heuristics: Roadside Channels
The main function of roadside channels is to collect and funnel water away from the roadway to
acceptable outlet points. While hydraulic considerations form the primary input in the design of such
channels, their effect on the roadside environment must also be considered since-depending on their
location within the right-of-way-they may sometimes be encountered by an errant vehicle. Collisions
with roadside channels and related features (i.e., ditches, earth banks, and rock cuts) account for about
35% of all fixed object collisions. As such, the roadside channel should generally provide a traversable
cross section . AASHTO has developed two graphs that allow the designer to develop designs with
appropriate foreslopes and back slopes in this regard. These are presented in Figure 7.4.2 and Figure
7.4.3.
20 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
travelled way~
shoulder
slope ratio - a, : b,
10:1 8:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1
0.5 2:1
0.4
3:1
-nr 0.3 ~' -
l11N
..ON
~
s:r
II II
Q) 0
c.. 4:1 :;::;
0 ~
iii Q)
..ll:: c..
u 0
0.2
""
111 5:1 iii
\
..0
preferred 6:1
channel
cross-section 8:1
0.1 10:1
\
(flat)
0
O (flat) 0.1 0.2 0.3
~ 0.4 0.5
front slope =b, I a,
Note: This chart is applicable to all 'vee' ditches, rounded channels with a bottom width less
than 2.4 m and trapezoidal channels with bottom widths less than 1.2 m
Figure 7.4.2: Preferred Cross Sections for Channels with Abrupt Slope Changes 32
June 2017 21
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
travelled way~
shoulder a, a,
width
slope ratio - a, : b,
10:1 8:1 6:1 5:1 4 :1 3:1 2:1
0.5 2:1
~~
0.4
~ 3:1
" -
l'llN
-cO
sS
0.3 .J:JN
\
II II
Cl> 0
c.. 4:1 :;::::;
0 ~
iii Cl)
.:.: c..
u 0.2 5:1 0
I'll iii
\
.J:J
preferred 6:1
channel
cross-section 8:1
0.1 10:1
(flat)
0
o (flat) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
front slope = b, I a,
Note: This chart is applicable to rounded channels with bottom widths of 2.4 m or more
and to trapezoidal channels with bottom widths equal to or greater than 1.2 m
Figure 7.4.3: Preferred Cross Sections for Channels with Gradual Slope Changes 33
Guidance on use of these graphs is offered below:
1. Cross sections that fall in the shaded region are considered to be traversable.
2. Sections that fall outside of the shaded regions are less desirable; their use should be limited
where high-angle encroachments can be expected .
22 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
3. Channel sections falling outside of the shaded areas could be acceptable for projects having
one or more of the following characteristics: restrictive right-of-way, rugged terrain,
reconstruction projects, low volume, or low speed roads.
4. If practical, channel sections that fall outside the shaded areas, but are in vulnerable locations,
should be considered for either conversion to a closed system (culvert or pipe) or shielding by
roadside barriers if warrants are met.
7 .4.1.5 Emerging Research
At the time of the preparation of this update, two relevant research efforts were ongoing in the United
States:
• NCH RP 16-05 Guidelines for Cost-Effective Safety Treatment of Roadside Slopes
• NCHRP 17-55 Guidelines for Slope Traversability.
These studies should be monitored for potential application to this Guide in future updates.
Worked Examples: Roadside Slopes
design ADT: 4000
design speed: 100 km/h
recommended
clear zone distance
for 5:1 slope: 10 -12 m (from Table 7.3.1)
_travelled way I 2.4 m I
shoulder
Figure 7.4.4: Example A (Tangent Section of Highway) 34
The available recovery area of 8.4 mis less than the recommended 10 m to 12 m. If the culvert headwall
is the only obstruction on an otherwise traversable slope, it should be removed and the inlet modified to
match the 5:1 slope. If the slope contains rough rock outcroppings or boulders, and the headwall does
not significantly increase the hazard to a motorist, a decision to do nothing may be appropriate. A
review of the highway's collision history, if available, may help determine the nature and extent of
vehicle encroachments and to identify any specific locations that may require special treatment.
June 2017 23
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
design ADT: 300
design speed: 60 km/h
recommended
clear zone distance
for10:1 slope: 2-3m
(from Table
7.3.1)
travelled way 0.6 m
I Sh0Ulderl '
10: 1
Figure 7.4.5: Example 83s
The available clear zone distance is 1.8 m, 0.2 m to 1.2 m less than the recommended recovery area.
When an area has a significant number of run-off-the-road collisions, it may be appropriate to consider
shielding or removing the tree within the collision area. If this section of road has no significant collision
history and is heavily forested with most of the other trees only slightly farther from the road, this tree
would probably not require treatment. However, if none of the other trees are closer to the roadway
than 4.5 m, for example, this individual tree represents a more significant hazard and should be
considered for removal. If a tree were 4.5 m from the edge of the travelled way, and all or most of the
other trees were 7.5 m or more, its removal might still be appropriate. This example emphasizes that
the clear zone distance is an approximate number at best and that individual objects should be analyzed
in relation to other nearby obstacles or factors, such as the horizontal and vertical alignment and/or its
location within a rural to urban transition area.
24 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
designADT: 7000
design speed: 100 km/h
recommended
clear zone distance
10:1 slope: 9 -10 m (from Table 7.3.1)
8:1 slope: 9 -10 m (from Table 7.3.1)
available recovery distance
before breakpoint of
non-recoverable slope: Sm
clear runout area
at toe of slope: 9 -10 m minus 5 or 4 - 5 m
travelled way 5.0 m 4.0 m 4.0 - 5.0 m
10:1
36
Figure 7 .4.6: Example C
Since the non-recoverable slope is within the recommended clear zone distance of the 10:1 slope, a run-
out area beyond the toe of the non-recoverable slope is desired. Using the steepest recoverable slope
before or after the non-recoverable slope, a clear zone distance is selected from Table 7.4.1. In this
example, the 8:1 slope beyond the base of the fill recommends a 9.0 m to 10 m clear zone distance.
Since 5.0 mare available at the top, an additional 4.0 m to 5.0 m should be provided at the bottom. All
slope breaks should be rounded and no fixed objects would be built within the upper or lower portions
of the clear zone or on the intervening slope.
June 2017 25
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
design ADT: 12000
design speed: 110 km/h
recommended
clear zone distance
for 6:1 slope: 9 -10.5 m (from Table 7.3.1)
travelled way 3.0 m 4.0 m 2.0 m
shoulder
Figure 7.4.7: Example 0 37
Since the critical slope is only 7.0 m from the travelled way, instead of the suggested 9.0 m to 10.5 m, it
should be flattened or shielded.
travelled way I 0.5 m I
1.0 m
design ADT: 350
design speed: 60 km/h
recommended
clear zone distance
for 5:1 slope: 2 - 3 m (from Table 7.3.1)
Figure 7.4.8: Example E38
26 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
The available recovery clear zone of 1.5 m is 0.5 m to 1.5 m less than recommended . If much of this
roadway has a similar cross section and no significant run-off-the-road collision history, neither slope
flattening nor a traffic barrier would be recommended. Conversely, even if the 5:1 slope was 3.0 m wide
and the clear zone requirement was met, a traffic barrier might be appropriate if this location had
noticeably less clear zone than the rest of the road and an unusually high embankment.
7.4.2 DRAINAGE FEATURES
Road designers generally recognize that drainage is one of the most important features in the design of
a highway or street. Proper drainage is an essential environmental design element, is critical to highway
safety in wet weather, and plays a fundamental role in ensuring the longevity of the road structure. The
facilities to accommodate drainage affect the roadside environment. When providing these facilities,
designers must recognize the need to preserve the principles of safe roadside design.
Section 7.4.1 dealt with roadside channel safety issues related to proper ditch design, highway, and road
facilities, particularly within urban areas. Other types of drainage structures include:
• Curbs for drainage control, but also delineation, pavement support, etc.
• Transverse culverts and related drainage structures
• Longitudinal culverts and related drainage structures
• Inlets.
Incorporating good drainage practice within a safe roadside design can be a difficult challenge. In
addressing this challenge, designers should explore the following options, in order of preference:
1. Eliminate non-essential drainage structures.
2. Design drainage structures so they present a minimal hazard to errant vehicles, including providing
traversable structures.
3. Provide shielding with a suitable barrier for any structures that cannot be redesigned or relocated
to eliminate their potential threat to errant vehicles.
This section addresses these options in the context of design domain guidelines that are primarily
feature-oriented and framed around the four types of drainage structures mentioned above. In applying
them, designers must consider their interaction with both the clear zone principles, as well as those
outlined in discussions regarding traffic barriers (see Section 7.6).
7.4.2.1 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Curbs
Curbs generally serve purposes beyond that of simple drainage. They also provide pavement edge
support and delineation, right-of-way reduction, aesthetics, sidewalk separation, and reduction in
maintenance operations. In using curbs, designers should consider the following points:
1. Barrier curb height is generally 150 mm. For mountable curbs, designers may wish to use a
maximum height of 100 mm since higher curb heights may drag on the underside of some
vehicles.
2. Curbs are not generally desirable along high-speed roadways. Specifically, barrier curbs should
never be used on freeway facilities. If a vehicle is spinning or slipping sideways as it leaves the
roadway, wheel contact with a curb could cause it to trip or overturn. Under other impact
conditions, the vehicle may become airborne, which can result in loss of control by the driver.
The distance over which a vehicle may be airborne and the height above or below normal
bumper height attained after striking a curb may become critical if secondary collisions occur
39
with traffic barriers or other roadside appurtenances.
June 2017 27
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
3. NCHRP Report 537: Recommended Guidelines for Curb and Curb-Barrier Installations provides
40
practical guidance on curb shape and installation offsets to barrier for various design speeds.
Table 7.4.1 was adapted from the NCHRP report.
41
Table 7.4.1: Appropriate Curb and Barrier System Combinations (Barrier System behind Curb)
Barrier Systems'
. . . .,. ..
....E ,;;
. ..... "'~
Operating Allowable Offsets to Acceptable Curb ,;; E "O
0 0 E Qj
GI c ,;; ·~ E ~u
Speed (km/h)
2
Barrier Systems (m) Types :c
a CD .
Q.
-"
.
Q.
-" CD
)(
0
GI
0
a.
c;::
:s
0 ...
::!;
..c
I-
"O
:99
a:: c
0
u
·;:
n;
CD
== 3 3 CD
==
Mountable, Installation of curb in conjunction with barrier system is not
> 100 Any offsets Semi-mountable
recommended
»
and Barrier
Mountable
Installation of curb in conjunction with barrier system is not
Semi-mountable
recommended
x>O Barrier
> 85-100 Mountable • • • • • •
J x=O
Semi-mountable
Barrier
Mountable • • • • • •
~ x:::. 4.0
Semi-mountable
Barrier
Mountable
> 70-85
~ O <x<4.0
Semi-mountable
Barrier
Installation of curb in conjunction with barrier system is not
recommended
Mountable • • • • • •
_JJL x=O
Semi-mountable
Barrier
• • • • • •
Mountable • • • • • •
_J;Jlx "'. 2.5
Semi-mountable
Barrier
• • • • • •
Mountable
> 60-70 _J;Jl
0 < x < 2.5
Semi-mountable
Barrier
• • • • • •
• • • • • •
_J
Mountable
Semi-mountable • • • • • •
x=O Barrier
Mountable,
:5 60 No re striction Semi-mountable • • • • • •
and Barrier
Notes:
(1) Excludes application of barrier curbs on structures.
(2) Operating speed is defined as the highest speed at which reasonably prudent drivers can be expected to
operate vehicles under low traffic densities and good weather. Typically the 85th percentile is used. For
operating speeds greater than 70 km/h, the suggested minimum offset between the edge of the travelled lane
and the face of curb is the shy line offset (See Table 7.6.4).
(3) A• denotes "Permitted".
28 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.4.2.2 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Transverse Culverts
Cross drainage structures (transverse culverts) carry water underneath the roadway and can vary widely
in size and type. Larger structures feature concrete headwalls and wingwalls, while smaller pipes usually
terminate in bevel-end sections. Depending on their locations, both of these features could represent
obstacles that could be encountered by vehicles that run off the road. To minimize their impact, the
designer can consider many measures:
• Use a traversable design.
• Extend the structure outside the clear zone so it is less likely to be hit.
• Shield the structure.
Application heuristics for each of these approaches are outlined as follows.
7 .4.2.3 Traversable Designs
In developing a traversable design, the primary goal is to maintain the existing traversable nature of a
given slope that must accommodate a drainage structure. This is usually best accomplished by matching
the inlet or outlet slope of the drainage structure to the embankment slope. For a cross drainage
structure under 1,000 mm in diameter or multiple structures each of which are less than 750 mm in
diameter, this is generally all that should be required.
On cross drainage structures larger than 1,000 mm, bar grates, pipes or piperunners, installed
perpendicular to the direction of travel, can be used to reduce the clear opening width to make the
structure traversable for passenger cars, provided such measures do not interfere with the hydraulic
capacity of the culvert. Shielding the culvert with an appropriate barrier should be considered if
significant hydraulic capacity or clogging problems could result from such measures. Figure 7.4.9
summarizes recommended pipe sizes for various spans of cross-drainage structures.
r travelled way
direction of travel
pipe or box culvert
am-"""""
-I~ each 750 mm ~I-
40p;po _filID ~
box culvert maximum pipe culvert
Pipe sizes for various span lengths for cross-drainage structures:
Span Length (m) Inside diameter (mm)
up to 3.65 75mm
3.65 to 4.90 87mm
4.90to6.10 100mm
6.1 O or less with centre support 75mm
Figure 7.4.9: Safety Treatment of Transverse Pipes and Culverts
June 2017 29
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Extending the Structure
Extending the structure so that the inlet or outlet is beyond the clear zone is an alternate treatment
where rendering culvert terminations traversable is not an option. This may have limitations where the
culvert headwall for the extended culvert remains the only obstacle in an otherwise traversable slope.
Shielding
For major drainage structures where extending the culvert is not practical or cost effective and whose
end sections cannot be made traversable, traffic barriers are often the most effective safety treatment
(see Section 7.6).
7.4.2.4 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Longitudinal Culverts
Longitudinal culverts are drainage structures oriented parallel to the main flow of traffic. They are
typically used under driveways, field entrances, access ramps, intersecting side roads, and median
crossovers. While such culverts often only carry minor flows, they represent a significant obstacle
because they can be struck head-on by errant vehicles.
Safety treatment options for longitudinal culverts are similar to those for cross drainage structures:
• Use a traversable design.
• Move the structure laterally to a less vulnerable location.
• Shield the structure.
Application heuristics for the use of a traversable design are as follows.
Traversable Design
As for cross drainage structures, the designer's primary goal in developing a traversable design is to
maintain a traversable slope and to match culvert openings with the slopes. Slopes in such instances
should be constructed as flat as possible, with 6:1 suggested for areas where high speed impacts are
possible. On lower volume, lower speed facilities, steeper slopes may be used.
On parallel drainage structures larger than 600 mm in diameter or width, bar grates or pipes, installed in
the horizontal direction, can be used to reduce the clear opening width to make the structure
traversable for vehicles. Bars set at 600 mm on centre, with the bottom bar 100 to 200 mm above the
culvert invert, will reduce wheel snagging at the culvert opening.
Consideration must be given to the potential effect the installation of the bars or grate may have on the
hydraulic capacity of the culvert.
In urban areas and near schools or playgrounds where children may be playing, and where flows in the
culvert may be high, consideration must be given to the possibility of children being drawn into a culvert
and trapped against the horizontal bars. Figure 7.4.10 shows an example of bar grate or pipe treatment
on a longitudinal culvert.
30 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
entrance or
access roadway
embankment
direction of travel each 600 mm
~:mox;m"m ~@
pipe or box culvert
-,L 100- 600 mm
maximum
box culvert pipe culvert
Figure 7.4.10: Safety Treatment of Longitudinal Pipes and Culverts
7.4.2.5 Design Domain Application Heuristics: Inlets
Inlets can be divided into two categories: on roadway and off roadway. On roadway inlet structures are
generally installed flush with the pavement surface, and do not normally constitute a safety problem for
errant vehicles. Such structures have to be designed from a hydraulic need standpoint, must be capable
of supporting the wheel loads which might be imposed upon them, and must not present a hazard to
bicyclists or pedestrians. Further design advice for pedestrian and bicycles can be found in Chapter 6
and Chapter 5 respectively.
Off roadway inlets are commonly used in the medians of divided highways, and on occasion in roadside
ditches. To minimize their presentation as an obstacle to errant vehicles, they should be designed and
built to be flush with the channel bottom on which they are located. Properly sized grate coverings
should be used to prevent wheel snagging.
7.5 SIGN, LUMINAIRE, AND OTHER SUPPORT
7.5.1 BASIS FOR DESIGN
The primary objective of roadside design must be to provide an appropriately dimensioned clear zone to
allow errant vehicles the opportunity to recover without incident. In some instances, however, this may
prove impossible. For operational, cost-effectiveness, or safety-related reasons, certain obstacles may
have to remain within the clear zone. These might include:
• Roadway illumination
• Traffic signing hardware
• Traffic signal hardware
• Railroad warning devices
• Utility poles.
Collisions with sign and lighting supports or utility poles account for about 19% of all fixed-object
42
collisions each year and thus merit serious consideration. When presented with a situation where such
devices fall within the clear zone, four options are open to the designer. In order of preference, they are:
1. Remove the obstacle or redesign it so it can be traversed safely.
2. Relocate the obstacle where it is less likely to be struck.
June 2017 31
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
3. Use a breakaway device to reduce the severity of potential fixed-object collisions.
4. Shield the obstacle with a traffic barrier and/or crash cushion if it cannot be eliminated, relocated,
or redesigned.
The focus of this section is to provide guidance to the designer on the third option, the use of breakaway
devices to reduce the severity of potential fixed-object collisions.
Guidance is given on the selection of the most appropriate device for a given purpose, and on the
installation of the support required to ensure its acceptable performance if a collision occurs.
7.5.2 BREAKAWAY SUPPORTS: GENERAL COMMENTS
The term "breakaway support" refers to all types of sign, luminaire, and traffic signal supports designed
to yield when hit by a vehicle. The supports release through various mechanisms. Criteria used to define
43
such breakaway supports are well established and documented.
The criteria that such breakaway supports must meet include:
• Impact velocity breakaway thresholds
• Maximum remaining stub height {100 mm to minimize vehicle snagging)
• Need for the vehicle to rema in upright during and after the collision
• No significant deformation of the passenger compartment.
7.5.3 DESIGN DOMAIN: OVERVIEW
As with drainage devices, the design domain advice for sign, luminaire, and other supports is given in the
form of feature-related heuristics and rules of good practice that can be applied to a wide variety of
hardware situations. In addition to applying these principles, designers should maintain a high level of
awareness of the constantly-evolving hardware options available for their implementation in the field.
In add ition to dealing with the hardware aspects of roadside furniture, this section also provides some
advice on dealing with the presence of trees and shrubs on the roadside.
7.5.4 DESIGN AND LOCATION HEURISTICS: BREAKAWAY/ NON-BREAKAWAY SIGNS
The first requirement for sign supports is the need to structurally support the devices that are mounted
upon them . Well-developed specifications for sign mounting hardware are available from various
agencies. However, signs and other devices must be carefully placed to minim ize the hazard that they
can represent t o motorists. Designers should keep in mind the following practices when developing
signing plans for their projects :
• Sign supports should not be placed in drainage ditches where erosion and freezing might
affect the proper operation of breakaway supports.
• Wherever possible, signs should be placed behind existing roadside barriers (beyond the
deflection distance), on existing structures, or in non-accessible areas. If this cannot be
achieved, then breakaway supports should be used.
• Only when the use of breakaway supports is not practicable should a traffic barrier or crash
cushion be used exclusively to shield sign supports.
• Breakaway supports should be considered in some urban and most rural areas, or
wherever vehicle speeds are moderate to high (e.g., 70 km/h or higher) .
• In urban areas, where the possibility exists of pedestrians and bicyclists being struck by
falling breakaway hardware after a collision, yielding supports are not typically used.
32 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
• Supports used on roadside slopes must not allow impacting vehicles to snag on either the
foundation or any substantial remains of the support.
• Breakaway support mechanisms are designed to function properly when loaded primarily
in shear. To do this, the impact height is normally assumed to be at bumper height, or
about 500 mm above the ground. If impact occurs at a significantly higher point, the
breakaway mechanism may not function as desired. Thus, it is critical that breakaway
supports not be located near ditches or on steep slopes or at similar locations where a
vehicle is likely to be partially airborne at the time of impact.
• The type of soil may also affect the activation mechanism. Designers should be aware of
this limitation and its consequences.
• Signs and supports that are no longer needed should be removed as quickly as possible.
7.5.5 DESIGN DOMAIN APPLICATION HEURISTICS: SIGN SUPPORTS
Roadway signs fall into three primary classes:
• Overhead signs
• Large roadside signs
• Small roadside signs.
These application practices are further discussed below.
7.5.5.1 Overhead Signs
Overhead signs, including cantilevered signs, require massive support systems that cannot be made to
break away. Wherever possible, they should be installed on or relocated to nearby overpasses or other
structures. Overhead sign supports located within the clear zone must be shielded with a crashworthy
barrier. In such instances, the sign bridge should be located beyond the design deflection distance of the
barrier.
7.5.5.2 Large Roadside Signs
2
Large roadside signs are defined generally as those with a sign panel size greater than 5.0 m. Typically,
they have two or more breakaway supports.
• The hinge for breakaway supports on large roadside signs should be at least 2.1 m above
ground so the likelihood of a portion of the sign or upper section of the support
penetrating the windshield of an impacting vehicle is minimized. The required impact
performance is shown in Figure 7.5.1.
• No supplementary signs should be attached below the hinges if such placement is likely to
interfere with the breakaway function of the support post, or if the supplemental sign is
likely to strike the windshield of an impacting vehicle.
• Breakaway supports should be installed on level terrain to function as intended when
struck head-on by a vehicle. When placed on a slope, or if there is a possibility that the
vehicle may be spinning or sliding on impact, the breakaway feature may not function as
intended.
• Wherever feasible, all signs should be installed where they are least likely to be hit, and
whenever possible, outside of the clear zone even if they are breakaway.
June 2017 33
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
- hinge joint
vehicle
impact base releases vehicle passes
and hinge activates underneath sign
_breakaway
_ _..............__ _ base ][][ ][][
Figure 7.5.1: Impact Performance
7.5.5.3 Small Roadside Signs
2
Small roadside signs are supported on one or more posts and have a sign panel area of less than 5.0 m •
Although not perceived as a significant obstacle, small signs can cause significant damage to impacting
automobiles.
The bottom of the sign panel should be at least 2.1 m above ground and the top of the panel should be
at least 2.7 m above ground to minimize the possibility of the sign panel and post rotating on impact and
striking the windshield of a vehicle.
Wood posts with a dimension of 100 x 100 mm are deemed to be breakaway; posts with a dimension of
100 x 150 mm or larger must be drilled with sheer holes orientated perpendicular to the roadway at the
base to make them frangible.
The design requirements for breakaway support systems for roadside signs are documented in a
44 45
number of publications.
7.5.6 DESIGN DOMAIN APPLICATION HEURISTICS: LUMINAIRE SUPPORTS
Luminaire supports should be of the frangible base, slip base, or frangible coupling type (Figure 7.5.2).
They are designed to release in shear when hit at a typical bumper height of about 500 mm.
• As long as the side slopes between the roadway and the luminaire support are 6:1 or
flatter, vehicles should strike the support appropriately, and breakaway action can be
assured.
• Superelevation, side slope, rounding, the presence of curb, vehicle departure angle, and
speed will influence the striking height of a typical bumper. Designers should consider this
fact in developing illumination plans for their projects.
• As a general rule, any luminaire support will fall near the line of the path of an impacting
vehicle. Designers should be aware that falling poles represent a threat to bystanders such
as pedestrians, bicyclists, and uninvolved motorists.
• Poles with breakaway features should not exceed 17 m in height-the current maximum
height of accepted hardware.
34 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
• The mass of a breakaway luminaire support should not exceed 450 kg.
• The design of foundations for luminaire supports must consider surrounding soil conditions
that could influence the effectiveness of the breakaway mechanism .
• When luminaire supports are located near a traffic barrier, if the support is within the
design deflection distance of the barrier, it should be either a breakaway design, or the
barrier should be strengthened locally to minimize its deflection.
• Many agencies mount luminaires on top of concrete median barriers. For high angle
impacts into the concrete barrier or collisions involving trucks or buses, a luminaire on a
barrier may be struck. In such instances, breakaway supports are not generally used
because of the risk a downed pole might present to opposing traffic.
• Higher mounting heights can reduce the number of luminaires needed on a facility. High
mast lighting-which requires fewer supports, located further from the roadway-can be
beneficial. While consideration of this approach is recommended to designers, the massive
nature of these high mast structures requires analysis and planning in their design and
placement.
Luminaire slip base Frangible coupling design
Figure 7.5.2: Breakaway Luminaire Support (Base Options)
7.5.7 DESIGN DOMAIN APPLICATION HEURISTICS: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SERVICE DEVICES
Many objects are usually adjacent to the roadway, including traffic signals, motorist aid callboxes, rail
crossing warning devices, mail boxes, and fire hydrants.
• Falling traffic signal supports at urban intersections can present a threat to pedestrians,
cyclists, and non-involved motorists when struck by an errant vehicle so providing
breakaway supports may not be desirable.
• On high-speed facilities(> 70 km/h), traffic signal supports should be placed as far away
from the roadway as practicable. If the supports are within the clear zone for the roadway,
consideration should be given to their shielding. Alternatively, some agencies like Alberta
introduced reduced speed zones at intersections.
• To reduce the hazard to an impacting vehicle, the top of a call box support should be at
least 2.1 m above ground. Wherever possible, call boxes should be located behind traffic
barriers that are warranted for other reasons. This not only makes them unlikely to be hit,
but also affords their users protection from being struck by an errant vehicle.
June 2017 35
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
• Crossbucks at rail crossings should be installed similar to an acceptable wood post sign
support. When more significant warning devices are installed (signals or gates), with their
supports within the clear zone, consideration should be given to adding crash cushions for
head-on vehicle collisions with the supports, if such a possibility is considered to be a high
risk due to the particular configuration of the grade crossing. Normally, longitudinal
barriers are not used for this purpose because there is seldom space to develop the
downstream end treatment.
• Mailboxes are abundant in rural areas. Guidelines for erecting mailboxes on rural highways
46
are available in other pertinent documentation.
• Wherever possible, fire hydrants should be located as far away from the roadway as
possible so they do not represent an obstacle to motorists, but are still accessible to
emergency personnel. Refer to Section 7.7 for a discussion on roadside design in urban
environments.
7.5.8 DESIGN DOMAIN APPLICATION HEURISTICS: UTILITY POLES
In the Roadside Design Guide, AASHTO notes that motor vehicle collisions with utility poles account for
approximately 12% of all fixed object fatal collisions annually in the US. This phenomenon is generally
attributed to the number of poles in use, their proximity to the travelled way, and the ir unyielding
nature. Sometimes the guy wires required to support the poles can also be a hazard. Designers should
consider the application of many heuristics:
• Util ity poles should be located where they are least likely to be struck. One alternative
unique to power and telephone lines is to bury them.
• Many agencies have developed their own guidelines and policies to accommodate utilities
within road rights-of-way. Designers should consider these sources of guidance in
developing their road plans.
• In general, typical countermeasures for the presence of utility poles in the clear zone
include:
• Placing utility lines underground
• Increasing lateral pole offset
• Increasing pole spacing
• Avoiding placing poles on the outside of curves
• Using multiple poles (joint usage) .
• For poles that cannot be relocated or eliminated, a breakaway design that reduces collision
severity was developed and collision tested in the US. Although field experience is limited,
47
the design may be appropriate for poles in vulnerable locations.
• For larger utility poles in the clear zone, particularly those used to support major electrical
transmission lines, shielding should be considered.
• Equip guy wires with breakaway hardware.
7.5.9 ROADSIDE VEGETATION CONSIDERATIONS: BEST PRACTICES
48
Single vehicle collisions with trees account for about 12% of all fixed object collisions in Canada .
According to NCH RP, 77% of fatal collisions with trees occur in rural areas and 53% occur on rural local
and minor collector roadways. NCHRP also notes that 23% of fatalities involving trees occur in urban
environments (see Figure 7.5.3). Roadside vegetation can have a significant effect on roadside safety.
36 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
10% • Rural locals
• Rural major collectors
• Rural mi nor arterial s
• Rural minor co llectors
• Ur ban pri ncipal arte r ial s and
minor arterials
• Ur ba n local streets
Figure 7.5.3: 1999 Fatal Tree Crashes by Functional Class 49
Unlike typical roadside hardware, with the exception of landscaping, trees are not a design element over
which the designers have direct control. While policies and approaches vary by agency, a number of best
practices are presented here to assist the designer in dealing with this complex and important issue.
• When located within the clear zone, depending on their size, trees may constitute a hazard
that should be eliminated or shielded.
• A tree with a trunk diameter greater than 100 mm is considered a fixed object.
• When trees or shrubs with multiple trunks, or groups of small trees are close together, they
may be considered as having the effect of a single tree because of the ir combined cross-
sectiona I area.
• Typically, large trees should be removed from within the selected clear zone for new
construction and reconstruction projects. Segments of a highway can be analyzed to
identify groups of trees or individual trees that are candidates for removal or shielding.
• The removal of individual trees should be considered when those trees represent
obstructions and are in a location likely to be struck. Wh ile tree removal does not reduce
the probability of vehicle encroachment, it should reduce the severity of any collisions.
• Tree removal can be expensive and often has adverse environmental effects. It is important
that this measure only be used when it is an effective solution . For example, slopes that are
3:1 and flatter may be traversable, but a vehicle on a 3:1 slope will usually reach the
bottom. If numerous trees are at the toe of the slope, the removal of isolated trees on the
slope will not significantly reduce the vehicle/tree collision risk. Similarly, if the
recommended clear zone for a particular roadway is 7.0 m, including the shoulder,
removing trees 6.0 m to 7.0 m from the road will not substantially change the risk to
motorists if an unbroken tree line remains at 8.0 m and beyond . However, isolated trees
noticeably closer to the roadway may be candidates for removal.
• If a tree or group of trees is in a vulnerable location but cannot be removed, traffic barriers
can be used to shield them. This should only be done when the severity of striking the tree
is greater than that of striking the barrier.
June 2017 37
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
• Maintenance of the roadside plays an important role in helping to control vegetation and
tree problems by mowing within the clear zone and eliminating seedlings before they
create a hazard.
• To promote consistency within their jurisd ictions, road agencies should develop formal
policies regarding roadside vegetation that provide guidance for design, landscape,
construction, and maintenance personnel.
7.6 TRAFFIC BARRIERS
7.6.1 BASIS FOR DESIGN
Traffic barriers are protective devices that are placed between traffic and a potential hazard off the
roadway, with the intention of reducing the severity of a collision when an errant vehicle leaves the
travelled portion of the roadway. This is accomplished by containing the errant vehicle and redirecting it
away from the hazard in a controlled manner, with acceptable deceleration, low exit angle, and
minimum injury to the occupants or damage to the vehicle, or by gradually decelerating the vehicle to a
safe stop.
Traffic barriers do not prevent collisions. They too are obstacles on the roadside and vehicles striking
barriers can cause occupant injury and/or vehicle damage. A traffic barrier should be installed only if it is
likely to reduce the severity of potential collisions.
The barrier design process consists of first determining the need for a barrier through a warrant analysis,
then selecting an appropriate barrier type based on the level of protection it offers, its deflection or
deceleration characteristics, and conditions at the site where it is proposed to be installed.
Two types of traffic barriers are typically encountered on today's highways:
• Longitudinal barriers
• Energy attenuation devices or crash cushions.
Longitudinal barriers function primarily by redirecting errant vehicles, while crash cushions function
primarily by absorbing energy and decelerating errant vehicles to a stop for head-on impacts, or by
redirecting for side impacts. Longitudinal barriers have applications within the median of a divided
highway as well as adjacent to the roadside of a divided or undivided highway.
7.6.1.1 Barrier Applications
Traffic barriers are generally used in three applications:
1. Roadside barriers are longitudinal barriers installed adjacent to the right or left edge of a
roadway. Their primary purpose is to prevent a vehicle leaving the roadway from striking fixed
obstacles (e.g., sign posts or bridge piers) or terrain features (e.g., trees or rock outcrops), or
from encountering a steep slope, when these features are considered to be more hazardous
than the barrier itself.
2. Median barriers are longitudinal barriers installed in the median of a divided highway to
prevent vehicles from crossing the median and encountering oncoming traffic.
3. Crash cushions are a form of barrier installed to shield a fixed obstacle, adjacent to the
roadway, that cannot be removed or relocated, and cannot be adequately shielded by a
longitudinal barrier.
38 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
From a design standpoint, bridge rails and their related transitions, as well as end treatments for
longitudinal barriers, fall into the category of traffic barriers.
7.6.1.2 Determining the Need
Barriers are installed on the basis of warrant analysis. Traditionally, these warrants have been based on
a subjective analysis of certain roadside elements or conditions within the clear zone. If the
consequences of a vehicle running off the road and striking a barrier are believed to be less serious than
the consequences if no barrier existed, the barrier is considered warranted.
While such an approach can be used, there are often instances where the distinction between the two
conditions is not immediately obvious. In addition, this approach does not allow for consideration of the
cost-effectiveness of treatment or non-treatment.
Increasingly, road agencies are using techniques that allow warrants for barrier installation to be
established based on a benefit-cost analysis that considers factors like design speed, traffic volume,
installation and maintenance costs, and collision costs.
Typically, such an approach is used to evaluate three options:
• Removing or altering the area of concern so that it no longer requires shielding.
• Installing an appropriate barrier.
• Leaving the area of concern unshielded (usually only considered on low-volume and/or
low-speed facilities).
Roadside hazards that warrant shielding by a barrier include embankments and roadside obstacles.
Cost-effectiveness analysis can be used in determining barrier need. The warrant analysis compares the
collision frequency and severity of hitting a barrier with the frequency and severity of going down an
embankment or striking an object.
Barrier warrants for roadside obstacles are based on their location within the clear zone beyond either
the right or left edge of a roadway and are a function of the nature of the obstacle, its distance from the
travelled portion of the roadway, and the likelihood that it will be hit by an errant vehicle. Conventional
criteria used for embankments and roadside hazards are not usually applicable to the urban
configuration, so these are resolved through careful individual evaluation of each potential project.
As with roadside barriers, warrants for median barriers have been established on the basis that a barrier
should be installed only if the consequences of striking the barrier are less severe than the
consequences that would result if no barrier existed. The primary purpose of a median barrier is to
prevent an errant vehicle from crossing a median on a divided highway and encountering oncoming
traffic. As such, the development of median barrier warrants has been based on an evaluation of
median-crossover collisions and related research studies. In determining barrier need for medians,
median width and average daily traffic volumes are the basic factors generally used in the analysis.
Warrants for implementing crash cushions are based on shielding a fixed object within the clear zone
that is considered to be a hazard and cannot be removed, relocated, made breakaway, or adequately
shielded by a longitudinal barrier.
In considering the use of traffic barriers, designers should note that even when these are properly
designed and constructed, they may not protect errant vehicles and their occupants completely. After
their installation, the severity of collisions generally decreases, but with added installations the
frequency of minor collisions may also increase. For this reason, where cost-effective, the designer
June 2017 39
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
should make every effort to design without traffic barriers. This can be done, where possible, by clearing
50
the roadside of obstacles, flattening embankment slopes, and introducing greater median separation.
7.6.1.3 Performance Requirements
It is generally recognized that the most effective way to assess barrier performance in the context of the
complex dynamics of a collision is through full-scale collision tests. In this way, the true capabilities of
any given barrier technology to contain and redirect an encroaching vehicle can be realistically
evaluated. A series of standard collision test requirements have been developed in the US. The most
51
recent version of these requirements is the Manual for the Assessment of Safety Hardware. The
procedures provide a standardized approach to evaluating barrier performance based on six different
test levels, thereby providing a framework for matching barrier performance to specific service needs.
Table 7.6.1 provides details on the specific MASH test conditions and evaluation criteria .
52
Table 7 .6.1: Barrier Test Levels and Conditions
Test Vehicle Test Conditions
Test Level
Designation and Type Vehicle Weight (kg) Speed (km/h) Angle (degrees)
llOOC (passenger car) 1,100 so 2S
1
2270P (pickup truck) 2,270 so 2S
llOOC (passenger car) 1,100 70 2S
2
2270P (pickup truck) 2,270 70 2S
llOOC (passenger car) 1,100 100 2S
3
2270P (pickup truck) 2,270 100 2S
llOOC (passenger car) 1,100 100 2S
4 2270P (pickup truck) 2,270 100 2S
100005 (single unit truck) 10,000 90 lS
llOOC (passenger car) 1,100 100 2S
s 2270P (pickup truck) 2,270 100 2S
36000V (tractor/van trailer) 36,000 80 lS
llOOC (passenger car) 1,100 100 2S
6 2270P (pickup truck) 2,270 100 2S
36000T (tractor/tanker trailer) 36,000 80 lS
Information on collision-tested barrier technologies is available on the US Federal Highway
Administration's website. 53
7.6.2 ROADSIDE BARRIERS: DESIGN DOMAIN AND EXAMPLES
7 .6.2.1 Technology Overview
In this Guide, discussion on specific barrier technologies is limited to generic barrier types to clarify
overall design questions. Barrier technologies are constantly being refined and further developed.
Furthermore, some barrier types are more applicable than others in certain situations, such as
containing and redirecting large trucks. Designers should remain current in the availability and
characteristics of specific technologies on an ongoing basis.
In accomplishing their task of guiding and redirecting impinging vehicles, a roadside barrier must
balance the need to prevent penetration of the barrier with the need to protect the occupants of the
40 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
vehicle. Although different technologies achieve this in various ways, they can be grouped into three
distinct types:
4. Flexible systems result in the largest lateral barrier deflections, but the lowest vehicle
deceleration rates. Such systems can be used in places where a substantial area behind the
barrier is free of obstructions and/or other hazards within the zone of anticipated lateral
deflection . These barrier types usually consist of a weak post-and-beam system, and their
typical design deflections are in the range of 3.2 m to 3.7 m. Designers must familiarize
themselves with, and design to, the specific performance characteristics of their selected or
candidate technologies. High-tension cable barrier systems are gaining popularity in Canada
(see Section 7.6.3.1).
5. Semi-rigid systems provide reduced lateral barrier deflections, but higher vehicle deceleration
rates. These barrier systems can be used in areas where lateral restrictions exist and where
anticipated deflections must be limited. They usually consist of a strong post-and-beam system
and have design deflections ranging from 0.5 m to 1.7 m. Designers must familiarize
themselves with, and design to, the specific performance characteristics of their selected or
candidate technologies.
6. Rigid systems usually take the form of a continuous concrete barrier. These technologies result
in no lateral deflection, but impose the highest vehicle deceleration rates . They are typically
used in areas where there is very little room for deflection or where the penalty for
penetrating the barrier is very high . Numerous shapes are available, including a higher version
for use where there is a high percentage of trucks.
Typical examples of these barrier technologies are summarized Table 7.6.2.
Table 7.6.2: Examples of Roadside Barrier Technologies
Flexible Systems Semi-Rigid Systems Rigid Systems
• Low-tension 3-strand • Blocked-out W-beam (strong post) • Concrete safety shape
cable
• Blocked-out Thrie Beam (strong • Stone masonry wall
• High tension cable barrier post)
• W-beam (weak post) • Modified Thrie beam
• Thrie beam (weak post) • Self-restoring barrier (SERB)
• Box beam (weak post) • Steel-backed wood rail
7.6.2.2 Embankment Warrants
Roadside hazards that warrant shielding by a barrier include embankments and roadside obstacles. In
the past, techniques for determining barrier need for embankments generally used embankment height
and side slope as the key parameters in the warrant analysis, and essentially compared the collision
severity of hitting a barrier with the severity of going down an embankment.
Warrant nomographs can be developed using collision prediction and cost-effectiveness analysis
techniques that consider both the probability of an encroachment occurring as well as the relative cost-
54
effectiveness of shielding versus not shielding. In general, such warrants are agency-specific since they
must reflect unique local conditions, collision cost factors, and agency policies. Examples of such a
warrant procedure are shown in Figure 7.6.1. They are examples from specific jurisdictions and are
neither a general warrant nor are they applicable to all types of barrier (e.g., cable barriers) and are not
intended for general use.
June 2017 41
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Nova Scotia
8000
7000
~...
0 6000
\'
0
Ci'.
UJ
' \ .... BARRIER NOT WARRANTED FOR
EMBANKMENT. CH ECK BARRIER
NEED FOR OTHER ROADSIDE
(L
z
5000
\
\ " .. HAZARDS.
I\ ' ~ ··. .. ..
('.)
Ci'.i Ullt< 2rh F LLHE G~IT
UJ 4000
0
..... ...
" "I'. ~·1·
----
0::
~~1 o4rnl ILL HI 1"G
---- -......
UJ [',,
>
0 3000
--
f- r-- i--
0
:;: 2000 lln .. ~
"· c 111
·~ ' ~·
:;-;--- ~
-~ r-
1000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
WARRANTLENGTH (m)
Alberta
1600
1;•
v
1400
I-
125~
c:::I
1200 o~
LL. UJ
1000
4:1 sid ~slope
is cost ;effective /JI 935.J )
oI
UJ
Q;....,.
E
::J .....
I- (above lines) ..····· Oc:::
C UJ UJ
800 C:::>
~ / ;s;52 cnO
7 ....····· ::::i I-
600
400
47./' v..· o·:~"
..·..
•• 1553
-Z
<( UJ
c:::
o~
C:::z
:::2:
V., .. guardrail
i cost-eff< ctive
<( <(
::J CD
200
26.)i ..·· )";85
t elow line!)
(9 :::2:
UJ
/.··J.
2i 1;;1
>1 57
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
average height of embankment (m)
- RAU 208-110/100 •••0•••• RAU 213.4-120/110
Rural , collector undivided ; 2-lane Rural, arterial undivided 2-lane
road 8 metres wide with a design road 13.4 metres wide with a design
speed of 100 or 110 km/h speed of 11 0 or 120 km/h
55
Figure 7.6.1: Sample Embankment Warrant Guides
42 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
As noted earlier, the development of cost-effectiveness analysis techniques provides designers with a
preferred option for evaluating the need for roadside barriers. The techniques represent a considerable
improvement over the general nomograph approach, since they provide designers with the ability to
consider site-specific factors in their analysis. They are strongly recommended to designers concerned
with making the most cost-effective use of their roadside improvement and protection budgets.
7 .6.2.3 Roadside Obstacle Warrants
Man-made and natural roadside obstacles can be categorized as either non-traversable terrain or fixed
objects, and their character and presence directly define needs for shielding. Warrants for shielding
should be developed using a quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis that accounts for the obstacle's
characteristics and its likelihood of being hit.
Many application heuristics should be evaluated when considering the shielding of roadside obstacles,
including:
• Shielding non-traversable terrain or a roadside obstacle only when it is in the clear zone
and where the terrain cannot be modified or the obstacle cannot be economically
removed, relocated, or made breakaway, and a barrier provides a safety improvement over
the unshielded condition.
• Collision experience at the site (or a comparable site), to help decide on the placement or
omission of a barrier in marginal cases.
• In practice, few traffic signal supports are shielded.
7 .6.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Warrants
In some situations, a measure of physical protection may be required for pedestrians or bicyclists near a
highway or other major road. Examples of such cases could include:
• A barrier adjacent to a school boundary or property to minimize potential vehicle contact.
• Shielding businesses or residences near the right-of-way where there is a history of run-off-
the-road collisions.
In these cases and others, conventional criteria will not serve to provide warrants for barriers, and the
designer must be aware of the needs and circumstances of the individual situation when deciding on
appropriate action.
Barriers are also appropriate for the protection and separation of pedestrians and bicyclists using
roadways with high speeds and/or volumes. Specific design guidance is provided in the following Guide
sections:
• Section 5.3.1- Protected Bike Lanes
• Section 5.4 - Bikeway Facility Selection
• Section 5.7.5 - Protected Bike Lane Delineators
• Section 6.5.6 - Pedestrian Safety Fencing and Barriers
• Section 7.6.4.3 - Multi-modal Configurations (of Bridges)
Barriers should also be considered in any other location where high-speed vehicle intrusions onto
boulevards or sidewalk areas might occur.
June 2017 43
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.6.2.5 Barrier Selection Criteria
Once a barrier need has been established, a specific barrier technology must be chosen for the
application . Since each installation is unique, and given the complexity of the road environment, there is
no simple "recipe" for selecting the correct barrier technology to use in any given situation .
Nonetheless, designers should consider well established criteria when reaching this decision, with the
ultimate goal being to choose the system that provides the required degree of shie lding at the lowest
overall cost. Some agencies use "level of barrier forgiveness" as a criterion for selecting barrier
technologies for specific situations. Table 7.6.3 can be used as a guide to this selection process.
56
Table 7.6.3: Technology Selection Criteria for Roadside Barriers
Criteria Comments
Performance Barrier must be able to structurally contain and redirect design vehicle for the appropriate
Capability test level.
Deflection Expected deflection should not exceed available deflection distance. Zone of Intrusion should
be considered (see Section 7.6.2.6).
Site Conditions Slope approaching the barrier and distance from travelled way may preclude use of some
barrier types.
Compatibility Barrier should be compatible with planned end-treatment or anchorage, and capable of
transitioning to other barrier systems (such as bridge railings).
Cost Standard barrier technologies are fairly consistent in cost, but high-performance systems can
cost significantly more.
Level of Barrier Consideration of the resulting collision severity associated with impacting a specific barrier
Forgiveness type.
Maintenance Few systems require any significant amount of routine maintenance.
Routine
Collision Flexible or semi-rigid systems generally require sign ificantly more maintenance after a
collision than rigid or high-performance systems.
Material Storage The fewer the number of system technologies used, the lower the need for inventory
items/storage space.
Simplicity Simpler designs cost less and are more likely to be reconstructed properly.
Aesthetics Occasionally, aesthetics is an important consideration.
Field Experience Performance and maintenance requirements of existing systems should be monitored to
identify problems that could be lessened or eliminated by using a different barrier type.
44 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.6.2.6 Zone of Intrusion
As illustrated in Figure 7.6.2, the zone of intrusion is the area above
and beyond the face of a rigid barrier system where components of
commercial vehicles, pickup trucks, or SUVs may enter during a
collision with the system . Ideally, all hazards, including signs and
poles with non-breakaway bases, should be placed outside the
Zone of Intrusion.
Because of the higher centre of gravity in commercial vehicles, a
low rigid barrier may result in a partial overtopping of the rigid
barrier during a collision . For this reason, the zone of intrusion may
affect the selection of a barrier system and placement of signs and
poles behind the barrier. As a result, designers should consider the
zone of intrusion for highways with a rigid barrier and/or a barrier
at a bridge structure, and those experiencing high commercial
vehicle traffic volumes. (For commercial vehicle traffic to be
considered "high", the designer should examine the typical number
of commercial vehicles per day rather than the percentage of Figure 7.6.2: Zone of
commercial vehicles in the traffic stream .) An example of the zone Intrusion
of intrusion is shown in Figure 7.6.3.
June 2017 45
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
I. 1000. ___1_so_o____ ,
~------
1
0 0
Zone of Intrusion for L.()
(")
0
CX)
TL-2 barriers L.() (")
Zone of Intrusion for Zone of Intrusion for
TL-3 barriers TL-4 barriers
1. The Zones of Intrusion are based on cash test data from barriers of various shapes but rationalized for design
purposes.
2. The New Jersey shape barrier Zone of Intrusion value (not shown) is significantly higher than the values shown.
3. All dimensions are in millimetres.
57
Figure 7.6.3: Sample Zone of lntrusion
7.6.2.7 Placement Heuristics
A typical roadside barrier installation and associated elements for a two-lane, two-way road is illustrated
in Figure 7.6.4.
46 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
downstream length of need length of need upstream
terminal or terminal or
end treatment transition end treatment
standard transition _ standard
section section
Cl....o_O D D D D D D D_o.-D
DD D D D D D O D D D D D D
direction of travel edge of
(adjacent traffic) travelled way
direction of travel ...............
(opposing traffic) ........,......
Figure 7.6.4: Roadside Barrier Installation Elements
Having decided that a barrier is warranted and having chosen the appropriate technology, the designer
must consider several factors in specifying the final layout, including:
• Lateral offsets from the edge of travelled way
• Terrain effects
• Flare rate
• Length of need .
A set of design domain placement heuristics developed from various literature sources is provided
below which cover most typical issues arising from the design of roadside barrier installations.
7.6.2.8 Lateral Offsets
In general, roadside barrier should be placed as far from the travelled way as conditions permit, to
provide greater recovery area for errant vehicles and sight distance, particularly at intersections and the
inside of horizontal curves. However, roadside barriers should generally not be located further than
4.0 m from the edge of the through lane travelled way, since the likelihood of an encroaching vehicle
hitting the barrier at a high angle increases with the barrier's offset from the through lane travelled way.
Section 7.4 provides guidance on circumstances when it may be appropriate to place a roadside barrier
further than 4.0 m from the edge of the through travelled lane.
In its Roadside Design Guide, AASHTO provides the following guidance with regard to barrier offset:
"Uniform alignment enhances highway safety by providing the driver with a certain level of expectation,
thus reducing driver concern and reaction to those objects. The distance from the edge of the travelled
way beyond which a roadside object will not be perceived as a an obstacle and result in a motorist's
58
reducing speed or changing vehicle position on the roadway is called the shy-zone effect."
Suggested values for the shy line offset are summarized in Table 7.6.4.
June 2017 47
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Table 7.6.4: Suggested Shy Line Offset Valuess 9
Shy Line Offset (from edge of
Design Speed (km/h)
through lane to barrier [m])
130 3.7
120 3.2
110 2.8
100 2.4
90 2.2
80 2.0
70 1.7
60 1.4
50 1.1
AASHTO further describes the flexible nature of barrier placement vis a vis the shy-line :
"If practical, a roadside barrier should be placed behind the shy-line offset, particularly for relatively
short, isolated installations. For long, continuous runs of barrier, this offset distance is not as critical,
especially if the barrier is first introduced beyond the shy-line and gradually transitioned towards the
roadway. Shy-line offset distance is seldom a controlling criterion for barrier placement. As long as the
barrier is located beyond the perceived shoulder of a roadway, it will have a minimum impact on driver
60
speed or lane position."
The distance a barrier will deflect under impact is a function of vehicle mass, incident angle, and the
type of barrier; these should all be considered by designers, particularly if the barrier is shielding a fixed
object. Providing inadequate space can result in the vehicle striking or snagging the obstacle. Under
certain circumstances, even providing adequate deflection distance may result in the vehicle striking the
object, if the vehicle has a high centre of gravity and can pivot around the barrier to impact a relatively
high object (e .g., light standard). The discussion on Zone of Intrusion in Section 7.6.2.7 provides further
guidance .
When barriers are used for shielding embankments, it is important to ensure that the barrier to
embankment distance is sufficient to provide adequate support for the barrier posts. This distance
varies depending on the slope of the embankment, soil type, impact conditions, and barrier
characteristics.
7 .6.2.9 Terrain Effects
The terrain between the edge of the travelled way and the roadside barrier should be such that
encroaching vehicles have all their wheels on the ground at the moment of impact. Failure to provide
this condition may result in a substantial reduction in barrier effectiveness.
Designers should avoid the use of curbs and roadside slopes on the approach terrain to roadside
barriers. Where curb is used in conjunction with a barrier, the curb should be placed flush with the
barrier face or behind it. The use of any guardrail/curb combinations should be avoided where high-
speed, high-angle impacts may occur.
The use of roadside barriers on slopes steeper than 10:1 should only be undertaken if they are located
such that the vehicle is in a normal attitude at the moment of impact. The installation of barriers on
slopes steeper than 6:1 should be avoided.
48 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.6.2.10 Flare Rate
Roadside barriers are generally flared (i.e., placed so that they are not parallel to the roadway) to:
• place the terminal further from the roadway
• reduce driver reaction to the introduction of a barrier
• transition a barrier to an obstacle nearer the roadway (e.g., a bridge parapet)
• reduce the total length of barrier needed.
While the use of flares is appropriate in most circumstances, designers should recognize that there are
two disadvantages to such a technique. Firstly, providing and increasing flares increases the angle at
which the barrier can be hit, which tends to increase the severity of such collisions. Secondly, there is an
increasing likelihood, as flare increases, that a vehicle will be redirected into or across the roadway
following an impact. Flare rates for various design speeds for barriers placed beyond the shoulder are
shown in Table 7.6.5. Some crashworthy end treatments may not be compatible with flared barrier
installations. The designer should refer to the supplier's installation procedures when selecting an
appropriate end treatment technology.
61
Table 7.6.5: Flare Rates for Barriers Placed Beyond the Shoulder
Steel Beam, Box Beam,
Design Speed (km/h) Concrete Barriers
and Cable Barriers
130 25:1 50:1
120 25:1 40:1
110 25:1 30:1
100 20:1 25:1
80 15:1 20:1
60- 70 10:1 15:1
so 10:1 10:1
The steeper the flare rate, the further from the roadway the barrier begins and the shorter the required
length.
7.6.2.11 Length of Need
The length of need is defined as the length of barrier system required to provide protection at a hazard.
This length does not include end treatments, which are installed beyond the length of need to provide
both protection and stability, or extensions of the system beyond the length of need, which are required
to provide stability only. Figure 7.6.5 illustrates the length of need concept for a two-lane road.
June 2017 49
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
hazard
r
__..,..__..,.________..,.________....,__
barrier
end treatment Lb Lh La / . end treatment
length of need = La + Lh + Lb (7.6.1) ~ edgeof
travelled way
Note: On divided highways , one way roads , or where the trailling end is beyond the clear zone
of the opposite lane , Lb is equal to zero , and the length of need = La + Lh .
62
Figure 7 .6.5: Roadside Barrier Length of Need
The length of need is a function of:
• The distance of a hazard from the travelled lanes
• The location of the barrier in relation to the hazard and the travelled lanes
• The design speed of the road.
In determining the length of need, it is assumed that a vehicle leaving the road will travel a
predetermined distance measured parallel to the roadway before coming to a stop. This distance is
referred to as the encroachment distance ("E" in Figure 7.6.6) and depends on the design speed of the
road. Table 7.6.6 summarizes the encroachment distance assumptions for various design speeds.
63
Table 7.6.6: Encroachment Distances for Various Design Speeds
Encroachment Distance (E) Given Traffic Volume (ADT) (m)
Design Speed
(km/h) Over 10,000 5,000 to 10,000 1,000 to 5,000 Under 1,000
veh/day veh/day veh/day veh/day
130 143 131 116 101
110 110 101 88 76
100 91 76 64 61
80 70 58 49 46
60 49 40 34 30
50 34 27 24 21
50 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Some road agencies use encroachment distances lower than the values outlined above for very low
64
volume roadways(< 400 veh/day). The length of need of any system includes two basic components:
• The approach length on either side of the hazard, (La in Figure 7.6.6 and Lb in Figure 7.6.7)
• The length adjacent to the hazard (Lh in Figure 7.6.4)
As illustrated in Figure 7.6.5, the length of need is the sum of the approach lengths, La and Lb, plus the
length adjacent to the hazard. On divided highways, one-way roads, or where the trailing end is beyond
the clear zone of the opposite lane, Lb is equal to zero, and the length of need is the sum of La+ Lh.
The calculation of the approach length, La, is illustrated in Figure 7.6.6. Meanwhile, Figure 7.6.7
illustrates the calculation of the approach length for opposing traffic.
June 2017 51
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
....
hazard I • • •••• · / . . barrierend
B
I Lh I La • • • • • • • I treatment
AJ
. .. ..
~~~-~~---~~-
\__ edge of
travelled way shoulder
approach length of barrier La
A =distance from edge of adjacent traffic lane to face of the barrier (m)
B =the lesser of
distance from edge of adjacent traffic lane to back of obstacle (m) ; or
clear zone width (m) Tables 7.3.1 and 7.3.2
E = encroachment distance (m)
La =approach length of barrier (m)
from similar triangles EI B = La I (B -A) (7.6.2)
or, rearranging La = E (1 -A/B) (7.6.3)
Example illustrating the use of the approach length - La formula
given:
AADT : 3,000 vehicles I day
design speed : 80 km I h
encroachment distance E : 49m (from Table 7.6.6)
offset (B) from edge of travelled way to back of hazard : 5m
offset (A) from edge of travelled way to face of barrier : 3m
approach length of barrier, La = E (1 - A I B)
49 (1 - 3 I 5)
= 49 (0.4)
= 19.6 m
NOTE: L must be rounded up to match the number of barrier elements .
The end of the system may require protection.
65
Figure 7.6.6: Roadside Barrier Approach Length
52 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
.....
.. ....
.. . . . .. I hazard
I / barrier
. . ..
Ill
end treatment Lb Lh
.
. . . ...
. . <(
. .. . . <=== '1-
- -.- - - - - - - =:::>
- - - - - - - - - -
approach length for opposing traffic Lb = E (1 - A/B) (7 .6.4) \L ed ge of
travelled way
Note: This is identical to the formula for approach length La. The difference in the two is the point
of measurements of the offsets A and B. In the approach length La calculation , the two
offsets are measured from the edge of the adjacent line, while in the approach length Lb
calculation , the two offsets are measured from the centreline of the roadway.
Figure 7.6.7: Roadside Barrier Approach Length for Opposing Traffic 66
The length of need formulas shown in the figures above are based on a straight roadway alignment and
will not yield an appropriate length of need on spiral or curved segments of a roadway. In this situation,
the length of need should be determined graphically.
A vehicle leaving the roadway on the outside of a horizontal curve will generally follow a tangent path .
Therefore, rather than applying the theoretical encroachment distance (E from Table 7.6.6) parallel to
the roadway, a line from the outside edge of the hazard (or outside edge of clear zone) to a point
tangent with the curve can be used to determine the appropriate barrier length (line X). If the distance
measured along the roadway (line Y) is shorter than the theoretical encroachment distance, it should be
used to determine the appropriate barrier length. If the distance measured along the roadway is greater
than the theoretical encroachment distance, the theoretical encroachment distance should be used to
determine the appropriate barrier length. In the former case, the vehicle has enough distance to stop
before the hazard and in the latter case, the encroachment path lies beyond the hazard . Figure 7_6.8
provides an example of the application of this methodology.
June 2017 53
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
approach barrier
requirement (Y)
--- - - ---------
clear zone
requirement
(varies)
Figure 7 .6.8: Determining Barrier Length of Need on a Curve
Designers should keep in mind many supplementary application heuristics in the design of a roadside
barrier installation, including:
• Crashworthy end treatments for barrier installations are added to the length of need
distance in advance of the hazard.
• Flaring a barrier in accordance with the flare rates shown in Table 7.6.5 will reduce the
length of barrier needed. The length of need can be determined graphically or by
calculation, based on the point of intersection between the flared barrier and the path of a
vehicle as defined by the encroachment distance and the position of the obstacle.
• Where a barrier is flared, the area between the barrier and the travelled way should be
graded to ensure a flat approach to the barrier.
• Where a barrier is flared, a tangent length of barrier immediately upstream of an obstacle
should be considered, particularly if a semi-rigid barrier is connected to a rigid barrier such
as a bridge rail. In such a case, the tangent length of barrier should be at least as long as
the section used to transition between barriers of varying rigidity.
• Where a hazard extends beyond the clear zone width (e.g., in the case of a stream or river)
it is considered to be continuous. In these instances, the distance B (Figures 7.6.9 and
7.6.10) from the edge of the lane to the back of the hazard is considered to be equal to the
clear zone width, which depends on the design speed of the road.
• All roadside barrier systems must be anchored at both ends, which can be accomplished
by:
o Anchoring the barrier by an acceptable end treatment.
o Attaching to a rigid object such as a bridge abutment, etc.
o Extending the barrier beyond the length of need to provide stability. The
application of this treatment is at a location where it is unlikely an approaching
vehicle will strike the end of the system (i.e., on divided highways, one-way roads,
or where the end is beyond this clear zone). In such cases, the extension lengths
shown in Table 7.6.7 are recommended .
• Barrier systems (except cable) that terminate near rigid objects (e.g., bridge abutments,
retaining walls, smooth rock faces, etc.), should be extended and connected to the rigid
object so vehicles are not guided into it.
54 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
• To minimize the number of end-treatments, opportunities to eliminate short gaps between
closely spaced barrier installations should be examined. Although some agencies use a
threshold of 50 m or less to eliminate gaps, cost-effectiveness analysis should be used to
determine the appropriate threshold for each situation.
Table 7.6.7: Extension Length for Unanchored Guide Rails 67
Extension Required for Unanchored Guide Rails
Distance from face of guide rail to face
Extension (m)
of the hazard (m)
0-1.5 15
1.5- 2.5 12
2.5- 3.5 10
3.5-4.0 8
4.0-5.0 5
greater than 5.0 2
Figures 7.6.9 and 7.6.10 illustrate how to apply the length of need principles to practical problems.
June 2017 SS
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
edge of
travelled way
I
1 ~ ~ -E_=_s_1~m~ ~-L- ~-'.-g_.-~ '()-~:-~-~-~-~- - - L-E_a_=- 5~7_m~- - - - ~-~-~l~~~-2-:~·~I
determine barrier length to protect overhead sign
given:
calculate La
AADT : 3,000 vehicles I day
existing undivided highway A = 2.5 m, B =4.5 m, E = 57 m
design speed : 90 km I h La = E (1 -A/B) = 57 (1 - 2.5/4.5) = 25.3 m
lane width adjacent to barrier: 3.7 m
distance from edge of lane to face of barrier: 2.5 m calculate Lb
distance from edge of lane to back of hazard: 4.5 m
diameter of sign base : 0.5 m A= 2.5 + 3.7 = 6.2 m, B = 4.5 + 3.7 = 8.2 m, E = 57 m
encroachment distance : E = 57 m (interpreted Lb = E (1 -A I B) = 57 (1 - 6.2 I 8.2) = 13.9 m
from Table 7.6.6)
total barrier length L = La + Lh + Lb
= 25.3 + 0.5 + 13.9
= 39.7 m
NOTE: L must be rounded up to match the number of
barrier elements. The ends of the system
will require both protection and anchorage.
Figure 7.6.9: Calculating Length of Need - Two Lane, Two Way Roadway
56 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
2:1 embankment slope (continuous)
E = 101 m
Retaining
wall~
La
A= 3.0 ml
3.5ml
- 3.53
determine barrier length to be placed to provide protection '-_ edgeof
at a bridge retaining wall (barrier abuts hazard) travelled way
given:
AADT : 5,000 vehicles I day
divided highway
design speed : 90 km I h
shoulder width : 3.0 m
hazard continuous
calculate La
A= 3.0 m
B = clear zone width
= 9.0 m (from Table 7.3.1)
E = 101 m (see Table 7.6.6)
La=E(1-A/B)
=101 (1 - 3 I 9)
= 67.3 m
NOTE: L must be rounded up to match the number of barrier elements. Lb is not required
since it is a divided highway and the barrier is anchored at one end by the retaining wall.
The other end will have to be protected by an end treatment, which also provides stability.
Figure 7.6.10: Calculating Length of Need-One Way Roadway
7.6.3 MEDIAN BARRIERS: DESIGN DOMAIN
7.6.3.1 Commonly Used Barriers
Many of the technology observations made with respect to roadside barriers apply to median barriers,
including their categorization into the three distinct categories: flexible, semi-rigid, and rigid. The
specific technologies used are the same in some instances and different in others, but the most common
median barrier types seen today are summarized in Table 7.6.8.
June 2017 57
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Table 7.6.8: Examples of Median Barrier Technologies
Barrier Design Recommended
Example Advantages Disadvantages
Type Deflection Site Conditions
Flexible Median Barrier Systems
• Senstive to mounting height
Weak post Flat traversable •Can remain effective after • Requires proper end
2.1m
W-Beam slopes struck anchorage
• Potential snagging hazard
• Requires proper end
Three-strand
Flat traversable anchorage
Cable (low 3.5m • Inexpensive installation
slopes • Ineffective after being struck
tension)
• Expensive to maintain
Semi-Rigid Median Barrier Systems
- - - - rI Flat traversable •Posts are designed to • Posts must be repaired after
Box beam 1.7m
-,= . s lopes breakaway at impact t>eing struck
·Can remain effective after
Blocked-out
Median width of 3m impact
W-beam 0.6 to 1.2m • May require rub-rail
or greater • Higher impact forces than
(Strong post)
flexible systems
• Can accommodate larger
,,_. range of vehicles
Blocked-out
Requires effective thanw-beam
-
---~~~
Thrie-beam 0.3to 0.9m
barrier height • No need for rub-rail
(Strong post)
• Higher impact forces than
flexible systems
•Can accommodate larger
range of vehicles
Modified Requires effective • Does not usually require
0.6 to 0.9m
Thrie-beam barrier height immediate repair
• Higher impact forces than
flexible systems
Rigid Median Barrier Systems
•Low life-cycle costs
Concrete
Use in narrow, •Effective performance
Median Om symmetric medians • Maintenance-free
• High installation cost
Barrier
•High impact forces
58 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.6.3.2 High Tension Cable Barriers
While they have not been extensively deployed in Canada so far, the literature suggests that high-
tension cable barrier (HTCB) is gaining popularity in North America for both rural and urban applications.
These systems are installed with a significantly greater tension in the cables t han the generic three cable
system outlined in Table 7.6.8. Compared to other types of barriers, high-tension systems offer several
performance advantages, including:
• More forgiving than concrete and steel systems
• Reduced collision severity
• Reduced vehicle damage
• Reduced snow drifting
• Lower cost to install than concrete and steel barrier systems
• Compared to other cable systems, reduced deflection to between 2 m to 2.8 m, depending
on the system and the post spacing
• Reduced damage to the barrier in case of impact and, in many cases, the cable remains at
the proper mounting height after an impact that damages the posts
• Posts can be installed in sleeves in the ground, to facilitate quick removal and replacement
• Need for end-treatment eliminated, although anchors may need to be crash-worthy
68
depending on site requirements.
Figure 7.6.11: High-Tension Cable Median Barrier Installation
7.6.3.3 Barrier Warrants
A 2004 survey conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the US found that a
significant percentage of fatal cross-median collisions occurred where median widths exceeded 10 m.
While the survey found that some collisions occurred in medians more than 60 m wide, approximately
two thirds occurred where the median width was less than 15 m. As a result, a revised median barrier
warrant was prepared to reflect this finding. This warrant is displayed in Figure 7.6.12 and is applicable
to median barriers on high-speed, controlled-access roads which have relatively flat and traversable
med ians.
June 2017 59
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
90
80
70
"
~ 60
~
0
ba ier
recom oended
§. 50 barrier
considered
" barri r
~;,. 40
oplioral
·;;
"" 30
"'
E
~ 20
10
0
0 10 15 20 >
median width (m)
69
Figure 7.6.12: Median Barrier Warrants for Freeways and Expressways
Figure 7.6.12 should be considered in the context of many design domain application heuristics,
including:
• A median barrier is recommended on high-speed, fully controlled-access roadways for
locations where the median is 10 m wide or less and the average daily traffic (ADT) is
greater than 20,000 vehicles per day.
• For locations where the median is narrower than 15 m and where the ADT is less than
20,000 vehicles per day, median barrier is optional. However, the facility should be
designed to facilitate future placement if there are significant increases in ADT and/or a
history of cross-median collision.
• For locations where median widths are greater than 10 m but less than 15 m, and where
the ADT is greater than 20,000 vehicles per day, a benefit-cost analysis or an engineering
study evaluating various factors (e.g., traffic volumes, vehicle classifications, median
crossover history, collision incidents, vertical and horizontal alignment relationships, and
median/terrain configurations) may be conducted to determine the appropriate
application for median barrier installations.
• For locations with median widths equal to or greater than 15 m, a barrier is not normally
considered except in special circumstances such as a location with significant history of
cross-median collisions. These types of special circumstances are discussed in Section
7.6.3.5.
• The use of median barrier has a potential disadvantage: since the recovery area available to
errant vehicles is reduced, the total number of collisions may increase, even though overall
severities are decreased.
• As with all barriers, a median barrier should only be installed if striking the barrier is likely
to be less severe than the consequences that would result if the barrier did not exist. Cost-
effectiveness analysis techniques can be applied to the median barrier problem as they are
60 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
in the case of roadside barriers. This approach is generally recommended, provided a
reasonable data base for developing encroachment models is available.
• Median barriers, when used on high-volume, non-access controlled facilities, are difficult to
terminate safely and may create sight distance problems at intersections and in tight
curves. Where designers consider using median barriers in such an application, they should
carefully consider these two issues.
• In some instances, divided roads have their directions at distinctly different elevations. In
these cases, the ability of a driver to recover safely and return to their lane decreases as
the difference in elevation increases, thus increasing the potential for cross median
collisions. In such cases, clear zone criteria and cost-effectiveness analysis techniques
should be used as guides to establishing barrier need.
7.6.3.4 Trends
Some American states set thresholds for median barrier consideration that are more demanding than
the warrant outlined above. For example, California DOT (Caltrans) considers installation of barriers on
medians as wide as 23 m, depending on traffic volumes (see Figure 7.6.13).
concrete
6.1 m 11.0m 23.0 m
Thrie beam
I• •I
120
100
study
,,Ii) warrante j
."'
c:
::J
80
0
.t:
:!:.
"
iE 60
~
~
:i!::>
,,
L./""
·o;
"'"'~ 40
J.--/
/
.
"'>
/
20
~ nsider o nlv if
th ere is an unusual y
/ hi~h numt er or rah
0
/ '\... o cross-m edian
cc llisions
0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18. 0 21.0 24.0
median width (m)
Figure 7.6.13: Caltrans Median Barrier Study Warrant for Freeways (adapted)7°
Several American jurisdictions have developed collision study warrants to identify sections of freeway
that may require the installation of a median barrier. For example, California justifies further analysis to
determine the advisability of a barrier when a site exceeds 0.31 cross-median collisions per kilometre
per year (any severity) or 0.075 cross-median collisions per kilometre per year (fatal).
June 2017 61
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Other agencies have adopted a more stringent policy for installing median barrier. For example, North
Carolina freeways having median widths of 21 m or less require median barrier regardless of AADT.
In its Roadside Design Guide Alberta combines the AASHTO 2006 median barrier warrant with the
71
Caltrans collision experience warrant noted earlier.
7 .6.3.5 Explicit Evaluation of Safety: Median Barrier and Width
In general, three primary factors influence the safety performance of freeway medians:
1. Traffic volume: Collision frequencies generally increase with higher traffic volumes.
2. Median width: Wider medians generally result in a decrease in cross median collision
frequencies.
3. Presence of barrier: Although the presence of median barrier generally decreases overall
collision severities by reducing/eliminating cross median collisions, overall collision frequencies
typically increase.
Median barriers can significantly reduce the occurrence of cross median collisions and the overall
severity of median related collisions. However, the increased use of median barrier also has potential
disadvantages. Since the recovery area available to errant vehicles is reduced, the total number of
collisions may increase though overall severities have decreased. Road safety concerns associated with
snow drifting and drainage at median barrier installations have also been identified.
There is a growing body of experience with median cable barrier that shows a definite reduction in
median crossover collisions when such a barrier is installed. For example, the Texas Department of
Transport (TxDOT) found that interstate highways with median widths less than 18 m were
overrepresented in cross median collisions. Based on findings from a study in Montana that revealed up
to 92% reductions in cross median fatalities after installing median cable barriers, TxDOT changed its
policy to require the installation of cable barrier on all interstates with medians less than 18 m and
traffic volumes greater than 30,000 vehicles per day. The reference for this case study does not specify
72
whether high tension cable was used in all cases.
Another study for Alberta Transportation looked at the effectiveness of a 10.75 km section of the
Deerfoot Trail on which high tension barrier was installed in 2007. A before and after study completed in
2010 and confirmed in 2016 showed no cross-the-median fatal crashes since the installation. 73 The
74
benefit-cost analysis indicated a payback period of less than one year.
The FHWA's Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) contains safety performance functions
(SPF) for the prediction of collision frequencies on urban and rural freeways. These SPFs include collision
modification factors {CMF) for median width and the presence of median barrier. CMFs are a generic
estimate of the effectiveness of a countermeasure that can be a useful guide; however, it remains
necessary to apply engineering judgement and to consider site-specific environmental, traffic volume,
traffic mix, geometric and operational conditions that may affect the safety impacts of a
countermeasure.
7 .6.3.6 Barrier Selection Criteria
Once a barrier need has been established, a specific barrier technology must be chosen for the
application. Since each installation is unique, and given the complexity of the road environment, there is
no simple "recipe" for selecting the correct barrier technology to use in any given situation.
Nonetheless, designers should consider well established criteria when reaching this decision, with the
62 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
ultimate goal being to choose the system that provides t he requ ired degree of shielding at the lowest
cost. While some agencies w ill consider overall costs including capital, maintenance, and anticipated
societal value of collision costs when establishing barrier selection criteria, Table 7.6.3 provides a
comprehensive and useful guide to aid in the selection process.
Although most median barriers have been developed, tested, and installed to contain or redirect
passenger vehicles and pick-up trucks, in some situations, it may be necessary to contain heavy vehicles.
The following factors are typically considered when reaching a decision on such barriers:
• High percentage or large average daily number of heavy vehicles
• Adverse geometrics (e.g., horizontal curvature)
• Severe consequences of vehicular or cargo penetration into the opposing lanes.
7.6.3.7 Placement Heuristics
As with roadside barriers, once the need for a median barrier is established and a technology selected,
the designer must consider several factors in developing the barrier layout. These include:
• Terrain effects
• Flare rate of the barrier
• Treatment of rigid objects in the median
7.6.3.8 Terrain Effects
For median barrier to be effective at the time of impact, it is necessary that the vehicle has all of its
wheels on the ground and that its suspension system is neither compressed nor extended. Curbs and
sloped medians are of particular concern, since a vehicle that traverses one of these features before
impact may go over or under the barrier or snag on its support posts. Some barrier technologies have
specific placement criteria to ensure optimal performance of the barrier installation. An example is high-
tension cable barriers which can have areas within the depressed median where this technology should
not be installed, as illustrated in Figure 7.6.14.
Curbs offer no safety benefits on high-speed roads and are not recommended where median barriers
are present. Medians should be relatively flat (slopes of 10:1 or less) and free of rigid objects. Where this
is not the case, the placement of the median barrier must be carefully considered. AASHTO notes
75
conditions where specific guidelines for median barrier placement should be followed:
• In depressed medians or medians with a ditch section, the slopes and ditch section should
first be checked to determine if a barrier is warranted. If both slopes require shielding, a
roadside barrier should be placed near the shoulder on each side of the median. If only one
slope requires shielding, a median barrier should be placed near the shoulder of the
adjacent travelled way.
• If neither slope requires shielding but both are steeper than 10:1, a median barrier should
be placed on the side with the steeper slope, when warranted .
• If both slopes are relatively flat, then a median barrier may be placed at or near the centre
of the median if vehicle override is not likely.
• For stepped medians that separate travelled ways with significant differences in elevation,
if the embankment slope is steeper than 10:1, a median barrier should be placed near the
shoulder adjacent to the travelled way of the higher side. If the slope is not traversable
(e.g., a rough rock cut), a roadside barrier should be placed near the shoulder adjacent to
June 2017 63
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
each travelled way. If the cross-slope is flatter than 10:1, a barrier cou ld be placed at or
near the centre of the median.
• For raised medians or median berms, placement criteria are not clearly defined. If high and
wide enough, research suggests that the cross section of a median berm itself can redirect
vehicles impacting at relatively shallow angles.
• As a general rule, if the cross section is inadequate for redirecting errant vehicles, a semi-
rigid barrier should be placed at the apex of the cross section . If the slopes are not
traversable, roadside barriers should be used near the shoulder adjacent to each of the
travelled ways.
64 June 2017
c::s 'Tl
ati'
n G\
:r tD
ID Q.J 0
N
c
... ~ 3
0
.... in
.....
.., ....
tD tD
...i ...... ~.
Cn I n
~ :::a c
~ 0
Q.J
ill- ·
-I c.. (IQ
<
"C c:
"' :I
G)
;:;· tD c
~
:::c
ati'
:r
-I
I
c
tD
"'-· ;;
~
0 -
c:
tD
Q.J
:I
in Q.J
:I
Ill ' PREFERRED PLACEMENT ZONE
c..
5· <E. MEDIAN SUBJECT TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS
iii'
:I
:I
:::a
n TRAVEL LANE SHOULDER 1.8' SHOULDER TRAVEL LANE 0
DJ Q.J
C" c..
ti)'
2.4
"'
CJ:!
......
DJ
NO ZONE
ti)'
... ..J ..J
s:
in 0.3
Q. ~
..J
iii' ..J ..J x
:I 6:1 OR FLATIER 6:1 OR FLATIER KEY
5' TRAFFIC. HTCB PLACEMENT AND I OR DESIGN MUST -f(
....
Ill PREVENT INTRUSION OF OPPOSING VEHICLES INTO THE TRAVEL
LANE CAUSED BY THE IMPACT TO THE CABLE SYSTEM ON THE
TOE OF SLOPE__/
'---TOE OF SLOPE
-./-./
-./
PREFERRED LOCATION FOR BARRIER
BARRIER PERMITTED
~ BACK SIDE A FTER CROSSING THE MEDIAN X BARRIER NOT PERM ITTED
....5·
DJ
:I
I
VI
0
"C
in
Ill
0\
j.:.
...
0
(1\ I
UI
'Tl
........iii"
........
in
"'
q
PRINTED BY: Cloud Creus <cloud@creus.ca>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.6.3.9 Flare Rates
If a median barrier must be flared at a median hazard, the flare rates shown in Table 7.6.5 for roadside
barriers should be used. See Section 7.6.2.11 for more discussion about flares including advantages and
disadvantages.
7.6.3.10 Rigid Objects
A special case may result in circumstances where a median barrier is not warranted but where a hazard
warrants shielding. Typical examples are bridge piers, overhead sign support structures, and high mast
lighting installations. If shielding is necessary for one direction of travel only, or if the object is in a
depressed median and shielding from either or both directions of travel is necessary, the criteria for
roadside barriers should be used.
If shielding for both directions of travel is necessary and if the median side slopes are steeper than 10:1,
the designer may investigate the possibility of a crash cushion (or an earth berm) to shield the object. A
second possibility involves the use of semi-rigid or rigid barriers with crash cushions or earth berms to
shield the barrier ends.
The zone of intrusion located in the area above and beyond the face of a rigid barrier system in which
components of commercial vehicles, pickup trucks or SUVs may enter during a collision should also be
considered (see Section 7.6.2.6).
7.6.4 BRIDGE RAILINGS/TRANSITIONS: DESIGN DOMAIN
7.6.4.1 Technology Overview
A bridge railing is another type of longitudinal barrier that is intended to prevent a vehicle from running
off the edge of a bridge or culvert, or from encroaching on pedestrian/bicycle facilities across the bridge
structure. Various technologies are used, including metal or concrete post and rails, concrete safety
shapes, or a combination of metal and concrete. They are generally an integral part of the structure and
have virtually no deflection when struck.
A transition section must be provided where a semi-rigid approach barrier joins a rigid bridge railing to
produce a gradual stiffening of the approach barrier so pocketing, snagging or penetration of the barrier
by vehicles contacting the barrier can be reduced or avoided.
Designers seeking specific information on analytic design procedures, loadings, and material
77 78 79 80
specifications should refer to additional publications. Information on crash tested bridge barrier
and barrier transition technologies is also available on the US Federal Highway Administration's
81
website.
7.6.4.2 Warrants
Virtually all structures warrant some type of railing. Where a bridge is used by pedestrians and cyclists, a
barrier to shield them from vehicular traffic may also be warranted. Such a justification would depend
on the motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds, the number of pedestrians and/or cyclists using the
bridge, and conditions at either end of the structure such as connections to pedestrian or cyclist
facilities. This section should be read in conjunction with Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.
66 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.6.4.3 Multi-modal Configurations
82
Combination bridge barriers are used in a variety of multi-modal configurations, depending on the
roadway classification, and anticipated volumes of motor vehicle and active transportation traffic. The
three most common multi-modal configurations are bridge with no sidewalk, bridge with raised
sidewalk, and bridge with sidewalk separated by a barrier.
Bridge with No Sidewalk
For a bridge deck with no sidewalk, three multi-modal configurations are commonly used (see Figure
7.6.15):
A. Barrier protection for vehicular traffic only.
B. Barrier protection for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
C. Barrier protection for vehicular and cyclist traffic.
Option 3 is the recommended configuration, but selection is left to the discretion of the roadway
agency. In Canada, there is considerable variation in jurisdictional use.
June 2017 67
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Option A
Vehicular Traffic Only
Usage TRAFFIC
BARRIER
This system is specified
where pedestrian usage is
rare and generally
associated with maintenance
personnel or vehicle
breakdown.
I SHOULDER
Option B
Vehicular+ Pedestrian
Traffic
COMBINATION \
BARRIER \
~[
Usage
This system is specified
where warranted by
pedestrian usage.
1-------1 SHOULDER
Option C
Vehicular+ Bicycle Traffic
COMBINATION~
BARRIER \
Usage
~r
This system is specified
where warranted by bicycle
volumes and/or when a
bicycle route is identified
across the bridge.
I SHOULDER
General note: Rail hei hts shown as exam
Figure 7.6.15: Bridge with No Sidewalk
68 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Bridge with Raised Sidewalk
For a bridge with a raised sidewalk, two multi-modal configurations are commonly used (see Figure
7.6.16) :
A. Barrier protection for vehicular and cyclist traffic on the roadway and pedestrian traffic on the
sidewalk.
B. Barrier protection for vehicular traffic on the roadway and both cyclist and pedestrian t raffic
on a multi-use path.
A raised curb should be limited to roadways with operating speeds less than or equal to 60 km/h. Where
curb is used, the curb height should be no more than 200 mm . For operating speeds greater than
50 km/h a barrier separating vehicular traffic and pedestrians and cyclists is recommended (see Figure
7.6.17).
In urban areas where pedestrian and cyclist traffic volumes are high, there is an increased risk of users
falling off the edge of the curb into the vehicular travel lane. A barrier separation is often considered to
mitigate traffic penetration onto the sidewalk but can also be a benefit for the containment of
congested sidewalk or multi-use path traffic.
June 2017 69
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Option A
Vehicular+ Cyclist COMBINATION
Traffic on Roadway; BARRIER
Pedestrian Traffic on USE TALLER
Sidewalk VERSION WHERE
WARRANTED BY
POTENTIAL
BICYCLE USE\
Usage
This system is specified
where (A) traffic speeds 0 0
0 .........
are less than or equal to 60 OOM
km/h and (B) the sidewalk
is intended for pedestrian
use with cyclists using the
roadway.
PEDESTRIAN
SIDEWALK SHOULDER
Note that curbs should be
no higher than 200mm.
Option B
Vehicular Traffic on
Roadway; Pedestrian +
cyclist Traffic on
COMBINATION~
Sidewalk BARRIER \
Usage 0
......
M
This system is specified
where (A) traffic speeds
are less than or equal to 60
km/h and (B) where both
pedestrians and cyclists
are expected to use the MIXED USE
~--S_ID_E_W_A_LK--1--1 SHOULDER
mixed-use sidewalk.
Note that curbs should be
no higher than 200mm.
General note: Rail heights shown as examples only.
Figure 7.6.16: Bridge with Raised Sidewalk
70 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Bridge with Sidewalk Separated by a Barrier
For bridges with a sidewalk separated by a barrier, three combination barrier options are commonly
used:
A. Barrier protection for vehicular traffic on the roadway and pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk.
B. Barrier protection for vehicular and cyclist traffic on the roadway and pedestrian traffic on the
sidewalk.
C. Barrier protection for vehicular traffic on the roadway and both cyclist and pedestrian traffic
on a multi-use path.
In all three options, the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) requires a minimum 600 mm
barrier height measured on the sidewalk or multi-use path side. The height on the vehicular traffic side
of the barrier must meet minimum CHBDC traffic barrier requirements.
June 2017 71
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
Option A Traffic Barrier Variations
A minimum pedestrian I cyclist height
Vehicular Traffic On protection of 600 mm is required between the
sidewalk and the roadway on the sidewalk
Roadway; Pedestrian Traffic side. See TAC Guide to Bridge Traffic and
on Sidewalk Combination Barriers for further guidance.
nI
Usage
This system is typically
specified on high speed routes
(> 60 km/h) where no cyclist
traffic is expected.
J Q) :2
ID ID
(/) ::J
(.'.)
SIDEWALK
11
I SHOULDER
Option B Traffic Barrier Variations
A minimum pedestrian I cyclist height
Vehicular+ Cyclist Traffic protection of 600 mm is required between the
sidewalk and the roadway on the sidewalk
On Roadway; Pedestrian side . To ensure free movement of cyclist over
Traffic on Sidewalk the barrier during a collision , additional height
is generally not advisable.
Usage
This system is typically
specified on high speed routes
(> 60 km/h) where cyclists are
intended to use the roadway.
_s_1_D_E_w_A_L_K_1 I SHOULDER
Traffic Barrier Variations
A minimum pedestrian I cyclist height
protection of 600 mm is required between the
Option C sidewalk and the roadway on the sidewalk
side. See TAC Guide to Bridge Traffic and
Vehicular Traffic On Combination Barriers for further guidance.
Roadway Pedestrian +
Cyclist Traffic on Sidewalk
Usage
This system is typically
specified on high speed routes
(> 60 km/h) where sidewalk is
dedicated to mixed use.
MULTI-USE II I
r
_ _ _P_A_T_H___ SHOULDER
TRAFFIC I COMBINATION BARRIER
General note: Rail heights shown as examples only.
Figure 7.6.17: Bridge with Raised Sidewalk Separated by a Barrier
72 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.6.4.4 Placement Heuristics
The designer should consider the following factors:
• Ideally, the bridge railing will be placed at the same offset location as roadside barriers, to
provide a full continuous shoulder and uniform clearance to roadside elements. Where the
bridge railing must be located within the suggested shy distance in Table 7.6.4, an
appropriate lateral transition between the position of the barrier and the bridge railing
must be developed using the flare rates recommended in Table 7.6.5.
• Curbs in front of bridge railings are to be avoided.
• In urban areas, a bridge railing between traffic and the sidewalk provides protection to
pedestrians.
• Transitions between barriers of a certain structural stiffness and bridge rails of another
degree of stiffness are needed where a semi-rigid approach roadside barrier joins a rigid
bridge railing. The transition should provide a gradual stiffening of the approach barrier to
the bridge railing.
• The approach rail-bridge rail splice or connection must be as strong as the bridge rail itself,
to avoid the possibility of pull-out on impact.
• The stiffness transition length should generally be 10 to 12 times the difference in the
lateral deflection difference between the two systems for which the transition is being
developed. Such an approach allows for a gradual changing in stiffness of the approach
through increasing post size, decreasing post spacing, or rail stiffening.
7.6.5 END TREATMENT/CRASH CUSHIONS: DESIGN DOMAIN
7 .6.5.1 Technology Overview
Traffic barriers (both roadside and median types) represent a fixed object in the roadside. Impacts with
their untreated terminal sections can have severe consequences, primarily because of the very high
deceleration rates experienced by vehicle occupants under such circumstances, but also often because
the barrier can penetrate the passenger compartment.
Two technologies are often used to help reduce the consequences of such collisions:
• Barrier terminals (end treatments) and
• Crash cushions.
These devices help, either by gradually decelerating the impacting vehicle, or by redirecting it around
the object of concern. In so doing, they must also:
• Eliminate the potential for debris to penetrate the passenger compartment or encroach on
other traffic.
• Keep the vehicle upright during and after the collision.
• Ensure that the vehicle is not redirected into adjacent traffic lanes.
• Control vehicle deceleration rates within specific limits.
As with roadside barrier, end-treatments also present a roadside hazard. Opportunities to reduce the
number of end-treatments on a facility by eliminating a short gap between closely spaced barrier
installations should be examined. Although some agencies use a threshold of 50 m or less for the
elimination of gaps, cost-effectiveness analysis should be used to determine the appropriate threshold
for each situation.
June 2017 73
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
7.6.5.2 End Treatments: Application Heuristics
A crashworthy end treatment for a barrier is essential if a barrier terminates within the clear zone or is
in an area where it is likely to be hit head on by an errant vehicle.
Steel beam systems can penetrate the passenger compartment if improper end treatments are not used
and high speed impacts with concrete barriers result in intolerable impact forces. In designing
crashworthy end treatments, designers must create treatments that do not spear, vault, snag, or roll the
vehicle, and that provide vehicle deceleration rates that are within recommended limits for survivability.
The following application heuristics relevant to barrier end treatments are offered:
• Crashworthy end treatments are essential if a barrier terminates within the clear zone. Such a
terminal must not spear, vault, or roll a vehicle in either head-on or angled hits. The designer must
also consider the effect of snow and ice accumulations at an end treatment. A good design in
summer may cause vaulting in winter, if accumulated snow acts as a ramp. Also, impact-absorbing
mechanisms may not function if locked by ice.
• Barrier end treatments should gradually stop or redirect an impacting vehicle when a barrier is hit
end on. The end treatment must also be capable of redirecting a vehicle impacting the side of the
terminal.
• The end treatment should have the same re-directing characteristics as the barrier to which it is
attached for impacts at or near the end of the terminal and within the length of need. The end
must be properly anchored and capable of developing the full tensile strength of the barrier
elements.
• Where space is available, a barrier can sometimes be introduced far enough from approaching
traffic that the end can be considered non-hazardous and no additional end treatment is required.
Flare rates, in this case, should be in accordance with Table 7.6.5. Positive end anchorage is
required in semi-flexible systems to preclude penetration of the barrier within the length of need.
• End treatments involving turned down terminals can cause impacting vehicles to vault and roll over
or ride up the terminal and hit the object the barrier is intended to protect. Consequently, turned
down terminals should not be used on the approach end of roadside or median barriers on high
speed, high volume roads.
• Termination of a barrier in a backslope eliminates the danger of an untreated barrier end and
reduces the opportunity for errant vehicles to penetrate the end of the barrier.
• A number of end treatments have been developed for metal beam barriers that utilize a
combination of a breakaway mechanism and a cable with a flared configuration to address the
spearing and rollover potential and to develop the full tensile strength of the rail for downstream
impacts.
• Where an end treatment is designed as a "gating" device (i.e., allows for controlled penetration of
a vehicle when impacted, through a breakaway mechanism), care must be taken to provide an
adequate run-out area behind the end treatment.
• The concrete safety shape barrier can be terminated by tapering the end. However, this treatment
should only be used where speeds are low, 60 km/h or less, and space is limited. Flaring the barrier
beyond the clear zone should be considered on higher speed facilities where space is available.
• Cable system end treatments include turned down cables and buried anchor blocks with crash
worthy end terminal treatments.
74 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
• Proprietary mechanical end treatments are often suitable only for limited types of barrier
applications. When adopting such technologies, designers must ensure not only the efficacy of the
technology of their choice but also its compatibility with the barrier technology being used. In
addition to information generally available from the manufacturers and suppliers of these
treatments, road agencies and others compile and provide appropriate guidance in respect of
83 84
crash testing results and system compatibility recommendations. '
• All systems should be installed with a level surface leading to the treatment. The use of curb and
gutter is discouraged, but if they are needed, only the mountable type should be specified.
The application heuristics noted above provide general guidance. Road designers must still investigate
physical site restrictions such as longitudinal space, hazard width, slopes, and surface types. At locations
with a high likelihood of collisions, the costs of repair should be factored into the decision matrix in
addition to the initial installation costs.
Designers should also note that new end treatment and barrier technologies are continually being
developed and tested. Noth ing in this Guide relieves the designer of the responsibility of remaining
informed of these new technologies and their potential application to the roadside barrier end
treatment problem. Information on crash tested end treatment technologies is available on the US
Federal Highway Administration's website. 85
7.6.5.3 Crash Cushion: Application Heuristics
Crash cushions, also referred to as impact attenuators, are best suited for use where fixed objects
cannot be removed, relocated, or made breakaway, and cannot be adequately shielded by a longitudinal
barrier. They have proven to be an effective and safe means of shielding particular types of roadside
obstacles, and accomplish their task by absorbing energy at a controlled rate and stopping an impacting
vehicle in a way that reduces the potential for serious injury to its occupants. Most operational crash
cushions have been designed and tested by their manufacturers and acceptable units can usually be
selected directly from design charts.
A number of the fixed objects that generally require shielding when located within the designated clear
zone for a specific highway can best be shielded with a crash cushion. Typical applications for which
crash cushions are often a good candidate include:
• Exit ramp gores on elevated or depressed structures where a bridge rail end or a pier
requires shielding
• Overhead sign supports
• Ends of roadside and median barriers
• Bridge piers and abutments
• Construction zone protection for personnel and equipment.
Crash cushions generally employ the concepts of absorption of kinetic energy or transfer of momentum
to accomplish their task. The following factors should be considered when selecting a crash cushion:
• Site characteristics
• Structural and safety characteristics of candidate systems
• Cost
• Maintenance characteristics
June 2017 75
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
• For optimal performance, an impacting vehicle should strike the crash cushion at normal
height, with the vehicle's suspension neither compressed nor extended. This can be
achieved through proper grading.
• For new construction, curbs should not be built where crash cushions are to be installed:
where a crash cushion is to be installed on an existing roadway, curbs should be removed
• The surface on which a crash cushion is to be installed should be smooth, flat and
compacted.
• Climatic conditions should be considered as some crash cushions are affected by above or
below average temperatures.
7.7 ROADSIDE DESIGN IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS
7.7.1 OVERVIEW
In general, the guidelines influencing the clear zone design domain presented in this Chapter are
intended for use on rural highways, urban and rural freeways, and urban expressways, where speeds are
86
generally higher (greater than 70 km/h) and vehicles are operating under free flow conditions.
However, for arterials and other non-controlled roadways in an urban environment, rights-of-way are
typically narrower. In many cases, establishing a clear zone using the guidance in this section is not
practical and sometimes not desirable from the perspective of street character and context.
This section presents roadside design considerations for roadways in constrained urban environments
(e.g., downtown areas), or other urban streets where design objectives may be broader than simply
providing a "link" for motor vehicles to traverse. Typically, conditions on urban streets include lower
speeds, denser development, limited right-of-way, closely spaced intersections and access points, higher
traffic volumes, and the presence of urban uses (e.g., transit, delivery trucks, bicycles, and pedestrians).
For a more comprehensive discussion on integrating bicycle and pedestrian design in the urban context,
see Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.
In urban environments, lateral clearance to obstructions is typically provided to improve operations
rather than shielding obstacles. In this context, the benefits associated with providing lateral clearances
include the following:
• Reduce adverse effects on vehicle lane position and the potential for encroachment into
opposing or adjacent lanes
• Improve driveway and horizontal sightlines
• Provide pedestrian and cycling facilities
• Reduce encroachment into the travel lane by parked cars
• Improve travel lane capacity
• Minimize contact with open car doors and vehicle side mirrors
• Minimize contact with overhang of turning trucks.
7.7.2 APPLICATION HEURISTICS
The AASHTO Roadside Design Guide includes a chapter dedicated to the roadside safety in urban
environments. The following heuristics highlight some of the key urban roadside design considerations
contained in this document. For further details and discussion on this matter, designers are encouraged
to consult the Roadside Safety in Urban or Restricted Environments chapter of the AASHTO guide, as
87
well as the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, which contains a section on design controls.
76 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
• Roadside furniture (e.g., benches, trash cans, and bicycle racks) can present roadside
hazards. Where consistent with the design objectives for the street, ideally, these items
should be located as far away from the travel lane as is practical. Where appropriate, due
to lower motor vehicle volumes and speeds, such pedestrian- and bicycle-supportive
amenities may be acceptably located in the ancillary space between the travelled way and
the roadside.
• A common misconception is that curb offers a clear zone benefit. In fact, curbs have limited
redirection capabilities for speeds above 40 km/h.
• Where curb is used, the lateral offset to the hazard is measured from the face of the curb.
At least 0.5 m should be provided from the face of curb. At intersections, a minimum offset
of 0.9 m should be provided from the curb to reduce the risk of overhanging trucks hitting
objects. In urban environments, approximately 80% of roadside collisions involve objects
with a lateral offset from the curb face equal to or less than 1.2 m and approximately 90%
of urban roadside collisions have lateral offsets less than or equal to 1.8 m. An enhanced
lateral offset of 1.2 m to 1.8 m is therefore desirable.
• Achieving the clear zone distances outlined in Section 7.3.4.1 may be impractical in an
urban setting. As a result, a secondary goal should be to identify and treat critical urban
roadside locations. Locations prone to increased collision risk on higher speed urban or
rural-urban transition area corridors include the following:
o Objects located on the outside of horizontal curves
o Objects near lane merge points (e.g., lane drop, termination of an acceleration lane,
etc.)
o Object at driveway and intersection locations and on the inside of tight horizontal
curves that create sightline obstructions
o Objects too close to the curb in the curb return region of an intersection
o Objects obstructing sightlines to pedestrians at intersections.
7.7.3 USE OF ROADSIDE BARRIER
Roadside barriers may be warranted in urban situations if there is a potential of vehicles leaving the
roadway at a specific location and that the cumulative consequences of those departures outweigh the
cumulative consequences of effects with the barrier. The AASHTO RSAP toolset can be used to conduct a
comparative analysis.
Increased consideration should be given to protecting pedestrians and bicyclists in urban areas. Schools,
playgrounds, bridges, and parks are examples of locations typically considered. As there does not appear
to be any specific warrant for the installation of barrier at these locations, engineering judgment should
be applied. Consideration should also be given to protecting businesses and residences near a right-of-
way at locations with a history of run-off-the-road collisions.
7.8 ROADSIDE DESIGN FOR LOW VOLUME RURAL ROADS
7.8.1 OVERVIEW
Road agencies across North America recognize the unique challenges posed by low volume roads (e.g.,
1,000 or fewer vehicles per day), and in particular, very low volume roads (e.g., 400 or fewer vehicles
per day). The AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads notes that such
88
roads are typically distinguished by two basic characteristics:
June 2017 77
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
1. The traffic volumes of such roads are, by definition, very low. All very low-volume local roads
have average daily traffic volumes of 400 vehicles per day or less, and many such roads have
volumes that are much less than the 400-vehicle-per-day threshold value. These very low traffic
volumes mean that encounters between vehicles that represent opportunities for crashes to
occur are rare events and that multiple-vehicle collisions of any kind are extremely rare events.
2. The local nature of the road means that most motorists using the road have traveled it before
and are familiar with its features. Geometric design features that might surprise an unfamiliar
driver will be anticipated by the familiar driver.
This AASHTO guide also notes that "because of these unique characteristics, design guidelines for very
low-volume local roads can be less stringent than those used for higher volume roads or roads that
serve primarily unfamiliar drivers." The 2013 TAC Synthesis of Practice also provides a good discussion
89
on roadside design for low volume roads.
7.8.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Chapter 1 provides designers with guidance on the importance of balancing costs and resultant safety
gains. In consideration of this general North American geometric design principle, the Guide notes that
design choices leading to safety improvements are usually associated with certain costs. Conversely,
cost savings can increase collision frequency, severity, or both. When choosing the value for a design
parameter from a range of values, a balance must be found between increased costs and reduced safety
improvements, as the value of the parameter changes. Rational design involves the determination of the
attendant costs and the balancing of cost and safety gain. This is especially challenging and important on
low volume roads where the potential safety gains are likely limited due to the low volumes of traffic
affected.
For example, the presence of a bridge on a very low volume road can have substantive implications for
the design of the bridge railings. In its Roadside Design Guide, AASHTO points out that "virtually all
structures require some type of railing: however, on many small structures on low-speed, low-volume
90
roadways, a railing designed to full AASHTO standards may be neither necessary nor desirable."
It is clear from practices in both the US and Canada that cost-effectiveness is a very important element
to be considered in making design decisions. Traffic volumes using a roadway will directly affect the
utility of, need for, and cost-effectiveness of the use of a full bridge rail, traffic barrier, a clear zone, or
any number of other design options. In the bridge example, the deployment of a rigid bridge barrier will
normally also require an approach barrier and some kind of transition between the two barrier types, in
addition to the bridge barrier itself. As the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide points out, this may not be a
cost-effective treatment on relatively short structures and a variety of alternative treatments may be
possible, including extending the structure and leaving the edges unshielded, or using a less expensive,
semi-rigid type of railing.
78 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
REFERENCES
1 Sanderson, R. May 1996. "Fixed Objects - The North American Perspective." Paper presented at the 1996
AQTR Symposium on Fixed Objects and Road Safety. Montreal, QC: !'Association quebecoise des transports.
2 AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, p. 1-3.
3 Adapted from AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-2, 10-1 - 10-20.
4 Transportation Research Board. 1995. Transportation Research Circular 435: Roadside Safety Issues.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, p. 8.
5 Glennon, J.C., Neuman, T.R., and Leisch, J.E. December 1985. Safety and Operational Considerations for
Design of Rural Highway Curves. Report FHWA-RD-86-035. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
6 Reinfurt, D.W., Zegeer, C.V., Shelton, B.J., and Neuman, T.R. 1991. "Analysis of Vehicle Operations on
Horizontal Curves." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No.
1318. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 43-50
7 Fi Ides, B.N . & Triggs, T.J. 1985. "The effect of changes in curve geometry on magnitude estimates of road-
like perspective curvature." Perception and Psychophysics, 37(3), pp. 218-224.
8 Spainhour, L.K., & Mishra, A. 2008. "Analysis of fatal run-off-the-road crashes involving overcorrection."
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 2069. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 1-8.
9 Griffith, M.S. 1999. "Safety Evaluation of Rolled-in Continuous Shoulder Rumble Strips Installed on
Freeways." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1665.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 28-34.
10 Persaud, B. N., Retting R. A., and Lyon C. September 2003. Crash Reduction Following Installation of
Centerline Rumble Strips on Rural Two-Lane Roads. Arlington VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
11 AASHTO. 1996. Roadside Design Guide, 2nd Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, pp. A39-A88 (Appendix A).
12 Turner, D.S., Hall, J.W. 1994. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 202: Severity Indices for Roadside
Features .. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
13 AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
14 Mak, K.K., Sicking, D.L., Zimmerman, K. 1998. "Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP)- A Cost
1
Effectiveness Analysis Procedure." Preprint of paper presented at 77 h Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies.
15 Quality and Standards Division. 1993. Roadside Safety Manual. Downsview, ON: Ministry of Transportation
of Ontario.
16 Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. March 1997. Prioritized Contract Content Guidelines, Edition 2.1.
Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
June 2017 79
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
17 AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
18 Mak, K.K., Sicking, D.L., Zimmerman, K. 1998. " Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP)-A Cost
1
Effectiveness Analysis Procedure." Preprint of paper presented at 77 h Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies.
19 Mak, K. K. and Sicking, D. L. 2003. NCHRP Report 492: Roadside Safety Analysis Program {RSAP):
Engineer's Manual. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
20 Riggs, J.L., Rentz, W .F., Kahl, A.L., West, T.M. 1986. Engineering Economics. Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill
Ryerson Limited .
21 Mak, K.K., Sicking, D.L., Zimmerman, K. 1998. " Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP)- A Cost
1
Effectiveness Analysis Procedure." Preprint of paper presented at 77 h Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies.
22 Ibid.
23 Mak, K. K. and Sicking, D. L. 2003. NCHRP Report 492: Roadside Safety Analysis Program {RSAP):
Engineer's Manual. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 20-
21.
24 Mak, K.K., Sicking, D.L., Zimmerman, K. 1998. " Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP)- A Cost
1
Effectiveness Analysis Procedure." Paper presented at 77 h Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
25 Mak, K. K. and Sicking, D. L. 2003. NCHRP Report 492: Roadside Safety Analysis Program {RSAP):
Engineer's Manual. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, p. 21.
26 AASHTO. 1974. Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
27 Skeels, P.C., "The Role of the Highway in a Safe Transportation System" . Presented at 65th annual
convention, American Road Builders Association (Feb. 1968), cited in Alberta Infrastructure, 1999,
Highway Geometric Design Guide, p. G-15.
28 AASHTO. 1996. Roadside Design Guide, 2nd Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-7.
29 AASHTO. 2011. "Table 3-1 - Suggested Clear-Zone Distances in Meters from the Edge of Through
Traveled Lanes" in Roadside Design Guide. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, p. 3-2.
30 AASHTO. 2011. "Table 3-2: Horizontal Curve Adjustment Factor" , Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p.3-4.
31 National Cooperative Highway Research Program . NCHRP 17-11(1): Research in progress -
Determination of Safe/Cost-Effective Roadside Slopes and Associated Distances, NCHRP 17-11(2) :
Development of Clear Recovery Area Guidelines and NCHRP 17-54: Consideration of Roadside Features in
the Highway Safety Manual. Washington, DC : National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
80 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
32 AASHTO. 2011. "Figure 3-6: Preferred Cross Sections for Channels with Abrupt Slope Changes", Roadside
Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, p. 3-9.
33 AASHTO. 2011. " Figure 3-7 : Preferred Cross Sections for Channels with Gradual Slope Changes",
Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, p. 3-10.
34 AASHTO. 2011. Adapted from " Example 3-A", Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-19.
35 AASHTO. 2011. Adapted from " Example 3-B", Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition . Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-20.
36 AASHTO. 2011. Adapted from " Example 3-C", Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-21.
37 AASHTO. 2011. Adapted from " Example 3-D" , Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-21.
38 AASHTO. 2011. Adapted from " Example 3-E", Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-23.
39 AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 3-13.
40 Eccles, K., Council, F., McGee, H., et al. 2005 . NCHRP Report 537: Recommended Guidelines for Curb and
Curb-Barrier Installations. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
41 Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. February 2012. "Table H4.1: Appropriate Curb and Barrier
System Combinations (Barrier System Behind Curb)." Alberta Transportation Roadside Design Guide,
Edmonton : Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation, p. H4-5.
42 Sanderson, R. May 1996. " Fixed Objects - The North American Perspective ." Paper presented at the
1996 AQTR Symposium on Fixed Objects and Road Safety. Montreal, QC: !'Association quebecoise des
transports.
43 See, for example AASHTO. 2015 . Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires, and Traffic Signals, 6th Edition . Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
44 AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
45 AASHTO. 2015. Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic
Signals, 6th Edition . Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
46 AASHTO. 1994. Guide for Erecting Mailboxes on Highways . Washington, DC : American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
47 AASHTO . 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 4-14.
June 2017 81
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
48 Sanderson, R. May, 1996. " Fixed Objects - The North American Perspective." Paper presented at the
1996 AQTR Symposium on Fixed Objects and Road Safety. Montreal QC: !'Association quebecoise des
t ransports.
49 Neuman, T. R., Pfefer, R., Slack, K. L., Hardy, K. K., Lacy, K., and Zegeer, C. 2003 . NCHRP Report 500-
Volume 3. A Guide for Addressing Collisions with Trees in Hazardous Locations. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
50 Quality and Standards Division . 1993. Roadside Safety Manual. Downsview, ON : Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario.
51 AASHTO. 2009. Manual for the Assessment of Safety Hardware (MASH 2009). Washington, DC: American
Association of State highway and Transportation Officials.
52 Ibid.
53 FHWA. " Barrier Terminals/Crash Cushions." Updated : September 27, 2013 . [viewed October 21, 2016]
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pol icy_guide/road_hardwa re/barriers/term_cush .cfm
54 AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 5-4.
55 Adapted from NSTIR. 2003. "Figure 2", Roadside Barrier Warrant Manual. Halifax: Nova Scotia
Department of Transportation and Infrastructure; and AIT. 2007. " Figure H3.6: Sideslope Improvement
Versus Barrier Installation," Roadside Design Guide. Edmonton: Alberta Infrastructure and
Transportation, p. H3-10.
56 AASHTO. 2011. "Table 5-5 : Selection Criteria for Roadside Barriers" Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 5.32 .
57 Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. November 2007. "Figure HS.3: Zone of Intrusion for TL-2, TL-3
and TL-4 Barriers" Alberta Transportation Roadside Design Guide, Edmonton : Alberta Infrastructure and
Transportation, p. HS-13.
58 AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 5-40.
59 Adapted from AASHTO. 2011 . "Table 5-7 : Suggested Shy Line Offset Values" Roadside Design Guide, 4th
Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 5-14.
60 Ibid.
61 Quality and Standards Division . 1993. Adapted from "Table 3.4.3: Flare Rates for Barriers Placed Beyond
the Shoulder," Roadside Safety Manual. Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry of Transportation, p. 0304-22.
62 Quality and Standards Division . 1993. Adapted from " Figure 3.4.1: Length of Need," Roadside Safety
Manual. Downsview, ON : Ontario Ministry of Transportation, p. 0304-4.
63 AASHTO. 2011. "Table 5-10 (a)" , Roadside Design Guide. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 5-50.
64 Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. November 2007 . Roadside Design Guide. Edmonton : Alberta
Infrastructure and Transportation, p. H3-21.
65 Quality and Standards Division. 1993. Adapted from " Figure 3.4.2: Approach Length - La" Roadside
Safety Manual. Downsview, ON : Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, p. 0304-5.
82 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
66 Quality and Standards Division . 1993. Adapted from " Figure 3.4.3 : Approach Length - La" Roadside
Safety Manual. Downsview, ON: Ministry ofTransportation of Ontario, p. 0304-6.
67 Quality and Standards Division . 1993. "Table 3.4.2 : Extension Length for unanchored Guide Rails"
Roadside Safety Manual. Downsview, ON : Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, p. 0304-9.
68 Alberta Transportation. 2012. Design Bulletin 75/2012 Alberta Roadside Design Guide High Tension
Cable Barrier System - Median and Roadside Installation. Edmonton : Alberta Infrastructure and
Transportation .
69 AASHTO. 2011 (September 2011 errata/revision) . " Figure 6-1. Guidelines for Median Barriers on High-
speed, Fully Controlled -Access Roadways," Roadside Design Guide. Washington, DC: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
70 Adapted from Nystrom, K. 1997. Median Barrier Study Warrant Review. Sacramento CA: California
Department of Transportation .
71 Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. 2007 . Roadside Design Guide. Edmonton, AB: Alberta
Infrastructure and Transportation .
72 Cooner, S.A., Rathod , Y.K., Alberson, D.C., Bligh, R.P., Ranft, S.E ., and Sun, D. 2009. Development of
Guidelines for Cable Median Barrier Systems in Texas . College Station TX: Texas Transportation Institute.
73 Alberta Transportation has confirmed that there have been no cross-the-median fatal crashes at this
location to the date of writing (December 2016) .
74 Churchill, T., Barua, U., Assan, M., Im ram, M., and Kenny, B. 2011. " Evaluation of Safety and Operational
Performance of High Tension Median Cable Barrier on Deerfoot Trail." In Transportation Successes- Let's
Build on Them : 2011 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Edmonton,
Alberta. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Assoc iation of Canada.
75 AASHTO . 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, pp. 5-43-5-65.
76 Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation. Design Bulletin #75/2012 (Revised April 2012) . Alberta Design
Guide High Tension Cable Barrier System - Median and Roadside Installation. Edmonton : Alberta
Infrastructure and Transportation
77 AASHTO . 1996. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Washington, DC: American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
78 AASHTO. 1989. Guide Specifications for Bridge Railings. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
79 Canadian Standards Association. 1988. Design of Highway Bridges CAN/CSA-S6-88. Toronto : Canadian
Standards Association.
80 Holmes, K. and Ngan, C. March 2010. Guide to Bridge Traffic and Combination Barriers. Ottawa, ON :
Transportation Association of Canada .
81 FHWA. " Barrier Terminals/Crash Cushions." Updated : September 27, 2013 . [viewed October 21, 2016]
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pol icy_gu ide/road_hardwa re/barriers/term_cush .cfm
82 Adapted from Holmes, K. and Ngan, C. March 2010 . Guide to Bridge Traffic and Combination Barriers.
Ottawa, ON : Transportation Association of Canada.
June 2017 83
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 7 - Roadside Design
83 AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
84 Quality and Standards Division. 1993. Roadside Safety Manual. Downsview, ON: Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario
85 FHWA. "Barrier Terminals/Crash Cushions." Updated: September 27, 2013. [viewed October 21, 2016]
http://safety. fhwa. d at.gov/ roadway_de pt/ po Iicy_guide/ road_ ha rdwa re/barriers/term_cu sh .cfm
86 This section is largely based on AASHTO. 2011. Chapter 10, Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, pp. 10-1-10-20.
87 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), 2013. Urban Street Design Guide.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
88 AASHTO. 2001. Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Roads. Washington, DC: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
89 Allaby, P., Good, D., and Lougheed, P. 2013. Synthesis of Practices of Geometric Design for Special Roads.
Ottawa ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
90 AASHTO. 2011. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
84 June 2017
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 8 - ACCESS
June 2017
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
Transportation Association of Canada
401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive
Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-629-0
TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM
Title and Subtitle
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 8 - Access
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, WSP I MMM Group Thornhill, ON L3T OAl
Jim Dowell, WSP I MMM 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 human
factors research and practices for roadway geometric design. It replaces the 1999 edition Planning of Transport
of the Guide and subsequent revisions. The Guide provides guidance to planners and Infrastructure
designers in developing design solutions that meet the needs of a range of users while Traffic and
Transport Planning
addressing the context of local conditions and environments. Design guidelines for
freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural locations are Access road
included as well as guidance for integrated bicycle and pedestrian design. Canada
Classification
The Guide is organized into ten chapters to cover the entire design process from design
Entrance
philosophy and roadway classification to design parameters and specific guidelines for
Highway
the safe accommodation of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on linear road elements
Junction
and at intersections. The chapters are: Design Philosophy; Design Controls, Classification
Layout
and Consistency; Alignment and Lane Configuration; Cross Section Elements; Bicycle
Level of service
Integrated Design; Pedestrian Integrated Design; Roadside Design; Access; Intersections;
Main road
and Interchanges.
Secondary road
Chapter 8 -Access provides guidelines for access management for the full range of road Service road
classifications. Guidance is provided for each classification of roadway in balancing Traffic lane
traffic mobility needs and access to adjacent lands. Design guidance is provided for Turning
access location and geometrics and the use auxiliary lanes, two-way left-turn lanes and
service roads to accommodate access in a safe manner.
Supplementary Information
Index is available at www.tac-atc.ca
Chiu, M., Clayton, C., Millen, G. et al. 2017. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: ChapterB-Access. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
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 I MMM 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 ofTAC staff are also
appreciated.
A substantial portion of this Guide includes the contents adapted from the 1999 Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads, 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 8 - Access
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 l'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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Project Steering Committee
Eric Christiansen, Manitoba Infrastructure (Co-Chair)
John Hammer, Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Co-Chair)
Ke ith 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 Dobush 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Foreword
BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE
In 1999 the Transportation Association of Canada relased 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 for 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 th is Guide.
June 2017 v
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
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 8
Chapter 8 -Access provides guidelines for access management for the full range of road classifications.
Guidance is provided for each classification of roadway in balancing traffic mobility needs and access to
adjacent lands. Design guidance is provided for access location and geometrics and the use auxiliary
lanes, two-way left-turn lanes and service roads to accommodate access in a safe manner.
vi June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
CONTENTS
8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
8.1.1 General ............. ... .. .. .......... .. .. .............. .......... .............. .... .......... .................. ............ ........... 1
8.1.2 Access Management And Safety ..... .......... .. .. .. .... ... ........................ ..... ....................... ... .... . 2
8.1.3 Building Set-Back Guidelines ............ ......... .................... ... .... ............... ... ..... ..... ........... ... ... . 6
8.1.4 Pedestrian and Cyclist Considerations ............ .... ... ... .......... ................... ......... .................. . 7
8.1.5 Capacity Considerations .................. ......... ............................ ... .. .. ........ ............. .. ... ..... .. .. ... . 7
8.2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ................................................ 8
8.2.1 Overview ................. ........... ................. .......... ............... ... ..................... ... .... .......... .............. 8
8.2.2 Access Types ... .... .. ....................... ... ... ........... .. ... .. ....... ... ........... .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .......... .. ... .. ... ... . 8
8.2.2.1 Public Road Access ..... ..... .... .... ..................... ... .... ..................... .. ..... .................. 8
8.2.2.2 Commercial Access ..... .... ......... ............................ ................... ......... .................. 8
8.2.2.3 Industrial Access ............... ......... ................... ............ ................ ........... ............... 8
8.2.2.4 Residential Access .......... ......... ............................ ................... ......... .................. 9
8.2.2.5 Rural Recreational Access .................. ... ........................ .. ... ....................... ... .... . 9
8.2.2.6 Country Multi Residential Access ................ ..... .......... .... ... .. .... .... ............... ... ... .. 9
8.2.2.7 Farmstead Access ... .... .... ......... ............................ ................... ......... .................. 9
8.2.2.8 Field Access ... ................... ......... .................. ............. ................ ........... ............... 9
8.2.2.9 Utility Access .. ................... ......... .................. ............. .................. ......... ............... 9
8.2.2.10 Resources Access ... ... ..... ........... .. .. .. .... ... ........................ ..... ....................... ... .. 10
8.2.3 Access Classification System ........... ........ ................... ..... .... ............................ ................ 10
8.3 ACCESS MANAGEMENT BY DESIGN CLASSIFICATION .......................................................... 11
8.3.1 Freeways ................ .. ........... .. ... ..... .. .. ................. .. .... ..... ... .......... .. ... ..... ... ................... ....... 11
8.3.2 Expressways ............ .. .... ........... ... ..... .... ..... ........... .. .... .. .... .... ..................... .. ..... ................ 12
8.3.3 Arterials ............. ... .. .. .......... .................. .......... .............. .... .......... .................. ............ ......... 13
8.3.4 Collectors ........ .. ..... ............. .. .. .. .......... ........... .. ... .. ....... ... ........... .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .......... .. ... ....... 13
8.3.5 Local Roads ............ ....... ... .................. .. ..... ... ............... ... .. .... .... .................. ...... .............. .. 14
8.4 ACCESS CONFIGURATION .......................................................................................................... 14
8.4.1 Distance from Curves ..... ................... ......... ................... ............ ................ ........... ............. 14
8.4.2 Distance from Bridges .... ................... ......... .................. ..... .... ............... ... ..... ..... ........... ... .. 14
8.4.3 Distance from Interchanges And Intersections .... ... ............. ................. ........... ................. 14
8.4.4 Distance From Railways ................... ......... .................. ............. ................ ........... ............. 15
8.4.5 Geometry ................ .......... .................. .......... ............... ... .. .... .... .................. ...... .............. .. 15
8.4.6 Intersection and Crossing Sight Distance ............ ... .... .................... ... .. ... .................... ... ... 15
8.4.7 Gradients .................. .......... ................... ......... .................. .......... .................. ............ ......... 15
8.4.8 Skew Angles ............ .. .... ............ .. ..... .. .. ..... ... ............... ... .. .... .... .................. ...... .... ............ 15
8.4.9 Turning Radii .......... ................. .. .......... ........... .. ... .. ....... ... ........... .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .......... .. ..... ..... 15
8.4.10 Auxiliary Lanes ........ ........... ..... ... ......... .......... ............... ... .......... .................. .......... ............ 16
8.4.11 Signalized Access Spacing ............... ......... .................. ............. .................. ......... ............. 16
June 2017 vii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.5 CONTINUOUS RIGHT-TURN AUXILIARY LANES ON DIVIDED ARTERIALS ........................... 16
8.5.1 General .. .. ... .. .. .... ... .. .. .... ............. ..... .......... .............. ... .. .. .. .... ............... ... ... .. ..... .... .......... .. 16
8.5.2 Design Elements .. .. ....................... ... ... .......... .................. .......... .................. .......... ............ 22
8.5.2.1 Warrants ........ ........... ... .... ..... ..... ........... .. .... .. .... .... ..................... .. ..... ................ 22
8.5.2.2 Width .... .. ....................... ... ... ..................... ... .. .. .......... .................. .......... ............ 22
8.5.2.3 Introduction and Termination .... ................. .......... .................. .......... ................. 22
8.5.2.4 Driveway Location, Spacing and Design .......... .................. ............. ............... .. 22
8.6 TWO-WAY LEFT-TURN LANES .................................................................................................... 28
8.6.1 General .. ... ... .. ...... .. .. ........... .. ... ..... .. .. .. ............... .. .... .. ... ... .......... .. ... ..... ... ................... ....... 28
8.6.2 Width ............... ..... .. .. .. .... .... .................. ...... .... .................. ..... ..... ................... .... .... .......... .. 29
8.6.3 Application .................... ..... ..................... ........ .. ... .. ....... ... ........... .. ... ..... ... .... .......... .. ... ....... 30
8.6.3.1 . Explicit Evaluation Of Safety ..... .................. ......... ................... ......... ................. 31
8.7 SERVICE (FRONTAGE) ROADS ................................................................................................... 32
8.7.1 General ............. ... .. .. ..................... ... .... .................... ... .. ... .................... ... .... .................... .. 32
8.7.2 One-Way Service (Frontage) Roads .......... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ..................... .. ... ... .......... .. ... ..... ... ... 34
8.7.3 Two-Way Service (Frontage) Roads ......... .................. ......... ................... ......... ................. 36
8.8 CORNER CLEARANCES AT MAJOR INTERSECTIONS ............................................................. 43
8.8.1 General .. .................. .......... .................. .......... .................. .......... .................. ............ ......... 43
8.8.2 Suggested Minimum Corner Clearance Dimensions .................. ... ...... .... .... .......... ... .... .... 45
8.9 DRIVEWAYS ................................................................................................................................... 46
8.9.1 General .. .................. .......... ................... ......... .................. .......... .................. ............ ......... 46
8.9.2 Operational Considerations ............. ......... .................... ........ ................... ......... ................ 46
8.9.3 Sight Distance .. .... ..................... ... .... .............. .. ... ......... .............. .. ... ..... ... ... ........... .. ... ....... 48
8.9.4 Turning Characteristics .. .................... ... ..... .................... ... .... ........... .. .. ... ..... ..... ........... .. ... 49
8.9.5 Width ................. ..... .... .... .... .................. ...... .... .............. .... ..... ..... ................... .... .... .......... .. 50
8.9.6 Angle of Driveway ..................... ... .... ........................ ... .. ....................... ... ... ..................... .. 50
8.9.7 Corner Clearances At Minor Intersections ................. ... .... ..................... .. .... ... .................. 51
8.9.8 Spacing of Adjacent Driveways ... .... ......... .................... ........ ................... ......... ................ 51
8.9.9 Spacing Considerations For Driveways On Opposite Sides OfThe Road ......... .. .. ... ....... 53
8.9.10 Clear Throat Lengths ............... .... .... .................... ... .... .. .... .... ........... .. .. ... ..... ..... ........... .. ... 56
8.9.11 Grades ... .................. .......... .................. .......... .............. .... ..... ..... ................... .... .... .......... .. 57
8.9.12 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Considerations ... .................... ... .... ............... .. ... .... .... ... 59
8.10 CU LS-DE-SAC ................................................................................................................................ 59
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 61
viii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Tables
Table 8.1.1: Effect of Control of Access on Collisions and Fatalities in Urban and Rural Areas ... .... ... ........ 2
Table 8.1.2: Effect of Median Type on Collision Rates by Number of Access Points ............. ............... ...... 5
Table 8.1.3: Effect of Median Type on Collision Rates by ADT ...... ...... .... .... ...................... ...... ................... . 6
Table 8.2.1: Access Levels Keyed to Road Type ......................... .............................................................. 11
Table 8.5.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Continuous Right-Turn Auxiliary Lanes
for the Provision of Access Along Divided Arterial Roads ............... ..... .. .. .................. ... ... ... .. 18
Table 8.6.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes .................. ........ ........ .. ......... . 31
Table 8. 7 .1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Service Roads Adjacent to and Paralleling a
Major Urban Road .... .. .. .......... .................. .......... .............. .... .......... ................... ........... ........... 34
Table 8.9.1 : Typical Driveway Dimensions ..................... .... ......... .... .... ..................... .. .. .. .. ............. .. ... ......... 50
Table 8.9.2: Maximum Number of Driveways Based on Property Frontage ................ ... .... ... ................. ... 53
Table 8.9.3: Suggested Minimum Clear Throat Lengths for Major Driveways ... ... .... ......................... ... ..... 56
June 2017 ix
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Figures
Figure 8.1.1 : Collision Rate on Selected Types of Highway by Number of Business Accesses
per Kilometre ....... ... .. ... .......... .................. ............. .......... .... .................... ... .... ............. ............ 3
Figure 8.1.2: Collision Rate on Selected Types of Highway by Number of At-Grade Intersections
per Kilometre ............... ............ ................ ........... ....... .... .. ... .................... ... .... ............ ... .. .... .. .. 4
Figure 8.2.1 : Trip Stages ..... ............... ............ ................ ............ .......... .... ............. .................. ......... ............ 9
Figure 8.5.1 : Channelizing Island Intersection Arrangement with Two-Way Accesses
Along Auxiliary Lane of a Divided Arterial ... ..................... ......... ................... ....... .... .. .... ... .... . 19
Figure 8.5.2 : Auxiliary Lane Mid-Block Access for Major Developments ........... ....... .. .... .... ............... ... ..... 20
Figure 8.5.3 : Typical Auxiliary Lane Introduction and Termination ..... ......... ................... ......... ................... 21
Figure 8.5.4 : Auxiliary Lane Accesses, Minimum Spacing ......... .... .... ......................... ... ............ ..... .... .. .... . 23
Figure 8.5.5 : Channelizing Island Intersection Arrangement With One-Way Angled Accesses
Along Auxiliary Lane of a Divided Arterial ... ........................... ..................... ........ .................. 24
Figure 8.5.6 : Simple Radius Intersection Arrangement with Two-Way Accesses Along
Auxiliary Lane of a Divided Arterial .... .................... .... ... ..................... .. .. ... .......... ........... .. ... .. 26
Figure 8.5.7 : Simple Radius Intersection Arrangement with One-Way Angled Accesses
Along Auxiliary Lane of a Divided Arterial ... .................... ........ ................... ......... .................. 27
Figure 8.6.1 : Typical Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (TWL TL) ............ ... .... ..................... .. .. ... ..................... .. .... . 29
Figure 8.6.2 : Collision Modification Factor vs. Access Points per km for TWLTLs ... .................... .... .... ..... 32
Figure 8.7.1 : One-Way Service Road I Cross Roadway Intersection Treatment .. .... ..................... ... .... ..... 36
Figure 8.7.2 : Crossing Conflicts at Intersections with Parallel Two-Way Service (Frontage) Roads ......... 38
Figure 8.7.3 : Two-Way Service Road I Cross Road Intersection Treatment,
Cross Road Volumes < 2000 veh/d, Unsignalized Intersection ..... ... ...... .... .... .......... .... ... ...... 39
Figure 8.7.4 : Two-Way Service Road I Cross Road Intersection Treatment,
Cross Road Volumes > 2000 veh/d, Signalized Intersection ........ ... .... ......................... ... ..... 41
Figure 8.7.5 : Two-Way Service Road I Cross Road Intersection Treatment,
Cross Road Volumes > 5000 veh/d, Signalized Intersection ....... .... .... ............... .. .. .............. 42
Figure 8.8.1 : Intersection Boundaries ........ ................. .......... .................. .......... .................. .......... .............. 43
Figure 8.8.2: Suggested Minimum Corner Clearances to Accesses or Public Lanes
at Major Intersections ........... ... ............... .......... .............. .... .......... .................................... ..... 44
Figure 8.9.1 : Left-Turn Restrictions, Undivided Road ........... ............... ............. ................. .......... ............... 48
Figure 8.9.2 : Driveway Spacing Guidelines - Locals and Collectors .......... ................... ......... ................... 52
Figure 8.9.3: Spacing Considerations for Opposing Driveways ................. ... ..... .......... .. .. .. .... ... ... .............. 55
Figure 8.9.4 : Driveway Grades .. .... ... ..... ............... .... ... ............ .................. ... ..... .......... ... .. ... ..... .... ........... .. . 58
x June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8. ACCESS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.1.1 GENERAL
The purpose of this chapter is to provide guidelines with respect to access management for a full range
of road classifications, from freeways to local rural and urban roads.
Access management is a comprehensive process through which a provincial or municipal jurisdiction
effectively manages the provision of access to the public road system for new development or re-
development. The primary objective is to provide safe and orderly access consistent with the functional
and operational requirements of the public roads and the accessibility needs of the adjacent land uses.
The degree of access control is directly related to the functional classification of the individual road, as
discussed in Chapter 2. At the upper end of the classification system, including freeways and
expressways, where mobility is the primary function, direct access is prohibited. Conversely, at the
lower end, for local roads and public lanes (alleys), the provision of access to adjacent land uses is the
primary function, and therefore few access controls are needed to protect the orderly movement of
through traffic. However, it is desirable to utilize driveway design guidelines along the local roads to
provide safer and more orderly turning movements and appropriate accommodation of pedestrians and
cyclists.
The effective management and control of access is most important for arterials, where the function is
traffic mobility and meeting the operational needs of through traffic. For collectors, the management of
access is beneficial, but not as significant as for the arterials. Collectors provide a balance between
traffic mobility and access to adjacent lands.
Access management and land use controls are complementary functions, which call for close co-
ordination of transportation engineering and land use planning activities. The road system is normally
designed to effectively serve the access requirements of adjacent land uses, while preserving the overall
network's ability to meet the regional traffic needs.
Although vehicular traffic is the primary concern of access management, the needs of cyclists,
pedestrians and persons with disabilities should be integrated into the overall access design for
developments, and more specifically the layout and design of driveways.
Effective access management is normally achieved by the responsible jurisdictions through the
implementation of a comprehensive program with the following typical components:
• statutes
• zoning regulation
• geometric design standards and local policies, related to traffic requirements
• driveway permit requirements.
Statutes are normally provincial laws or civic by-laws which designate parts of the road system where
access is either totally prohibited or at least severely restricted. Such statutes normally pertain to
freeways, expressways and selected major arterials.
Zoning regulations can effectively control the trip generation rates of new land development and re-
development along selected roads, which in turn determines the level of accessibility required. The
June 2017 1
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
requirements for providing off-street parking and loading areas are also typical municipal zoning
regulations which affect access requirements and assist in the safe operation of the adjacent road
system. Large off-street parking areas create high volume driveways which require careful consideration
for their location and design based on operational needs.
To provide proper design, appropriate operational characteristics and un iformity, road authorities may
publish a set of design guidelines specifying the requirements for the installation of new driveways or
changes in use to existing driveways, including such elements as width, curb radii, intersection angle,
spacing, corner clearances, sight distance, and grades. The guidelines are frequently based on the types
and volumes of vehicles expected to utilize the driveway.
Perm its are required from the road authority for the construction of new driveways, or the modification
of existing driveways, along all or designated portions of the road network. In this manner, the road
authority may specify any special requirements for the provision of access along a road, such as service
(frontage) roads, auxiliary lanes, channelization, and driveway geometry.
This chapter deals mainly with the geometric design elements.
8.1.2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY
Access management provides a systematic means of managing the access and mobility requirement of
roads. Simply stated, access management is the process that manages access to land development while
simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding public road system in terms of safety,
capacity and speed.
Access management on a given facility may range from none to full control of access. Many roads are
constructed with little or no access control. In most cases, volumes are low and roadside development is
sparse. However, as adjacent land use intensifies, travel demand also increases, and the ability of the
road to handle the traffic safely decreases. Chapter 2 discusses this matter further.
Traffic engineers recognize that the elimination of unexpected events and the separation of decision
points can simplify the driving task. Access management reduces the variety and spacing of events to
which the driver must respond. One study concluded that full control of access was the most important
1
single design factor for collision reduction. The data in Table 8.1.1 shows collision and fatality rates on
facilities with full control of access to be Y, that of rural roads with no access control and 1/3 that of
urban roads of similar design.
2
Table 8.1.1: Effect of Control of Access on Collisions and Fatalities in Urban and Rural Areas
Crash Rates Per Million Control Miles
Urban Rural
Access Control Total Fatal Total Fatal
Full 1.86 0.02 1.51 0.03
Partial 4.96 0.05 2.11 0.06
None 5.26 0.04 3.32 0.09
This table shows that there is a very strong relationship between access control and collision rates.
Increases in roadside development result in increases in at-grade intersections, and in businesses with
direct access to the road. On all types of non-freeway facilities investigated, this increased density of
intersections and accesses always significantly increased collisions.
2 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
3
Bonneson and McCoy reached the same basic conclusion regarding the relationship between access
and intersection densities on collision rates. However, they do indicate that a raised curb median
treatment appears to be associated with fewer collisions than an undivided cross section, especially for
average daily traffic demands exceeding 20,000 vehicles per day.
Commercial and private driveways provide roadside access. Like intersections, the efficiency and safety
of driveways depend on traffic volumes, geometric design and traffic control systems. Driveways often
carry traffic volumes as high as intersections, and should be designed using intersection design criteria.
A study by Stover et al. developed several models for collision rates as a function of traffic volume. Their
models clearly indicate that the collision rate increases as the frequency of access increases. These are
illustrated in Figures 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 which follow.
1600
2 lane
1400 - ----- 4 lane undivided
--- 4 lane divided
E 1200
-"'
di
(3
E
~
c 1000
g
.E
0 urban / "
~ /
O>
800 /
a. /
2 /
~ v / .
c
0
~
0(.)
600
, /
/
/
/
/
/
v- ---
400
y ,P
~
v --
~
.,~
- rural
200
~- :;..---
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
number of businesses having direct acces to highway, per km
Figure 8.1.1: Collision Rate on Selected Types of Highway by Number
of Business Accesses per Kilometre 4
June 2017 3
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
800
21ane
700 ~
----- 4 lane undivided
---
/
4 lane divided
E
..I<:
cU
13
600
urban v //
:.cQ)
>
c 500
/ /
/
/
/''
"
//~
/,
~ /
.E / //
0
/ /~//
h//
0
400
Qj /
c.
.l!l // '/
~ /.
c 300
~ ~
/
0 /
gj /~
/
~
// /
0(.) /
/
/
/
P' /
/
/~
/ " /
200
~// ~ ----
/
~//
/
100 /
rural
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
number of at grade intersections per km
Figure 8.1.2: Collision Rate on Selected Types of Highway by Number of
At-Grade Intersections per Kilometre 5
There are a variety of methods by which access to a public road can be effectively controlled. This is
applicable to the upper range of the road classification system where high traffic mobility is a priority.
Some of the common techniques are as follows:
• Total prohibition, other than at widely spaced grade-separated or signalized access points
connecting to public roads
• Indirect access patterns where access is provided from only the local and collector portions of
the road network, which in turn connect to the arterials, expressways and freeways
• The use of parallel service (frontage) roads adjacent to an arterial, expressway or freeway,
whereby the access to the adjacent land uses is provided via the service road and not directly
from the major road facilityi interconnections between the major road and the service road are
4 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
provided for at widely spaced cross roads which connect to both the major road and the service
road.
At accesses with high turning volumes, the turning traffic I through traffic interference and conflicts may
lead to severe operational problems. The following techniques commonly used to improve access-
related traffic operations and safety:
• On major arterials, raised medians are installed to limit the number of conflicts at accesses by
restricting allowable movements to specific turns only, such as right turns.
• Along divided arterials, and less commonly along undivided arterials, auxiliary lanes are used to
separate the turning traffic from through traffic. This is effective in reducing access interference
with through traffic. The auxiliary lanes are normally made discontinuous at the major cross
roads to clearly define them as auxiliary lanes and prevent their use as through lanes.
• Where feasible, conversion of arterial roads from two-way to one-way operation eliminates
conflicts between left turning traffic and opposing through traffic.
• Provision of separate left-turn areas, with or without signalization, along two-way arterials is
important in promoting the collision-free and orderly passage of vehicular traffic. The left-turn
areas can consist of median openings with turn bays along divided arterials, raised or painted
divisional islands to define exclusive left-turn lanes, or continuous two-way left-turn lanes along
undivided arterials. The use of two-way left-turn lanes is an effective means of achieving a
balance between through traffic and access demands along undivided arterials with strip
development fronting both sides.
• Provision of sufficient clear throat lengths along major accesses, which helps ensure that
development-related traffic does not interfere with through traffic.
The introduction of a median serves an access control function reducing potential conflicts resulting
from turning movements and allowing designers and traffic engineers to properly focus such activities at
controlled locations with appropriate design features.
NCH RP Report 420 discusses methods for predicting and analysing the safety and traffic operational
6
effects of selected access management techniques. The following tables are drawn from this reference
and present collision rates by median type for urban and suburban areas.
Table 8.1.2: Effect of Median Type on Collision Rates by Number of Access Points
Collisions Per Million Vehicle Kilometres Per Vear
Total Access Points
Per Kilometre A Two-Way Left
Undivided Raised Median
Turn Lane
:::; 12 2.4 2.1 1.8
12 - 24 4.5 3.7 3.2
24- 37 5.8 4.9 4.2
> 37 6.6 5.7 5.1
All 5.6 4.3 3.5
A: Includes both signalized and un-signalized access points
The results shown in Table 8.1.2 indicate that regardless of median type, as access densities increased,
the number of collisions per million vehicle kilometres of travel also climbed - and did so significantly.
The raised median alternative consistently provided the best level of safety performance of the three
categories - regardless of access density.
June 2017 5
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
In a separate analysis drawn from the same report as Table 8.1.2, the results of an operational analysis
using seven collision prediction models further supports the contention that roadways with raised
medians experience fewer collisions than those with two-way left turn lanes (TWTL) or undivided cross-
sections. Table 8.1.3 summarizes the results of this work.
Table 8.1.3: Effect of Median Type on Collision Rates by ADT
Collisions Per Kilometre Per Year
ADT
Undivided Two-Way Left Turn Lane Raised Median
10,000 30 24 20
20,000 78 37 34
30,000 118 57 48
40,000 157 70 53
Table 8.1.3 shows that traffic volume is a primary determinant of collisions per kilometre per year: the
number of collisions per kilometre per year was found to increase dramatically as the ADT increases. In
all traffic volume groupings the raised median alternative provided better safety performance, followed
by the two-way left turn lane and then the undivided roadway. The differences in safety performance
become more significant as traffic volumes increase -with the raised median alternative having a 33%
lower collision rate than an undivided facility at an ADT of 10,000, but a 67% lower collision rate at an
ADT of 40,000.
8.1.3 BUILDING SET-BACK GUIDELINES
In urban areas, zoning or other regulations specify minimum front yard and side yard requirements, and
building set-backs from the road right of way. The existing, or expected, set-backs influence the
geometric design characteristics of accesses, and road intersections, with respect to sight distance and
turning path requirements. Other significant structures, such as noise walls, warrant similar
considerations.
Set-backs to buildings or other structures are important for the provision of appropriate sight distances.
Wide roadside areas for pedestrian accommodation, tree planting and other streetscaping purposes are
advantageous where buildings are located in close proximity to the right-of-way boundary. Additional
width also provides for wider sidewalks and allows the predominant pedestrian flows to be clearly away
from the building face. This improves the sight lines between drivers and pedestrians for vehicles
entering the road from driveways serving adjacent land uses. Related streetscaping design
considerations are discussed in Chapter 6.
The physical location of buildings or other structures may also be a limiting factor in the space available
for vehicles turning from a road into a driveway. The reverse movement requires similar considerations.
Where building components conflict with the normal turning path of the chosen design vehicle,
alterations to the building or driveway designs are desirable to prevent ongoing operational problems.
Design adjustments, to accommodate the off-tracking of the vehicle through the turns and to provide
sufficient sight distance, may include such actions as altering the proposed building location, or
incorporating wider driveways or building openings.
In determining the optimum building set-back and entrance configuration, the consideration of the need
for and effect of any possible future road widening constitutes good design practice.
6 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Building set-back requirements are normally defined by the minimal zoning regulations and are an
influential factor in establishing the visual character of a road and the development density. These
characteristics may in turn affect traffic conditions including volumes and operating speeds. Large set-
backs and a wide open appearance to the driver may encourage higher vehicular speeds, whereas small
or no set-backs may emphasize non-vehicular road uses and encourage lower speeds. It is therefore
important for the transportation engineering and land use planning functions of a municipality to work
closely together to co- ordinate land use objectives with effective road and access design.
Along public lanes, the set-back from the right of way to a garage or similar facility is also an important
consideration. Minimum set-backs are established on the basis of the turning characteristics of the
design vehicle and whether or not any provision is made for parking.
8.1.4 PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST CONSIDERATIONS
The most appropriate pedestrian and cycl ist-related design features for a particular jurisdiction are a
matter of local policy.
Where pedestrians and cyclists are expected to cross accesses, detailed guidance on accommodating
them is provided in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.
8.1.S CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS
Low and moderate volume accesses are one or two lanes. For certain moderate and high volume
accesses, added lanes for the driveway are desirable for operational and capacity purposes.
Where a two-lane access, with one entry and one exit lane, is not adequate, the next incremental
improvement is a three-lane access, with one entry lane and two exit lanes. The width of the single
entrance lane is normally in the order of 4.5 m to accommodate the paths of turning vehicles without
encroachment into the exit lanes.
The next increment in capacity is a four lane access with two entry and two exit lanes. A raised or
painted centre median may be incorporated as part of the access to assist in visibility, channelizing
traffic flow, and providing a refuge area for crossing pedestrians. The installation of traffic signals may
be necessary for these types of accesses.
For major high-volume accesses in urban and suburban areas, a five-lane cross section may be adopted.
With this arrangement, two entry lanes and three exit lanes are provided. A major access intersection
with the road may be signalized due to operational and safety needs. The design and operational
characteristics of driveways serving high traffic generators are best determined by a detailed traffic
study for the development with proper consideration given to road classification and existing
signalization.
In addition to the number of lanes for the access, the clear throat length and related storage length
provided on-site are important design considerations. Without adequate throat and storage lengths, the
flow of traffic along the intersecting road and internal to the site can be severely impeded. Guidelines
for minimum throat lengths for major accesses are provided on Table 8.9.1; however, site-specific
design hour volumes and turning movement demands may require additional lengths. A thorough
analysis based on the intersection requirements should be considered for all major accesses.
The capacity needs of the road are also considered together with the access needs. Such elements as
right-turn auxiliary lanes, left turn accommodation and storage lengths are all designed in consideration
of the predicted access turning volumes.
June 2017 7
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
8.2.1 OVERVIEW
Direct access to a land parcel is not a right, but some form of reasonable access is a right. Access
management should recognize that access and mobility are competing functions. While access must be
provided, it must be managed with the need to maintain an appropriate level of mobility for the
functional requirement of the roadway. This recognition is fundamental to the design of road systems
that preserve public investments, contribute to traffic safety, reduce fuel consumption and vehicular
emissions, and do not become functionally obsolete. Suitable functional design of the road system also
preserves the private investment in residential and commercial development.
A typical trip on a road system can be described as occurring in identifiable steps or stages as illustrated
7
in Figure 8.2.1 . These stages can be sorted into a definite hierarchy with respect to how the competing
functions of mobility and access are satisfied. At the low end of the hierarchy are road facilities that
provide good access to abutting properties, but provide limited opportunity for through movement.
Vehicles entering or exiting a road usually perform the ingress or egress maneuver at a very low speed,
momentarily blocking through traffic and impeding the movement of traffic on the roadway. At the high
end of the hierarchy are facilities that provide good mobility by limiting and controlling access to the
road, thereby reducing conflicts that slow the flow of through traffic.
A transition occurs each time that a vehicle passes from one road to another and should be
accommodated by a facility specifically designed to handle the movement. Even the area of transition
between a driveway and a local road should be considered as an intersection and be treated
accordingly. However, design of these intersections poses few problems since speeds and volumes are
low. Many circulation systems use the entire range of facilities in the order presented here, but it is not
always necessary or desirable that they do so.
The location and geometric standard of the access (or accesses) to be used is dependent on the specific
use of the property and the road classification.
8.2.2 ACCESS TYPES
8.2.2.1 Public Road Access
A public road access is the intersection of two public roads or the intersection of a primary highway and
a public road.
8.2.2.2 Commercial Access
A rural commercial access typically serves highway commercial development such as a service station,
truck stop, etc. An urban commercial access typically accommodates office, retail or institutional
building, or multi-unit apartment buildings. Such buildings are customarily serviced by trucks as an
incidental rather than a principal driveway use. Conversely driveways whose primary function is to serve
administrative or employee parking lots, such as industrial plants and warehouses, are considered
commercial driveways.
8.2.2.3 Industrial Access
An industrial access is the means of access to a road from a parcel of land used by industry. The access
directly services substantial numbers of truck movements to and from loading docks, warehouses, or
truck terminals. A centralized retail development, such as a community or regional shopping centre, may
8 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
have one or more driveways specially designed, signed, and located to provide access for trucks. The
location and geometric design of the access to be used is dependent on the specific use of the property
and the road classification.
8.2.2.4 Residential Access
A residential access is the means of access to a road from a single family residence, a duplex or an
apartment building containing up to four dwelling units.
8.2.2.5 Rural Recreational Access
A recreational access is the means of access to a road from a recreational facility such as a golf course or
a campground. The location and geometric design ofthe access to be used is dependent on the type of
facility and the road classification.
8.2.2.6 Country Multi Residential Access
A country multi residential access is the means of access to a road from a country residential subdivision
which consists of more than one lot.
8.2.2.7 Farmstead Access
A farmstead access is the means of access to a road from a farm residence. The dimensions of the access
must be adequate to accommodate farm machinery and truck movements.
8.2.2.8 Field Access
A field access is the means of access to a road from a parcel of land used for agriculture. It is similar to a
farm access in that it must accommodate farm machinery and truck movements.
trans;uon~ ~
~~~~~~ ·················~ ~~~~
pr;mmymovement L
:
I
I
c : terml
ination
]
E
:
1
~ 1 access
~ \tran~;1;0~
/transition
col lection f distribution
terminati on
Figure 8.2.1: Trip Stages
8.2.2.9 Utility Access
A utility access is the means of access to a road from a utility installation such as a microwave tower,
pumping station, power company substation, etc.
June 2017 9
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.2.2.10 Resources Access
A resource access is the means of access to a road from a well site, gravel pit, coal mine, log haul, etc.
8.2.3 ACCESS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
An access classification system defines where access can be allowed between developments and public
roads, and where it should be limited, denied or discouraged; where access should be limited to right
turns into and out of the driveways leading to or from activity centres; and where provisions, if any,
should be made for left turns in and out of connecting driveways.
8
The following is an example of a seven-level access category system:
• Access Level 1: access via interchanges with public roads only
• Access Level 2: access via at-grade public road intersections or at interchanges
• Access Level 3: right-turn access driveway only
• Access Level 4: right and left-turn access in, right-turn access out
• Access Level 5: right and left-turn access into and out of an activity centre - left-turn lanes
required
• Access Level 6: right and left-turn access into and out of an activity centre - left-turn lanes
optional
• Access Level 7: right and left-turn access into and out of activity centre - driveway spacing
limited by safety requirements only.
The seven access levels may be modified to reflect design practices of specific agencies and introduction
of complete streets design principles on a roadway.
A general approach to assigning access categories or levels to a road system is given in Table 8.2.1. This
table shows how each of the seven types of allowable access relates to the six basic road classes -
freeways, expressways, major arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local roads, and the general
design features associated with each class.
It can be seen from the table that direct property access is prohibited from freeways and expressways,
access levels 1 and 2. Direct property access should be denied or restricted from access levels 3 and 4,
major arterials, respectively. However, access may be provided where no reasonable alternative access
is available, or where it is in the general public interest to do so. Where access must be provided, it
should be limited to right turns only for access level 3, and to right- and left-turn entry and right-turn
exit for access level 4. Direct property access may be permitted for access levels 5 and 6; it is desirable at
level 7.
Higher access categories can be selected for rural and suburban areas or new corridors where existing
strip development has not yet eroded the function of the road. In areas with existing high density
development, the assignment of lower categories and therefore, lower or ambient standards may be
more practical. Keep in mind, however, that in existing high development corridors where there is
support for improving mobility and safety, a higher standard can be selected and over time, the
redevelopment in the corridor will reflect that higher standard . In general, for each road segment, the
highest standard which can be implemented should be selected.
10 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Table 8.2.1: Access Levels Keyed to Road Type
Direct Property
Access Level Road Classification General Design Features
Access
1 Freeway No Multilane, Med ian
2 Expressway No Multilane, Median
3 Major Arterial Restrict or Deny" Multilane, Median
4 Major Arterial Restrict or Denl Multi lane, Medianc
5 Minor Arterial Yes Multilane, or 2 lanes
6 Collector Yes 2 lanes
7 Local/Frontage Yes 2 lanes
Notes: a. Right turns only when provided
b. Right and left turn entry and right turn only exit when provided
c. Might be two lanes in some rural areas
8.3 ACCESS MANAGEMENT BY DESIGN CLASSIFICATION
For access management purposes, road function is divided into five categories :
• Freeways
• Expressways
• Major and minor arterials
• Collectors
• Local roads
Appropriate access is then defined for each of these categories or any other categories as outlined in
Section 8.2.3. Where complete streets principles are incorporated into the design of a roadway, further
guidance on access management is provided in Chapter 6.
Arterial, collectors and local roads may also be subdivided into rural, residential and
industrial/commercial classifications. Where this difference is important, it will be noted.
8.3.1 FREEWAYS
Full access control is required on freeways. No at-grade accesses are allowed.
The design and location of local access to freeways will be via interchanges and should be governed by
the following:
• Requests for a new interchange within 3.0 km of an existing or future system interchange should
be carefully assessed due to various design requirements (weaving, interchange spacing, staging,
etc.).
• Development at or near an interchange (within 1.6 km) will be accessed via the interchange
from the minor road only.
• The access intersection with the crossing road should be compatible with existing and future
minor road improvements.
• The interchange configuration type together with the crossing road's geometric design elements
should be collectively considered when determining the proximity of an access road to the
June 2017 11
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
interchange. This "offset" of the access road intersection, measured along the minor road,
should be a minimum of 400 m away from the nearest interchange ramp intersection, or a
minimum of 150 m from the end of the proposed or constructed interchange ramp taper on the
minor road, whichever distance is greater. In constrained environments, reduced values are
sometimes applied. Refer to Section 9.4.2.4 for further discussion.
• Subject to detailed review, developments on the freeway (for example a service centre) which
are more than 1.6 km from an existing or future interchange may be permitted to operate
independently, but must be served by one-way highway exit and entrance ramps.
• The one-way highway exit and entrance ramp design should be compatible with existing
conditions and future highway improvements, designed to operate safely, and properly signed in
advance.
• Either an exit ramp or an entrance ramp alone will not be permitted in view of the potential for
encouraging wrong way movements.
As is discussed in more detail in Chapter 10, the separation between interchanges must reflect driver
needs. The distance between the bull nose for the entry lane and the beginning of the deceleration lane
for a subsequent exit lane would ideally allow entering drivers to carry out one driving task at a time,
that is: merge and bring their vehicles up to highway speed before exiting drivers encounter the advance
guide sign, read it, search for a gap and change as many lanes are required to move from the leftmost
lane to the exiting lane. Figure 10.1.2 in Chapter 10 shows interchange spacing that allows drivers to
deal with one task at a time based on driver needs. Minimum spacing depends on the number of lane
changes a driver might have to make between entry at one access and exit at the next access. It also
depends on operating speed and acceleration and deceleration lane lengths.
8.3.2 EXPRESSWAYS
No direct land access should be permitted to an expressway. Existing private accesses to an expressway
should be removed, but in some cases it may be necessary to retain them. Existing accesses on a future
freeway will be removed when the road is upgraded to freeway status, when there is a change in use of
the access, or when there are operational problems. Significant intensified use of an existing access due
to a change in land use should be discouraged. New accesses from existing developments should be to a
minor network road.
New developments should access a public road which intersects the expressway at an existing or future
interchange site.
In locations where future interchanges are not protected for, development should be encouraged to
access a minor road.
However, consideration may be given to a right- in I right-out access in conjunction with the minor road
access, with the spacing dependent on the intersection design and signing requirements. A minimum
spacing of 800 m is recommended.
Existing direct farm accesses may remain on a temporary basis and should be removed when the road is
upgraded or when there are operational problems. Significant intensified use of a farm access due to a
change in land use should not be permitted. No direct means of access should be permitted to new
farmsteads.
12 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.3.3 ARTERIALS
Arterials are roads where traffic movement is the primary consideration while land access is a secondary
function.
Rural arterials are normally two-lane roadways. Major rural arterials are occasionally identified as
facilities which could at some time become multi-lane expressways and freeways. Access to adjoining
lands will change as the road moves through the different development stages, whereby temporary at-
grade private and public road connections will be phased out and replaced by interchanges at selected
locations. Indirect access via the public road system should be encouraged for new property
developments.
For rural arterials not planned for upgrading, a limit of one private access per 400 mis desirable. Existing
accesses in excess of one per 400 m may remain on a temporary basis and may be eliminated at the
time of future road upgrading. Ideally, rural accesses should be directly opposite or at least 400 m from
a public road intersection or another access. However, in cases where existing private accesses are less
than 400 m from the public road intersection, they may remain provided that safety and geometric
standards are met.
New private accesses should not be allowed where one presently exists in a 400 m section. Access via
the local road should be encouraged for new developments. Joint use of an existing access should also
be considered .
Urban arterials normally carry high traffic volumes and can range from two to six lane facilities with a
high degree of access control. Accesses to major commercial, industrial or residential properties are
essentially 'T' intersections and volumes can be relatively high. These accesses should be discouraged
and use made of adjacent collector roads. Where an access is unavoidable, careful consideration should
be given to the design of the intersection and its spacing to adjacent signalized locations. Guidance on
access design is provided in Section 8.4.
8.3.4 COLLECTORS
Rural collectors represent a network of roads providing access to important market areas serving
agricultural, commercial, industrial and recreational needs.
General rules for rural collectors are listed as follows:
• If a development is bordered by two roads of different classification, access should be to the
lower classification road.
• No more than one access per 400 m length is desirable but some situations may warrant a
maximum of two .
• A private access should be located at least 400 m from a major intersection (an intersection with
another collector or higher classification road).
• The distance between rural accesses should be at least 150 m; minimizing the number of access
points through the use of joint access is desirable.
• Attempts should be made to remove all redundant field accesses.
Urban collectors serve residential, industrial and commercial properties. Traffic movement and land
access are of equal importance. For spacing and access guidelines see Sections 8.8 and 8.9.
Special care should be taken in designing collector roads and accesses serving land uses that generate
high traffic volumes, such as community and regional shopping centres, large industrial plants, major
office building complexes and high density apartment developments. These accesses function essentially
June 2017 13
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
as intersections. The accesses and approaches to them from arterial roads should be designed based on
the through and turn ing volumes associated with the site and adjacent roadway.
For individual properties, a suggested limitation on the number of accesses is given in Table 8.9.2.
8.3.5 LOCAL ROADS
The main function of local roads, rural or urban, is access. The intended traffic service function of a local
road is to allow vehicles to reach properties.
In rural areas for roadways carrying traffic with an operating speed of greater than 60 km/h, a maximum
of two accesses per 400 metres is desirable due to the higher operating speeds. If more than two
accesses are requested per 400 m section, common accesses should be considered. For operating
speeds equal to or less than 60 km/h, a higher number of access points may be allowed. However,
proliferation of accesses should be avoided. Geometric design should be considered when locating
access points.
For local urban roads the number of accesses based on frontage is given in Table 8.9.2 (Section 8.9.8) . In
residential and commercial areas the minimum spacing between driveways should be at least 1.0 m. In
industrial areas this should be increased to at least 3.0 m. Additional details regarding spacing of
adjacent driveways is given in Section 8.9.8.
8.4 ACCESS CONFIGURATION
This section contains general information about design guidelines regarding means of access to roads.
Generally, the design of private or public access to roads should be treated in the same way as roadway
intersection design. All aspects of intersection design, with the exception of access management, are
covered in detail in Chapter 9. The chief considerations used for locating accesses and establishing
geometric parameters are covered briefly here.
8.4.1 DISTANCE FROM CURVES
Accesses on horizontal curves are undesirable and should be avoided whenever possible. Superelevation
on a curve has an adverse effect on turning vehicles. Accesses should be placed away from the curve
and at a desirable distance of 150 m from the end of the curve. Where this criterion cannot be met, the
access may intersect the road on a curve in accordance with the discussion in Chapter 9. In this case,
horizontal and vertical sight distance should be checked . Each proposed access should be evaluated
individually on site to ensure that the configuration will promote collision free operation.
8.4.2 DISTANCE FROM BRIDGES
In cases where an access is located near the end of a bridge, the sight distance at the access should be
thoroughly checked with the sight distance criteria (sight distance, setback distance, etc.) as stipulated
in Chapter 9. In addition, storage length and taper length for the access as well as the need for adequate
distance to provide a proper approach barrier design treatment may also affect the needed distance
from the end of the bridge.
8.4.3 DISTANCE FROM INTERCHANGES AND INTERSECTIONS
An access to a crossing road should be a m inimum of 400 m from the nearest interchange ramp
intersection, or a minimum of 150 m from the end of the interchange ramp taper, whichever distance is
greater.
14 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.4.4 DISTANCE FROM RAILWAYS
When an access is located near or at an at- grade railway crossing, sight distance requirements as set
9
out in Chapter 9 and the Transport Canada Grade Crossing Standards should be met or exceeded.
The distance required between an access and an at-grade railway crossing should be determined site
specifically considering turning movements, storage requirements, etc. If the access has the potential for
intersection treatment, the distance between the railway right of way and the access should be
adequate to accommodate the treatment. If these criteria cannot be met, the access should be
relocated. Designers should use the latest regulations and guidelines from Transport Canada in their
design.
8.4.5 GEOMETRY
It is extremely important that the geometric design guidelines be observed at access intersections.
Chapter 9 shows the detailed guidelines to be used in intersection design. It also shows typical
treatments for lower volume intersections (or accesses) and provides a methodology to be used on
higher volume intersections where a detailed analysis is required. Some other factors to be considered
include intersection sight distance, gradients, skew angles and turning radii, design vehicles and speed.
8.4.6 INTERSECTION AND CROSSING SIGHT DISTANCE
A driver entering the road from an access should have an unobstructed view of the whole intersection
and of a length of the intersecting road sufficient to allow collision free movement through the
intersection . Both the horizontal sight triangle and the vertical alignment should be checked so that the
minimum intersection sight distance is provided. Chapter 9 contains intersection sight distances for
various design speeds and design vehicles. For a major access, it is desirable to provide decision sight
distance on the main alignment.
8.4.7 GRADIENTS
At all at-grade intersections, vertical curves and gradients on the through roadway and intersecting
roadway should be designed such that greater than minimum stopping sight distances are obtained
(intersection sight distances are desirable) . The approach gradient of the access road where there is a
stop condition should be designed for operational and maintenance requirements. The gradient on the
main alignment should be as flat as possible to minimize operational problems for vehicles, accelerating
and decelerating under snow and ice conditions. The design guideline for gradients on the main
alignment and intersecting roadways is shown in Chapter 9.
8.4.8 SKEW ANGLES
The angle of intersection between an access and another road should be 90° or as near to right angles as
practical for safety and economy. Design guidelines dealing with skew angle of intersecting roads are
shown in Chapter 9.
8.4.9 TURNING RADII
Intersections and accesses are designed to accommodate the design vehicles that are required based on
current and anticipated turning movements. Chapter 2 contains the guidelines to be used in selecting an
appropriate design vehicle. Having chosen a design vehicle, the turning radii, the pavement widths and
the edge of pavement alignment may be determ ined based on turning vehicle templates.
June 2017 15
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.4.10 AUXILIARY LANES
Acceleration, deceleration and bypass lanes should be provided at an access if warranted by traffic
volumes as per the guidelines shown in Chapter 9. If necessary, a detailed analysis should be undertaken
to determine the need and justification for auxiliary lanes at a given access.
8.4.11 SIGNALIZED ACCESS SPACING
Accesses from major activity centres to the road are in reality intersections and their location and
spacing in terms of the road signal system should be considered. Most traffic delays along roads result
from stops at traffic signals. Various studies have shown that the number of traffic signals per kilometre
has a greater influence on travel speeds than the traffic volume per lane or the volume-to-capacity ratio.
Therefore, selecting a long and uniform signalized intersection spacing is an essential element in
establishing access locations on arterial roads. Alternatively, if signalization is required and it is not
desirable to provide access to the arterial road, then the site should be accessed from a minor road
which can be signalized .
8.5 CONTINUOUS RIGHT-TURN AUXILIARY LANES ON DIVIDED ARTERIALS
8.5.1 GENERAL
Along an arterial road with an operating speed of 70 km/h or less, and where direct access is permitted
to adjacent land uses, it is often desirable to provide a continuous auxiliary lane, purposely different in
appearance and operation from that of a through lane, to safely accommodate the turning traffic into
and out of the adjacent developments. The most common application of this access management
technique is the provision of a continuous right-turn auxiliary lane for access along a divided major
arterial road. A typical auxiliary lane configuration along a divided arterial with two-way accesses is
shown on Figure 8.5.1. The auxiliary lane technique can also be similarly effective along the left side (in
the direction of travel) on a one-way arterial road .
A continuous auxiliary lane is provided where, due to the frequency of accesses, it is desirable to
continue the auxiliary lane for the entire distance between signalized intersections. Where accesses are
more than about 200 m apart, a continuous turn lane may not be required . In these cases, it may be
possible to utilize right-turn bays in advance of the access, and, of lesser importance, acceleration lanes
beyond the access, rather than a continuous turn lane, as shown on Figure 8.5.2. When the auxiliary
lane is continuous, channelizing islands are used at the signalized intersections to indicate the beginning
and end of the auxiliary lane (see Figure 8.5.3), with a mandatory right turn created at the downstream
signalized intersection. For additional information on the accommodation of bicycles, refer to Chapter 5.
The objective of the channelizing islands is to clearly define the auxiliary lane as a turning lane for access
purposes rather than an extra through lane. If this is not done, the added lane usually operates as
another through lane and the goal of separating the slower speed turning traffic from the higher speed
through traffic is lost. If the auxiliary lane is appropriately designed and the driveways properly located
and spaced, this access management technique is effective because it provides reasonably direct access
to adjacent developments without hampering the movement of through traffic along the arterial road.
Attention to the location and spacing of accesses along the auxiliary lane is significant in minimizing the
potential for collisions created by weaving vehicles, or the conflict between accelerating and
decelerating vehicles.
Discontinuing the auxiliary lane at an intersection or major access which is not signalized may be
appropriate under certain conditions. These conditions include ample sight distance to the island or
curbs which define the termination point, and high turning volumes at the terminating intersection or
16 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
major driveway. The existence of these conditions and other site specific characteristics are assessed by
the designer in determining the likelihood of drivers becoming trapped in the auxiliary lane due to an
unexpected termination point. If the likelihood is low, separating the turning traffic streams at an
unsignalized intersection or major driveway may be advantageous from an overall traffic operations
perspective.
Auxiliary lanes can also be effective in accommodating transit stops while minimizing impacts to other
road users.
The need for traffic reversal opportunities arises when drivers along the divided arterial wish to gain
access to mid-block land uses on the opposite side of the median. Unless there is an opportunity to
circulate around an adjacent block, make a U-turn on the arterial (if geometrically feasible and legally
permitted), or circulate through an adjacent development (where provided for by special agreement or
other means), access to these midblock developments is difficult.
Auxiliary lane access provisions along arterials are generally best suited to commercial and industrial
land uses. They are not utilized to serve single family residential land uses due to the inherent short
frontages and resulting high driveway frequency. Where these types of residential land uses are
adjacent to an arterial, it is preferable to have the development backing onto the arterial, with access
provided via a local road system internal to the subdivision. Alternatively, where the residential land use
fronts the arterial, the parallel service (frontage) road system can be effective in providing access. A
summary of the primary advantages and disadvantages of continuous right-turn auxiliary lanes is
provided in Table 8.5.1.
June 2017 17
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Table 8.5.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Continuous Right-Turn Auxiliary Lanes
for the Provision of Access Along Divided Arterial Roads
Advantages Party Affected
• Requires little right of way Road authority/ developer
• Implemented at a relatively low initial capital cost for new
Road authority/ developer
construction
• The conflicting movements of turning and through traffic along
Road authority/ user
the arterial are separated
• Operates effectively for developments which generate low to Road authority I land owner/
medium volumes or one high volume generator per block developer I user
• Multiple accesses can be accommodated reasonably well
provided the individual driveways are adequately spaced, in Land owner/ developer I user
consideration of their traffic volumes, and well-designed
• Can be used effectively to accommodate transit stops Road authority I user
• Generally accepted by adjacent businesses as being an
Land owner I developer
effective means of access
Disadvantages Party Affected
• Direct access to mid-block land is provided from one direction
only; U-turn or other routes for traffic reversal required for Land owner I developer I user
access from other direction
• A safety problem may be introduced by the weaving of traffic
Road authority/ user
between auxiliary and adjacent through lanes
• Bicyclists may be required to make swerving movements at the
Road authority I user
introduction and termination points to continue along route
• Presents challenges to visually impa ired pedestrians Road authority I user
• Egressing traffic from a high density development can create a
continuous stream of traffic along the auxiliary lane Road authority I land owner/
downstream, blocking other traffic wishing to weave into the developer I user
auxiliary lane
• Not suitable for safety reasons along arterials with operating
Road authority I user
speeds above 70 km/h
18 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
___/ collector or local
cross road
typical X dimensions Notes: • Desirable to orient all
(90° intersection) two-way driveways at
3-centre curve X 90° to curb.
50-15-50 34 • where centre island
50-15-50 38 provided at driveway,
60-35-60 48 determine V fromm
80-50-80 66 Figure 8.5.5 - one-way
driveways
• Sidewalk locations
omitted for clarity
• Three-centre curves
are not necessarily
required. Radii will
vary dependent on
design vehicle
selected.
P/L
----
---- P/L
11
Notes: 1. Greater C distance may be required for transit stop or high volume driveway.
2. Y varies with length of turn storage; min. Y=30 m, provided min. A is achieved.
3. When C is at or near the minimum value, the channelizing island may be reduced ,
as shown , forcing a YIELD condition for the right-turning roadway.
typical dimensions
criteria dimension ref. commercial industrial
width w 7.2 to 12.0 m 9.0 to 15.0 m
right-turn radius Ra 4.5to12.0 m 6.0 to 15.0 m
minimum spacing
- from property line Pb 2: R 2: R
- from street corner
• far side c 10.0 m 10.0 m
• cross street approach A c,d 5.0 m 5.0 m
• cross street departure Dd 5.0 m 5.0 m
- between driveways E 20.0 m 20.0 m
Notes: a. Values at or near the high end of the range to be used for major generator driveways and where trucks turn.
b. Also established in consideration of the distance to the first driveway on the adjacent property.
c. If the cross road is divided , the driveway is normally located in advance of the cross road left turn bay.
d. If intersection is signalized , greater dimension suggested - refer to Figure 8.8.2.
Figure 8.5.1: Channelizing Island Intersection Arrangement with Two-Way Accesses
Along Auxiliary Lane of a Divided Arterial
June 2017 19
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
a ena roa
-- -
B.T. d
Ld a La
c:
~
ro
parking ~ parking
U 111
on-site
circulation road
parking
-- 111 D
design speed approach dimensions departure dimensions
km/h m m
B.T. R Ld' (min) Lp taper rate La'
50 40 90 75 no taper
60 50 150 90 26.0 20:1 100
70 60 220 110 57.5 25:1 150
80 70 280 130 57.5 25:1 150
Notes: a. Ld (min) is normally increased where storage of vehicles a typical requirement
due to pedestrian movements or vehicle queuing at the entrance.
b. Ld (min) and La distances based on grades of 2 percent or less .
c. Refer to Table 8.9.3 for minimum throat lengths.
d. Straight taper, without curves , also acceptable.
-
_,Hi~wg9;Ki-
- arterial road 3.7
--
- -- 3.7-- -
R R 3.5-3.7 / sidewalk - - - - - - - - -
sidewalk
~
Ld a
tt
alternative arrangement - no acceleration lane
Figure 8.5.2: Auxiliary Lane Mid-Block Access for Major Developments
20 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
--
--
!----=:!~~-----------------=- - --- arterial median
3.7
IT
3.5-4.3 a auxiii'8""" lane
sidewalk - - - - - - - - - -
"O
m
e
({)
({)
eu
I
tt typical auxiliary lane introduction
--
arterial median - -
auxilia lane
--
- - - - sidewalk
"O
m
e
({)
({)
eu
typical auxiliary lane termination
Notes: a. 4.3 m for lanes shared with bicycles
For W, see Section 4.2
Alternative introduction and termination treatments shown in Figures 8.5.2, 8.5.6, and 8.5.7
Figure 8.5.3: Typical Auxiliary Lane Introduction and Termination
For additional guidance on the accommodation of bicycles, refer to Chapter 5.
June 2017 21
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.5.2 DESIGN ELEMENTS
8.5.2.1 Warrants
A separate right-turn auxiliary lane may be warranted depending on the roadway's single lane volume,
the volume of right-turning vehicles, the posted speed of the road, and the history of rear end collisions.
Refer to Chapter 9, for further information regarding right-turn lane warrants.
8.5.2.2 Width
The width of the auxiliary lane is normally the same as or 0.2 m less than the adjacent through lane,
exclusive of the gutter or curb offset. A lane dimension the same as the adjacent through lane is
recommended where single unit or larger trucks utilize the auxiliary lane to turn into and out of the
driveways.
Right-of-way constraints or non-roadway demands on the available cross section w idth, such as
pedestrian accommodation, may influence the design width selected for the auxiliary lane. Further
information on auxiliary lane widths is provided in Chapter 4.
In general, auxiliary lanes are a disadvantage to cyclists continuing along the route, due to the maneuver
needed to weave across the auxiliary lane at the introduction and termination points at the cross roads .
The accommodation of cyclists needs to be carefully considered and a range of faci lities/treatments
should be examined. For additional guidance on the accommodation of bicycles refer to Chapter 5.
8.5.2.3 Introduction and Termination
A typical method of achieving the auxiliary lane appearance and function is to add and drop the auxiliary
lane at major cross road intersections, by the insertion of channelizing islands (see Figure 8.5.3). Where
sufficient right of way is not available, the method illustrated on Figures 8.5.4 and 8.5.S may be
adopted.
Where accesses along an arterial road are widely spaced, such as at entrances to a major development,
it may not be necessary to continue the auxiliary lane completely between cross road intersections. The
auxiliary lane may be limited to a taper and parallel lane in advance of the access and, as an option,
combined with a parallel acceleration lane and taper beyond the access. The length of acceleration lane
is determined on the basis of the average running speed of the arterial through lanes. A typical layout
for a mid-block access with a right-turn auxiliary lane is shown in Figure 8.5.2. The acceleration area
beyond the access is generally not incorporated where the arterial design speed is 50 km/h. As with the
other forms of right-turn auxiliary lanes, the introduction and termination of the auxiliary lane is a
disadvantage to through cyclists, who must weave across the turning traffic stream.
8.5.2.4 Driveway Location, Spacing and Design
Where a continuous right-turn auxiliary lane is incorporated, the location, spacing and design geometry
of the driveways are important considerations. The design guidelines are also generally applicable to
access onto major roads without auxiliary lanes.
Accesses to developments are normally located an adequate distance away from cross road
intersections to minimize traffic conflicts. A weaving conflict occurs between vehicles turning right from
the cross road and weaving left to reach the arterial through lane, and those vehicles travelling through
the cross road, in the outside arterial through lane, and weaving to the right into the auxiliary lane to
turn at the first access. Where a right turning road and channelizing island are used in advance of the
22 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
cross road intersection, a minimum clearance to the first access of at least 10.0 m is suggested . A
greater distance may be warranted if the driveway volume is moderate to high, in combination with a
significant volume on the right turning roadway. The clearance distance (C) is measured from the end of
the radius on the turning roadway to the beginning of the radius on the driveway curb return. Figure
8.5.1 illustrates how the clearance is measured.
A minimum spacing (E) of 20.0 m is suggested between accesses along an auxiliary lane. This spacing is
measured between the end of the curb return radius on the first driveway and the beginning of the curb
return radius on the succeeding driveway. As discussed above for the clearance dimension (C), high
turning volumes at either or both driveways may warrant greater spacing between access to encourage
collision free and efficient operation . Figure 8.5.1 illustrates how the spacing (E) is measured. Figure
8.5.5 provides a guideline for increasing access spacing, where feasible, in consideration of the average
volume of any two adjacent accesses. It may not be feasible to achieve the desired spacing where
fronting parcels are narrow and joint accesses are not achievable.
On the approach to an all-directional cross road intersection, it is desirable to position the last driveway
in advance of the bay taper for the left turn storage area along the arterial. This allows drivers exiting
from the driveway a reasonable opportunity to cross the arterial through lanes to reach the left-turn
lane for the cross road intersection. As a suggested minimum, the last driveway is preferably located
w ithin the bay taper area in advance of the left-turn storage area. Figure 8.5.4 illustrates the desired
and suggested minimum locations. In certain cases, it may not be possible to achieve the suggested
minimum spacing, due to parcel size and legal access requirements.
130 /
120
/v
110 /
100
\_O~ e
~1P \'1><:< /
E 90
'0'1>~\<f:'\.o<:-
'l>vi' e\'li v
~~
,,;
>-
"'~
Q)
80 #
> . ·,<:-'1>
~ 70 e''<S' 'l.o
0 ,,V o'<:le 'li'l.eo cf'C/,
Ol
c: 60 >i'°"~ r§.'o <o'<'I>
·c:;
"'~ 50
/ ~'Ii "'<o roe
0~,..,.e 0~ .<S'G
cP ~e'I>
G'
.9 40 v
/ Notes: With reference to Figures 8. 5.1,
8.5.5, 8.5.6, and 8. 5.7,
G' ~to <t spacing = E + 2R + W.
30
If driveway volumes include
20 significant percentages of
large trucks , increased
spacing is desirable.
10
0
0 500 1000 1500
average volume of any two adjacent driveways, v/d
Figure 8.5.4: Auxiliary Lane Accesses, Minimum Spacing
June 2017 23
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
_____/ collector or local
cross road
x
N
>-
typical X dimensions
(90' intersection)
3-centre curve X
50-15-50 34
50-25-50 38
60-35-60 48
80-50-80 66
~s~ggested
--.:::/ location
rn 1rnmum
Notes: Sidewalk locations omitted for clarity. I
Three centre curves not necessarily required. w
Radii are dependent on vehicle selected.
~
S:ldesired
!> '..f. location
I I
Notes: 1. Greater C distance may be required for transit stop or high volume driveway.
2. Y va rie s with length of left turn storage; min. Y=30 m, provided min. A is achieved.
3. When C is at or near the minimum value, the channelizing island may be reduced,
as shown, forcing a YIELD condition for the right-turning roadway.
4. One - way angled driveways along undivided streets used to encourage right turns only
but suject to wro ng-way movements.
typical dimensions
criteria dimension ref. commercial industrial
width w 4.5 to 7.5 m 5.0 to 9.0 m
right-turn radius Ra 4.5 to 12.0 m 6.0 to 15.0 m
minimum spacing
-from property line Pb 2R 2R
-from street corner
.far side c 10.0m 10.0 m
• cross street approach Ac.d 5.0m 5.0m
• cross street departure Dd 5.0m 5.0m
-between driveways E 25.0 m 25.0m
minimum angle /'ie 60' to 70' 45' to 60'
Notes: a. Values at or near the high end of the range to be used for major generator driveways and where trucks turn.
b. Also established in consideration of the distance to the first driveway on the adjacent property.
c. If the cross road is divided, the driveway is normally located in advance of the cross road left-turn bay.
d. If intersection is signalized, greater dimension suggested- refer to Figure 8.8.2
e. Minimum angle of 70' desirable where pedestrians routinely cross.
Figure 8.5.5: Channelizing Island Intersection Arrangement With One-Way Angled Accesses
Along Auxiliary Lane of a Divided Arterial
24 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Typical driveway widths and radii are also provided on Figure 8.5.1. For two-way driveways in a
commercial land use area, the widths range from 7.2 to 12.0 m. The curb return radii range from a 4.5 m
minimum to a maximum of 12.0 m.
Typical driveway dimensions are summarized on Table 8.9.1 in Section 8.9.5.
When establishing driveway geometry, consideration should be given to the driveway width and curb
return radii in combination. Smaller curb return radii require wider driveways to accommodate the
vehicle turning paths, and conversely, larger radii allow driveway widths to be reduced. With high
volume driveways that create numerous conflicts along the auxiliary lane, large radii are often desirable
to minimize the speed differentials occurring along the auxiliary lane. The needs of the pedestrian are
also considered in selecting the most appropriate design geometry. Narrow driveways, in combination
with larger curb return radii, minimize the conflict exposure for the pedestrian, but encourage higher
vehicular speeds. Conversely, wide driveways, in combination with small curb return radii, increase the
conflict exposure for the pedestrian, but encourage lower vehicular speeds. In general, narrow
driveways with small curb return radii, but still adequate to accommodate the design turning vehicle are
preferred.
Figure 8.5.5 provides an illustration of the driveway design elements for one-way angled driveways
along an arterial auxiliary lane. Angled driveways are most commonly used along divided and one-way
arterials. The suggested minimum clearance between the radius of the turning roadway at the
intersection and the radius of the first driveway is the same as that for two-way driveways. The stated
minimum spacing between driveways is increased slightly to account for the reduced spacing between
driveways at the right-of-way boundary, created by the skew angles of the adjacent one-way in and out
driveways. The typical radii of the right turns for one-way driveways along arterial auxiliary lanes are 4.5
to 12.0 m for commercial land uses and 6.0 to 15.0 m for industrial. The corresponding typical widths
are 4.5 to 7.5 m for commercial and 5.0 to 9.0 m for industrial. Unless vehicle turning paths dictate
otherwise, widths in the lower end of the range are preferred to assist in defining the driveway as being
one-way and one lane in operation. To discourage wrong-way movements at the one-way driveways, a
radius of 1.5 m is suggested for the opposite side of the driveway where turns are not permitted. The
driveway radii and width dimensions are normally considered in combination to determine the most
appropriate layout for the selected design vehicle. The suggested minimum intersection angle for
commercial driveways, where pedestrian crossings are likely, is 60 to 70 with 70 being the desirable
angle. For industrial land uses, with little or no pedestrian crossing activity, intersection angles in the
range of 45 to 60 are effective. In both situations, angles less than those suggested make it difficult for
the drivers to see pedestrians or other vehicles as they look over their shoulder.
When right-turning roadways are not used at the cross road intersections to introduce the auxiliary lane,
a reduced dimension for the clearance (C) can be adopted. Figures 8.5.6 and 8.5.7 illustrate the
suggested minimum clearances associated with two-way and one-way driveways, respectively. The
reduced clearances (C), as compared to that required adjacent to right-turn roadways (Figures 8.5.1 and
8.5.5), are feasible due to the lower operating speeds of the vehicles turning right from the cross road
onto the auxiliary lane.
June 2017 25
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
fIf 1
___________ /
)
Rltl&J----
(
I
Jale I I I
ro
~1
I
I~ "'I I I"' Notes: 1. Greater C distance may
w
"' M ~
I be required for transit stop
2. Y Varies with length of left
turn storage, min. Y=30 m
Desirable to orient all two-way
driveways at 90° to curb.
II III
O:'. Where centre island is provided
l: .:
at driveway, determine W from
Figure 8.5.7 , one-way driveways.
Sidewalk omitted for clarity.
II
ELh._ _ _ _ _ Ji_--: I ~ I ~
I -~I I I
I
I II II
typical dimensions
criteria dimension ref. commercial industrial
width w 7.2 to 12.0 m 9.0 to 15.0 m
right-turn radius Ra 4.5 to 12.0 m 6.0 to 15.0 m
minimum spacing
-from property line Pb 2:R .2: R
-from street corner
·far side c 5.0 m 5.0 m
• cross street approach Ac.d 5.0 m 5.0 m
• cross street departure Dd 5.0 m 5.0 m
-between driveways E 20.0 m 20.0 m
Notes: a. Values at or near the high end of the range to be used for major generator driveways and where trucks turn.
b. Also established in consideration of the distance to the first driveway on the adjacent property.
c. If the cross road is divided , the driveway is normally located in advance of the cross road left-turn bay.
d. If intersection is signalized, greater dimension suggested- refer to Figure 8.8.2
Figure 8.5.6: Simple Radius Intersection Arrangement with Two-Way Accesses
Along Auxiliary Lane of a Divided Arterial
26 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
R=1.5 R=1.5
1
R
~ I
\;>- ~
Notes: 1. One-way angled driveways
along undivided roads used
to discourage right turns only
but subject to wrong-way
movements I
2. Greater C distance may be required
II I Ct'.
for transit stop
II I
~
3. Y varies with length of left storage , 1
min. Y = 30 m. R=1.5
suggested
Sidewalk omitted for clarity. I I I.,c
I
ll 1 ...:::{ m1mmum
P/L _ _ _ _ _ _ -=.!__,
n.-,------
I Ct'.
.!!!
I I I~·;;: I
location
I
:J
I
I I"' Ct'. I
I
I
I I I .6.
I'> ...:::{ desired location
typical dimensions
criteria dimension ref. commercial industrial
width w 4.5 to 7.5m 5.0 to 9.0 m
right-turn radius Ra 4.5 to 12.0 m 6.0 to 15.0 m
minimum spacing
-from property line Pb -'!R -'!R
-from street corner
•far side c 5.0 m 5.0m
• cross street approach Ac.ct 5.0 m 5.0m
, cross street departure Oct 5.0 m 5.0m
-between driveways E 25.0m 25.0m
minimum angle 11· 60° to 70° 45° to 60°
Notes: a. Values at or near the high end of the range to be used for major generator driveways and where trucks turn.
b. Also established in consideration of the distance to the first driveway on the adjacent property.
c. If the cross road is divided , the driveway is normally located in advance of the cross road left-turn bay.
d. If intersection is signalized, greater dimension suggested- refer to Figure 8.8.2
e. Minimum angle of 70° desirable where pedestrians routinely cross.
Figure 8.5.7: Simple Radius Intersection Arrangement with One-Way Angled Accesses
Along Auxiliary Lane of a Divided Arterial
June 2017 27
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.6 TWO-WAY LEFT-TURN LANES
8.6.1 GENERAL
Where left turns into commercial developments occur along a two-way arterial road, the separation of
the left-turning traffic from the through traffic is highly desirable. Three alternative methods are
generally used:
• raised median with separate left-turn bays
• painted median areas with exclusive left-turn bays
• continuous two-way left-turn lanes.
The use of a continuous two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) as a centre lane of an undivided arterial road is
an effective means of accommodating the left turns under certain conditions. The most common
applications of a TWLTL are along an arterial road where the access requirements on both sides are
frequent and cannot be significantly reducedi where a raised centre median cannot be feasibly
incorporated due to the negative impact on adjacent land uses and high implementation costsi or where
a raised median does not offer significant collision reductions. The implementation of a TWLTL in a
commercial area is usually a retrofit situation, where access has not been adequately controlled. In
industrial areas, a TWLTL may be appropriate for the design of a new road, in consideration of the
inherent low volumes and speeds as well as the maneuvering requirements of large trucks.
Two-way left-turn lanes are normally only used with 3- and 5-lane cross sections. Current Canadian
practice in major cities suggests that 7-lane cross sections with a centre two-way left turn lane are also
feasible. However, due to the potential conflicts associated with multiple lanes, it is important to ensure
that the geometric conditions which influence safety are highly favourable for this application.
Five-lane undivided cross sections are the most common for the implementation of the TWLTL. Four-
lane undivided arterials are often candidates for retrofitting to provide the fifth lane. Three-lane and
seven-lane cross sections are also used but are not as common as the five lane arrangement. Figure
8.6.1 illustrates a typical layout of a TWLTL within a five-lane undivided cross section.
In the case of an undivided arterial roadway, where left turns occur directly from the through lanes,
widening the roadway cross section to add a TWLTL provides an immediate significant gain in
operational efficiency, capacity and safety. In certain cases, it may be possible to eliminate a parking
lane to provide the additional cross section width to implement a TWLTL. In another example, a six lane
undivided arterial roadway could be converted into a five-lane cross section with wider curb lanes for
cyclists and a centre TWLTL. The conversion may be appropriate where the centre lanes are frequently
blocked by left-turning vehicles.
Arterial roadways with reasonably straight and flat alignments, along with offset intersections and I or
commercial strip or industrial development on both sides are typical situations where a TWLTL can be
effectively applied. With these types of developments, the individual driveway volumes are low to
moderate. Roadways with pronounced crest vertical curves or high volume driveways are not well
suited to the TWLTL technique. A combination of exclusive left-turn lanes and a TWLTL may be feasible,
if the high volume accesses are well spaced in relation to the other accesses.
The efficient operation of the TWLTL is partly dependent on appropriate lane markings and effective
10
signing to clearly identify the intended operation . Overhead signing is particularly beneficial for cross
sections with five or more lanes where:
28 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
• Frequent obliteration of pavement markings can be expected, such as in areas with significant
snow accumulation.
• Intense roadside development reduces the effectiveness of side mounted signs.
• Misuse of the two-way left-turn lane is prevalent and uncontrollable by the pavement markings
and normal signage.
• The two-way left-turn lane is on a multi-lane arterial roadway with frequent signalized
intersections.
Overhead signs are typically placed at one - quarter or one-half points between major cross roads. They
are positioned a minimum of 50 m away from the intersections to assist in adequate visibility.
Two-way left-turn lanes are generally not extended through a major intersection. They are terminated
prior to the intersection and replaced with a single exclusive left-turn lane. Appropriate pavement
markings or divisional islands should be used to terminate the two-way left-turn lane in advance of the
exclusive left-turn lane at the major intersection.
8.6.2 WIDTH
Widths for TWLTLs are generally the same as the adjacent through lane, but not less than 3.5 m for
design speeds equal to or less than 60 km/h. A width of 4.0 m is desirable for design speeds greater than
60 km/h. The additional width over the adjacent lane recognizes that vehicles are making turning
maneuvers from both directions simultaneously, and adds a measure of safety. Widths greater than 5.0
mare generally avoided due to operational problems.
one-way driveways
used to encourage
right turns only,
adjacent to
cross road
_)
minor
- major
cross cross .....- ~
road road
2WLTL functional for multiple driveways # dedicated left-turn
low turning volumes serving retail area area provided for
at minor cross road or strip development major cross road
Figure 8.6.1: Typical Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (TWLTL)
June 2017 29
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.6.3 APPLICATION
Since opportunities for a left-turning vehicle to decelerate within the limits of a TWLTL may be restricted
by access spacing and the potential for conflicting vehicle movements, a TWLTL is best suited for urban
roads with operating speeds of 50 to 60 km/h . Operating speeds up to 70 km/h may be tolerated where
most other conditions are favourable.
Two-way left-turn lanes operate successfully over a wide range of arterial road volumes. The successful
operation is the result of a number of interrelated factors including:
• Horizontal and vertical alignments
• Sight distance
• Cross section dimensions
• Through traffic volumes
• Left-turning traffic volumes
• Frequency of traffic signals
• Frequency of cross roads
• Frequency of accesses
• Driver familiarity.
Due to the complexity and number of design factors to be considered at any specific site, it is difficult to
stipulate a set of limiting conditions for the effective operation of TWLTLs. The physical conditions at
each potential site are normally examined by experienced geometric design and traffic operations
personnel, and engineering judgement is used to determine the potential for and improvements
required to successfully implement a TWLTL.
Two-way left-turn lanes may be prone to improper use, particularly in jurisdictions where few TWLTLs
exist and driver unfamiliarity is a problem. Some of the potential operational problems are as follows:
• Vehicles may make angle turns across the TWLTL, leaving the rear of the turn ing vehicle
encroaching into the adjacent through lane while waiting for a gap to merge with or cross the
through traffic stream.
• Left-turning vehicles may enter the TWLTL too far in advance of the access where the left turn is
to be made, and thereby impede or risk collision with opposing left-turning traffic in the TWLTL.
• Through vehicles may use the TWLTL as a passing lane to overtake slower moving traffic in the
through lanes.
• Left-turning vehicles may not use the TWLTL to decelerate from the operating speed of the
arterial, but decelerate substantially in the through lane before entering the TWLTL.
• Cyclists may perceive the TWLTL as a relatively protected area, and ride along it for long
distances.
• Crossing pedestrians are at a greater risk, due to their unexpected presence in the lane, its wide
cross section, the lack of a physical refuge area and the distance from streetlights, making them
more difficult to detect at night.
• Potential conflicts between drivers using the TWLTL to make a left turn before an intersection
and those using it to make a left turn at the intersection . The TWLTL should be brought to a clear
end prior to the intersection either through paint markings at minor road intersections or a
raised median at major intersections.
Proper education and enforcement programs can be effective to achieve a significant reduction in
improper use. The general advantages and disadvantages ofTWLTLs are summarized in Table 8.6.1.
30 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Table 8.6.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes
Advantages Disadvantages
• well suited to strip development • generally not suited for operating
with frequent low to medium speeds >70 km/h
volume driveways
• remove turning traffic from the
• not suitable to high volume
through lanes, significantly
driveways, exclusive turn lanes
improving traffic safety and
preferred
capacity
• not as restrictive to access as a • left-turn paths not clearly defined
raised median and turning conflicts can occur
• implementation costs and right-of-
• limited to tangent alignments with
way requirements are less than
good sight distance
that of a raised median
• traffic level of service lower as
compared to divided roadway
• opposing traffic flow not physically
separated as with a raised median
• pedestrians required to cross wide
roadway without a physical central
refuge area
• operation may not be clearly
understood by the unfamiliar driver
8.6.3.1 Explicit Evaluation Of Safety
Two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTLs) diminish conflicts with vehicles turning left from the main roadway
and provide a refuge for vehicles turning left onto the main road. Approximately half of the collisions
involving vehicles entering or exiting driveways are associated with left- turn maneuvers. Almost all
research articles relating to the safety effect ofTWLTLs are for multi-lane roadways in urban and
suburban settings. The relationship between the reduction in number of collisions versus the density of
access points is given by the following equation:
2
CMF = 1 - 0.35 (0.0047X + 0.0039x )
2
(0.745 + 0.0047X + 0.00039X )
Where CMF =the Collision Modification Factor
X = the number of access points
per kilometre (total of both
directions)
The collision modification factor for TWLTLs is depicted graphically in Figure 8.6.2 . For example, if there
are 24 driveways on a 1.5 km section of undivided roadway, the number of driveways per kilometre is
24/1.5 or 16 access points per kilometre. By using the equation outlined above or as shown in Figure
8.6.2, the collision modification factor is determined to be 0.79. The percentage reduction in coll isions
which could be anticipated if a TWLTL was installed would be (1-0.79) x 100 = 21%. The cost of installing
June 2017 31
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
a TWLTL can be compared to the benefit of the reduction in collision costs to determine the advisability
of the installation.
1.00
--r---..
0.95
' I\ \
I\
I\
0.90
\
0 \
ti
~
c
\
0
:g I\
u
""
'O
0.85
''
0
E I\
c
I\
""" ,
0
~
0
u 0.80
...
['-..
~
r---..
r--...
0.75 ~r--...
........
r--..
0.70
0 5 10 15 20 25
access points per km
Figure 8.6.2: Collision Modification Factor vs. Access Points per km for TWLTls
8.7 SERVICE (FRONTAGE) ROADS
8.7.1 GENERAL
Service (frontage) roads are public roads which are adjacent to and generally parallel to major roads
such as freeways, expressways and major arterials and may be used in a rural or an urban environment.
They provide for a number of functions, depending on the nature of the major road and the needs of the
adjacent land uses. The primary function of a service road is to serve the circulation and access needs of
the adjacent lands, while controlling access to the parallel major road. Service roads also segregate the
low-speed local traffic from the high-speed through traffic on the major road. Cross connections
between the service roads and the major roads are provided at cross roads, typically spaced at intervals
of 400 to 1600 m or more, particularly in rural areas.
The use of service roads is appropriate along any major road where it is desirable to prohibit direct
access, and is particularly effective where the design speed of the major road is in excess of 70 km/h.
32 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Service roads provide a physical separation of through and local traffic. Service roads normally operate
as local roads, but occasionally as collectors, with operating speeds between intersections in the order
of SO to 60 km/h. The alignments of the typical bulbed service road connections to the cross road are
designed to suit vehicle approach speeds to the stop condition at the cross road and are generally SO
km/h or less.
Where the service road provides a local road function, accesses are usually frequent. Both residential
and industrial land uses can be effectively served by service roads. Through residential areas, the buffer
between the major road and the dwellings can be strengthened by the use of effective landscaping or
streetscaping elements within the outer separation. For commercial land uses that depend largely on
drive-by visibility, the inherent indirectness of access between the major road and the commercial
properties, particularly those near mid-block, makes service roads unattractive for many commercial
land owners.
Service roads can be used effectively for the provision of on-street parking, where off-street parking is
insufficient. In these cases, it is preferable to limit the parking to the side opposite the adjacent
development. With this arrangement, the sight lines for the traffic movements in and out of the
driveways remain unobstructed, enhancing collision free operation for both vehicular traffic and
pedestrians crossing the driveways. However, a disadvantage is that persons disembarking from a
parked vehicle are required to cross the service road to reach the adjacent development.
The most important element of service road design and the single cause of most operational difficulties
is the treatment of the service road intersection with the cross road. The resulting proximity of the two
intersections along the cross road (the service road I cross road intersection and the cross road I major
road intersection), present multiple conflicts for pedestrians as illustrated in Figure 8.7.2, and often
cause a variety of vehicular traffic operational problems if sufficient separation is not provided. The
minimum spacing between the two cross road intersections, created by widening the outer separation
(bulbing), is determined in consideration of the :
• Turning movements and vehicle types to be accommodated
• Provision of adequate storage for queued vehicles on the cross road, particularly when the
major roadway I cross road intersection is signalized
• Ability to effectively place traffic control devices (signals, signs and pavement markings) which
clearly define and control the operation of the two adjacent intersections.
From a traffic operations perspective, the greater the separation between the two intersections on the
cross road, the better. However, right-of-way requirements increase substantially as the outer
separation width increases, and the effective guidance of unfamiliar drivers to properties along the
service road becomes more difficult. Large separations also increase the pedestrian walking distances
significantly, or encourage potentially unsafe shortcutting movements by pedestrians across the service
road and cross road. The primary advantages and disadvantages of service roads as an access control
measure are provided on Table 8.7.1.
June 2017 33
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Table 8.7.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Service Roads Adjacent to
and Paralleling a Major Urban Road
Advantages Party Affected
• Access to the major road is restricted to selected widely-spaced cross Road authority I user
roads, thereby enhancing the ability of the major road to carry traffic
• Service roads are public roads controlled and regulated by the road Road authority
authority rather the adjacent land owners
• A physical buffer is provided between the major road and the Road authority I land
adjacent land use owner
• Are particularly effective for providing access to fronting land uses Road authority I user
when the major road design speed is greater than 70 km/h
• Parking can be accommodated along with the service road if there is Road authority I developer
a special need I user
• Can be used effectively as part of a planned bike route system Road authority I user
Disadvantages Party Affected
• Safety and capacity problems often result if the bulbing setbacks at Road authority I user
the cross road are insufficient
• Requires substantial right of way Land owner I developer I
road authority
• Effective traffic control for the service road I cross roadway Road authority I user
intersection difficult to achieve due to the close proximity of the
cross road I major road intersection
• Access considered as being too indirect/ particularly by mid-block Road authority/ developer
retail type establishments I user
• Walking distances and number of road crossings are increased Road authority I user
• A safety problem can be created due to sight line restrictions Road authority/ user
occurring at driveway intersections with the service road when
parking is permitted on the development side of the service road
• High capital and maintenance costs in the overall road network, the Road authority/ developer
costs may be justified to provide traffic capacity and safety
8.7.2 ONE-WAY SERVICE (FRONTAGE) ROADS
In an urban environment one-way service roads may be preferred over two-way service roads from a
traffic operation and safety standpoint due to the simplified operation of the cross connections to the
major road and the cross roads, and the reduction in the number of crossing conflicts. Indeed, in most
cases, connections to the cross road can be eliminated altogether, by providing appropriately designed
slip-off and slip-on connections to the major road. This is often feasible with one-way service roads
along divided arterial roads. The most appropriate connections are generally determined on the basis of
traffic operational, origin-destination and capacity considerations. One-way service roads also require
less pavement and right-of-way widths than two-way service roads.
The one-way operation of the service road does, however, inconvenience local traffic. This can be a
significant disadvantage to commercial landowners and in guiding an unfamiliar driver to a particular
property. Circulation of traffic on the adjoining road network is often necessary due to the one-way
operation, which may create other significant traffic operation or land use concerns. It is generally
34 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
desirable to conduct a detailed traffic impact study prior to implementing one-way service roads.
Figure 8.7.1 illustrates typical terminal treatments for one-way service roads paralleling a divided
arterial road . The one-way service road is introduced immediately beyond the cross road intersection,
and, in the opposing direction, is terminated prior to the beginning of the full width left-turn auxiliary
lane on the cross road intersection approach. This arrangement allows drivers, wishing to make a left
turn or U-turn (where permitted) maneuver at the cross road, sufficient opportunity to weave across the
through traffic lanes and reach the left-turn storage area.
Figure 8.7.1 also depicts an intermediate (midblock) right-in I right-out T-intersection between the
divided arterial and the one-way service road. The intermediate connection to the arterial reduces the
spacing between connections, and thereby improves the accessibil ity to the adjacent land uses and may
alleviate capacity problems at the cross road intersections. The intermediate connection normally has
four important characteristics :
• No median break provided on the divided arterial
• A minimum offset of 100 m downstream from a cross road intersection in urban and suburban
areas and 200m in rural areas
• A bulbed configuration, which increases the width of the outer separation to provide for
improved sight lines for entering and exiting vehicles and storage space for right-turning vehicles
entering the arterial
• No access is permitted in the vicinity of the T-intersection.
The cross section on Figure 8.7.1 provides some typical dimensions, associated with one-way service
roads, as follows (further information on cross section considerations is given in Chapter 4) :
• A minimum outer separation width of 3.0 m
• A minimum one-way, single travel lane service road widths as follows :
o No parking provision, w ith allowance to pass a stopped vehicle
4.8 m, industrial I commercial land uses
4.6 m, residential land use
o Provision for parallel parking on one side
6.3 m, industrial I commercial land uses
6.1 m, residential land use
o Provision for parallel parking on both sides
9.1 m, industrial I commercial land uses
8.9 m, high density residential land use.
Long uninterrupted lengths of one-way service roads, particularly those without parking, may encourage
high operating speeds and should generally be avoided . In determining the overall right-of-way width
requirements, possible future widening of the major roadway is taken into consideration when selecting
the widths of the outer separation and median areas.
June 2017 35
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
service road access not
recommended in vicinity
of T-intersection 100.0 minimum offset
to nearest right in/right out T-intersection
median
a desirable offset
4-lane divided arterial
divided arterial
sidewalk service outer 2 median outer 2 service sidewalk
road separation separation road
typical section a - a
Notes: 1. Service road widths (single travel lane) vary
with parking requirements and land use: - 4.6 - 4.8 min. , no parking
- 6.1 - 6.3 min. , parking one side
- 8.9 - 9.1 min. , parking both sides.
2. Fencing may be desirable in the outer separation to reduce headlight glare and to control
pedestrian crossing , minimum width to be based on lateral clearance requirements.
3. Greater width may be warranted when street lights located within the outer separation,
or by allowance for future widening of major road.
Figure 8.7.1: One-Way Service Road I Cross Roadway Intersection Treatment
8.7.3 TWO-WAY SERVICE (FRONTAGE) ROADS
Two-way service roads can be used effectively to provide access to lands adjacent to a major road
facility where direct access is prohibited. The service roads are most often connected to cross roads
which in turn interconnect with the major road. Connections onto the major road, exclusive of a cross
road, may also be feasible, provided that the alignment design accommodates the turning paths of the
design vehicles for the permitted turns. The ability of the two-way service road to function safely and
provide a reasonable level of service to the adjacent land uses is primarily dependent on the design of
36 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
the service road I cross road terminal, in consideration of the predicted traffic volumes and vehicle
types.
11
Figure 8.7.2 illustrates the number of crossing conflicts created at a major road I cross road
intersection with paralleling two-way service roads on both sides, continuing through the cross road. In
total, 64 crossing conflicts are created within the zone. If traffic volumes along the service roads and
cross roads are high, and the service road I cross road intersections are not sufficiently setback from the
major road I cross road intersection, severe operational problems often occur. These include congestion
and a high collision potential as a result of the inadequate capacity, overlapping maneuver areas, the
number of conflicts in close proximity, and the need for the driver to make numerous complex decisions
within a large paved area over a short distance with poorly defined vehicle paths.
It is therefore desirable, from an operational perspective, to provide as much separation as is practical
between the service road I cross road intersection and the cross road I major road intersection. In
retrofit situations, the desirable separations may not be feasible.
Figure 8.7.3 illustrates a suggested minimum separation, between the two cross road intersections,
where the cross road design volumes are low (2000 veh/d) and the cross road I major road intersection
is unsignalized. The values and relationship between the minimum separation and the cross roadway
volumes may be a matter of local policy. The 24.0 m separation between the edges of pavement of the
major roadway and the service road allow the U-turn maneuver to be made by a single unit truck. If
larger vehicles are required to make this maneuver, a greater separation is needed. The alignment
changes along the service road to widen the outer separation and achieve the increased separation of
cross road intersections is commonly referred to as bulbing. The geometry of the bulbed alignment is
designed in consideration of the vehicular approach speeds to the stop condition at the cross road, and
the right-of-way availability.
Normally, sidewalks are provided on the land use side of the service road. With this arrangement, the
pedestrian walking distances are increased significantly as the separation between the two cross road
intersections increases. Figure 8.7.3 illustrates the disadvantage to the pedestrian created by the bulbed
alignment. The figure also portrays an optional pedestrian route whereby a crossing of the service road
is incorporated near the start of the bulbed alignment to minimize the walking distance.
Figure 8.7.3 also illustrates suggested minimum two-way service road widths as follows:
• no parking provision
o 7.0 m for commercial I industrial land uses
o 6.6 m for residential land use
• provision for parallel parking on one side
o 9.8 m for commercial I industrial land uses
o 9.4 m for residential land use
• provision for parallel parking on both sides
o 12.6 m for commercial I industrial land uses
o 12.2 m for residential land use.
These minimum widths generally apply to the tangent sections of the service road only.
June 2017 37
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
--
-~~~~~~~~ ....
===+-....,..,...,....---t-==--~~~~~~~~
two - way service road
- ,;.._~~~~~~~~E"'"9--+'~--+::::,~~~~~~~~~
major road
-
- -
-
-
~~~~~~~~~-E::::~~r;fll-----t~~~~~~~~~~
two - way service road --
Figure 8.7.2: Crossing Conflicts at Intersections with
Parallel Two-Way Service (Frontage) Roads
38 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
unsignalized
intersection
cross road
--
Notes: a. W - see Table 8.9.1
b. If the arterial/cross road intersection becomes
signalized , a median is often desirable on the
cross road, as illustrated on Figure 8.7.4
c. Service road widths vary with parking requirements
24.0 and land use - 6.6 - 7.0 min., no parking
min. - 9.4 - 9.8 min., parking one side
c
-12.2-12.6 min., parking both sides.
d. Fencing may be desirable in the outer separation
to reduce headlight glare and to control pedestrian
crossing, minimum width to be based on lateral
clearance requirements. Location dependant on
a snow storage requirement.
e. Greater width may be warranted when illumination
located within the outer separation, or by allowance
for future widening of major road.
f. Optional sidewalk alignment to shorten pedestrian route.
~
gutter
I 1/2 of divided arterial
. 1· 3_0'. I
6.6 - 12.6b
min.
·1 ror
offset
median outer d sidewalk
separation
typical section a-a
Figure 8.7.3: Two-Way Service Road I Cross Road Intersection Treatment, Cross Road
Volumes~ 2000 veh/d, Unsignalized Intersection
June 2017 39
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
Greater widths are often warranted along the bulbed alignment to facilitate the tracking characteristics
of turning vehicles. Further information on cross section considerations is provided in Chapter 4.
Figure 8.7.4 illustrates a similar bulbing treatment to that of Figure 8.7.3. The minimum separation
provided between the major road and the service road remains at 24 m. However, in this layout a raised
median is implemented on the cross road to limit turns to right-in and right-out only. With this
arrangement, the cross road can normally operate safely and efficiently with cross road volumes greater
than 2000 veh/d and with the cross road I major road intersection being signalized.
An optional triangular island is shown at the throat of the service road as it connects with the cross road.
The island is beneficial in preventing wrong-way left turns from the service road onto the cross road.
However, the presence of an island can be a detriment to efficient operation where turning trucks are
significant. In these cases, omitting the island is generally preferred to provide greater maneuvering
area for the turning trucks.
Figure 8.7.5 depicts a minimum separation of 45 m between the inner edges of pavement of a two-way
service road and the adjacent major road at the intersection. A separation of at least 45 m is desirable
where the cross roadway design traffic volumes are greater than about 5000 veh/d, and where the cross
road/ major road intersection is signalized. It is preferable to base the setback or bulbed distance on the
predicted left-turn storage requirements on the cross road. The storage length needed for the left-turn
movement from the cross road onto the major road is usually the governing length. For collision free
and efficient operation, the storage length needed for the predicted peak period traffic volumes is
provided between the two intersections on the cross road. With this criterion, the intersection of the
cross road and the service road is only infrequently blocked by vehicles stacked at the cross road I major
road intersection. As the separation between the two intersections is increased, the traffic operation
and safety also improves due to the elimination of overlapping conflict areas. However, the increased
separation creates less direct and obvious routing to the service road. This is generally a disadvantage to
the driver who is unfamiliar with the area.
There may be conditions whereby it is warranted to signalize cross road intersections with both the
arterial and with the service road. If signals are installed at both intersections, it is important to co-
ordinate the signal timing to maximize capacity and reduce driver frustration.
40 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
signalized
cross road
intersection
island optional for divided
cross road (not recommended
where number of turning trucks is significant).
Notes: a. W - see Table 8.9.1
b. Right turn bay to be utilized when arterial
design speed> 60 km/h or when warranted by
right-turn traffic volumes - bulbing setback to be
increased by right-turn bay width (3.5 - 3.7 m typical).
c. Service road widths vary with parking requirements
and land use - 6.6 - 7.0 min. , no parking
ro 24.0
- 9.4 - 9.8 min. , parking one side
-~ min
t:'.
C1l
tit ro~ ~It ro - 12.2 - 12.6 min. , parking both sides.
d. Fencing may be desirable in the outer separation
3: to reduce headlight glare and to control pedestrian
Q) Q)
(/) "O crossing , minimum width to be based on lateral
Q; <ii clearance requirements. Location dependant on
a :::J
a snow storage requirement.
0
e. Greater width may be warranted when illumination
located within the outer separation , or by allowance
for future widening of major road.
f. Optional sidewalk alignment to shorten pedestrian route.
~
gutter
I 1/2 of divided arterial 6.6 - 12.6b
min.
·1 ror
offset
median outer d sidewalk
separation
typical section a-a
Figure 8.7.4: Two-Way Service Road I Cross Road Intersection Treatment,
Cross Road Volumes > 2000 veh/d, Signalized Intersection
June 2017 41
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
signalized unsignalizedd
intersection intersection lt--=-+----
b ~
Notes: a. W - see Table 8.9.1
b. Check to ensure sufficient left turn
storage distance provided on cross
road, between intersections.
c. Right turn bay to be utilized when
arterial speed > 60km/h or when
warranted by right-turn volumes.
min
d. Signalization of service road I cross
road intersection may be warranted,
if so, to be coordinated with arterial I
cross road signals.
Cii e. Optional sidewalk alignment to
I shorten pedestrian route.
r
22.0 - 22.8 min
7.0 - 7.4 3.0
min 'I 'min'I
3.0
20 ' min
7.0-7.4
:I ~~tter
offset
1 · 1 ·
median
typical section A - A
22.0 - 22.8 min
g"tt~~
offsetl
I: 7.0 - 7.4
..
,
3.0
min , . 5.0
min
· 1·
7.0 - 7.4
median
typical section B - B
typical cross road sections
Figure 8.7.5: Two-Way Service Road/ Cross Road Intersection Treatment,
Cross Road Volumes> 5000 veh/d, Signalized Intersection
42 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.8 CORNER CLEARANCES AT MAJOR INTERSECTIONS
8.8.1 GENERAL
Corner clearances upstream and downstream of an intersection should be governed by the functional
area of an intersection. AASHTO specifically states that: "Driveways should not be located within the
12
functional of an intersection, or in the influence area of an adjacent driveway." This boundary would
include the longitudinal limits of auxiliary lanes. While AASHTO does not present guidelines as to the size
of this functional area, logic indicates that it must be much larger than the physical area (see Figure
8.8.1). It extends both upstream and downstream of the intersection and increases as the percentage of
trucks increases.
defined by ph ysical area
i
defined by functional area
Figure 8.8.1: Intersection Boundaries
Corner clearance is the distance from an intersection to the nearest access upstream or downstream of
it. Corner clearance is measured from the near curb of the cross roadway to the near edge of the access
throat, as illustrated by Figure 8.8.2. It consists of three components: the curb return radius at the
intersection, a length of tangent, and the curb return radius or flare dimension at the driveway or public
lane.
June 2017 43
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
driveway or
public lane
(typical)
A
_Jl sianal•.1 a5 item
min. clearance, m
arterial collector b local b
arterial, collector
e A 70 c 55 15
or local road B # a 25 15
r---
19 re signal 1 c 70 55 15
70c
--------=--D- , I D 55 15
driveway or
public lane
(typical)
Notes: a. Distance (#) positions driveway or public lane in advance of the left turn storage
length (min.) plus bay taper (des.).
b. Lesser values reflect lower volumes and reduces level of service on collectors and locals.
c. Reduced distances feasible if auxiliary lane implemented, see Section 8.5
d. Values based on operating speed of 50km/h , higher values desirable
for higher speeds or may be warranted by traffic conditions.
signals at the cross road
driveway or
_J
public~ane
(typical)
arterial , collector
a5
e
bl___ item
F
min. clearance, m
arterial collectorb local b
35 20 15
or local road G # a 25 15
19 ~J:-
H 25 25 15
J 35 20 15
1· ~8bL lane
(typical)
Notes: a. Distance (#) positions driveway or public lane in advance of the left turn storage
length (min.) plus bay taper (des.).
b. Lesser values reflect lower volumes and reduces level of service on collectors and locals.
stop control at the cross road
Figure 8.8.2: Suggested Minimum Corner Clearances to Accesses or
Public Lanes at Major Intersections
Inadequate corner clearance between accesses and signalized intersections along a major road, such as
a major arterial, can create serious operational problems including:
44 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
• Access I egress movements are blocked by vehicles queued at a red light.
• Vehicles wanting to turn left from an undivided roadway into an access on the far side of the
intersection may also be blocked; the resulting traffic back up behind the vehicle waiting to turn
may extend into the intersection area.
• To reach their destination, drivers are challenged to make difficult left and right turning
movements between vehicles stacked at or approaching the traffic signal.
• Right turn ingress and egress movements at an access on the near side of an intersection may
interfere with right turning traffic at the signalized intersection.
• Slow moving or stopped vehicles are encountered on the roadway immediately beyond the
major intersection; this is a particular problem for vehicles that have made a left or right turn at
the intersection, are still focused on that maneuver and are ill-prepared to perceive and react to
an unexpected vehicle.
The first difficulty may be a concern to the business operator or resident only. However, the other four
are of serious concern to both the road authority and the user.
8.8.2 SUGGESTED MINIMUM CORNER CLEARANCE DIMENSIONS
Figure 8.8.2 provides suggested corner clearance dimensions for various classifications of roads at an
operating speed of SO km/h. For higher speed roadways, clearances of up to two times the values
stated may be desirable. Greater corner clearances may also be warranted by the estimated queuing at
the intersection, based on the proposed traffic control, number of lanes and anticipated traffic volumes.
The upper half of Figure 8.8.2 illustrates the suggested minimum corner clearances for accesses
upstream or downstream of a signalized cross road intersection. Dimensions A and Care applicable to
an undivided roadway, Band D to a divided roadway. Dimensions A, C and D, for an arterial roadway,
are based on the provision of a clearance equal to the stopping sight distance at SO km/h on the
departure leg, between the signalized intersection and the first potential access conflict. A reduced
distance is feasible for dimension A of an arterial if an auxiliary lane, as described in Section 8.5, is
provided to separate turning vehicles from the through traffic stream. Suitable dimensions can be
determined from Figures 8.5.1, 8.5.5, 8.5.6, 8.5.7 and 8.6.1. Dimension B varies with the length of left-
turn storage on the divided roadway. As a minimum, Bis equal to or greater than the storage length, but
desirably Bis equal to or greater than the storage length plus the bay taper.
The lower half of Figure 8.8.2 presents suggested minimum corner clearance dimensions adjacent to an
intersection with stop control, rather than signals, at the cross road. Dimensions F and Hare applicable
to an undivided roadway, G and J to a divided road. Dimensions F and J are based on right-turning
vehicles at the intersection being able to perceive and react to a conflict at the first access. Dimension H
is based on providing space for three passenger vehicles to be queued at the stop control without
blocking the driveway. Dimension G is based on the same philosophy as dimension Bin the upper half of
the figure.
The lesser values shown on Figure 8.8.2 for collector and local roads reflect the reduced needs
associated with lower traffic volumes and a decreased expectation in level of service.
Due to small corner parcel sizes and the legal requirements for access provision, it may not be feasible
to provide the suggested minimum corner clearances. Engineering judgement and a good understanding
of traffic operations are needed to determine the most suitable access layout and related roadway
provisions for the prevailing conditions.
June 2017 45
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.9 DRIVEWAYS
8.9.1 GENERAL
Driveways are important elements in the effective operation of the road system and the provision of
collision free and orderly access to development. They warrant design considerations similar to those for
the intersection of public roads. In many cases, the turning volumes at a driveway to a high activity land
use, such as a major shopping centre, are higher than at the intersection of two local roads.
Driveway location and design are influenced by both road classification (including design hour volumes,
design speed and auxiliary lane warrants) and land use which may dictate the need for an auxiliary lane.
Driveways permitted along roads in the upper end of the road classification system, such as arterials, are
widely spaced and designed so as to minimize interference with the mobility of the through traffic.
Along local roads, driveways are the key elements needed to achieve the primary function of providing
access to the adjacent development. Driveways along local roads are closely spaced and designed in
consideration of functionality as to vehicle type, available space and the presence of pedestrians.
Driveway designs are influenced by the land use they serve. The three land use categories of residential,
commercial and industrial are commonly used to establish differing design criteria. The definition of the
three land use types are as follows:
• Residential: development consisting of single family residences or residential complexes
containing up to four dwelling units.
• Commercial : office, retail, institutional, or multiunit residential (5 or more dwelling units)
development primarily serving passenger vehicles but occasionally accommodating service
trucks.
• Industrial: development that primarily serves truck traffic, such as warehousing and truck
terminal facil ities.
Driveways have a number of interrelated design elements that warrant consideration as part of good
design practice. These include:
• Operational considerations - one or two-way operation, number of lanes, restricted turns
• Sight distance considerations
• Turning characteristics - curb return or drop curb I straight flared styles
• Width - min imum and maximum
• Angle of intersection, in consideration of one or two-way operation and the presence of
pedestrians
• Corner clearance from adjacent intersections
• Spacing between adjacent driveways on the same side of the road
• Throat length (set-back distance) required for a no conflict zone
• Spatial relationships to driveways on the opposite side of the road, particularly in the case of
undivided arterial roads
• Grades - minimum and maximum, and allowable maximum grade changes
• Pedestrian crossing considerations
• Volume of cyclists and type of cycling facility.
8.9.2 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Two-way driveways that intersect the road at or near right angles represent the most practical design
for most conditions, particularly for driveways along an undivided road. For minimum use driveways
(<25 veh/d), such as those serving single family residential land uses, the two-way movements may
46 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
consist of a single lane, drive-in and a back-out maneuver. For high volume two-way driveways, the
driveway essentially consists of two one-way driveways separated by a centreline or median. Driveways
with traffic volumes exceeding 100 peak hour trips or 750 veh/d and multiple lanes are considered high
volume driveways.
For moderate (<750 veh/d) and high volume driveways along an undivided roadway, or where a median
opening is provided at a high volume driveway on a divided roadway, more than one lane in each
direction is usually required for driveway capacity purposes. The most common method to increase
capacity of a two-way driveway is to provide three lanes, a two-lane exit in combination with a single-
lane entrance. Along a busy road if only one exit lane is provided, the left-turn exit movement can cause
appreciable delays for right-turn exiting vehicles. Additional entry or exit lanes may be required for
driveways at high traffic generators, as determined by traffic capacity and operational analyses. The
driveway I roadway intersection may also warrant traffic signals in certain cases.
Major driveways positioned to form the fourth leg of existing T-intersections are normally effective in
efficiently and safely accommodating the traffic generated by a large development. Frequently, these
types of intersections are also signalized.
One-way driveways are relatively common along divided and one-way roadways and are particularly
appropriate on the left side of the road in the direction of travel. Two-way driveways on the left side of
one-way roadways are very inefficient and are generally only suitable for low volume conditions. One-
way driveways are angled to operate in a "slip-ramp" fashion and to make a wrong-way maneuver
visibly awkward. For roadways with design speeds of 70 km/h or more, the slip-ramps are implemented
in combination with auxiliary lanes for deceleration and acceleration. Where pedestrians routinely cross
the one-way driveway, it is desirable to provide a driveway intersection angle of 70 with the sidewalk,
rather than something less, to encourage vehicular deceleration and to provide the driver with a better
opportunity to observe a possible pedestrian conflict. The high intersection angle also reduces the
distance across the driveway for the pedestrian.
One-way driveways are also effective in the vicinity of busy intersections, to limit the number of possible
conflicts in the zone of the intersection and to discourage potentially hazardous maneuvers to and from
the driveways. Further information on the use of one-way driveways, in this context, is provided in the
discussion on corner clearances at minor intersections, in Section 8.9.7.
Another method to reduce the number of conflicts created by a driveway along a two-way undivided
arterial or other major undivided roadway is to restrict the left turns. This restriction is normally most
effectively accomplished by introducing a short section of raised median on the major roadway or by
using a channelizing triangular island which clearly discourages left turns. The geometry for the island is
determined in consideration of the types of turning vehicles and their turning characteristics, and
2
whether or not the island will be used as a pedestrian refuge area. A minimum island size of 30 m is
desirable to clearly discourage left turns and to provide a large pedestrian refuge area. A typical design
for left-turn restrictions at a driveway along an undivided roadway is shown in Figure 8.9.1.
June 2017 47
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
--
-- -
Note: Also applicable to divided street to prevent wrong-way movements.
Figure 8.9.1: Left-Turn Restrictions, Undivided Road
Retrofitting of existing roadways provides an opportunity to improve the spacing and geometry of
existing driveways, where such modifications are desirable. By working with the affected property
owners, it is often possible to improve both traffic operations and pedestrian and cyclist safety by
implementing measures such as consolidating driveways, providing increased corner clearances, and
narrowing unnecessarily wide driveways.
A single lane design is appropriate for one-way operation . Use of a lane to reverse a tractor-trailer into
or out of the driveway, a maneuver that can take 30 seconds, is well beyond sight distances that are
typically available and is not recommended. This maneuver is especially a concern at night when
oncoming drivers may have difficulty seeing the retro-reflective markings on the trailer unless it is
perpendicular to the line of travel of the approaching traffic.
8.9.3 SIGHT DISTANCE
The provision of adequate sight distance for the exit maneuver from the driveway is one of the most
critical elements. The sight distance required is determined in consideration of the design speed of the
intersecting roadway and the sight triangle requirements described in Chapter 9.
Adequate sight distance is particularly important for commercial and industrial driveways. For minimum
use driveways along local roads, it is often difficult to provide the desired sight distance due to sight line
restrictions created by parked cars, fencing and vegetation. Reduced sight distances are generally
tolerable in these situations due to the low operating speeds and caution exercised by the drivers. The
placement of road hardware, such as utility cabinets and mail boxes, and landscaping within the right of
way, is normally controlled by the municipality or road authority to prevent obstructions to the required
sight lines. Some jurisdictions also obtain easements pa ralleling major road rights of way, and attach
bylaws controlling their use. In this manner, features that block sight lines and detract from the collision
free operation of driveways are controlled. It is not necessary to eliminate landscaping from the vicinity
of the driveway to provide the required sight distance. Ground cover planting and low shrubs, or trees
with high canopies, can be used effectively without affecting the sight lines of the driver. A typical range
for a driver's height of eye is 1.05 m, for passenger cars, to 2.5 m, for large trucks. Clear sight lines are
48 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
provided for the full range of eye height. The height of object is 1.3 m, based on the height of a
passenger car. Safety problems related to sight distance occur where driveways are located on the
inside of horizontal curves or on the far side of crest vertical curves. It is therefore desirable to avoid
positioning driveways in these locations.
8.9.4 TURNING CHARACTERISTICS
Two styles of driveway are commonly used to accommodate the vehicle turning paths. These are the:
1. Straight flared design
2. Curb return design.
In the straight flared design, a drop curb section is often provided across the driveway. The drop curb
section is wider than the width of the driveway throat. For two-way driveways, the extra width is
normally distributed equally on each side of the driveway. The widening to each side of the driveway is
referred to as the driveway flare.
The curb return style incorporates a curved area of paving, usually formed by a curb with a simple curve
radius, to facilitate the path of the vehicles turning into or out of the driveway.
For driveways with volumes less than 750 veh/d along low to moderate volume roadways, the straight
flared style is frequently used. Residential driveways are a common application of this straight flared
style where a semi-mountable (rolled) curb and gutter section is used for the entire length of the
roadway. The semi-mountable curb and gutter section eliminates the need for drop curbs and to
determine driveway locations prior to initial roadway construction, or the need to remove and replace
curb after construction to accommodate driveways.
The straight flared style driveway often does not require any special treatment to accommodate
pedestrian crossings, particularly when the sidewalk is separated from the curb line of the roadway by a
wide boulevard. For sidewalks adjacent to the curb, however, the flared driveway design results in a
significant increase in the cross-slope of the sidewalk if the back of sidewalk profile is maintained. It is
desirable to limit the sidewalk cross-slope to a maximum of 0.02 m/m. However, slopes up to 0.04 m/m
are allowed in many jurisdictions. Care must be taken to ensure that sidewalk cross-slopes abutting a
curb meet the required accessibility guidelines. For additional guidance, refer to Chapter 6.
The curb return style driveway provides a better approximation of the turning path of vehicles, which is
an important factor in accommodating trucks and other large vehicles. The curb radius also reduces the
paved area required for the driveway entrance, compared to the straight flared style. The curb return
style, if properly designed, guides drivers along an appropriate turning path without encroaching on
more than one travel lane of the roadway. This reduces the interference with the through traffic and the
potential for rear-end and sideswipe collisions. The curb return style is well suited for moderate to high
volume driveways along moderate to high volume roadways and in industrial areas where trucks and
other large vehicles are common.
The curb return style driveway incorporates curb-cuts and sidewalk ramps to accommodate the
pedestrian crossing so alerting both drivers and pedestrians of the potential conflict zone. The higher
vehicle speeds encouraged by the smooth turning radii defined by the curb return however, may be a
disadvantage to pedestrians wanting to cross the driveway. As an alternative method to using ramps,
the sidewalk can be made continuous without alteration across the driveway, and the driveway grade
designed to match the sidewalk grade. In effect, the height of curb around the return is tapered down
from full height at the roadway to zero at the sidewalk. The continuity of the sidewalk or the use of
June 2017 49
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
contrasting construction materials across the driveway assists in defining a pedestrian crossing zone to
the driver.
The radius of the curb return style or the flare required to accommodate an equivalent turning radius is
meaningful only when considered in combination with the width of the driveway throat.
8.9.5 WIDTH
The width of a two-way driveway is measured parallel to the road since turns are generally oriented at
right angles. The dimension is typically measured beyond any entrance flare. The width of one-way
driveways, which are normally skewed, is measured perpendicular to the driveway.
It is desirable to state suitable driveway widths as a design domain. Dimensions at the lower end of the
domain are intended to define the minimum spatial and operational requirements. The maximum
dimensions assist in preventing driveways from becoming unwieldy with large paved areas and poorly
defined travel paths. The most appropriate width of a driveway is determined in combination with the
radius of the curb return (or the design vehicle turning radius and flare dimensions, if a straight flared
design is adopted), the desired operating characteristics such as turning speed, and physical limitations
which may exist at the site.
Table 8.9.1 provides a typical design domain for driveway throat widths and radii for both two-way and
one-way operation. In locations where special vehicles such as long combination vehicles or similar
vehicles are present, wider driveway throat dimensions or larger radii may be required.
Table 8.9.1: Typical Drivewayc Dimensions
Dimension Land Use
(m)
Residential Commercial Industrial
Width (W)
- One way 3.0" - 4.3 4.5" - 7.5 5.0-9.0
-Two way 2.0" - 7.3 7.2" -12.0b 9.0" -15.0b
Right turn radius (R) 3.0-4.5 4.5-12.0 9.0-15.0
Notes: a. Minimum widths are normally used with radii at or near the upper end
of the specified range
b. Increased widths may be considered for capacity purposes; where up to
3 exit lanes and 2 entry lanes are employed, 17.0 mis the maximum
width exclusive of any median
c. Applicable to driveways only, not road intersections
8.9.6 ANGLE OF DRIVEWAY
Two-way driveways normally intersect the roadway curb at or near 90°. However, a minimum acute
angle of 70°, as measured from the roadway curb line, normally operates in an acceptable manner.
For one-way driveways, where a skewed intersection assists in efficient traffic operation, skews in the
range of 45° to 60° are appropriate in industrial areas where pedestrians are infrequent. For commercial
and res idential land uses, where pedestrian volumes are normally moderate to high, minimum skew
angles in the range of 60° to 70° are preferred to improve the driver's visibility of the pedestrian, and
vice versa, and to encourage lower turning speeds.
50 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.9.7 CORNER CLEARANCES AT MINOR INTERSECTIONS
Figure 8.9.2 illustrates the corner clearance components at minor intersections. A corner clearance is
the distance between the near curb of a roadway intersection and the near edge of a driveway throat.
The distance is made up of three components: the intersection corner curb radius, a tangent section (C)
and the radius or flare for the driveway. Section 8.8 provides details of the desired corner clearances for
major intersections. It is good design practice to provide a tangent separation (C), between the curb
return of the public roadway intersection and the first driveway. Even a short separation assists in
reducing the impact of overlapping conflict zones and in promoting collision free operation.
Short tangent separations (C) are acceptable for residential land uses where driveway and roadway
traffic volumes are normally low. A minimum distance (C) of 2.0 m is suggested for residential
driveways. The resulting minimum corner clearance is then about 11.0 m: 6.0 m for the minimum corner
curb radius, the 2.0 m distance (C), and a 3.0 m minimum driveway curb radius.
For commercial and industrial land uses, the increased driveway volumes and the larger turning path
requirements warrant a greater corner clearance. A minimum dimension (C) of 5.0 m is suggested to
separate the conflict zones and to provide for a greater maneuvering area for turning trucks. For an
industrial area, this then results in a minimum corner clearance of about 25.0 m (11.0 m for the
minimum corner curb radius, the 5.0 m dimension (C), and a 9.0 m minimum driveway curb radius).
A high volume driveway on the near side of an intersection may warrant a left-turn storage area on the
roadway to accommodate left turning traffic into the driveway. If this is the case, the driveway is located
in consideration of the total distance needed for the back-to-back left-turn bays created on the
roadway. The combined left-turn storage and taper requirements significantly increases the corner
clearance requirements.
8.9.8 SPACING OF ADJACENT DRIVEWAYS
In addition to the corner clearance considerations described in Section 8.9.7, driveways are normally
located in consideration of their physical relationships to existing or possible future driveways. The
following three criteria need to be considered:
• minimum spacing between driveways
• minimum offset to property line
• maximum number of driveways based on property frontage.
The application of these design criteria assists in meeting the following objectives:
• Clearly identify to the user which property each driveway serves.
• Ensure that sufficient space is available between driveways for the positioning of traffic signs,
lighting poles and other surface utility fixtures, and road hardware.
• Separate the conflict areas for each driveway.
• Provide appropriate space between driveways for on-street parallel parking, where permitted
and in consideration of sight line requirements.
• Increase the length of potentially collision free pedestrian areas by minimizing the number and
width of driveways.
Roadway retrofit projects often provide the opportunity to improve existing driveway spacing.
The minimum spacing between driveways is measured between the end and start of the curb returns on
the adjacent driveways, shown as dimension (E) on Figure 8.9.2. A 1.0 m minimum spacing is
recommended between adjacent low volume driveways for residential properties, along local and
June 2017 51
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
collector roadways, while a 3.0 m minimum is the suggested dimension for both commercial and
industrial land uses. If there is a need to provide parallel parking between driveways along the roadway,
a spacing of 6.0 to 7.5 mis suitable. If the spacing provided is in the range of 3.0 to 5.0 m, the space may
appear inviting to a driver wishing to park, but if used, severely hampers the operation of the driveways
by reducing sight lines and interfering with the turning paths of the vehicles.
suggested minimum spacing
land use
P/ L
a...
dimension figure ref. residential commercial industri al
p• b b
from P/L Oo rR 0 orR R
from
cc,d
street co rn er 2.0 5.0 5.0
between
E d,e
driveways 1.0 3.0 3.0
Notes:
a. Al so established in consideration of location of ..c
first driveway on adjacebt property. ::;
b. Dri veways straddling the property line and u w
common to both properti es.
c. Greater distances for driveways adjacent to
major intersections; refer to Section 8.8
d. Greater spacing required along arteri al - refer to
Section 8. 5: Continuous Right-turn Auxiliary Lanes
e. Greater spacing often results from maximum
number of driveways per property ; see Table 8.9.2
curb
JR
IL __ _
Q)
R (.) ,__ u
~
c
r---------
1
----------1
r.o.w. 1
C1J
cQ) ,__
,__ C1J
LO
,__ en
Q) ::::i s~
c ·- u
,__ "'O
0<.> ,__
C1J
curb
E c corner 5
radius
refer to Figure 8.9 .1 corner 1
for typical design to clearance
restrict left turns
Notes: 1. For suggested minimum corner clearance at major intersections, see Figure 8.8.2
2. Where turns are not permitted, R=1.5 m assists in discouraging wrong-way movements.
3. For typical R and W dimensions, refer to Table 8.9.1
4. Minimum angle of 70° desirable where pedestrians routinely cross driveway,
45° minimum otherwise.
Figure 8.9.2: Driveway Spacing Guidelines - Locals and Collectors
52 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
For moderate and high volume driveways or for driveways along auxiliary lanes on arterial roadways a
greater spacing is beneficial in helping to reduce vehicle conflicts. Guidelines for driveway spacing along
arterial auxiliary lanes are provided in Section 8.5.2.
It is desirable to locate a driveway so that the curb return radius for the driveway falls entirely within the
front of the property being served. This concept is illustrated in Figure 8.9.2. The offset (P) to the
property line is measured to the throat width of the driveway.
For residential and commercial land uses, a minimum offset of zero is depicted on Figure 8.9.2. This
indicates that it is possible to locate driveways that straddle the property line and are common to the
two individual properties. The resulting driveway width is not double that of a single driveway, but
rather is designed to suit the volume and types of traffic anticipated at the common driveway. For
residential and commercial land uses, pedestrians crossing the driveway have normal expectations, and
it is advantageous to the pedestrians to limit the driveway width to a practical minimum.
For industrial land uses, driveways straddling the property line and serving more than one property are
not commonly used. The driveway widths and large paved areas necessary to accommodate the turning
paths of all possible turns at a shared driveway generally are not the most effective means of providing
access. Therefore, a minimum offset to the property line equal to the driveway curb return radius is
desirable. Typical curb return radii for industrial land uses are provided in Table 8.9.1.
An effective means of ensuring reasonable spacing between adjacent driveways is to limit the number of
driveways permitted per individual property. A typical design guideline, based on the fronting width of
each property, is provided in Table 8.9.2.
13
Table 8.9.2: Maximum Number of Driveways Based on Property Frontage
Frontage (m) Minimum Number of Driveways a
15 lb
16-50 2
51-150 3c
> 150 4 or more c
Notes a. Subject to spacing guidelines presented in Subsection 8.5.2 and Figure 8.9.3
respectively
b. Single family residential properties normally restricted to one driveway, irrespective
of frontage
c. For large developments the location and design elements of driveways are normally
determined by a traffic impact study
When determining the optimum location and spacing of driveways, it is desirable to consider the traffic
characteristics of each driveway in relation to the expected traffic operations both upstream and
downstream. For industrial and commercial land uses, it is good practice to provide separate driveways
for the loading and parking areas.
8.9.9 SPACING CONSIDERATIONS FOR DRIVEWAYS ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE ROAD
For low volume roadways, such as locals and most collectors, the spatial relationship between driveways
on opposite sides of the road is not a necessary design consideration. Similarly, if one or both of the
driveways are low volume, this relationship does not impact traffic operations.
However, when the roadway has a moderate to high volume, and the driveway volumes are moderate
to high, such as an undivided arterial or a high volume collector serving a busy commercial land use, the
June 2017 53
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
examination of the relative location of opposite driveways constitutes good design practice. The key
traffic movements in the analysis are the accommodation of left turns into the opposite developments,
and the inter-development traffic flow.
The geometric requirements of the left-turn storage areas and tapers along the roadway often
determine the most suitable location of the driveways. Where a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) is used,
the potential for conflicting movements within the TWLTL can be reduced significantly by positioning the
driveways to avoid overlapping left turn zones. Aligning driveways directly opposite each other is
normally the most effective in promoting orderly use of the TWLTL. Figure 8.9.3 illustrates the
maneuvers associated with offset and directly opposing driveways.
Where inter-development traffic is expected to be significant, and signalization of the driveway
intersection is not desirable, the maneuver required to cross the entire width of a busy roadway in a
single continuous movement may be difficult. In this case, it is often advantageous to offset the
opposing driveways to eliminate the concentrated conflict zone. A minimum offset of 100 m between
driveway centrelines is desirable, as illustrated in Figure 8.9.3. This technique does, however, increase
the number of slow moving vehicles making ingress, egress and weaving maneuvers on the roadway,
which may present other operational concerns. The relative impact is assessed to determine the best
design decision.
Retrofitting of existing driveway locations may be warranted over time as traffic conditions change along
a roadway and at individual driveways. Alternatives to existing driveway locations, or driveway
consolidation to improve spacing, may provide effective solutions to traffic operational concerns.
54 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
- - _ / J _ -----------
------------ - -
----..:::...._------=--/-~---~......-~
Jtll 1
-- ----------1.-r---- -
-~---~-L _________ _
- - ::_r I - - -
I I
Note: Diagrams are
- -c-once
- ptu-al on-ly. _ ) t 1 t '\IIf f1 a.
1
this offset avoided due to overlapping left turns
----------:J.0~-:::.--------~--
- ~
______
-
_,... '- " ~
---------
- - -
----~-----=------~~-~----=-=-----=-=-----
- - - - ' /--1.. - - -
offset driveways 'Wl better offset arrangement, but weaving may be difficult
_ jJltt __
------~_;~--""~-----
;_~~_:~--=~1:~l~1~r~c-.-=~--__;_
Note: Diagrams are
conceptual only.
~ I
t preferred arrangement, unless cross traffic is
j 1, r,
high and signals are not warranted or feasible
; 32 potential vehicle conflicts
---_
-_-_
-_-_
--.-<~N ~~.
_____ " ~----------------
__
--
......
--
_- - - - - =- - - -
- '..........
~
;..--
'-
~
=
-- ............ = ~ =
',,----- =
-~-r;./------------
=
directly opposing or
1~ t/ ~p-lit
1
"T" arrangement desirable where
cross traffic is high and 100 m or more
is available between driveway centrelines
widely spaced driveways 18 potential vehicle conflicts
Figure 8.9.3: Spacing Considerations for Opposing Driveways
June 2017 SS
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.9.10 CLEAR THROAT LENGTHS
In order for major driveways to operate efficiently, both from the road side and internally, it is desirable
to provide a no conflict and storage zone within the driveway. This zone is commonly referred to as the
clear throat length or set-back distance and is measured from the ends of the driveway curb return radii
at the roadway and the point of first conflict on-site. Figure 8.5.2 illustrates how a throat length is
measured. Failure to provide sufficient throat distance results in frequent blocking of on-site circulation
roads which can in turn create queues of entering vehicles. The provision of appropriate clear throat
length or storage space is particularly important for drive-in service developments where the customers
remain in their vehicles while waiting to be served. These types of developments include drive-in
restaurants and banks, automatic car washes, and parking facilities with entry control. For large
developments, the appropriate throat length is best determined by a detailed traffic analysis based on
the traffic control provided at the road and the anticipated volumes and types of traffic. Table 8.9.3 is a
guideline for suggested minimum clear throat lengths for various types of developments.
14
Table 8.9.3: Suggested Minimum Clear Throat Lengths for Major Driveways
Minimum Clear Throat Length (m)
Land Use Development Size
Collector Arterial
2
<10,000 m 8 15
2
Light Industrial 10,000 - 45,000 m 15 30
>45,000 m' 15 60
Discount Store >3,000 m' 8 15-25
<25,000 m' 8 15
2
Shopping 25,000 - 45,000 m 15 25
2
Centre 45,001 - 70,000 m 25 60
2
>70,000 m 40 75
2
<2,000 m 15 25
Supermarket
>2,000 m' 25 40
<100 units 8 15
Apartments 100- 200 units 15 25
>200 units 25 40
2
Quality <1,500 m 8 15
2
restaurant >1,500 m 8 25
Fast food <200 m' 8 25
restaurant >200 m' 15 40
<5,000 m' 8 15
2
5,000 -10,000 m 8 25
2
General office 10,001 - 20,000 m 15 30
2
20,001 - 45,000 m 30 45
2
>40,000 m 40 75
<150 rooms 8 25
Motel
>150 rooms 8 30
Notes 1. Refer to Figure 8.5.2 for method of measurement
2. For major developments, it is desirable to determine throat lengths and queue on the basis of a
site-specific traffic study
56 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.9.11 GRADES
When selecting the most suitable grades for a driveway, a number of considerations are important
including:
• Road classification
• Driveway volume
• Maximum grade for the driveway within the right of way where it intersects the roadway
• Minimum grade for the driveway within this same zone
• Maximum driveway grade on-site
• Maximum rate of grade change
• Pedestrian crossing cross-slope
• Roadway, driveway, roadside and property drainage
• Cyclist accommodation.
Desirable maximum grade changes, between the roadway cross-slope and the driveway grade, vary in
accordance with the road classification. For the higher classification road, it is desirable to minimize the
grade change at the roadway edge, encouraging high speed turns into the driveway and reducing the
deceleration and interference with the through traffic on the major road. This is particularly important
for high volume driveways. Figure 8.9.4 provides guidelines for limiting the grade change at the road
edge. For high volume driveways on arterial roads, a maximum grade change of 3% is acceptable.
For low volume driveways on local roads, a maximum of 8% is acceptable.
Driveways are constructed at an incline from the roadway in order to prevent surface drainage along the
roadway from discharging down a driveway and onto private property. Where this is impractical, curb
drainage across the driveway can be effectively controlled by using a slightly deeper gutter and adjacent
catch basins. It is also common practice to limit the amount of property drainage that drains onto the
roadway via the driveway by providing separate on-site drainage systems.
Assuming a normal roadway cross-slope of 2.0% and the desirable maximum grade changes defined
above, the resulting maximum driveway grades within the boulevard and border areas are illustrated as
grade G1, in Figure 8.9.4. Where pedestrians cross a driveway with a grade exceeding 2.0%, it is
desirable to maintain the cross-slope on the sidewalk to a maximum of 2.0%.
Specifying a minimum grade for the driveway between the roadway edge and the right-of-way boundary
is also desirable. This ensures that the driveway has positive surface drainage and is therefore less
susceptible to icing. The suggested desirable minimum grade is 1.0% in all cases. As an absolute
minimum where tight physical controls dictate, a grade of 0.5% may be considered.
Figure 8.9.4 also provides guidelines for desirable maximum grade changes at the right-of-way boundary
and typical maximum on-site grades. Maximum grades and grade changes are avoided where possible,
particularly when driveway volumes are moderate to high. For low volume driveways along a local road,
the maximum grade change may be determined on the basis of the vertical clearance requirements for
the types of vehicles using the driveway. A maximum grade change of 12% over a horizontal distance of
3.0 m satisfies the vertical clearance requirements of most vehicles. The vertical alignment design of the
driveway is normally reviewed for the sight distance provided.
June 2017 57
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
(!)
Ol
E
::::i
"O
(!) "§
>.
cc :i
?!: ci
"O
el Lo'.
I
plan view I one-way or
two-way
I driveway
I
I
"E ~
cc ro
> Qi
(!) ?!:
-e
::::i
"S
0
(!)
"O
"O
0
(.) .0 "(ii .0
~ G1 =driveway grade
ro within rignt-of-way
?!:
(!) G2 = drive:way grade
profile view "O on-site
"(ii
D1 = grade change,
road crossfall to G 1
0 2 = grade change,
G 1 to G2
Note: Desirable to limit sidewalk cross slope to 2.0% max.
road driveway des. grade G 1b desirable grade desirable desirable
G2, max. c max. grade max. grade
classification volumed design domain c design domain change, D 2
change, D1
arterial high 1.0% -1.0% +4.0% I -2.0% +3.0% ±3.0%
low-moderate 1.0% - 3.0% +8.0% I -4.0% +5.0% ±5.0%
collector low-moderate 1.0% -4.0% +10.0% I -5.0% +6.0% ±6.0%
local min. use 1.0% -6.0% +14.0% I -7.0% +8.0% controlled
by vehicle
clearance
Notes: a. 0.5% acceptable as absolute minimum in certain cases.
b. Downgrades avoided to control road drainage.
c. Assumes the road has a normal cross slope of 2.0%.
d. High: >1500 v/d, moderate: >750 to 1500 v/d, low: 25 to 750 v/d , min. use: :5 25 v/d.
Figure 8.9.4: Driveway Grades
58 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
8.9.12 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CROSSING CONSIDERATIONS
In the design of a driveway, it is important to integrate the needs of the pedestrians and bicycles into
the vehicular operational requirements of the driveway.
From a vehicular operational efficiency perspective, it is desirable to provide turning radii which enable
vehicles to turn at a reasonable speed. Large curb return radii, in combination with narrow driveways,
normally minimize the crossing distance and conflict exposure for the pedestrian and cyclist, while
allowing higher vehicular speeds. Conversely, small curb return radii, in combination with wide
driveways as needed to accommodate vehicle turn ing, increase the crossing distance and conflict
exposure for the pedestrian and cyclist, but may encourage lower vehicular speeds as a result of the
sharper turn. In general, narrow driveways with small curb return radii, but still adequate to
accommodate the design turning vehicle are preferred .
For additional guidance on accommodating pedestrian and cyclists at access and driveway locations,
refer to Chapter 6 and Chapter 5 respectively.
8.10 CULS-DE-SAC
Cu ls-de-sac and dead-end roads are local roads terminated or closed at one end.
Cu ls-de-sac need to be large enough to accommodate passenger vehicles and delivery trucks which are
used for service to houses. Such trucks are smaller and require less space for turning than the single-unit
(SU) design truck. For design, a delivery truck is assumed to have a wheel base of 4.5 m, a width
between outer extremities of tires of 2.5 m and a minimum turning radius of the outer front wheel of
10.5 m. Culs-de-sac are, however, often designed to accommodate SU vehicles because this is
representative of many garbage trucks. On industrial roads, the culs-de-sac are designed to
accommodate the SU vehicle . In addition to the standard design vehicles, consideration of
emergency vehicle movements, particularly fire trucks, should be considered. A check with local
authorities regarding wheelbases of current units is suggested .
A dead-end road is usually sufficiently wide to enable passenger vehicles and preferably delivery trucks,
to U-turn or at least turn around by backing once. The design commonly used is a circular pavement
symmetrical about the centreline of a roadway. One steering reversal is avoided on this design. Where a
radius of less than 14 mis used, the turn-around area is bordered by mountable curbs to permit
maneuvering of an occasional oversized vehicle.
Other variations or shapes of cu ls-de-sac to fit right of way and site controls may be provided to permit
vehicles to turn around by backing once.
June 2017 59
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 8 - Access
REFERENCES
1 Stover, VG, Tignor, SC, and Rosenbaum, M J. 1982. "Chapter 4-Access Control and Driveways" ,
Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Traffic Control and Roadway Elements Vol. 1. FHWA-TS-82-232,
Washington, DC : Federal Highway Administration .
1
2 Galber N.J. and Hoel L.A. 2010. Traffic and Highway Engineering, 4 h Edition, citing FHWA. 1992. Safety
and Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Vol. 1, Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
3 Bonneson J.A. and McCoy, P.T. 1997. NCHRP Report 395: Capacity and Operational Effects of Midblock
Left-Tum Lanes. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, p. 2.
4 Stover, VG, Tignor, SC, and Rosenbaum, M J. 1982. "Chapter 4 - Access Control and Driveways",
Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Traffic Control and Roadway Elements Vol. 1. FHWA-TS-82-232,
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration .
5 Ibid.
6 Adapted from Gluck, J., Levinson, HS and Stover, V. 1999. "Table 6 - Representative accident rates
(accidents pe r million VMT) by type of median-urban and suburban areas," NCHRP Report 420: Impacts
of Access Management Techniques. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, p. 4.
7 Adapted from: Giguere, R.K., et al. 1996. " Figure 1-Trip Stages", Transportation Research Circular 456:
Driveway and Street Intersection Spacing. Washington, DC: Transportation Resea rch Boa rd of the
National Academies, p. 13.
8 Koepke . FJ., Levinson, H.S. 1992. NCHRP Report 348: Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centres .
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 51-52.
9 Transport Canada. 2014. Grade Crossing Standard. Ottawa : Transport Canada .
10 Transportation Association of Canada. 2014. "Figure C2-14," Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Canada, Fifth Edition. Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada .
11 Stover, V.G., Koepke. FJ. 1988. Transportation and Land Development, 1 st Edition. Washington, DC:
Institute of Transportation Engineers.
12 AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6 th Edition. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 9-13.
13 Technical Committee SB-13. 1985. Guidelines for Driveway Design and Location: a proposed
recommended practice. Washington, DC : Institute of Transportation Engineers.
14 Stover, V.G., Koepke. FJ . 1988. Transportation and Land Development, 1 st Edition . Washington, DC:
Institute of Transportation Engineers.
June 2017 61
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 9 - INTERSECTIONS
June 2017
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
Transportation Association of Canada
401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive
Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-631-3
TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM
Title and Subtitle
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 9 - Intersections
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, WSP I MMM Group
Jeff Ward, WSPIMMM 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 human
Planning of Transport
factors research and practices for roadway geometric design. It replaces the 1999 edition
Infrastructure
of the Guide and subsequent revisions. The Guide provides guidance to planners and
Canada
designers in developing design solutions that meet the needs of a range of users while
Junction
addressing the context of local conditions and environments. Design guidelines for
freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural locations are Layout
included as well as guidance for integrated bicycle and pedestrian design. Level crossing
Level of service
The Guide is organized into ten chapters to cover the entire design process from design
Roundabout
philosophy and roadway classification to design parameters and specific guidelines for
Safety
the safe accommodation of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on linear road elements
Traffic island
and at intersections. The chapters are: Design Philosophy; Design Controls, Classification
Traffic lane
and Consistency; Alignment and Lane Configuration; Cross Section Elements; Bicycle
Traffic signal
Integrated Design; Pedestrian Integrated Design; Roadside Design; Access; Intersections;
Turning
and Interchanges.
Visibility distance
Chapter 9 - Intersections provides design guidance on intersections including
roundabouts, innovative intersections and at-grade railroad crossings. A summary of
relevant human factor aspects and an intersection planning and design process are
provided. The design process identifies the relevant inputs and possible constraints.
Guidelines on intersection spacing, layout and alignment and sight distance needs are
summarized. Design details and guidance for simple intersections, channelization,
tapers, auxiliary and turning lanes are outlined .
Supplementary Information
Index is available at www.tac-atc.ca
Chiu, M., Clayton, C., Millen, G. et al. 2017. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 9 - Intersections.
Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
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 I MMM 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 Roads, 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 9 - Intersections
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 l'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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Project Steering Committee
Eric Christiansen, Manitoba Infrastructure (Co-Chair)
John Hammer, Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Co-Chair)
Ke ith 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 Dobush 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Foreword
BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE
In 1999 the Transportation Association of Canada relased 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 for 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 th is Guide.
June 2017 v
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
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 9
Chapter 9 - Intersections provides design guidance on intersections including roundabouts, innovative
intersections and at-grade railroad crossings. A summary of relevant human factor aspects and an
intersection planning and design process are provided. The design process identifies the relevant inputs
and possible constraints. Guidelines on intersection spacing, layout and alignment and sight distance
needs are summarized. Design details and guidance for simple intersections, channelization, tapers,
auxiliary and turning lanes are outlined.
vi June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
CONTENTS
9.1 PART 1: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................1
9.1.1 Road Safety ............................................................................................................................ 1
9.1.1.1 Safe System Approach ........................................................................................... 1
9.1.1.2 Contribution of Intersection Design to Road Safety .............................................. 2
9.1.2 Human Factors Considerations .............................................................................................. 2
9.1.2.1 Visual Search .......................................................................................................... 2
9.1.2 .2 Visual Blockage and Crashes .................................................................................. 3
9.1.2.3 Visual Blockage and Left-Turn Bay Offsets ............................................................ 3
9.1.2.4 Sight Distance and Skew Intersections .................................................................. 4
9.1.2 .5 Pedestrians and Visual Search ............................................................................... 4
9.1.2.6 Gap Judgment ........................................................................................................ 5
9.1.2.7 Sight Distance and Gap Judgment ......................................................................... 5
9.1.2.8 Perception Reaction Time ...................................................................................... 5
9.1.2.9 Older Drivers at Intersections ................................................................................ 6
9.1.2.10 Positive Guidance .......... ........................................................................................ 6
9.2 TYPES OF INTERSECTIONS .........................................................................................................6
9.2.1 Intersection Definitions .......................................................................................................... 6
9.2.2 Basic Types ......................................................................... .................................................... 7
9.2.2.1 Open-Throat Intersection ...................................................................................... 7
9.2.2.2 Flared Intersection ......... ........................................................................................ 7
9.2.2.3 Channelized Intersection ....................................................................................... 7
9.2.3 Retrofit considerations ........................................................................................................... 7
9.2.4 Basic Intersection Configurations .......................................................................................... 7
9.3 ROAD DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS ............................................................. 10
9.3.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 10
9.3.2 Accommodating All Road Users ........................................................................................... 11
9.3.2.1 Maintaining a Balance ......................................................................................... 13
9.3.2.2 Pedestrians: Some Overall Considerations .......................................................... 13
9.3.2 .3 Bicyclists: Some Overall Considerations .............................................................. 14
9.3.2.4 Transit: Some Overall Considerations .................................................................. 14
9.3.2 .5 Design Vehicle Implications ................................................................................. 14
9.3.3 Terrain .................................................................................................................................. 15
9.3.4 Environment and Heritage ................................................................................................... 15
9.3.5 Physical Constraints ....................... ...................................................................................... 15
June 2017 vii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.3.6 Road Safety lmplications ...................................................................................................... 15
9.3.6.1 Traffic Maneuvers ................................................................................................ 16
9.3.6.2 Conflicts ............................................................................................................... 18
9.3.6.3 Prohibited Turns .................................................................................................. 21
9.3.6.4 Traffic Control Measures ..................................................................................... 21
9.3.6.5 Reducing Collision Risk ......................................................................................... 21
9.3.6.6 Road Lighting ....................................................................................................... 23
9.3.6.7 Landscaping and Streetscaping ........................................................................... 23
9.3.6.8 Maintenance Considerations ............................................................................... 24
9.4 THE DESIGN PROCESS ..............................................................................................................24
9.4.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 24
9.4.2 Location and Spacing of Intersections ................................................................................. 26
9.4.2.1 Arterials ................................................................................................................ 27
9.4.2.2 Collectors ............................................................................................................. 27
9.4.2.3 Locals ................................................................................................................... 27
9.4.2.4 Cross Roadway Intersection Spacing Adjacent To Interchanges ......................... 28
9.4.2.5 Traffic Signal Spacing and Progression ................................................................ 32
9.4.3 Design Speed ........................................................................................................................ 33
9.4.3.1 Rural ..................................................................................................................... 33
9.4.3.2 Urban ................................................................................................................... 33
9.4.4 Design Options for Urban Residential Areas ........................................................................ 34
9.4.5 Intersection Layout for New and Retrofit Design ................................................................ 34
9.4.5.1 Intersection Layout .............................................................................................. 35
9.4.5.2 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 35
9.4.5.3 Functional Characteristics .................................................................................... 35
9.4.5.4 Geometric Characteristics .................................................................................... 36
9.4.5.5 Other Characteristics ........................................................................................... 36
9.4.5.6 Further Analysis ................................................................................................... 37
9.4.6 Road Cross Section ............................................................................................................... 37
9.4.6.1 Road User Lanes and Shoulders ........................................................................... 37
9.4.6.2 Medians ............................................................................................................... 38
9.4.6.3 Roadside Areas .................................................................................................... 38
9.5 AT-GRADE HIGHWAY/RAILWAY CROSSINGS ............................................................................ 38
9.5.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 38
9.5.2 Safety Considerations .......................................................................................................... 39
9.5.3 Defensibility of At-Grade Railroad Crossing Design ............................................................. 39
viii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.6 PART 2: TECHNICAL ASPECTS ...................................................................................................40
9.6.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................... 40
9.6.2 Grade Separation of Movements ......................................................................................... 40
9.7 ALIGNMENT OF INTERSECTIONS ..............................................................................................41
9.7.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 41
9.7.2 Horizontal Alignment ........................................................................................................... 42
9.7.3 Vertical Alignment and Cross-Slope ..................................................................................... 45
9.7.3.1 Cross-Slope: Major/Minor Roadway Intersection ............................................... 45
9.7.3.2 Cross-Slope : Major Road/Major Roadway (or Two Roadways
of Equal Classification) .. ...................................................................................... 49
9.7.3.3 Grade Breaks ........................................................................................................ 49
9.7.3.4 Grades .................................................................................................................. 49
9.7.4 Combined Vertical and Horizontal Alignments .................................................................... 52
9.7.5 Reduced Superelevation through Intersections .................................................................. 54
9.7.6 Realignments for Retrofit ..................................................................................................... 57
9.8 SIGHT DISTANCE .....................................................................................................................59
9.9 AASHTO INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE MODEL .................................................................... 60
9.9.1 Preface ................................................................................................................................. 60
9.9.2 Sight Triangles ...................................................................................................................... 60
9.9.2.1 Approach Sight Triangles ..................................................................................... 61
9.9.2.2 Departure Sight Triangles .................................................................................... 62
9.9.2.3 Intersection Control ............................................................................................. 62
9.9.2.4 Effect of Skew ...................................................................................................... 80
9.10 DECISION SIGHT DISTANCE ......................................................................................................81
9.11 SIGHT DISTANCE AT BRIDGE STRUCTURES ...............................................................................82
9.12 WIDENING THROUGH SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS .................................................................. 84
9.13 SIMPLE INTERSECTIONS ..........................................................................................................86
9.13.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 86
9.13.1.1 Open Throat ......................................................................................................... 86
9.13.1.2 Flared Intersections ............................................................................................. 87
9.13.2 Corner Radius Considerations and Design ........................................................................... 90
9.13.2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 90
9.13.2.2 Circular Curve ....................................................................................................... 90
9.13.2.3 Two-Centred Compound Circular Curve .............................................................. 91
9.13.2.4 Three-Centred Compound Circular Curve ........................................................... 93
June 2017 ix
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.13.3 Shoulders at Simple Intersections ........................................................................................ 95
9.13.3.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 95
9.13.3.2 Gravel Shoulders .................................................................................................. 96
9.13.3.3 Paved Shoulders .................................................................................................. 96
9.13.3.4 Concrete Curb and Gutter ................................................................................... 97
9.13.3.5 Summary .............................................................................................................. 98
9.14 TAPERS AND AUXILIARY LANES ............................................................................................... 98
9.14.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 98
9.14.2 Guidelines for the Application of Right-Turn Taper and Bay Tapers With Auxiliary Lanes. 99
9.14.3 Design Elements for Right-Turn Tapers without Auxiliary Lanes ....................................... 100
9.14.4 Design Elements for Right-Turn Tapers with Auxiliary Lanes ............................................ 101
9.14.5 Effect of Grade ................................................................................................................... 103
9.15 CHANNELIZATION ................................................................................................................. 103
9.15.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 103
9.15.2 Smart Channels .................................................................................................................. 104
9.15.3 Principles of Channelization ............................................................................................... 105
9.15.4 Guidelines for the Application of Channelization .............................................................. 106
9.15.5 Right-Turn Designs ............................................................................................................. 106
9.15.6 Stop Design ........................................................................................................................ 106
9.15.7 Yield Design ........................................................................................................................ 106
9.15.8 Merge Design ..................................................................................................................... 107
9.15.8.1 Added Lane (Lane Away) Design ........................................................................ 108
9.15.9 Traffic Islands ..................................................................................................................... 108
9.15.9.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 108
9.15.9.2 Curbed Islands ................................................................................................... 108
9.15.9.3 Painted lslands ................................................................................................... 108
9.15.9.4 Non-Paved Area Formed By Pavement Edges ................................................... 108
9.15.9.5 Temporary Island Installations .......................................................................... 108
9.15.9.6 Directional .......................................................................................................... 109
9.15.9.7 Divisional ............................................................................................................ 110
9.15.9.8 Refuge ................................................................................................................ 110
9.15.9.9 Shape ................................................................................................................. 110
9.15.9.10 Minimum Size .................................................................................................... 111
9.15.9.11 Approach End Treatment ................................................................................... 112
9.15.9.12 Bikeway Facilities at Channelized Turn Lanes .................................................... 115
x June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.16 TURNING ROADWAYS ........................................................................................................... 115
9.16.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 115
9.16.2 Radii and Curvature for Turning Roadways ....................................................................... 116
9.16.3 TURNING ROADWAY WIDTHS ............................................................................................ 118
9.16.4 Speed-Change Lanes and Tapers ....................................................................................... 119
9.16.5 Yield Taper at Minor Roadway ........................................................................................... 119
9.16.6 Method of Lane Drop for Dual Lane Right-Turning Roadway ............................................ 120
9.17 LEFT-TURN LANES ................................................................................................................. 122
9.17.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 122
9.17.2 Guidelines for the Application of Left-Turn Lanes ............................................................. 122
9.17.2.1 Volume Warrants ............................................................................................... 122
9.17.2.2 Safety Warrants ................................................................................................. 122
9.17.3 Approach and Departure Tapers ........................................................................................ 122
9.17.4 Single Left-Turn Lane .......................................................................................................... 124
9.17.4.1 Bay Tapers .......................................................................................................... 126
9.17.4.2 Deceleration Requirements ............................................................................... 128
9.17.4.3 Storage Length ................................................................................................... 128
9.17.4.4 Run-out Lane ...................................................................................................... 128
9.17.4.5 Left-Turn Lanes On Both Approaches ................................................................ 129
9.17.4.6 Partially Shadowed and Shadowed Turn Lanes ................................................. 130
9.17.4.7 Introducing Raised Median ................................................................................ 133
9.17.4.8 Divided Roadway ............................................................................................... 133
9.17.4.9 Left-Turn Slip-Around Treatment at T-lntersections ......................................... 135
9.17.4.10 Left-Turn Lane Design on Minor Road ............................................................... 136
9.17.4.11 Left-Turn Lanes for Four-Lane and Six-Lane Roadways ..................................... 136
9.17.5 Multiple Left-Turn Lanes .................................................................................................... 138
9.17.5.1 Double Left-Turn Lanes ...................................................................................... 138
9.17.5.2 Triple Left-Turn Lanes ........................................................................................ 142
9.17.6 Slot Left-Turn Lanes ........................................................................................................... 146
9.17.6.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 146
9.17.6.2 Application Heuristics for Slot Left-Turn Lanes ................................................. 148
9.17.6.3 Design Elements ................................................................................................. 148
9.17.7 Intersections on Curve ....................................................................................................... 150
9.17.7.1 Taper and Auxiliary Lane Design ........................................................................ 150
9.17.7.2 Superelevation ................................................................................................... 152
June 2017 xi
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.18 TRANSITION BETWEEN FOUR-LANE AND TWO-LANE ROADWAYS AT INTERSECTIONS ............. 152
9.18.1 Undivided Roadways .......................................................................................................... 152
9.18.2 Divided Roadways .............................................................................................................. 152
9.19 MEDIAN OPENINGS ......................................................•.........•.........•.................................... 154
9.19.1 Use and Function ............................................................................................................... 154
9.19.2 Elements of Design ............................................................................................................. 154
9.19.3 U-Turns ............................................................................................................................... 155
9.19.4 Emergency and Maintenance Vehicle Crossings ................................................................ 156
9.20 PART 3: ROUNDABOUT DESIGN PRI NCIPLES ..................•.........•.........•..............................•..... 157
9.20.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 157
9.20.2 Circular Intersections in Canada Today .............................................................................. 157
9.20.3 Current Canadian Practice ................................................................................................. 160
9.21 ROUNDABOUT TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS ...............•..................................................•..... 161
9.21.1 Mini-Roundabouts ............................................................................................................. 163
9.21.2 Single-Lane Roundabouts ................................................................................................... 163
9.21.3 Multilane Roundabouts ..................................................................................................... 164
9.22 PART 4: INNOVATIVE INTERSECTIONS ...........................•.........•.........•.................................... 165
9.22.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 165
9.22.1.1 Scope of Discussion ............................................................................................ 165
9.22.1.2 Four Alternatives Discussed ............................................................................... 166
9.22.2 Displaced Left Turn (Dlt) .................................................................................................... 167
9.22.2.1 Safety and Operational Benefits ........................................................................ 169
9.22.3 Median U-Turn (Mut) ......................................................................................................... 170
9.22.3.1 Safety and Operational Benefits ........................................................................ 171
9.22.4 Restricted Crossing U-Turn (Rcut) ...................................................................................... 171
9.22.4.1 Safety and Operational Benefits ........................................................................ 172
9.22.5 Quadrant Roadway (Qr) ..................................................................................................... 173
9.22.5.1 Safety and Operational Benefits ........................................................................ 174
REFERENCES .................................•.........•.........•.............................................................................175
xii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
TABLES
Table 9.3.1: Considerations for Road Users in Intersection Design .......... .. ...................... .. .. ................. 12
Table 9.4.1: Desirable Spacing between Signalized Intersections for Progression (m) ....... .................. 33
Table 9.7.1: Design Values for Rate of Change of Cross-Slope for Intersection Areas .. ... ..... ................ 56
Table 9.7.2: Opportunities for Retrofit .. ............................................. ......................... ........ ................. . 58
Table 9.9.1: Length of Sight Triangle Leg - Case A, No Traffic Control .. .... ................. .. .... ..................... 64
Table 9.9.2: Adjustment Factors for Sight Distance Based on Approach Grade ........ ......................... ... 64
Table 9.9.3: Time Gap for Case Bl, Left Turn from Stop .................................................. ................... ... 67
Table 9.9.4: Design Intersection Sight Distance - Case Bl, Left Turn From Stop .................................. 68
Table 9.9.5: Time Gap for Case B2-Right Turn from Stop and Case B3-Crossing Maneuver ........ ..... 70
Table 9.9.6 : Design Intersection Sight Distance - Case B2, Right Turn from Stop, and Case B3,
Crossing Maneuver .... .. ................. ............ .. ................. ... ...................... ..... ... ................. ..... 71
Table 9.9.7 : Case Cl - Crossing Maneuvers from Yield-Controlled Approaches, Length of
Minor Road Leg, and Travel Times ........... .. ................. ... ...................... ..... ... ................. ..... 73
Table 9.9.8: Length of Sight Triangle Leg along Major Road-Case Cl, Crossing Maneuver at
Yield-Controlled Intersections ...... ....... ..... .................... .. .... ................................................ 75
Table 9.9.9: Time Gap for Case C2, Left or Right Turn .................... ... ...................... ......................... ..... 76
Table 9.9.10: Design Intersection Sight Distance - Case C2, Left or Right Turn at
Yield-Controlled Intersections ...... ............ .. ................. ... ...................... ..... ... ................. ..... 76
Table 9.9.11: Time Gap for Case F, Left Turns from the Major Road ... ..................... .. ............................. 78
Table 9.9.12: Intersection Sight Distance - Case F, Left Turn from the Major Road .. ............................. 79
Table 9.13.1: Guidelines for Shoulder Treatment at Simple Intersections ................. ...................... ....... 98
Table 9.14.1: Right-Turn Tapers without Auxiliary Lanes .................... ....................... ...................... ..... 101
Table 9.14.2: Right-Turn Taper with Parallel Deceleration Lane Design ..................... ........................... 101
Table 9.14.3: Grade Factors for Deceleration Length ........................ ................... .... .. .. ........................ . 103
Table 9.16.1: Design Widths for Turning Roadways at Intersections .. ....................... ..................... ...... 119
Table 9.17.1: Approach and Departure Taper Ratios and Lengths for Left Turns at Intersections ....... 123
Table 9.17 .2: Bay Tapers Straight Line ............. .... .... ................. .. .... ....................... .... ................. .. ..... .... 127
Table 9.17 .3: Bay Tapers Symmetrical Reverse Curves ............... .... .................. ..... .................... ... ... ...... 128
Table 9.18.1: Parallel Lane and Taper Lengths for Transition between Undivided
Four-Lane Roadway and Two-Lane Roadway ............ .................. ......................... ...... ...... 153
Table 9.19 .1: Minimum Median Widths for U-Turns .................. .... .................. ..... ... ................. ... ..... .... 156
Table 9.20.1: Comparison of Roundabouts and Rotaries I Traffic Circles ........................ .. ..... .............. 159
Table 9.21.1: Roundabout Categories and Characteristics .................... .... ............................ ............... 162
Table 9.22.1: Alternative Intersection Treatments ........... .... ................ ... .... .................. ..... .... ............... 166
June 2017 xiii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
FIGURES
Figure 9.1.1: Offset Left-Turn Lanes .... .. ...................... ......................... ......................... ...... ................... . 4
Figure 9.1.2: Obstruction at Offset Left-Turn Lanes .......... ................... .... ........................... .. ................. . 4
Figure 9.2.1: Intersection Configurations ... .................... .... ................. .. .... ... .................... ..... ................ .. 9
Figure 9.3.1: Typical Traffic Movements within an Intersection and its Approach ..... ..... .... ................ . 17
Figure 9.3.2: Conflict Points and Collision Rates of Three-and Four-Legged Intersections· .. ................ 19
Figure 9.3.3: Conflict Areas at Intersections ................ ......................... ......................... ........ ................ 20
Figure 9.3.4: Prohibiting or Discouraging Turns at Intersections ........................................ .................. 22
Figure 9.4.1: Design Process Flow Chart ............................ ................. ......................... ........ ................. . 25
Figure 9.4.2: Cross Road Intersection Spacing Adjacent to Interchanges ................... ........ ................. . 30
Figure 9.4.3: Intersection Spacing I Channelization Treatment at Diamond Interchanges ................. . 31
Figure 9.4.4: Desirable Signal Spacing for Combinations of Cycle Length ............................................. 32
Figure 9.7 .1: Intersection Design Process ........ .............. ........................... ....................... ................... ... 41
Figure 9.7 .2: Examples of Realignment of Intersections ................. .. .... ....................... .... ................. .. .. 44
Figure 9.7.3: Fitting Minor Roadway Profiles to the Major Roadway Cross Section ... .......................... 46
Figure 9.7 .4: Pavement Cross Sections, Typical Minor Roadway Profile Adj ustment .. .................. ..... .. 47
Figure 9. 7 .5: Pavement Cross Sections, Adjustment of Cross-Slope ........................ ...................... ....... 48
Figure 9.7 .6: Cross-Slope Modification at Intersection ofTwo Roads of Equal Classification ....... ..... .. 51
Figure 9.7.7: Pavement Cross Sections, Typical Adjustment of Profile and Cross-Slope at
Two Roads of Equal Classification .. ....... .................. ...... ................... .... ............................. 51
Figure 9.7.8: Combined Vertical and Horizontal Alignments of Intersections ..... .... .... ................. .. .... .. 53
Figure 9.7.9: Effect of Geometry on Intersection Collision Rates ...... ....................... .................... ......... 54
Figure 9.7.10: Relationship of Speed, Radius, and Superelevation through Intersections ............ ... ... ... 56
Figure 9.7.11 : Shifts in Horizontal Alignment across Intersections ..... ....................... ............................. 59
Figure 9.9.1: Approach Sight Triangle (Uncontrolled or Yield-Controlled) ............... ... .......................... 61
Figure 9.9.2: Departure Sight Triangles (Stop-Controlled) ......... .. ..... ....................... ... ................. ... .... .. 62
Figure 9.9.3: Length of Sight Triangle Leg - Case A, No Traffic Control. ............. ...... ................... .. ........ 65
Figure 9.9.4: Intersection Sight Distance - Case Bl, Left Turn from Stop (Calculated and
Design Values Plotted) ................ .. .... ... ................. ... ..... ................. ...... ................... .... ...... 69
Figure 9.9.5: Intersection Sight Distance - Case B2, Right Turn from Stop, and Case B3,
Crossing Maneuver (Calculated and Design Values Plotted) ............... ... ................. ... .... .. 71
Figure 9.9.6: Length of Sight Triangle Leg along Major Road for Passenger Cars - Case Cl,
Crossing Maneuver ......... .... .... ................. .. .... ....................... .... ................. .. ..... ................ 75
xiv June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Figure 9.9.7: Intersection Sight Distance - Case C2, Yield-Controlled Left or Right Turn ..................... 77
Figure 9.9.8: Intersection Sight Distance - Case F, Left Turn from the Major Road .............................. 79
Figure 9.9.9: Sight Triangles at Skewed Intersections ........................................................................... 81
Figure 9.10.1: Decision Sight Distance ..................................................................................................... 82
Figure 9.11.1: Measurement of Sight Distance at Ramp Terminals Adjacent to Overpass Structures ... 84
Figure 9.12.1: Widening Through a Signalized Intersection .................................................................... 85
Figure 9.13.1: Open Throat lntersections ................................................................................................ 87
Figure 9.13.2: Flared Intersections with Auxiliary Lanes for T-lntersections ........................................... 88
Figure 9.13.3: Intersection with Right-Turn Auxiliary Lanes .................................................................... 89
Figure 9.13.4: Edge of Pavement Design - Circular Curve ....................................................................... 91
Figure 9.13.5: Edge of Pavement Design - Two-Centred Compound Curve ........................................... 92
Figure 9.13.6: Edge of Pavement Design - Three-Centred Compound Curve ......................................... 94
Figure 9.13.7: Shoulder Transition at Flared Intersection with Taper ..................................................... 95
Figure 9.13.8: Gravel Shoulder Treatment at Open Throat Intersection ................................................ 96
Figure 9.13.9: Paved Shoulder Treatment at Intersection ....................................................................... 97
Figure 9.13.10: Shoulder Treatment with Concrete Curb and Gutter at Intersection .............................. 97
Figure 9.14.1: Typical Right-Turn Taper Lane Design at T-lntersections ............................................... 100
Figure 9.14.2: Typical Right-Turn Taper Lane Design at Cross-Intersections ........................................ 100
Figure 9.14.3: Right-Turn with Parallel Deceleration Lane Design ........................................................ 102
Figure 9.15.1: Right-Turn Channelization, "Smart Channel" Example Configuration ............................ 105
Figure 9.15.2: Typical Right-Turn Designs .............................................................................................. 107
Figure 9.15.3: Directional lslands ........................................................................................................... 109
Figure 9.15.4: Divisional lslands ............................................................................................................. 109
Figure 9.15.5: Opposing Divisional Islands ............................................................................................ 111
Figure 9.15.6: Offset Divisional Islands .................................................................................................. 111
Figure 9.15.7: Example of Island End Treatments - No Shoulder ......................................................... 113
Figure 9.15.8: Example of Island End Treatments- Outside Shoulder ................................................. 114
Figure 9.15.9: Bike Lane at Right Turn Channel ..................................................................................... 115
Figure 9.16.1: Turning Roadway With Spirals ........................................................................................ 117
Figure 9.16.2: Yield Taper at Channelized Intersection, Major Roadway to Minor Roadway ............... 120
Figure 9.16.3: Lane Drop, Dual Lane Right-Turning Roadway ............................................................... 121
Figure 9.17.1: Left-Turn Lane, Pictorial Description of Terms ............................................................... 123
June 2017 xv
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Figure 9.17.2: Left-Turn Lanes at T-lntersections .................................................................................. 125
Figure 9.17.3: Left-Turn Lane at Cross-Intersection .............................................................................. 126
Figure 9.17.4: Left-Turn Lane and Taper with Symmetrical Reverse Curves ......................................... 127
Figure 9.17.5: Left-Turn Lanes in Two Directions .................................................................................. 130
Figure 9.17.6: Left-Turn Lane Designs Along Four-Lane Undivided Roadways, No Median ................. 131
Figure 9.17.7: Introduced Raised Median .............................................................................................. 132
Figure 9.17.8: Turning Lane Design, Raised Median .............................................................................. 134
Figure 9.17.9: Left-Turn Slip Around Design -Tangent Alignment ....................................................... 135
Figure 9.17.10: Painted Left-Turn Lanes, Four-Lane Undivided Roadway ............................................... 137
Figure 9.17.11: Left-Turn Lane Design, Four-Lane Undivided Roadway T-lntersection .......................... 138
Figure 9.17.12: Opposing Left-Turn Lane Design, Four-Lane Undivided Roadway Cross Intersection ... 138
Figure 9.17.13: Turning Paths of Double Left-Turn Lanes ....................................................................... 140
Figure 9.17.14: Double Left-Turn Lane Configurations ............................................................................ 141
Figure 9.17.15: Triple Left-Turns .............................................................................................................. 144
Figure 9.17.16: Typical Slot Left-Turn Lane Designs ................................................................................ 147
Figure 9.17.17: Volume Warrant for Slot Left-Turn Lane ........................................................................ 149
Figure 9.17.18: Intersections on Curve .................................................................................................... 151
Figure 9.18.1: Transition between Undivided Four-Lane and Two-Lane Roadways
at an lntersection ............................................................................................................ 152
Figure 9.18.2: Transition between Four-Lane Divided and Two-Lane Roadway Merge ........................ 153
Figure 9.20.1: Basic Features of a Roundabout ..................................................................................... 161
Figure 9.21.1: Features of a Typical Mini-Roundabout .......................................................................... 163
Figure 9.21.2: Features of a Typical Single Lane Roundabout ............................................................... 164
Figure 9.21.3: Features of a Typical Multilane Roundabout .................................................................. 165
Figure 9.22.1: Illustration of Four Innovative US Intersection Treatments ........................................... 167
Figure 9.22.2: DLT Intersection at US Route 30 and Summit Drive (Fenton, MO) ................................ 168
Figure 9.22.3: Full DLT in Plan View (DLT on all approaches) ................................................................ 169
Figure 9.22.4: MUT Intersection in Michigan ........................................................................................ 170
Figure 9.22.5: MUT Left Turn Movements ............................................................................................. 171
Figure 9.22.6: RCUTintersection in Troy, Ml ......................................................................................... 172
Figure 9.22.7: Basic RCUT Intersection with No Direct Left Turns ......................................................... 172
Figure 9.22.8: Left Turn Movements at a QR Intersection .................................................................... 173
Figure 9.22.9: QR Intersection with Four-Lane Connecting Roadway ................................................... 174
xvi June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9. INTERSECTIONS
INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide guidance to road designers on the geometric design of all types
of road intersections and crossings. This Chapter includes four parts:
• Part 1: General Considerations (Sections 9.1 to 9.5)
• Part 2: Technical Aspects (Sections 9.6 to 9.19)
• Part 3: Roundabout Design Principles (Sections 9.20 and 9.21)
• Part 4: Innovative Intersections (Section 9.22)
Part 1 covers intersection design principles that apply generally to intersections and crossings. Parts 2, 3,
and 4 provide guidance specifically related to the technical aspects of design and discussions of
alternative intersection design.
9.1 PART 1: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Intersection design is based on geometric design elements discussed in other chapters: horizontal
alignment, vertical alignment, and cross section elements. However, the design of an intersection
requires integration of these elements with the actual physical constraints, traffic characteristics, and
environmental requirements of the intersection. Road classification is yet another consideration in the
design of an intersection. Intersection design often requires judicious compromise to take into account
competing demands and to produce a design that provides acceptable levels of service and safety for
vehicular traffic, pedestrians, bicycles, and other users of the road network.
9.1.1 ROAD SAFETY
9.1.1.1 Safe System Approach
Intersections create conflict points in a road network due to crossing and turning traffic flows, and the
mix of pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicular traffic. As such, a carefully designed intersection will
1
contribute to the safety, efficiency, and capacity of an effective road network.
Adopting a safe system approach to road safety recognizes that road users are fallible. In a safe system,
roads should be designed to reduce the incidence and severity of crashes when they inevitably occur.
This requires:
• Designing, constructing, and maintaining the road system to reduce the severity of collisions.
• Improving roads and roadsides to reduce the risk of crashes and minimize harm. In areas with
many vulnerable road users or substantial collision risk, speed management supplemented by
road and roadside treatments is a key strategy for limiting crashes.
• Managing speeds and taking into account the risks on different parts of the road system.
Safer road user behaviour, safer speeds, safer roads, and safer vehicles are the four key elements that
make a safe system. The risk of fatality or serious injury increases markedly above certain speeds,
depending on the type of crash . For example, such risk increases if:
• A pedestrian is struck by a vehicle above 20 to 30 km/h.
• A motorcyclist is struck by a vehicle or falls off the bike above 20 to 30 km/h.
• A vehicle strikes a pole or tree sideways above 30 to 40 km/h.
June 2017 1
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
• A vehicle impacts the side of another vehicle above 50 km/h.
• A vehicle impacts another vehicle head-on above 70 km/h.
9.1.1.2 Contribution of Intersection Design to Road Safety
A key component of the safe system approach is safer roads. A large percentage of crashes on road
networks occur at intersections; therefore, the installation of appropriate types of intersections and the
application of best practices in intersection design has the potential to significantly reduce the number
of crashes and injuries on road networks.
Different types of intersections may have different safety performances: this should be considered when
selecting an intersection type for any given situation, along with other important objectives, such as the
need to provide adequate capacity for traffic movement on the road network. The AASHTO Highway
Safety Manual contains extensive guidance on the safety performance of various intersection
configurations, forms of traffic control and other intersection-related design elements.
9.1.2 HUMAN FACTORS CONSIDERATIONS
At an intersection, all elements of the driving task become more challenging. Street or road name signs
must be located and read. Turns and stops must be made. Turns generally must be made without the
assistance of lane markings. Vehicles and vulnerable road users on conflicting path must be detected.
When the intersection is signalized, the state of the traffic signal must be monitored.
In the process of negotiating any intersection, all road users are required to:
• Detect the intersection
• Identify right-of-way, signalization, and appropriate paths
• Search for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists on a conflicting path
• Yield the right-of-way to various road users, as appropriate
• Assess adequacy of gaps for crossing/turning movements
• Successfully complete through or crossing/turning maneuvers.
In addition to these tasks, at signalized intersections, the driver must rapidly make a stop/go decision if
the light turns to amber near the stop bar (the dilemma zone). Similarly, pedestrians and bicyclists must
decide on the last safe moment to start crossing.
A standard intersection with four approaches has 32 potential conflict points. Thus, intersections place
high demands on road users in terms of visual search, gap estimation, and decision-making
requirements that increase the potential for road user error, resulting in conflicts and crashes. Road
crash statistics show that although intersections constitute a small portion of the highway network,
2
about 50% of all urban crashes and 25% of rural crashes are related to them.
9.1.2.1 Visual Search
The demands of the driving task can limit the time available for search, especially at intersections where
there are so many visual elements to be monitored. One of the largest studies of crash causation
considered nearly 15,000 police reports and found the most frequent human error was "improper
3
lookout," which typically occurred in intersections. Improper lookout can be addressed in part by
providing good sight distance. One study found most visual search was carried out within a region of
13 m from the edge ofthe main road to 2 m into the main road as drivers were slowing to a stop,
4
underlining the importance of good sight distance in this region.
2 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Improper lookout can also be addressed by giving drivers more time to search. A study of visual search
showed that right-turning drivers mainly look left towards oncoming drivers with whom they are
5
merging. In this study, slowing drivers down through the use of an elevated crossing or speed humps
resulted in right-turning drivers taking more time to search to the right for vulnerable road users, the
desired effect. Considering these findings, the significant increase in pedestrian and bicyclist collisions
observed after the introduction of the right turn on red at signalized intersections is likely due to
increased turning speed and, consequently, reduced visual search.
Intersection approaches with channelized turns lead to drivers turning right at higher speeds (by 5 to
6
8 km/h) and to a decreased likelihood of stopping when making a right turn on a red light. The higher
turning speed will decrease the time drivers have for visual search, putting pedestrians at greater risk.
Thus, in areas where pedestrians or bicyclists are common, turning speeds can be reduced and visual
search improved by such means as elevating crossings, prohibiting right turns on red, reducing curb
radii, and eliminating channelized turns. Bicyclists are more likely to be detected at intersections when
they are in one-way bike lanes. These ensure that people ride in the same direction as vehicular traffic.
Absent bike lanes, bicycle riders sometimes choose to ride on the sidewalk. Bicyclists move much faster
than pedestrians, and drivers are not likely to expect them emerging from the sidewalk, especially when
moving in a direction opposite to the flow of traffic.
At night, visua l search is even more challenging because when using low beam headlights, the visibility
of unreflectorized targets (e.g., vulnerable road users in dark clothing) is very limited. Eye lead time is
7
insufficient to avoid a collision from speeds above about 50 km/h. Street lighting at intersections is
therefore helpful for reducing pedestrian collisions.
9.1.2.2 Visual Blockage and Crashes
Improper lookout occurs in about 1/6 of intersection crashes. Visual blockage due to newspaper boxes,
8
utility poles, commercial signs and so forth is a factor in about 40% of these crashes. Such objects can
easily interfere with visibility of vulnerable road users. Where possible, these objects should be kept out
of the intersection influence area.
9.1.2.3 Visual Blockage and Left-Turn Bay Offsets
A critical view blockage is created by left-turn vehicles in the opposing turn bay. This view blockage is
worse for offset left-turn bays as shown in Figures 9.1.1 and 9.1.2. Large offsets of more than 0.9 m
significantly increase the size of the critical gaps of drivers turning left, and can also increase the
9
likelihood of conflicts between left-turns and opposing through traffic. The Strategic Highway Research
Program 2 (SHRP 2) Naturalistic Driving Study data were used to evaluate the gap acceptance behavior
of drivers at left-turn lanes with offsets ranging from -29 feet to +6 feet (-8.8 to 1.8 m). The critical gap
was longer for negative offsets than for zero or positive offsets and also longer when sight distance was
blocked by an opposing left-turning driver than when it was not. These longer gap lengths can result in
decreased operational efficiency of an intersection. Sight distance was much more likely to be restricted
by an opposing left-turning vehicle at negative-offset intersections than at zero- or positive-offset
intersections, and drivers at negative-offset intersections were less likely to accept a gap when an
opposing left-turn vehicle was present. An analysis of the shortest post-encroachment times showed
that while drivers making left-turns at negative-offset left-turn lanes wait to accept longer gaps on
average, they are also more likely to leave the shortest amount of time between their turn and the
10
arrival of the next opposing through vehicle, which is a potential safety concern.
June 2017 3
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Negative Offset Zero Offset Positive Offset
11
Figure 9.1.1: Offset Left-Turn Lanes
(Il]
12
Figure 9.1.2: Obstruction at Offset Left-Turn Lanes
9.1.2.4 Sight Distance and Skew Intersections
At a skewed intersection, an adequate view may be difficult to obtain in the direction of the acute angle,
especially for older drivers. For skewed intersections (see Figure 9.9.9.), the A pillar and other vehicle
parts can obstruct the driver's line of sight. Such obstruction was found to result in less than adequate
13
stopping sight distance for speeds higher than 65 km/h, when the acute angle was less than 70°.
9.1.2.5 Pedestrians and Visual Search
Improper search is a problem for pedestrians as well as drivers. Pedestrian search behaviour was
14
observed at downtown signalized intersections. Vehicles coming from behind require the greatest
4 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
head movement and were searched for least: approximately 30% of pedestrians looked for such
vehicles. Search for vehicles coming from the side and from ahead was more frequent : approximately
50% and 60% of pedestrians looked for these vehicles, respectively. Low levels of search raise concerns
about pedestrian detection of quiet electric vehicles and bicycles that turn at intersections. As discussed
above, view blockage due to such urban features as utility poles, newspaper boxes, commercial signs,
and so forth are contributors to 40% of improper lookout collisions at intersections. To the degree
possible these elements should be kept out of the intersection influence area.
9.1.2.6 Gap Judgment
At intersections, drivers making turns must judge whether there is a sufficient time gap between an
approaching driver and themselves to make the turn. The perceptual cue used by the driver is the rate
of change in the apparent size of the oncoming vehicle. At a distance, the size is small, and as the vehicle
gets closer to the intersection, the apparent size grows. This is a very difficult cue to perceive accurately.
Further, the observer cannot detect that the size of the vehicle is changing until the rate of change of
15
the visual angle vehicle it occupies exceeds a threshold of about 1/5 of a degree per second . The time
required to make a left turn requires that the turn be initiated before this threshold is reached. The
result is that drivers must assume oncoming vehicles are traveling at the average speed of the traffic
stream, so when a vehicle is much faster, a driver may end up accepting a short time gap, thus resulting
in a crash. Dedicated turn lanes, which reduce time pressure on drivers waiting to turn, protected left
turns, which eliminate the gap-acceptance decision, and roundabouts, which eliminate gap acceptance
for left turns, and reduce the speeds during right turn gap acceptance will help reduce collisions related
to turning movements.
9.1.2.7 Sight Distance and Gap Judgment
Sight distance at an intersection places a limit on the maximum gap that can be judged. A study of gap
judgment behaviour was undertaken at rural and suburban intersections to provide an empirical basis
16
for intersection sight distance guidelines. In the study, the time gaps accepted at higher speed limits
were smaller than those that had been assumed by the required sight distances. Prior to this study, it
had been assumed that drivers accounted for the time it took them to get up to the speed of the traffic
after turning and selected a gap that allowed for that. However, they did not. As a result of the study,
AASHTO (2011) based their recommended sight distances on time gaps actually accepted, which were
the same no matter what the speed. Consequently, required sight distances were reduced at higher
speed intersections. Design guidance based on this study is given in Section 9.1 - AASHTO Intersection
Sight Distance Model.
9.1.2.8 Perception Reaction Time
Actual values of perception reaction time vary and depend on many factors, including predictability of
the stimulus, the ease of detecting the stimulus (e.g., size, contrast with background, eccentricity off the
line of sight), driver age, simplicity, and the urgency of the task. As discussed in Section 2.2.5.5, a value
of 2.5 seconds is an appropriate estimate for the perception-reaction time to a clearly seen hazard in the
direct line of sight for a stopping sight distance scenario. This value includes a substantial safety margin
in that it allows for a wide range of typical drivers, including those who are fatigued, impaired or older.
In other situations, involving decision sight distance, for example, where there is less urgency and/or
where geometry is complex, perception-reaction times will be much longer. For detailed discussions of
June 2017 5
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
17
perception-response time, refer to the previously noted Section 2.2.5.5, NCH RP Report 600, and
18
Human Factors in Traffic Safety.
Perception-reaction time also depends on how far the stimulus is from the driver's line of sight. When a
driver approaches an uncontrolled intersection and there is a vehicle approaching at the same speed on
the cross road on a collision path, that vehicle will be 45° off the driver's line of sight. Research has
19
found that drivers looking ahead at the road path typically do not notice stimuli at this angle but find
them by actively looking. Further, if the relative speeds of the two vehicles remain the same on the
approach this target would be seen at a constant angle, so movement across the driver's retina would
not assist a driver in detecting it. The same considerations hold for drivers approaching railroad
crossings. Importantly however, the more the driver expects an intersection or a train on a crossing, the
more likely one is to actively search for conflicting vehicles, and the more quickly one is likely to
respond. Signs warning of intersections, driveways and rail crossings will assist drivers, as will the
provision of adequate sight distance that allows time to search and stop when a conflict is detected.
Finally, an on-road observational study of speed and search behaviour at a passive rail crossing found
that, had a train appeared, about half of the drivers were travelling too fast to detect a train in time to
stop once they started searching. The study demonstrated that warning drivers of upcoming passive
crossings and their lack of a warning system, and providing sight distance that allows them time to
20
actively search for trains and stop, will reduce risk of collisions.
9.1.2.9 Older Drivers at Intersections
21
Older drivers are a particular risk at intersections, with risk increasing as drivers age. One study found
that the primary cause for collisions at intersections is selecting safe gaps when turning across or
22
crossing traffic (76% of sites). Older drivers are less likely than younger drivers to position their
23
vehicles within the intersection to see beyond vehicles in the opposing left-turn lane. Older drivers are
24
also slower to clear the lane when turning.
Design features that would assist older drivers, who need longer gaps, at all intersections (e.g., stop and
signal controlled), are improved sight distance, designated turn lanes and protected left turns, and more
legible and consistent street and road name signing.
9.1.2.10 Positive Guidance
"Positive guidance" is the application of human factors to road design. Positive guidance addresses how
information is handled and how driver expectations are managed. Even in a visually cluttered road
environment, positive guidance must be clear and conspicuous. It must be provided soon enough that
drivers can recognize hazards or their threat potential, select an appropriate path and speed, and safely
25
begin and complete necessary maneuvers. More information on positive guidance practices can be
found in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada and jurisdictional guides such as Book
lC Ontario Traffic Manual (Appendix C Positive Guidance Toolkit).
9.2 TYPES OF INTERSECTIONS
9.2.1 INTERSECTION DEFINITIONS
An intersection is defined as the area where two or more roads join or cross at-grade, including the
roadway and roadside facilities for vehicular traffic and pedestrian movements. In comparison, an
entrance or exit from a roadside property (i.e., driveway) is considered an access and not an
6 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
intersection. Refer to Chapter 8 for access design guidelines. An at-grade intersection differs from a
grade-separated interchange in terms of capacity, operation, cost of construction and maintenance,
safety, complexities of design features, signing, and traffic signals. Guidelines for interchange design are
provided in Chapter 10.
9.2.2 BASIC TYPES
9.2.2.1 Open-Throat Intersection
An open-throat intersection is one where the normal lane width of the main roadway is maintained
through the intersection and minimum corner radii are provided. Such intersections do not have tapers
or auxiliary lanes. This is discussed in detail in Section 9.13.
9.2.2.2 Flared Intersection
A flared intersection has tapers and/or auxiliary lanes. This is discussed in detail in Section 9.13 and
9.14.
9.2.2.3 Channelized Intersection
Channelization of an at-grade intersection separates and directs traffic movements and pedestrian
crossings into defined paths. To do so, it uses geometric features, pavement markings, traffic control
devices, and other positive guidance elements, as needed. This is discussed in detail in Section 9.15.
9.2.3 RETROFIT CONSIDERATIONS
An intersection retrofit is an improvement or change to an existing intersection. Retrofitting urban at-
grade intersections is often needed to meet changing traffic demands or to implement operational
improvements that increase safety and efficiency. An intersection retrofit may involve many alterations
to geometric elements, such as adding auxiliary lanes, introducing or modifying channelization,
improving undesirable geometric conditions that affect vehicular and pedestrian safety, incorporating
pedestrian ramps and refuge areas, implementing traffic calming measures, and adding facilities to
accommodate cyclists. In retrofitting, the desired geometric design features must often be compromised
due to the limitations imposed by physica l constraints and economic considerations.
9.2.4 BASIC INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
Each road radiating from an intersection is an intersecting leg. There are four basic intersection
configurations, as illustrated in Figure 9.2.1 and described below.
• Three-legged intersection: This type of intersection has three intersecting approach legs and is named a
T-intersection or a Y-intersection, depending on which letter more closely represents the general
configuration of the intersection as shown in plan.
• Four-legged intersection: This type of intersection has four intersecting approach legs, is the most
common, and may be divided into three categories: right-angled (or cross), oblique, and offset (right or
left). These terms indicate the general configuration of the intersection in plan .
• Multi-legged intersection: This type of intersection has more than four intersecting approach legs.
• Roundabout intersection: This type of intersection has three or more approach legs that do not
intersect but are connected by a continuous one-way road, generally shaped as a circle.
June 2017 7
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
When designing an intersection, three- or four-legged configurations are generally preferred. Providing
more than four legs may introduce capacity limitations, operational problems, and safety concerns.
Retrofitting is often warranted on the basis of collision experience and delay. Sometimes, opposing legs
of four-legged intersections are offset from one another. Offsets equal to or less than 1.5 m do not
normally pose any difficulties and offsets greater than 40 m usually operate acceptably as successive T-
intersections. However, intersection offsets between 1.5 m and 40 m often create more conflict points,
difficult maneuvers, and unsafe conditions for vehicles and pedestrians in the intersection area. These
should be avoided whenever possible. The 40 m dimension applies to the spacing between local-to-local
intersections. Greater distances are required for successive T-intersections along higher classification
roadways and are often based on traffic requirements. Roundabouts are becoming more common in
Canada as they can reduce traffic delays, speeds on through roads, and can have substantial safety
benefits. Where significant pedestrian or cyclist volumes are expected (e.g., near high schools and
transit stations), specialized designs may be required to adequately accommodate these modes.
Designers should refer to the TAC Canadian Roundabout Design Guide for additional details.
8 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
- - - - - _:__j_ _:_-_. P . . - -
70° to
110'
_ ____
~·
:(_~-- --
T- intersection Y- intersection
three-legged intersections
Ji
--+----
70' to
110°
1 ii
right-angled
four-legged intersections
multi-legged intersection roundabout
rotary intersection
Figure 9.2.1: Intersection Configurations
June 2017 9
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.3 ROAD DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS
9.3.1 OVERVIEW
The efficiency of a road network depends largely on the quality of operation and design of the
intersections. Four basic elements of design should be considered: traffic factors, physical factors,
human factors, and economic factors. Proper assessment and evaluation of these factors will improve
safety by minimizing conflict points and encouraging the orderly movement of traffic through the
intersection. It will also help improve convenience for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
The four elements of intersection design are described below:
Traffic Factors
• Pedestrian and bicycle volumes and movements
• Safety
• Turning movement volumes
• Physical and operational characteristics of vehicles (including trucks and buses)
• Special truck operations (oversize loads)
• Time and duration of peak volumes
• Design capacities for local conditions
• Progression speeds
• Collision history (frequency and severity)
• Warrants for traffic signals
• Warrants for illumination
• Parking controls
• Public transit operations
• Regulatory, directional, and designation signing.
Physical Factors
• Road classification
• Basic lane requirements (present and future)
• Roadside drainage
• Topography
• Angle of intersection I intersecting road alignments
• Grades and sight distances
• Surrounding developments
• Intersection spacing and access management
• Right of way constraints
• Public utilities
• Natural environmental considerations
• Aesthetics, landscaping
• Street furniture (transit shelters, benches, garbage/recycling bins, etc.).
Human Factors
• User expectations
• Perception and reaction times
• Driver distraction
10 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
• Natural travel paths
• Presence of habituated users
Economic Factors
• Land cost
• Construction cost
• Utility cost
• Maintenance cost
• Cost-effectiveness of alternative designs
• Staging of development
• Effect on local businesses and properties
9.3.2 ACCOMMODATING ALL ROAD USERS
When designing an intersection it is important to consider the needs and specific limitations of all road
users (e.g., drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians) and their vehicles. Applying this requirement should result
in designs that satisfy the following principles:
• A road user's expectations of the design are not violated (i.e., strangers to an area are not surprised by
the location of the intersection, or its layout).
• The design provides a level of forgiveness for road user errors.
As noted earlier, this means that the designs should:
• Provide adequate sight distance
• Provide advanced positive guidance as needed, particularly where lane drops occur
• Be consistent and meet drivers' expectations.
Considerations for various road users are summarized in Table 9.3.1.
June 2017 11
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.3.1: Considerations for Road Users in Intersection Design
Road User Considerations
Motor vehicle • Adequate intersection, stopping, and decision sight distance for all movements:
drivers
o on all approaches to intersections
o from a position at st op lines to other potentially conflicting vehicles,
including those turning
o at lane drops
o to pedestrians waiting to cross the road and on the road
• Avoid grading that will cause discomfort or require heavy braking
• Provide for deceleration appropriate to the circumstances and adequate storage in
turning lanes
Pedestrians, • Provide paths and road crossings at all urban intersections and at rural
including those intersections where pedestrian movements are expected
with an • Locate paths on pedestrian desire lines, or install fencing or other barriers to guide
impairment them along the preferred route
• Provide adequate path width
• Minimize crossing distance
• Minimize turning vehicle speeds
• Reduce turning vehicle conflicting movements
• Ensure adequate pedestrian sight distance is provided
• Provide paths that are free of obstruction (e.g., poles, street furniture, footpath
cafes, trees); this is particularly important for people with vision and other physical
impairments
• Can't.
Pedestrians, • Place signs so that they do not obscure pedestrian from a motorist's view
including those • Place catch basin and manhole grates/covers clear of pedestrian paths (including
with an those in traffic islands) and ramps
impairment • Design crossings to be direct and straight, to assist vision-impaired pedestrians
(cont.) • In general, avoid staged crossings. Where they are used at signalized intersections,
design signal phasing to minimize delay for pedestrians
• Design curb ramps to assist vision-impaired people
• Ensure pedestrian crossing push buttons are readily accessible for all users (e.g.,
people in wheelchairs)
• Provide generous setback between road traffic lanes and paths, wherever
practicable
• Provide adequate vertical clearance above all pedestrian facilities
• Avoid steps and stairs as they form a barrier for pedestrians with walking
impairments or in wheelchairs
• If possible, do not exceed a ramp gradient of 1:20 (maximum of 1:15)
• Design a path crossfall to be 0.02 m/m (acceptable range is 0.006 m/m to
0.02 m/m) to accommodate pedestrians with walking impairments or in
wheelchairs. Specify even, skid-resistant surfacing materials that will not be
hazardous to pedestrians with vision and other physical impairments
12 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Road User Considerations
Cyclists • Consider the need for bicycle lanes on routes and at intersections; bicycle lanes are
preferred to wide curbside lanes
• Provide adequate cyclist sight distance
• When significant bicycle use is expected at an intersection, consider incorporating
specialized treatments in the design (e.g., bike boxes, protected intersection, etc.);
refer to Chapter 6 for details.
• Avoid termination of bicycle lanes on the approaches to intersections
Heavy vehicle • Where practicable, provide a flat grade on approaches to intersections, to facilitate
drivers acceleration of heavy vehicles and acceptance of gaps by the drivers
• Avoid steep downgrades on approaches to intersections
• Provide space for the design vehicle movements to occur within the turning lanes
and pavement area, without the vehicle body overhanging curbs or traffic islands
• Avoid excessive adverse crossfall and significant variations in crossfall throughout
turning paths (avoid shifting loads or bottoming out of trailer)
• Ensure adequate space for concurrent left-turns to occur (i.e., swept paths), with
adequate clearances
• Provide adequate lane widths
Can't.
Bus drivers and • Consider bus priority treatments, such as:
passengers o Bus lanes, including HOV lanes
o Approach and departure side bus lanes at intersections
o Queue jump lanes
o Signal priority
• Provide adequate lane widths
• Provide access to and from bus stops or transit islands
• Provide adequate space for buses to turn within pavement area without
encroaching on other lanes or overhanging curbs and traffic islands
• Provide stops accessible for people with vision and other physical impairments
9.3.2.1 Maintaining a Balance
Intersection design needs to accommodate a balance between the needs of all road users, including
active transportation elements. The size and design of physical elements of the intersection (e.g.,
roadway width, lane width, and corner radii) must be chosen according to the volume and priority given
to each intersection user group.
For example, at an intersection in a dense urban area, priority may be given to design for pedestrians,
bicyclists, passenger vehicles, and buses, with only basic accommodation given to trucks. An intersection
on a suburban highway near industrial and commercial areas may be designed for automobiles and
trucks, with basic accommodation for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit.
9.3.2.2 Pedestrians: Some Overall Considerations
Key elements that affect intersection performance for pedestrians include the amount of right-of-way
available, including sidewalk and cross-walk width; the crossing distance and resulting exposure time to
June 2017 13
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
motor vehicle and bicycle traffic; the volume of conflicting traffic; the speed and visibility of approaching
traffic; and accessibility. Where appropriate, designers should consider pedestrians with sight, hearing,
or mobility impairments that may need to be accommodated in the design. For additional guidance,
refer to Chapter 6.
9.3.2.3 Bicyclists: Some Overall Considerations
Key elements that affect intersection performance for bicycles include the degree to which the roadway
is shared or used exclusively by bicyclists (e.g., shared-use lane, bike lane, buffered bike lane, etc.); the
relationship between turning and through movements for motor vehicles and bicycles; the presence of
any specific traffic control for bicyclists; the relative volume and speed difference between motor
vehicles and bicyclists; and when there is an off-street path for cyclists and pedestrians crossing one of
the intersection legs. Other factors, such as on-street parking on the approaches and frequency of
bicycle use, will also affect the safety performance and comfort of the intersection. For additional
guidance, refer to Chapter 5.
9.3.2.4 Transit: Some Overall Considerations
Transit operations may involve buses, light rail transit (LRT), street cars, and more. More importantly,
they may also involve transit stops in the intersection area, creating potential conflicts with pedestrian,
bicycle, and motor vehicle flow. From a safety standpoint, the intersection design will need account for
these activities. For additional guidance, refer to Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.
9.3.2.5 Design Vehicle Implications
A functional layout based on the characteristics of a design vehicle should be cost-effective and
accommodate at least 85% of vehicles operating within normal size and weight conditions. Larger
vehicles may be used as the design vehicle, in which case they should enter and depart from the
intersection in the correct lane(s). However, where these vehicles only use the intersection occasionally
and adequate sight distances are present, it may be acceptable for the design to be based on them
encroaching into other traffic lanes. This may cause some inconvenience to other road users, but should
be acceptable where there is a low frequency of occurrence and will minimize infrequently required
large radius corners that may encourage high speed turns by other vehicles, which would compromise
pedestrian and cyclist safety.
When selecting a design vehicle, designers should also consider whether the location is subjected to
seasonal agricultural activities, where the number and type of large vehicles may be very high for a
relative ly short period of time (e.g., harvesting crops). In such cases, it may be appropriate for the typical
agricultural vehicle to be considered for use as the design vehicle.
Where the route is designated for frequent use of special vehicles that fall outside the general size and
weight regulations, or where regular use of the route by these vehicles could reasonably be expected,
the design should satisfy the needs of such vehicles. The operation of these vehicles should not be
compromised by having to encroach into other traffic lanes.
Where the frequency of use by large or special vehicles is high, and it is cost-effective, it is important to:
• Provide for the swept paths of large/special vehicles
• Provide truck stopping sight distance:
o lateral sight distance restrictions are often critical, particularly at T-intersections in hilly
terra in or near bridge piers
14 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
o for intersections on or near crest vertical curves
o to allow large/special veh icles to turn safely into each road
o at railway crossings, speed change areas, and merge areas such as lane drops
• Consider vehicle stability for turning movements by providing radii appropriate for the turning
speeds, and a satisfactory crossfall and a uniform rate of change for crossfall.
9.3.3 TERRAIN
It is important to consider the topography at intersections when selecting an alignment for a new road
because it can:
• Affect the safety and efficiency of the approaches to the intersection
• Affect the extent of grading to achieve an acceptable standard (i.e., cost of the intersection)
• Require benching of slopes around the intersection to ensure slope stability (i.e., this may
increase the footprint of the intersection in terms of its environmental effects).
The availability of land can determine the form of an intersection, particularly in urban areas where the
cost of land is high . For example, in inner urban areas, a roundabout or a left-turn slip lane may not be
an option because of the inability or expense to acquire land.
9.3.4 ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE
The design of intersections may be influenced by a range of environmental considerations which include
the effect of the various options on:
• Snow plowing and storage operations
• Flora and fauna (habitats)
• Watercourses
• Parkland and cemeteries
• Erosion of the surrounding area
• Visual amenity of the landscape
• Noise levels for adjacent landowners.
Heritage considerations may include, but are not limited to, the presence of historic buildings, bridges or
fountains; First Nation sites; and other locations that have historic significance to the community.
9.3.5 PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS
Physical constraints that may influence an intersection design, apart from those previously mentioned,
include a broad range of items, such as:
• Right-of-way availability
• Existing development infrastructure
• Existing roadway/intersection geometry
• Utility services, such as telecommunication facilities, power plants, large water mains, etc.
• Nearby intersections and driveways
• Adjacent existing bridges
• Transport infrastructure, such as LRT lines and ra ilway tracks.
9.3.6 ROAD SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
Designers should establish the types and location of all road features, including traffic control devices,
markings, and landscaping, and consider road maintenance requirements . In some cases, the
June 2017 15
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
effectiveness of these elements may be influenced by the intersection design and, conversely, they may
26
influence the intersection design.
9.3.6.1 Traffic Maneuvers
At an at-grade intersection, the typical traffic movements within an intersection and its approach
include diverging, merging, crossing, and weaving. These movements are illustrated in Figure 9.3.1.
Diverging and merging may be to the right, to the left, mutual, or multiple.
Crossings are termed "direct" if the angle of intersection is between 70° and 110° (right-angled
intersection) or "oblique" if the intersection angle is less than 70° or greater than 110° (oblique
intersection).
Weaving consists of the crossing of traffic streams moving in the same direction. It is accomplished by a
merging maneuver, followed by a diverging maneuver. Weaving sections may be considered to be
simple or multiple with a further subdivision into one-sided or two-sided weaving.
16 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
~~ ~
left mutual
diverging
~• ~
~
left mutual
merging
direct, right direct, left oblique right oblique left
crossing
simple , one-sided simple , two-sided
~==~
- ~
sim~ple====~~~
~~
::::::::::::::: multi pie
weaving dual purpose
Figure 9.3.1: Typical Traffic Movements within an Intersection and its Approach
June 2017 17
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.3.6.2 Conflicts
Every rural and urban at-grade intersection has conflict areas. One of the main objectives of intersection
design is to minimize the severity of potential conflicts between all intersection maneuvers.
A traffic conflict occurs whenever the paths vehicles follow diverge, merge, or cross. The number of
traffic conflicts at intersections depends on the:
• Number of one-way or two-way approaches to the intersection
• Number of lanes at each approach
• Signal control
• Traffic volumes
• Percentage of right or left turns.
27 28
As an example, Figure 9.3.2 shows conflict points for a T-intersection and a cross-intersection. ' With
the addition of a single intersection leg, the number of conflict points increases from 9 to 32. The
difference in collision rates at three- and four-legged intersections is also illustrated in Figure 9.3.2; it
shows that, as traffic volume increases, collision rates become more significant because of the increase
29
in conflict points at four-legged intersection. The designer should be cautioned, however, that the
number of conflict points for offset, or split T-intersection arrangements would not be 18 (2 x 9); the
number of conflict points for this type of intersection configuration (two T-intersections) would likely be
closer to that of a four-way intersection with 32 conflict points.
The conflict areas of concern are divided into two categories:
• Major conflict areas where head-on, right-angle, or rear-end collisions may occur. These
collision types are more likely to result in increased collision severity (fatal or personal injury).
• Minor conflict areas where sideswipe collisions may take place. These collision types are more
likely to results in property damage rather than injury.
30
Illustrations of traffic conflict areas are shown in Figure 9.3.3. The 90° T- and cross-intersections have
the smallest conflict areas compared to the skewed cross-intersection and the multi-legged intersection,
which have the largest.
Channelized intersections with auxiliary lanes further reduce the size of the conflict area and the
number of vehicles passing through the same intersection point, by separating traffic movements into
definite paths of travel guided by pavement markings and islands. For further information on
channelized intersections, see Part 2 of this Chapter.
In urban environments, conflicts can also occur between vehicles and pedestrians, and vehicles and
bicyclists. Vehicles typically conflict with pedestrian crossing maneuvers. They can also conflict with any
bicycle maneuver. The 90° T- and cross-intersections are the most straightforward intersections for
pedestrian and bicycle maneuvers. Channelization may increase vehicle/pedestrian conflicts as
pedestrians attempt to cross the turning roadway. Roundabout designs may provide a good way of
reducing speeds and collision severities at intersections. More information of the benefits of
roundabouts can be found in the TAC Roundabout Design Guide.
18 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
three-legged four-legged
30
intersection 30 intersection
9 conflict points 32 conflict points
& 3 diverge & 8 diverge
• 3 merge • 8 merge
• 3 cross • 16 cross
9.----------------------------------. collision rates "
D four-legged intersection
8•~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~· at three- and four-
~ three-legged intersection legged intersections
7
c:
.Q
tl
~ 6
Cl)
~
~ 5
C/)
c:
0
gj 4
0
CJ
ro
E
c:
3
ro
Cl)
gi 2
~
ro
5,000 5,000- 10,000- > 20,000
10,000 20,000
AADT
31 32
Figure 9.3.2: Conflict Points and Collision Rates of Three-and Four-Legged lntersections '
June 2017 19
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
T-intersection Y-intersection
cross offset oblique
_),~~
== ~O~ ==
~~;r-
~ major conflict (i f(
multi-legged intersection roundabout
l-;:::~m·:::-:1 minor conflict
33
Figure 9.3.3: Conflict Areas at lntersections
20 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.3.6.3 Prohibited Turns
Prohibited turns can be discouraged by designing tight or extended curb returns that make it difficult to
achieve these turns. Channelization is also used to restrict or prevent prohibited, undesirable, or wrong-
way movements. The design can also be reinforced through appropriate signing and pavement
markings.
Physically blocking certain traffic movements is effective in promoting collision-free and efficient traffic
flow. Examples where this may be desirable include :
• Preventing certain cross and turning movements where intersections are closely spaced
(typically urban environment)
• Preventing left turns into driveways near intersections (urban or rural)
• Limiting commercial driveway access movements along divided arterials (urban or rural)
• Reducing the number of turning movements at multi-legged intersections (typically urban
environment)
• Blocking non-local traffic from short cutting through residential neighbourhoods (urban).
Where turns at intersections are prohibited, channelization and reduced corner radii can be used, in
combination with appropriate traffic signing and pavement markings, to physically prevent or at least
discourage the prohibited movement. To discourage specific turning movements, corner radii are
typically in the range of 1.0 m to 3.0 m.
Figure 9.3.4 illustrates various means used in geometric design to block or deter undesired traffic
movements or wrong-way turns through the effective use of geometric features.
9.3.6.4 Traffic Control Measures
The selection and design of traffic control measures including signals, signing, and pavement markings
are traffic operations considerations. Guidelines for the use of traffic control measures often vary by
jurisdiction and are available in their respective relevant publications.
9.3.6.5 Reducing Collision Risk
Many conflict points exist at intersections between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. As such,
intersections are considered to be areas of high collision potential. A designer must strive to minimize
points of conflict through design, while providing adequately for all desired vehicle, pedestrian, and
cyclist maneuvers.
An understanding of human factors is indispensable in the development of appropriate geometric
design, and the subsequent operational quality and safety of the intersection. Driving performance is
improved when a road is designed to be within the road user's expectations. When a design is
incompatible with the needs of a road user, the chances for error increase. Inefficient operation and
34
collisions are often a result of incompatible design.
June 2017 21
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
' ' ' .,I ',. 22 ' ' ' ' ' I ,. ' ] ' nr? I I I, , , ' t~ ~.:,'"
__
a. raised centre median
) \' - _
c I? c I? c ? c ? I c I c~
,,.-------
(, ~
---~'
11
b. effective design of median channelization } 1(
~---,
\
c. approach and radii treatment
!/ I
Note: Dashed lines indicate
movements being
prohibited and I or
discouraged
_J
/-- - -cz-zzzzz:ij
\ ~\
l \ Wtl
If :
d. raised channelizing islands
Figure 9.3.4: Prohibiting or Discouraging Turns at Intersections
22 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Traffic volume is generally the most significant contributor to intersection collisions . Typically, as traffic
35
volumes increase, conflicts increase; therefore, the number of collisions increases. Severity of
collisions varies only slightly among rural, suburban, and urban intersections : the percentage of severe
36
collisions is approximately 5% higher for rural intersections.
37
Other elements related to intersection collision rates include geometric layout and traffic control. As
mentioned in Section 9.3.6.4, traffic control measures are not addressed in this document. The
relationship between specific geometric elements and safety is described below.
Type of Intersection
In rural settings, four-legged intersections typically have higher collision rates than T-intersections
38
(three-legged) for stop and signal controls.
In urban settings, very little difference in collision rates between four-legged and T-intersections was
found for low volume intersections (average daily traffic under 20,000); however, for larger volumes,
the four-legged intersection was found to have the higher collision rate .39
Sight Distance
In an urban and a rural setting, the collision rate at most intersections will generally decrease when sight
40
obstructions are removed and sight distance is increased.
Channelization
41
In a rural environment, left-turn lanes reduce the potential of passing collisions.
In an urban setting, multi-vehicle collisions decrease when lane dividers (e.g., raised reflectors, painted
lines, barriers, or medians) are used; however, the use of left-turn lanes was not considered effective as
42
a collision countermeasure but was considered effective as a means of increasing capacity.
Cross Section
Safety considerations for cross section elements, such as lane width, are addressed in Chapter 4.
9.3.6.6 Road Lighting
Standards and guidance on the design of road lighting may vary by jurisdiction in Canada. Whether
intersection lighting is warranted is generally also determined by jurisdictional policy. In general,
intersection lighting should focus on critical areas such as:
• Points of traffic conflict such as merges, diverges, crossings, and entry points
• Median ends, separators, and traffic islands
• Pedestrian crossing areas
• Transit stops and areas where pedestrians gather
9.3.6.7 Landscaping and Streetscaping
These treatments should be designed to complement road safety objectives. Elements of these
treatments will help determine the placement of roadside vegetation and any landscape elements built
within the right-of-way. Rocks and other solid obstacles should not be placed within medians and traffic
islands, or within a clear zone.
June 2017 23
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Adequate sight distance should be provided. Further, vegetation should not be placed where it will
impede a driver's ability to see and safely respond to road signs or traffic signals. Many jurisdictions
have specific guidelines that the designer should consider.
9.3.6.8 Maintenance Considerations
Intersections have to be maintained. Some key design considerations for rural and urban intersections
are included below.
Rural Intersections
• Avoid dead areas of pavement that will collect refuse and gravel.
• Prevent gravel from being washed and tracked onto the road.
• Wherever possible, ensure maintenance equipment can operate clear of traffic.
• Maintain vegetation to keep sightlines clear.
• Use only low maintenance species of plant within medians and traffic islands.
• Consider innovative and attractive surfaces on medians and traffic islands instead of
vegetation, to minimize the need for maintenance. This will improve both road safety and the
safety of maintenance workers.
• Make accommodations for snow storage under winter conditions. Such accommodations
should maintain required sightlines.
Urban Intersections
• Where possible, provide sufficient space to enable maintenance personnel to safely maintain
signal hardware.
• Provide a safe area for the signal controller and, where possible, an adjacent parking space for
the maintenance vehicle.
• Make accommodations for snow storage under winter conditions. Such accommodations
should maintain required sightlines for all road users.
• Provide areas for street furniture (e.g., transit shelters, garbage/recycling bins, benches etc.)
that can be easily maintained without impeding vehicles, pedestrians, or cyclists.
43
9.4 THE DESIGN PROCESS
9.4.1 OVERVIEW
This section provides a summary of intersection planning and design procedures, outlined in the design
flow chart shown in Figure 9.4.1.
The chart illustrates the:
• Importance of planning considerations, current and future transport, and traffic requirements
to determine the intended function and form of an existing or new intersection-or whether
an intersection is required at all.
• Way in which data, topography, user characteristics, policy, budgets, and local issues combine
to influence the development of intersection design options.
• Iterative nature of the design process whereby design options are evaluated and refined until
the most appropriate design is approved .
24 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Planning Considerations
Current situation Future situation:
Determine function of an existing or new
- Current volumes/composition - Changes in volumes I composition
intersection in network intended to
- Current movements - Alterations in movements likely or
accommodate all road users
- Current accidents desirable
No
No Determine impact of
diverting traffic
Topographic information
End
Basic Data
Access. Design Volumes. Speed , etc
User characteristics Develop matrix of suitable intersection layouts and
Policies
Preferred practice forms of control
Constraints
Evaluation process
(budget, etc)
Yes
Modification of options
Acceptance process. approvals. etc
Development of detailed working
drawings and specifications
Construction
Figure 9.4.1: Design Process Flow Chart
June 2017 25
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
The development of a final design is fa ci litated by drawings that become progressively more detailed
throughout the process. Some important aspects of the process are described below.
Roads are one form of land use and one element in the transport system. In developing areas and
existing urban road networks, the role of roads is influenced by the type of land use and the other
modes of transportation available . The development of new roads and road networks therefore requires
input from specialists in land use planning, transport modelling, and traffic engineering.
While the current traffic situation is relevant in many cases, designs for new roads and major upgrades
of existing roads requires estimations of traffic flows, traffic movements, and traffic composition in a
future design year. In some cases, the need for an intersection may be questioned. A decision not to
provide a new intersection or to remove an existing intersection should be taken only after an analysis
of the likely effects on other roads and intersections in the surrounding road network. These effects
could involve traffic congestion, crashes at other intersections, or traffic infiltration into local streets.
For new intersections, possible locations will have to be identified, taking into account topography,
natural and man-made features, and many other considerations as outlined in Section 9.3. It may also
be appropriate to consider a range of layout options and to evaluate them in terms of safety, traffic
performance, environmental effect, and cost.
The process also involves an approval process that is preceded by consultation with other stakeholders
(e.g., local municipalities and service authorities), the outcome of which may influence the design and
final recommendation.
9.4.2 LOCATION AND SPACING OF INTERSECTIONS
Both rural road and urban road network spacing are often based on the location of the original road
allowances before urban development. The systems of survey employed in the layout of original road
allowances vary from region to region across Canada. As rural areas urbanize, the development of major
roads generally occurs along these original road allowances; consequently, road networks vary from
region to region. As examples, the land survey system in Ontario has created a basic spacing between
major roads of 2.0 km, whereas the land survey system in the Prairie Provinces has resulted in a 1.6 km
grid.
As development occurs, this spacing is often reduced. In areas of commercial or mixed use
development, the vehicle, cyclist, and pedestrian traffic generated by employment and retail shopping
may result in a reduced arterial spacing. In downtown areas, this spacing could be reduced further, as
determined by the various road user characteristics and typically higher relative needs of pedestrians
and cyclists.
The spacing of intersections along a road in both an urban and rural setting has a great effect on the
operation, level of service, and vehicular capacity of the roadway. Ideally, intersection spacing along a
road should be selected based on function, traffic volume, and the relative presence of various road
user modes (e.g., vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians). However, it is often not always possible to provide ideal
intersection spacing for all road users, especially in an urban setting. The designer should consider
arterials, collectors, locals, cross roadway intersection spacing adjacent to interchanges, and traffic
signal spacing and progression.
26 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.4.2.1 Arterials
Along signalized arterial roads, vehicular traffic volumes are generally high. It is therefore desirable to
provide spacing between signalized intersections that is consistent with the desired vehicular traffic
progression speed and signal cycle lengths. By spacing the intersections uniformly, based on known or
assumed running speeds and appropriate cycle lengths, signal progression in both directions can be
achieved. Progression allows platoons of vehicles to travel through successive intersections without
stopping. For a progression speed of about 50 km/h and a cycle length of 60 s, the corresponding
desired spacing between signalized intersections is approximately 400 m. As speeds increase, the
optimal intersection spacing increases proportionately.
Where an arterial corridor must accommodate a variety of road users (e.g., vehicles, cyclists, and
pedestrians), vehicle operations and the consequent intersection designs must balance the various
needs while recognizing that the priority of arterial roadways is generally servicing vehicular traffic
movement.
A typical minimum intersection spacing along arterial roadways is 200 m, generally only applicable in
areas of intense existing development or restrictive physical controls where feasible alternatives do not
exist. The 200 m spacing allows for minimum lengths of back to back storage for left turning vehicles at
the adjacent intersections.
The close spacing does not permit signal progression; therefore, it is normally preferable not to signalize
the intersection that interferes with progression along a major arterial. Intersection spacing at or near
the 200 m minimum is normally only acceptable along minor arterials, where optimizing traffic mobility
is not as important as along major arterials.
Where intersection spacing along an arterial does not permit an adequate level of traffic service, many
alternatives can be considered to improve traffic flow. These include, but are not limited to:
• Converting two-way to one-way operation
• Implementing cul-de-sacs for minor connecting roads
• Introducing channelization to restrict turning movements at selected intersections to right
turns only.
The designer's options may be substantially limited by the policies of the local jurisdiction.
On divided arterial roads, a right-in, right-out intersection without a median opening may be permitted
at least 100 m from an adjacent all-directional intersection. The distance is measured between the
closest edges of pavement of the adjacent intersecting roads.
In retrofit situations, the desired spacing of intersections along an arterial is sometimes compromised in
consideration of other design controls, such as the nature of existing adjacent development and the
associated access needs.
9.4.2.2 Collectors
The typical minimum spacing between adjacent intersections along a collector road is 60 m.
9.4.2.3 Locals
Along local roads, the minimum spacing between four-legged intersections is normally 60 m. Where the
adjacent intersections are three-legged, a minimum spacing of 40 mis acceptable.
June 2017 27
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.4.2.4 Cross Roadway Intersection Spacing Adjacent To Interchanges
The upper half of Figure 9.4.2 shows the intersection spacing along an arterial crossing road
approaching a diamond interchange in constrained environments. Desirably, the offset of an access road
intersection should be 400 m away from the nea rest interchange ramp intersection, or a minimum of
150 m from the end of the interchange ramp taper on the minor road, whichever distance is greater.
However, in constrained environments, this may not be achievable, in which case, reduced values are
sometimes applied.
The suggested minimum distance between a collector road and the nearest ramp, as measured along
the arterial cross road, is 200 m (dimension Aeon Figure 9.4.2). In the case of an arterial/arterial cross
road intersection, this minimum offset distance from the ramp is normally increased to 400 m
(dimension A. on Figure 9.4.2). The same dimensions apply to arterial cross roads approaching parclo-
type interchanges, as shown in the lower half of Figure 9.4.2.
Ramp Intersection Spacing at Interchanges
The top part of Figure 9.4.2, as well as Figure 9.4.3, illustrate the suggested and minimum intersection
spacing and lane configurations on the cross road at a typical diamond interchange. The two different
channelization treatments show how channelization can affect left-turn storage and be used to
discourage wrong-way left turns from the cross road onto the interchange ramps.
The most common cause of congestion and breakdown at diamond interchanges is insufficient left-turn
storage. These left turns could be from the ramp to the cross road, the cross road to the ramp, or both .
Estimates of the storage length requirements are best determined using intersection capacity analysis
techniques for the specific anticipated conditions. As a general guide, the ramp intersections at the cross
road are placed 140 m apart to provide a left-turn storage length of about 100 m. The suggested
minimum ramp spacing (B) of 100 m (see the table in the bottom part of Figure 9.4.3) typically provides
a side-by-side left-turn storage length of about 70 m. Longer ramp intersection spacing is normally
provided when using back-to-back left-turn storage lanes, narrow interchange bridges, or if required by
anticipated traffic conditions and the resulting left-turn storage requirements.
The median bulbing technique shown in the top part of Figure 9.4.3 reduces the left-turn storage length
but has the advantage of clearly defining the protected area for left-turning vehicles. This arrangement
is generally only suitable under low-volume traffic conditions. When the left-turn storage area is
insufficient between ramp intersections, the bulbs can be removed, as shown in the bottom part of
Figure 9.4.3. Extending the left-turn storage area in advance of the first ramp terminal intersection may
also be considered for capacity purposes. However, this arrangement may increase the incidence of
wrong-way left turns from the cross road at the first ramp terminal intersection.
A channelization treatment at ramp intersections is designed to discourage wrong-way turns onto the
interchange ramps. Other considerations may also influence the design of the ramp/cross road
intersections. The bottom part of Figure 9.4.3 shows the ramp approaches and departures aligned and
at right-angles to the cross road. This configuration allows traffic to travel straight across the cross road,
from the exit ramp onto the entrance ramp. With this geometry, the ramps can be used effectively to
accommodate:
• Oversized or overloaded vehicles that cannot pass under or over the overpass structure at the
interchange
• Detour traffic during emergencies or maintenance activities
28 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
• Through traffic while the ramps function as an initial stage of a future grade-separated facility
• Transit vehicles leaving the freeway to pick up passengers and then returning to the freeway.
The diagram on the lower part of Figure 9.4.2 illustrates suggested spacing (dimension B) between ramp
intersections at the cross road for a parclo interchange. The minimum suggested spacing is 250 m.
Greater spacing is normally provided if required by anticipated traffic conditions. The selection of the
radii for the loop ramps has a significant influence on the spacing between the ramp intersections on
the cross road, as does the number of lanes along the freeway.
June 2017 29
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Aa
fsl1I . .
!I( intersection \
cross road
(arterial)
Ac - 200 m minimum offset for collector intersection
Aa - 400 m minimum offset for arterial intersection
B - design domain of 100 m to 140 m
(function of right-of-way)
B Aa
Ejoll
o I
~
t::
uurintersection-\
I cross road
(arterial)
Ac - 200 m minimum offset for collector intersection
Aa - 400 m minimum offset for arterial intersection
B - design domain of 250 m to 400 m
(function of right-of-way)
Figure 9.4.2: Cross Road Intersection Spacing Adjacent to Interchanges
30 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
intersection spacing
s
left-turn storage length
I. s .I
left-turn storage length
a. bulbed median design
B
intersection spacing
s
left-turn storage length
left-turn storage minimum•
introduced in
advance of first B 100 m
ramp terminal
S 70m
Note a: spacing may be longer if required
b. extended left-turn storage by anticipated traffic conditions
Figure 9.4.3: Intersection Spacing/ Channelization Treatment at Diamond Interchanges
June 2017 31
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.4.2.5 Traffic Signal Spacing and Progression
Efficient progression of vehicular traffic along arterial roads is dependent on the provision of optimal
and uniform traffic signal spacing. Signal progression is directly dependent on traffic speeds and
intersection spacing.
Figure 9.4.4 illustrates the relationship between traffic signal spacing, cycle length, and average running
speed. Table 9.4.1 presents the desired spacing between signalized intersections for selected
incremental traffic speeds and cycle lengths (obtained from Figure 9.4.4). This information can be used
effectively to plan and site new traffic signal installations. In urban situations with running speeds of
30 to 40 km/h, multiple factors influence signal locations other than spacing, so signal progression is
generally no longer an issue.
100
'\ " '\ "(vo,v
'\ '\
'\
'\ "'
"'-'.'~
'< av
~
~
"'--
90
"' 7
Oo
"
:2
E
2=.- "' '0v,,_,
"'-- "'--
"'--
"'--
"O
Q)
Q)
Cl.
80 "'-- ""'
"'-- ""'
(/)
OJ '-
c
·c:
c
2
Q)
70
""'
OJ
!.".
Q)
>
co "'-
60
60 70 80 90 100 110
cycle length (s)
Note: dashed lines indicate reduced platooning and signal progression
benefits for signal spacing greater than 800 m
44
Figure 9.4.4: Desirable Signal Spacing for Combinations of Cycle Length
32 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.4.1: Desirable Spacing between Signalized Intersections for Progression (m)
Average Cycle Lengths (s)
Running
Speed 60 70 80 90 100
(km/h)
40 33S 290 44S soo SSS
so 41S 48S SSS 62S 69S
60 soo S8S 66S 7SO 83S
70 S8S 680 780 87S 970
80 66S 780 890 1,000 1,110
90 7SO 87S 1,000 l,12S l,2SO
Note: Values below the heavy line indicate that the benefits of signal progression are
reduced for spacings greater than 800 m.
The information in Figure 9.4.4 and Table 9.4.1 can also be used to adjust signal cycle lengths for varying
running speeds for off-peak and peak periods. For example, a cycle length of 60 sis appropriate to
develop progression for a signal spacing of 600 m and an off-peak running speed of about 70 km/h.
During the peak period, the running speed may be reduced to about SS km/h. At this speed, on an urban
arterial, a cycle length of about 80 s maintains traffic progression through successive intersections.
When the spacing between signalized intersections exceeds about 800 m, as is common in a rural
environment where cycle lengths are in the range of 90 to 120 s, the benefits of signal progression are
reduced as the effect of platoon dispersion diminishes the compactness of the traffic stream.
9.4.3 DESIGN SPEED
This section discusses design speed as it pertains to intersections in rural and urban environments.
9.4.3.1 Rural
In a rural environment, the design speed of the major roadway is used for the main intersection
approaches to determine taper lengths, deceleration and acceleration lengths, and other geometric
features .
Design speed is typically not reduced at rural intersections where drivers are accustomed to long
periods of uninterrupted travel. Inattentive drivers should be alerted to the fact that an intersection is
ahead and should have enough time to react accordingly by providing adequate deceleration and
acceleration lengths for the design speed.
9.4.3.2 Urban
In an urban environment, it is generally desirable to maintain the design speed of a roadway as it passes
through an intersection, particularly for a roadway where the traffic has or may have the right-of-way
through the intersection. Examples of this situation are :
• An intersection controlled by traffic signals or that may be controlled by signals in the future
• A major roadway crossing a minor roadway, where the minor roadway has a stop or yield
control, and the major roadway is not controlled
• An uncontrolled intersection.
June 2017 33
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
For an urban roadway controlled by a yield sign at an intersection, approach speeds of about 25 km/h
are common. A suitable design speed for such an approach roadway within the zone of the intersection
would be 35 km/h .
Where traffic on a minor roadway is, and will likely always be, controlled by a stop sign at an
intersection, the design speed of the minor roadway can be reduced through the intersection area. As a
basic requirement, it is important to provide sufficient sight distance for the design vehicle to safely
depart from the stopped position and make the desired maneuver through the intersection.
If a design speed equal to or greater than the existing posted speed cannot be achieved through an
intersection, changes to the posted speed, the implementation of speed advisory signing, or similar
treatment should be considered. Sound judgement is called for in selecting the design elements that
meet the expectations of the driver.
9.4.4 DESIGN OPTIONS FOR URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
In residential areas, along local roads, land access takes priority over vehicular mobility and capacity.
The benefits achieved through low vehicular mobility and slower moving traffic include enhanced safety
for pedestrians and children at play, reduced noise levels, reduced vehicle emissions, and increased
comfort for residents . These are desirable characteristics for local residential roads and, to a lesser
extent, residential collectors.
Local roads typically operate with reasonable safety ifthe following two characteristics exist:
• There are a limited number of connections from the subdivision to the bordering arterial or
other major roads. Preferably, the local subdivision roadways connect to collectors which, in
turn, intersect the arterials or other major roads.
• The interna l road network is discontinuous or circuitous so that through traffic is discouraged
from making short cutting movements through the subdivision .
For new developments, consideration should be given to a "neo-traditional" style of neighbourhood .
This type of neighbourhood is characterized by shorter blocks, narrower roads, and the provision of
sidewalks to encourage slower and less convenient vehicular travel, and alternative modes of
transportation (e.g., cycling, walking, and transit). The local roads connect to collector and/or arterial
roads which then provide faster, more efficient travel.
Where traffic volumes are high on a local road system developed in a grid pattern, it may be
advantageous retrofitting existing roads and intersections and altering traffic controls to reduce traffic
45
volumes and speeds. Section 6.2.S in Chapter 6 offers suggestions for ways to retrofit neighbourhood
streets to reduce speeds and through traffic volumes.
When implementing techniques to limit or restrict traffic on a specific road, a careful assessment of
where the displaced traffic will be diverted to is required. If the traffic is diverted to another local road,
the problem is only relocated rather than solved .
9.4.5 INTERSECTION LAYOUT FOR NEW AND RETROFIT DESIGN
While every intersection has specific layout requirements to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes,
movements, and site conditions, experience has shown that rural and urban intersection improvements
are often the result of different concerns. For example, rural intersection features (auxiliary lanes,
channelization) are of ten implemented to address safety/collision rate issues while urban intersection
features are typically implemented to address capacity and operational issues. Examples of design
considerations for both rural and urban intersections are outlined below.
34 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Design Considerations for Rural Intersections
• Provide adequate sight distance on approaches to, and clear sightlines at intersections.
• Design all exclusive turning lanes for deceleration from high speed.
• Provide left-turn lanes along major roads to remove left-turning vehicles from the through
traffic lanes.
• Avoid undesirable geometry (sharp curves, steep grades) near intersections.
• Ensure grade and cross-slopes provide for adequate drainage.
Design Considerations for Urban Intersections
• Accommodate all road users (e.g., vehicles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians) and modes in a
safe manner through the judicious use of cross section elements.
• Accommodate and/or control the effects of traffic access adjacent to intersections.
• Design separate turning lanes or other measures (i.e., transit priority, protected cycling
facilities, etc.) with sufficient length to enable operation independently of adjacent lanes.
• Ensure grade and cross-slopes provide for adequate drainage.
• Provide required sight distances for various movements and users.
9.4.5.1 Intersection Layout
The purpose of this section is to guide the designer through the process of collecting data to be used in
the determination of intersection layout.
Normally, intersection improvement occurs in conjunction with the overall upgrading of an existing
roadway facility through grading, base course, or overlay operations. The type of intersection layout
selected for these intersections will be primarily based on traffic volumes and turning movements of
both roads.
Intersection improvements may also be provided at intersecting roads as warranted by traffic analysis.
In addition, if the number of collisions at an intersection is considered unacceptable, geometric
improvements may be warranted, as determined by a geometric assessment. For new construction,
intersection layout may be determined based on projected road user volumes (e.g., vehicles, cyclists,
and pedestrians) and required movements for the design year.
9.4.5.2 Data Collection
The basic data related to location, user volumes (e.g., vehicular, cyclist, and pedestrian), design speed,
and posted speed should be assembled for both an urban and a rural environment.
9.4.5.3 Functional Characteristics
Functional characteristics should be determined for both urban and rural intersection types and include
the following:
Part I
• Collision analysis: Check the rate of collisions for an existing intersection, the types of
collisions, and whether or not the rates are considered acceptable for the particular situation.
• Access requirements: Check the need for access within the intersection plan area for
developments, such as service stations and private lots.
June 2017 35
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
• Future development: Identify possible future land development nearby that could become a
heavy traffic generator.
• Access design: Check if current and future access needs can be accommodated safely and
effectively within the intersection plan area.
• Type of turning vehicles: Identify design vehicle for the intersection
• Presence of bicycles and pedestrians
• Percentage of trucks: Check for high percentages of truck or traffic volumes; high volumes
could warrant longer auxiliary lanes
Part II
Without undertaking detailed calculations to determine the level of service (LOS) of an intersection, a
check of the roadway LOS can provide an indication of the effectiveness of an intersection's operation.
When a roadway drops below LOS C, a detailed analysis of the intersection's needs may be desirable. In
some cases, threshold values for analysis may be set by the local jurisdiction. Additional intersection
analysis may also be desirable in a complex urban environment.
• Turning movement diagram: Obtain turning movement diagrams for existing intersections.
Four diagrams can be prepared: current average annual daily traffic (AADT), current design
hour volume (DHV), design year AADT, and design year DHV.
• Check warrants for exclusive left-turn lane: See Section 9.6 (Part 2 of this Chapter).
• Check warrants for exclusive right-turn lane: See Section 9.6.
For any proposed improvement to other roads that would affect the design intersection, check for any
planned surfacing or resurfacing of a nearby roadway or realignment of another road. These changes
could potentially increase or decrease traffic volumes at the design intersection.
9.4.5.4 Geometric Characteristics
Geometric characteristics for intersection analysis are:
• Intersection sight distance: Indicate existing intersection sight distances on all approaches for
all relevant design vehicles and compare them to the required intersection sight distances.
• Decision sight distance: Check for requirements at complex intersections where there is the
possibility for error in information reception, decision making, or control actions (particularly
for channelized intersections).
• Skew angle: Identify the angle formed by the intersecting roadway with the main roadway; the
design domain is 70° to 90°.
• Intersection on horizontal curve and superelevation rate: Avoid intersections on curves, if
possible; check for sight distance and turning ability.
• Profile of main and intersecting roadways: At larger volume rural intersections, adjustments
to deceleration lane lengths may be necessary for grade effect.
9.4.5.5 Other Characteristics
Other characteristics needed to evaluate rural and an urban intersections and roundabouts, include:
• Effect on utilities: Check for existing utilities within the intersection area; revisions to the
design may be needed to minimize the effect on utilities.
• Effect on right-of-way: Decide if additional rights-of-way will be required for the intersection
treatment and, if so, consider cost significance in terms of overall intersection treatment cost.
36 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
• Warrant for future signalization: Check the need for signalization using the most currently
applicable warrant guides; signalization may be required if there are any of the following
situations: collision concerns, abnormal left-turn volumes or pedestrian hazards, insufficient
sight distance, delay problems, or undesirable gaps. When warrants for signalization are
checked, consideration should be given to roundabouts as well.
• Warrant for illumination: Check the need for illumination using applicable guides for all road
user modes (e.g., vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians).
9.4.5.6 Further Analysis
The concept of LOS of a roadway uses qualitative measures that characterize operational conditions
46
within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and passengers. The calculation of LOS
depends on many variables, including volume; percentage of trucks, RVs, and buses; percentage of no
passing zones; design speed; cross section; and terrain.
For rural roadways with LOS A, adequate sight distances, good geometry, and no safety concerns, a
simple intersection may be considered (see Figure 9.13.1). The addition of a right-lane taper with
recovery taper (see Figure 9.14.2) or left-turn lane slip around (see Figure 9.17.9) may also be
considered. These intersection layouts would allow for through vehicles to maneuver around a stopped
left-turning vehicle without significantly disrupting their travel.
A detailed LOS analysis of an intersection should be considered when a roadway is {or is anticipated to
be) operating at less than LOS A. In addition, detailed analysis should also be considered where
intersection collision rates are a concern and/or where sight distance and roadway geometrics are not
considered desirable. In many complex urban environments, detailed intersection analysis would also be
advantageous to address the many requirements of the intersection (including pedestrians and cyclists).
47
Intersection LOS analysis for both the urban and rural environments is detailed in other publications.
Detailed analysis may indicate that an intersection layout as described above may be acceptable.
However, it is likely that an intersection with auxiliary lanes for deceleration and storage (see Figure
9.13.2, Figure 9.13.3, and Figure 9.15.2) is identified as the preferred intersection layout.
Many jurisdictions have established intersection design guidelines that could complement this
procedure. For instance, in some jurisdictions, intersections must accommodate long-combination
vehicles (LCV) and logging trucks. The design of these intersections is specialized due to the unique
characteristics of such trucks; this region-specific information would have to be considered in an
intersection analysis. Similar specialized guidelines have also been developed to accommodate active
transportation modes (e.g., cycling and pedestrians).
9.4.6 ROAD CROSS SECTION
9.4.6.1 Road User Lanes and Shoulders
The selection of cross-section elements for roads is an iterative process that considers road function and
safety, environmental effect, economy, and aesthetics in order to determine the most appropriate
arrangement for the particular situation. The allocation of space to various road users is an important
factor. Chapter 4 outlines the various elements and recommended allocation.
June 2017 37
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.4.6.2 Medians
Medians at intersections are provided to:
• Separate opposing flows
• Provide a refuge for turning traffic
• Control the speed of turning traffic
• Provide a refuge for pedestrians
• Accommodate essential traffic control devices (e.g., signs and signals)
• Accommodate roadway lighting poles
• Direct drainage
• Provide access management.
Rural medians are often very wide. These may raise particular issues, which are discussed in Chapter 4.
9.4.6.3 Roadside Areas
Adequate clear zones should be provided around intersections as they are often associated with off-
road crashes. Slopes and drains adjacent to rural intersections should be flat and smooth to allow the
safe passage of errant vehicles. Fixed objects, such as signal controller boxes, should be placed so as to
minimize the chances of conflict with errant vehicles. Considerations relating to roadside design are
covered in Chapter 7.
9.5 AT-GRADE HIGHWAY /RAILWAY CROSSINGS
9.5.1 OVERVIEW
There are three specific categories of at-grade railway crossings:
• Passive crossings (no warning system): No active train detection or highway warning systems
are present, and the crossing is generally indicated by signing only or, in some cases,
combinations of signing and pavement markings. At these types of crossings, the responsibility
is on the driver to assess the crossing risk and-in accordance with rules of the road normally
specified under the relevant provincial/territorial highway traffic act-traverse the crossing at
the opportunity of their choosing. Both the railway and the road authority are responsible for
providing and maintaining adequate sightlines, as it is critical for drivers to be able to assess
whether or not it is safe to proceed across the tracks at crossings which do not have a warning
system.
• Active crossings with no gate protection (warning system without a gate): Active train
detection technologies are present and combined with various arrangements of signing,
flashing lights, bells, and in some cases interconnected traffic signals, to provide road users
with advance warning of the approach or actual presence of a train in the crossing.
• Active crossings with gate protection (warning system with a gate): The crossing combines
the protection devices used in active crossings with physical gates that lower and block the
roadway on the approach of a train to prevent road users from entering the crossing until the
train has traversed and sufficiently cleared the crossing.
In both active crossing types, drivers are provided with technologically-based guidance on the actual or
impending presence of a train to help them better assess when it is safe to proceed through the at-
grade railway crossing.
38 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
At federally regulated crossings, the railway company and the road authority have shared responsibility
of the crossing. These responsibilities concerning the design, construction, and maintenance of the
48
crossing are outlined in Section 3 of Transport Canada's Grade Crossings Regulations (GCR).
Refer to the GCR and Grade Crossings Standards (GCS) for minimum sightline requirements, crossing
warning system warrants, and required traffic control devices (e.g., signs, signals, pavement markings,
and barriers) for at-grade railway crossings. Reference can also be made to Transport Canada's
Determining Minimum Sightlines at Grade Crossings -A Guide for Road Authorities and Railway
Companies. 49
9.5.2 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
John Glennon points out (with specific reference to railway crossings):
"Reducing accidents at rail-highway grade crossings has long been a subject of public concern. No other
kind of motor-vehicle accident has such a high severity, making this a safety issue of primary
significance. The ratio of persons killed and injured to the number of accidents at grade crossings is forty
50
times the same ratio for all motor vehicle accidents".
This statistic masks the fact that vehicle-train collisions are only one component of the crashes that
occur at railway crossings. In his continuing discussion on this issue in the same text, Glennon goes on to
note that:
"About five times as many accidents at rail-highway crossings do not involve trains. These accidents
include rear-end collisions with vehicles stopped at the crossing, fixed object collisions with crossing
devices, and run-off-the-road collisions by drivers losing control on rough crossings or on severely
humped crossings. Therefore, remedial measures for reducing vehicle-train collisions must also not
compound non-train-involved accidents".
Because of the similarity of Canadian and American design and operations approaches to railway
crossings, the American statistics cited above are generally reflective of the Canadian context as well.
Mitigation measures-whether of a design or operating procedures nature-can significantly affect the
safety of a railway crossing for vehicles in and around the crossing, other than those that may ultimately
be involved in a train-vehicle crash.
From a risk standpoint, the time required to completely traverse and clear an at-grade railway crossing
represents an unavoidable period of exposure to the risk of collision with a train. The longer this period
of exposure, the greater the likelihood that a train may arrive while the vehicle has entered and not yet
completely cleared the crossing. Exposure periods are longer when vehicles must stop before entering
and clearing a crossing. Depending on the vehicle involved, such clearance times can be substantively
extended by the practice of stopping before entering and crossing the railway tracks. Other factors
affect the overall safety of the crossing, beyond the actual crossing time and resulting exposure, such as
train frequency, train speed, number of tracks, and more.
9.5.3 DEFENSIBILITY OF AT-GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING DESIGN
The designer should be aware that Transport Canada has restrictions with respect to the location of new
crossings. For example, new crossings are prohibited (according to the GCR) when:
• The railway design speed is more than 177km/h (llOmph), or
• If a road approach of the proposed grade crossing is a freeway, or
• If any part of the grade crossing would be closer than 30 m to any part of the traveled way of
an intersection road or entrance way when the railway speed exceeds 25 km/h (15 mph).
June 2017 39
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
The construction or alteration of any new federally regulated railway grade crossing must be undertaken
in accordance with the GCR, GCS, as well as Transport Canada's Notice of Railway Works Regulations.
Given their compliance with legislation, the key to the defensibility of crossing designs is the context
within which they are implemented, and the compliance of this broader design and operating context
with the generally accepted design, maintenance, and operating principles and practices that are extant
in the community of relevance (e.g., federal, provincial, territorial, or municipal). With the exception of
federal regulations, these may vary substantially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The following key considerations are of primary relevance to the defensibility of any grade crossing
design.
• Compliance with the Railway Safety Act: The Railway Safety Act is federal legislation that was
implemented in 1989. It sets the regulatory framework for addressing rail safety, security, and
some of the environmental effects of rail operations in Canada. Significant amendments were
made to this act in 2012 and came into force on May 1, 2013. As an engineering best practice,
Transport Canada recommends the development of a crossing safety program/policy that
51
incorporates the Canadian Grade Crossing Detailed Safety Assessment Field Guide. Ideally,
this should be a joint effort by the road authority and the railway. Other circumstances may
precipitate the requirement for an assessment, including cessation of whistling, construction
or significant operational changes, and trend or pattern of two or more fatal collisions and/or
serious injuries in five years.
• RTD 10: This is no longer in force and was replaced with Transport Canada's GCR and GCS
which came into force on November 27, 2014. RTD 10 was originally intended to set out
minimum safety criteria for construction, alteration, and maintenance (including inspection
and testing) of grade crossings, their road approaches, and other land adjoining the land on
which the railway line was situated.
• Transport Canada Grade Crossings Regulations and Grade Crossing Standards (2014):
Transport Canada replaced RTD 10 with the GCR and GCS, which provide updated minimum
safety criteria for the construction, alteration, and maintenance (including inspection and
testing) of grade crossings. 52
Designers should consult both the GCR and GCS for all design requirements of federally-regulated grade
crossings.
9.6 PART 2: TECHNICAL ASPECTS
9.6.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of Part 2 is to provide more detailed guidance on specific technical aspects of intersection
design.
9.6.2 GRADE SEPARATION OF MOVEMENTS
The design of at-grade intersections, particularly those in urban situations, often requires a traffic
analysis to establish the number of traffic lanes and length of vehicle queues that must be
accommodated to achieve a satisfactory capacity and level of service in the design year. This is not
generally problematic. However, situations may arise where a particular traffic movement results in
serious congestion or a road safety challenge that cannot be resolved through traffic management or
40 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
conventional at-grade treatment. Grade separating such movements is one option that may be
considered.
9.7 ALIGNMENT OF INTERSECTIONS
53
9.7.1 OVERVIEW
The process of designing an intersection is illustrated in Figure 9.7.1. It involves identifying operational
and geometric requirements that are inter-related, and determining the information that needs to be
presented on conceptual and functional design plans. The process can accommodate any form of
intersection, including roundabouts. For more detailed information on roundabout design, see the TAC
Canadian Roundabout Design Guide.
Determine road users to be
accommodated
i
Draw turning lane lengths including
(vehicles, cyclists , pedestrians) tapers and match to mid-block cross
•
Establish the alignment of the
approaches considering selected road
users
section
•
Draw the left and right turn treatments
•
Draw road mid-block cross section
•
Check that sight distance
requirements are met
•
At intersection draw lanes required for
traffic operation and safety
•
Design special requirements if needed
•
Check that design features can be
accommodated
•
Draw all road markings
•
Determine required pavement and
location and shape of median bull
noses and curbline
•
Add key dimensions to drawings
including parking limits
I
Figure 9.7.1: Intersection Design Process
Once the intersection location, general alignment, and traffic control measures have been determined,
the detailed alignment of each leg of the intersection must be established. The following sections
provide guidance in this regard .
June 2017 41
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.7.2 HORIZONTALALIGNMENT
Intersections are ideally located on tangent sections. Location of intersections on curves is not desirable
due to decreased visibility, increased conflict potential for vehicles crossing the major roadway, and
complications with roadway superelevation and pavement widening on curves.
Intersecting roads should meet at, or nearly at, right angles. The benefits of a go angle of an
0
intersection are:
• Reduced size of conflict area (see Figure g,3.3)
• Improved driver visibility
• More favourable condition for drivers to judge the relative position and relative speed of an
approaching vehicle, and to decide when to enter or cross the major road
• Reduced length of time to complete a crossing maneuver
• General decrease in severity of collisions (collisions occurring at an impact angle of 90° are
generally less severe than those occurring at angles greater than go 54
0
).
While crossing at go is preferable in most cases, it is occasionally necessary and even advantageous to
0
skew the crossing (e.g., to favour a heavier turning movement). However, angles less than 70° and
greater than 110° are typically not desirable. For example, at a skewed T-intersection with an angle less
than 70°, certain undesirable conditions exist because of the flat angle of entry. Vehicles that stop are
standing in a position that affords poor visibility for the driver to judge the speed and the distance of
approaching vehicles on the major roadway. Also, for a skew right, vehicles leaving the major roadway
to enter the minor roadway with a right turn are encouraged to do so at high speeds and for a skew left,
drivers tend to cut the corner at higher speeds, thereby travelling in the opposing lane for a
55
considerable distance, creating a safety concern.
Particular consideration should be given to maintaining an angle of skew within 10° of right angle (i.e.,
between 80° and 100°), when any of the following conditions exist:
• Two minor roadways with design hour volume (DHV) greater than 200 v/h (on both roadways)
intersect
• A minor roadway with DHV greater than 200 v/h intersects a major road
• Two major roads intersect
• Either of the intersecting roadways has more than two basic lanes
• Sight distance is at a minimum
56
• Design speed on either intersecting roadway for through traffic is greater than 80 km/h.
In the case of existing roads that intersect between 70° and 80° (or 110° and 100°) with no collision or
performance concerns, a realignment to 80° (or 100°) may not be cost effective.
It is beneficial to realign roads intersecting at acute angles as shown in Figure 9.7.2 (A and B). Ideally,
the curves used to realign the roads would avoid a decrease in operating speed along the realigned
roadway. The practice of constructing short radii horizontal curves on minor roadway approaches to
achieve right-angle intersections may be acceptable, but not necessarily desirable in the urban and rural
settings. These curves result in increased lane infringements because motorists tend to drive flatter
curves by encroaching on a portion of the opposite lane. Also, the traffic control devices at the
intersection may be obscured, resulting in the need for the installation of advanced warning signing.
Although examples C and Don Figure 9.7.2 provide poor network continuity, both examples may be
acceptable alternatives. If implemented, suitable physical barriers or other obstructions should be
42 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
placed across the former right-of-way of the minor road. These visual obstructions are desirable to alert
the driver on the minor road that the road is realigned and is no longer on a continuous tangent through
the intersection.
Assuming a four-lane undivided arterial road, the split T-intersection arrangement (example C, offset-
right), introduces back-to-back left turns on the major roadway, which are generally undesirable unless
left-turn auxiliary lanes can be provided . This layout, however, has the advantage of requiring the driver,
wishing to cross the major road, to select a gap in only the traffic approaching from the left, then make a
conventional right turn followed by a left-hand merge maneuver to reach the left-turn auxiliary lane.
However, if no left-turn lane is provided, vehicles travelling along the minor roadway may hold up traffic
while waiting for a gap to turn left. With example D (offset-left), the turns introduced on the major
roadway by the minor roadway crossing maneuvers are right turns only, which minimize the effect on
through traffic on the major roadway . However, the driver attempting to cross on the minor roadway is
required to select coincidental gaps in the traffic streams from both directions on the major roadway.
Moreover, the driver is required to make right-hand merge maneuvers on the major roadway, which
may be more hazardous.
Either example C or D may be acceptable solutions in urban areas. The traffic conditions and opportunity
to incorporate auxiliary lanes are important considerations in assessing the merits of each. Where
significant through volumes exist or are expected along the minor roadway crossing the major roadway,
the split T-intersection realignments (examples C and D) are generally considered less desirable than the
types of realignments shown as examples A and Bin Figure 9.7.2.
Where the major road is curving and a minor road constitutes an extension of one tangent, realigning
the minor road is advantageous (see example E in Figure 9.7.2) to guide traffic onto the main roadway
and improve the visibility at the point of intersection. This practice may have the disadvantage of
adverse superelevation for turning vehicles and may require further study when curves have high
superelevation slopes and when the approach roadway has adverse grades and a sight distance
57
restriction due to the grade line .
A suggested tangent length L of 20 m or more on the minor road is shown on all examples in
Figure 9.7.2. The designer should ensure that the tangent length is long enough to provide adequate
sight distance and to adjust the minor roadway cross-slope from the curve to the intersection.
For a realigned road, the original roadway pavement should be removed and appropriate landscaping
used to eliminate visual distractions for drivers and to minimize potential for the driver to perceive that
the roadway continues straight.
In developed areas, realignments of this nature may not be feasible due to the constraints of existing
buildings or high property values. If excessive collision rates are experienced and geometric changes are
not feasible, it may be advantageous to restrict or eliminate the more hazardous turns. As a result, other
improvements at adjacent intersections may be needed to suitably accommodate the altered travel
patterns. Signalizing the intersection may also be considered. However, possible adverse effects, such as
delays on the major roadway should be taken into account.
June 2017 43
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
'A' good solution 'B' good solution
1.5 m to 40 m
(see Section 9.2.2) /.:~
/ 0~17'
/ ,o~
6 major roadway
------- ~6--
1.5mto40m '-"o ~ I
(see Section 9.2.2) '-o-o-,., I
~
'C' undesirable
(but not unacceptable in
certain urban situations)
'D' undesirable
(but not unacceptable in
"
certain urban situations)
Note : L =20 m min.
6 = 70° to 90°
Figure 9.7.2: Examples of Realignment of Intersections
44 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.7.3 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND CROSS-SLOPE
9.7.3.1 Cross-Slope: Major/Minor Roadway Intersection
Profiles at intersections are designed in consideration of the expected operating conditions including
speed, major traffic flows, and sight distance. The profiles of the major roadway at a major/minor
roadway intersection are normally not adjusted significantly to match those of the minor cross roadway.
It is normally the gradient on the intersecting minor roadway that is adjusted through the introduction
of suitable grades and vertical curves prior to the intersection, as shown on Figure 9.7.3, in such a way
as not to reduce the sight distances.
In certain conditions, however, reducing the normal cross-slope (typically 2%) on the major roadway to
about 1% may assist in smoothing the profile of the minor roadway as it crosses the major roadway.
Cross-slopes can be adjusted to 0.5% to 3.0% without affecting the efficient operation of traffic along
the major roadway, in order to enhance the smooth movement of minor roadway traffic through the
intersection. Cross-slopes less than 0.5% are avoided due to potential drainage problems. In other
conditions, removing the normal crown of the major roadway and using the normal cross-slope rate
continuously across the pavement may better match the vertical alignment of the minor roadway. These
concepts are illustrated in Figure 9.7.3, Figure 9.7.4, and Figure 9.7.5. Changes from cross-slope to
cross-slope should be as gradual and smooth as possible.
June 2017 45
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
~ major roadway
I ~
pavement _.,,,,
~ _.,,,, _.,,,, _.,,,, _.,,,, G2
profile of
G31 ~i minor roadway
_.,,,,.....-;I G4
G2 _.,,,, er;' G,: original grade of minor roadway
_.,,,, _.,,,, I G, : grade introduced to reduce grade at intersection
;....-- _.,,,, I G, , G, : typically 2.0% (see Chapter 3)
minor roadway profile changed to fit crown of major roadway
(preferred if minor roadway has stop or yield control)
profile of
minor roadway
I G, : typically 2.0% (see Chapter 3)
crown removed on major roadway to accommodate minor roadway
(typical consideration if intersection may be signalized)
~ major roadway
pavement
1· ~1
normal crown \ I profile of
0.02m/m \ I minor roadway
e ~-~\~
--- =-------e-s_ _
I crown adjusted to
0.5% to 3.0%
crown reduced on major roadway to accommodate minor roadway
Figure 9.7.3: Fitting Minor Roadway Profiles to the Major Roadway Cross Section
46 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
er_
I
I
ti\ (rnaior roadwaV)
pro 1e -
B
I ao\l'Ja~)
D
A-
\.rninO( (0
p(o~1\e
-- B
Ck. major roadwa
plan
e / 9 horizontal line
/
A/
58
Figure 9.7.4: Pavement Cross Sections, Typical Minor Roadway Profile Adjustment
June 2017 47
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
A __ -- B
~ major roadway
I plan
I
h
c
e
g horizontal Line
59
Figure 9.7.5: Pavement Cross Sections, Adjustment of Cross-Slope
48 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.7.3.2 Cross-Slope: Major Road/Major Roadway (or Two Roadways of Equal Classification)
Where two major roadways (or two roadways of equal classification) intersect, the profiles of each are
often adjusted in an approximately equal manner through the intersection area. Thus the cross-slopes of
both major roadways can be adjusted to a minimum of 0.5% to provide an equally smooth ride along
each roadway through the intersection. The concept for this type of adjustment is illustrated in
60
Figure 9.7.6 and Figure 9.7.7. Although desirable, it is not always feasible to locate a high point at the
centre of the intersection as shown in the figures. Thus variations of the concept are needed to suit the
vertical alignment characteristics of the intersection. These figures are schematic in nature and do not
necessarily illustrate a specific layout of pavement markings and other associated guidance elements.
Appropriate vertical curves are incorporated into the centreline profiles of both major roadways to
achieve the desired grade adjustments. The edge of pavement profiles are often determined by using a
spline, since calculated vertical curves do not always fit the constraints. A spline is a flexible drafting tool
used to draw curved lines. A splined edge of pavement line provides a "best fit" curve which ensures
that drainage is adequate, cross-slope is suitable, and that the change in grade is not too abrupt.
9.7.3.3 Grade Breaks
Within and near intersections, it is not desirable to have significant grade changes that could affect the
control and operation of a vehicle passing through the intersection at the expected operating speed.
Grade breaks at intersections in the order of 0.5% to 2% are typical for a design speed of 70 km/h or
greater. For lower design speeds, more substantial grade breaks can be accommodated, if required, for
the specific conditions. At a design speed of 50 km/h, a maximum grade change in the order of 3% to 4%
produces some discomfort for vehicular traffic but is normally not detrimental to the safe operation of
the intersection, provided that the stopping sight distance for the design speed is achieved. For speeds
of 30 km/h or less, grade breaks up to 6% could be used, if required.
9.7.3.4 Grades
The grades of intersecting roadways in the area of the intersection should be as flat as possible to
accommodate:
• storage space for stopped vehicles
• desirable sight distance
• accelerating and stopping distance.
Appropriate minimum grades at intersections are important to facilitate drainage, to avoid operational
safety concerns related to ponding or icing conditions, and to compensate for some pavement wear and
differential settlements. Particular attention should be devoted to the grading design of curb returns
and to the calculation of roadway surface water runoff in an urban environment where there are large
paved surfaces at intersections. Suggested guidelines include a minimum grade of 0.5% along curb
returns (urban section), and a minimum of 1.0% combined cross-slope and roadway gradient within the
limits of the intersection (rural and urban sections). Existing driveways and accesses are often a
constraint in setting grade lines on intersection approaches.
Along the approach legs to the intersection where vehicles are expected to stop, such as at left- and
right-turn lanes or where signals are, or may be, warranted, it is desirable to keep grades between 0.5%
and 3%. A grade as low as 0.15% may be considered as long as adequate drainage is provided through
cross-slope to avoid ponding. The calculated stopping and accelerating distance for a passenger car on a
grade requires correction to produce conditions equivalent to those on level roadways (see Chapter 2).
June 2017 49
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
In addition, acceleration and deceleration tapers and/or lane lengths should be adjusted for steeper
grades. Most vehicle operators are unable to judge the required increase or decrease in stopping or
accelerating distance because of steep grades. Their normal deductions and reactions thus may be in
error, at a critical time . Accordingly, grades in excess of 3% are not desirable through an intersection .
For low-volume, low-speed intersections (e .g., at the intersection of two local residential roads) where
physical conditions and economic considerations dictate, approach grades of 5% to 6% may be
considered as long as acceptable sight distance is provided along with an adjustment in design factors.
The gradient within the intersection is normally limited to 4%. This limitation assists in providing
reasonable operation for low-speed turning vehicles, particularly under slippery conditions.
When establishing the profile for the minor cross road, it is important to consider whether or not the
intersection may be signalized in the future. If signalization is probable, the minor roadway should be
designed to accommodate future free-flow traffic which would occur under green-signal conditions.
The approach/departure grade should, ideally, extend approximately 20 m back from intersections,
although this can be reduced to one or two car lengths on minor roadways with light traffic volumes.
In addition to the vertical alignment and cross-slope considerations, the horizontal alignments of
approach roadways are normally kept as simple and smooth as possible. It is desirable to ensure that
the combination of horizontal alignment and vertical profile allows good visibility of the int ersection
area from all approaches. This allows drivers to focus their attention on the intersection area, where
most conflicts occur.
I I
I I
I I
2.0% 2.0%
/; I I ~
,fl ~
~ ""'-
+ .J.&lL +Llll.- +
minor roadway
- -
-1~ -
~1 *1
*~1~10%
+ . ~ +-
· -+
,..._
~1- - -
- - -!~ *l~ *j~ *J
~
- ~1- - -
J 1.5%
+- + - +
1.5%
#'
~
~ I n
~ ~ Notes : a. Cross-slopes could be
adjusted to 0.5 to 3.0%
I I b. Figure shows an urban
intersection; concept
also applies to a rural
>-
intersection
~ I I
e"'
:s
~I I
Figure 9. 7 .6: Cross-Slope Modification at Intersection of Two Roads of Equal Classification
50 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
<t
I
I
A <f. profile
~I
B
<t
c <t. profile
'"'!I' '
c: :=:, D
<t. major roadway
I
I
I
~t B
<t. major roadway
Note : Cross-slopes could
be adjusted to 0.5%
to 3.0%
c
Note: cross slopes could be adjusted to 0.5% to 3.0%
Figure 9.7.7: Pavement Cross Sections, Typical Adjustment of Profile and
61
Cross-Slope at Two Roads of Equal Classification
June 2017 51
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.7.4 COMBINED VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENTS
The combination of horizontal and vertical alignment at, and near an intersection will ideally produce
traffic lanes that are clearly visible to operators at all times. They should be clearly comprehensible for
any direction of travel, free from the sudden appearance of potential conflicts, and consistent with the
62
roadway just travelled.
When the superelevation of a section of roadway on a curve is in the same direction as the grade of the
intersecting cross road, the vertical alignment of the cross roadway is adjusted to meet the normal
pavement cross-slope of the roadway, as shown in illustration A of Figure 9.7.8.
For intersections on curve, the selection of an appropriate radius is a function of the design speed of the
through roadway and the grade of the crossing roadway through the intersection. For example, for a
crossing roadway with a grade of 3% through an intersection, the superelevation of the intersecting
roadway on curve should also be 3%, to provide a smooth crossing of the through roadway by the
crossing road driver. Therefore, for a design speed of 80 km/h, the desirable radius for the through
roadway curve is 1,200 m, with superelevation of 0.028 m/m (based on emax = 0.06 m/m), according to
Chapter 3.
However, through an intersection on curve in an urban environment, drivers are willing to accept higher
lateral friction than in open conditions. As such, a smaller radius curve could be used for a desired rate
of superelevation to match the crossing roadway grade through the intersection, under certain
constrained conditions. In a rural environment, higher lateral friction is less desirable, due to greater
driver expectations in terms of roadway performance. This is discussed further in Section 9.7.6.
An intersection where the cross-slope of the curving roadway is not in the same direction as the grade of
the intersecting cross roadway is not desirable. If this condition cannot be avoided, the vertical
alignment of the cross roadway is adjusted a sufficient distance from the intersection to introduce a
desirable alignment, as indicated in illustration B of Figure 9.7.8. As discussed in Section 9.7.4, grade
breaks over 4% are not desirable due to discomfort to vehicular traffic; however, if necessary, the break
can approach 6% for minor roadways.
Minimum design parameters for both the vertical and horizontal alignment elements are undesirable in
intersection design. If a limiting or near limiting condition cannot be avoided for one element, it is
desirable to ensure that the other elements are well above the minimum design guidelines. Therefore,
intersections are generally not preferred on sharp horizontal curves with significant superelevation.
Superelevation rates in excess of 0.04 m/m through intersection areas adversely affect the smooth
operation, particularly for those vehicles turning against the superelevation.
Similarly, steep gradients in combination with badly skewed intersections or near-limiting horizontal
curves often create undesirable operating conditions. If such combinations are encountered, the
intersection is normally relocated or improved through realignment of one or both of the intersecting
roads, to improve safety. If the combined horizontal and vertical alignment of the intersection creates
poor visibility of the intersection, advance warning of upcoming intersections should be provided
through appropriate signing.
52 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
cross-slope
pavement
ascending grade
---q;--~
G 1 : original grade ascending grade
G 2 : adjusted grade
G 3 : cross-slope (superelevation) Note Any curves used to adjust the grade
of major roadway should allow for adequate sight distance
G 4 : grade of minor roadway
Figure 9.7.8: Combined Vertical and Horizontal Alignments of Intersections
June 2017 53
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Figure 9.7.9 shows the differences in the relative collision rates between tangent roads-both with and
without intersections-and curved roads with intersections and with intersections on grade.
In all cases, the provision of appropriate sight distances is important to promote collision-free operation.
The combination of horizontal and vertical geometry at an intersection should produce traffic lanes that
are visible to the driver at all times and provide a clear definition of the desired path of any permitted
turn or direction of travel.
4.41
4.0
(].)
"§
c
0
gj
0(.) 3.0
c
0
u
(].)
!!?
(].)
~
(].) 2.0
.:::
-ro
~
1.00
1.0
tangent roadway tangent roadway curved roadway curved roadway
with no intersection with intersection with no intersection with intersection,
level grade on grade
63
Figure 9.7.9: Effect of Geometry on Intersection Collision Rates
9.7.S REDUCED SUPERELEVATION THROUGH INTERSECTIONS
The general controls and considerations that determine the maximum rates of superelevation for
through roadways discussed in Chapter 3 also apply to roadway sections with intersections. However,
within an intersection, drivers anticipate and accept operation with higher lateral friction than they do
mid-block, especially in an urban environment. As such, lower rates of superelevation can be used on
curves through intersections.
Typical maximum superelevation rates (emax ) used at intersections are:
• Rural areas: emax = 0.04 m/m to 0.06 m/m
• Urban areas: emax = 0.02 m/m to 0.08 m/m
54 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
The application of emax is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
Figure 9.7.10 illustrates a suggested interrelationship between speed, lateral friction, and
superelevation for roadways through intersections. The superelevation values are based on the lateral
friction factors (see Chapter 3). Each speed has a constant friction factor; the variables are radius and
superelevation.
The following illustrates the use of Figure 9.7.10:
• An intersection is located on a curved roadway with a 200 m radius curve and a design speed
of 70 km/h. A superelevation rate is required to allow proper operation of the major through
roadway.
Chapter 3 shows a 0.059 m/m superelevation required for an emax = 0.06 m/m. This would be
inappropriate for an intersection. Figure 9.7.10 shows that the normal rate of superelevation through
the intersection can be safely reduced to a minimum of 0.023 m/m. Given this situation, the occupants
of the vehicles will feel some decrease in comfort due to increased centrifugal force.
The principles of superelevation runoff discussed in Chapter 3 for open roadway conditions apply
generally to intersections on curves. The controls for the rate of change of cross-slope are primarily
those of comfort and appearance, and vary with the design speed. As the design speed is reduced, the
length over which a change in superelevation can be made is also reduced. Design values for rates of
change of cross-slope are shown in Table 9.7.1.
Superelevation proportional to curvature and speed is seldom practical through intersections. In some
cases, the following solutions can be used:
• The through curving roadway cross section is widened at the intersection (see Chapter 3).
• The normal cross-slope of the through pavement is retained through the intersection.
• For more on curving roadways, refer to Section 9.16.
June 2017 SS
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
600
500
400
300
-- r--
----- --- 1----
~
25 1--~
--r--
200
1- - r--._
I - 1~
---- -
~
'-
-------
i- - - r-- I r-- ~
- rt- I~
-- --
I
150
I
~
(l i- -
-- --- ,_
I ~
---
I
-
0 100
-
~ 90 µ__
15 50
~
'-
80
I f=o.o,
70
I -
0 --
r-- ,_
-- _,_ I
-
I
0
r---
40
I
I
I
I~ f::
-
f'I "~
-
--
0 I
25
I
,_ I
20
5
r--•-
I
I
30 km!h
- f= 0.30
-
I
I
I
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
rate of superelevation (m/m)
Notes: - - - - illustrates example problem in Section 9.7.6
Rates of superelevation greater than 0.04 m/m through an intersection
are generally not recommended
Figure 9.7.10: Relationship of Speed, Radius, and Superelevation through Intersections
Table 9.7.1: Design Values for Rate of Change of Cross-Slope for Intersection Areas
Design Speed (km/h)
Change in Rate of Superelevation
< 40 40 50 > 50
m/m/40 m length 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07
m/m/10 m length 0.03 0.022 0.020 0.016
56 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Physical and operational constraints limit how and to what extent the through roadway pavement is
transitioned from the superelevated section to normal crown at the intersections; the designer should
determine the "best fit" that minimizes safety risks and local right-of-way effects at a reasonable cost,
based on the methods described in this section.
Too great a difference in cross-slope may cause vehicles travelling over the ridge formed between the
through pavement and the auxiliary lane pavement downstream of the turning roadway to sway with
possible hazard (see Section 9.7.4).
In some cases, such as the retrofitting of an intersection in a built-up area, the use of superelevation on
a main line curve may not be possible due to existing physical controls, and retaining a normal crown
may represent the optimum configuration. The selection of the most appropriate cross-slope or
superelevation rate is based on the specific conditions at the intersection, such as physical vertical
controls and the principal traffic movements. In many cases, it is advantageous to explore the
opportunity to provide at least 0.02 m/m of superelevation (reverse crown) on the curved roadway to
enhance the safe operation of through traffic.
Reducing or eliminating superelevation along main line curves through intersection areas and along
turning roadways assists in providing reasonable operating conditions for turning vehicles. Drivers
travelling through an intersection area typically reduce their speed when they encounter a conflict zone.
For this reason, reduced superelevation on low speed roadways is generally not detrimental to effective
operation through the intersection.
9.7.6 REALIGNMENTS FOR RETROFIT
An existing urban intersection may undergo a retrofit for a variety of reasons, including:
• Eliminating or reducing a geometric condition that contributed to vehicular traffic or
pedestrian safety problems
• Increasing capacity by adding through or turning lanes, and/or improved channelization
When an intersection retrofit is undertaken, the initial objective is generally to eliminate elements that
cause unsafe operating conditions. Consideration is also given to upgrading all elements within current
design domain. A detailed review of the collision history at the intersection is often beneficial in
identifying geometric elements that may be contributing to undesirable operating conditions.
Examples of common types of intersection retrofitting related to operational concerns include:
• Improving intersection skew angles
• Flattening or eliminating horizontal curves through or approaching the intersection
• Regrading the intersection area or the approaches to improve sightlines
• Adjusting the approach profiles to provide flatter grades where vehicles start and stop
• Adjusting lane widths
• Eliminating one or more legs on multi-legged intersections
• Removing obstructions (e.g., hedges and road hardware) that affect sightlines
• Modifying channelization to better separate and define permitted vehicular traffic and
pedestrian movements
• Reducing pedestrian crossing distances by decreasing curb return radii or introducing chokers
• Introducing refuge areas to assist pedestrians in safely crossing multilane roadways
• Adding bicycle lanes
• Adding transit vehicle stops (e.g., bus bays)
• Conversion to modern roundabout.
June 2017 57
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Additional right-of-way is often required to achieve the retrofit. Occasionally, the additional right-of-way
needed for an intersection improvement can be obtained at the time of redevelopment of adjacent
properties.
Retrofitting of major intersections is an effective means of increasing route safety and capacity. In built-
up areas, it may not be physically possible or economically viable to acquire the additional right-of-way
needed to achieve all of the desired geometric and capacity improvements. In these cases, the designer
must be selective in assessing which features may have to be compromised or deferred.
Through the identification of the geometric elements that are most important to satisfactory operation,
the designer may be able to make certain trade-offs with respect to the other elements, without
significantly compromising vehicular or pedestrian safety. In general, the most important elements are
those that provide the minimum stopping sight distance at the intersection or, if possible, decision sight
distance. Also important is the elimination of the elements or combinations of elements that confuse or
surprise drivers, such as poorly designed or inadequate channelization, abrupt changes in horizontal
alignments, and interference created by adjacent commercial development.
Table 9.7.2 summarizes desirable and undesirable geometric design practices used in retrofitting an
intersection, where physical constraints do not permit the implementation of all desired geometric
features. Figure 9.7.11 provides an illustration of an acceptable intersection retrofit, where it is not
feasible to correct a small shift in horizontal alignment across an intersection.
Intersections with substantial deflections between approach alignments can produce operational and
safety problems for through vehicles as they navigate through an intersection. Forced path changes for
through vehicles violate driver expectations and may pose problems for unfamiliar drivers. Violation of
driver expectancy can result in reduced speeds through the intersection. Crashes influenced by a
deflection in travel path are likely to include rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, and left-turning/through
crashes. Acceptable deflection angles through intersections vary by individual agency, but are typically
related to the design and/or posted speed on an intersection approach. Typical maximum deflection
angles are 3° to 5°. 64
Table 9.7.2: Opportunities for Retrofit
Desirable Undesirable
• Reduced boulevard, median, or lane widths. • Inadequate stopping sight distance.
• Reduced superelevation with acceptable friction factor • Unexpected changes in alignment for
(see Chapter 3). any permitted direction of traffic.
• Increased gradients. • Potential head-on conflicts or wrong
• Reduced K values for sag vertical curves, considering roadway way movements .
lighting and operating speeds. • Unexpected pedestrian crossing
• Generally, horizontal alignments for through traffic across locations.
intersections should be direct with no offset. This is particularly • High end of design domain on an
important where signals are present or are planned for the approach to an intersection in
future. On occasion, for roadways with low design speeds or combination with low end of design
having stop control, a small shift (up to a maximum of 1.5 m) may domain within the intersection area.
be permitted, but is not recommended. If such an approach is • Multiple elements at low end of the
used, supplementary positive guidance (e.g., pavement markings) design domain.
should be considered to guide drivers along the appropriate path.
• Encroachment on sidewalks by the
• Some encroachment on other lanes by occasional large turning design turning vehicle .
vehicles.
58 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
realignment preferred
where feasible, and
where signals exi~st._ __jf-1---f---~-~,
or are planned -
'·
11
I.
I~ ~ E major roadway
I I x.,,
I . ro ~
I I E II
- 1 i_._J
I
I
Figure 9.7.11: Shifts in Horizontal Alignment across Intersections
9.8 SIGHT DISTANCE
Potential road user (e.g., vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians) conflicts exist at every intersection.
However, the possibility of these conflicts actually occurring can be greatly reduced through proper
channelization and appropriate traffic controls. The avoidance of collisions and the efficiency of
operation must still depend, to a large extent, on the judgement, capabilities, and responses of the
individual road user. The intersection design must therefore provide sufficient sight distance for road
users to perceive potential conflicts and to carry out the actions needed to negotiate the intersection
safely.
Sight distance requirements must be considered both for approaching the intersection and departing
from the stopped position at the intersection.
June 2017 59
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
The minimum sight distance criterion for vehicles approaching an intersection, or travelling along a
turning roadway, is stopping sight distance based on design speed. However, due to the relatively
complex situations that drivers often encounter at intersections, it is desirable to provide more than the
minimum stopping sight distance to enhance safety.
Providing decision sight distance is desirable wherever feasible, and is particularly desirable in advance
of the critical intersection decision points. These include locations where drivers must make
instantaneous decisions, where information and potential conflicts are difficult to perceive, and where
unexpected maneuvers may be required. Values for stopping sight distance and for decision sight
distance for different design vehicles over a range of design speeds are provided in Chapter 2.
Intersection sight distance is defined as the sight distance available from a point where vehicles are
required to stop on the intersecting road, while drivers are looking left and right along the major
roadway, before entering the intersection. The intersection sight distance is adequate when it allows the
design vehicles to safely make all the maneuvers that are permitted by the layout (e.g., left turns, right
turns, through moves), without significantly affecting vehicles travelling on the main roadway, as is
described in further detail throughout this section.
Intersection sight distance is also a function of design vehicles. The design vehicle is typically defined as
a vehicle that uses a given intersection daily or on a regular basis. It does not include a vehicle that may
occur irregularly. As a result, very large vehicles such as long combination vehicles (LCVs) are rarely used
as design vehicles. However, LCVs may be selected as design vehicles for some western Canadian
highways, where they are common. In such a case, the designer must keep in mind that LCVs require
more time than smaller vehicles to execute a turn or crossing maneuver, and therefore require more
sight distance. Data for regionally-specific vehicles should be developed by the affected road authority
to complement guidelines presented in this Guide.
For a discussion on sight distance considerations for pedestrians and cyclists at intersections, refer to
Chapter 6 and Chapter 5 respectively.
9.9 AASHTO INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE MODEL
9.9.1 PREFACE
This section presents the methodology for determining intersection sight distance requirements. This
methodology reflects the most current North American approach adopted by AASHTO and is thoroughly
grounded in research and technical analysis. In preparing this section on intersection sight distance, the
gap acceptance methodology outlined in AASHTO's Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,
6th Edition, 2011 was adopted. The text in this section has been adapted, and in some cases used
verbatim, from this AASHTO document.
9.9.2 SIGHT TRIANGLES
Specified areas along intersection approach legs and across their included corners should be clear of
obstructions that might block a driver's view of potentially conflicting vehicles. These specified areas are
known as clear sight triangles. The dimensions of the legs of the sight triangles depend on the design
speeds of the intersecting roadways and the type of traffic control used at the intersection. These
dimensions are based on observed driver behaviour and are documented by space-time profiles and
65
speed choices of drivers on intersection approaches. Two types of clear sight triangles are considered
in intersection design: approach sight triangles and departure sight triangles.
60 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.9.2.1 Approach Sight Triangles
Each quadrant of an intersection should contain a triangular area free of obstructions that might block
an approaching driver's view of potentially conflicting vehicles. The length of the legs of this triangular
area, along both intersecting roadways, should be such that the drivers can see any potentially
conflicting vehicles in both the horizontal and vertical plane in sufficient time to slow or stop before
colliding within the intersection. Figure 9.9.1 shows typical clear sight triangles to the left and to the
right for a vehicle approaching an uncontrolled or yield-controlled intersection.
lJI
s
0::
b
c
~
Major Road
Decision Pom
___l Decision Point
Approaching Sight Toangle for Viewing Traffic Approaching Sigh Triang le for Viewing Traffic
Approaching the Minor Road from the Left Approaching the Minor Road rem the Right
Figure 9.9.1: Approach Sight Triangle (Uncontrolled or Yield-Controlled)
The vertex of the sight triangle on a minor-road approach (or an uncontrolled approach) represents the
decision point for the minor-road driver (see Figure 9.9.1). This decision point is the location at which
the minor-road driver should begin to brake to a stop if another vehicle is present on an intersecting
approach. The distance from the major road, along the minor road, is illustrated by the distance a1 to
the left and a2 to the right. Distance a2 is equal to distance a1 plus the width of the lane(s) departing
from the intersection on the major road to the right. Distance a2 should also include the width of any
median present on the major road unless the median is wide enough to permit a vehicle to stop before
entering or crossing the roadway beyond the median.
The geometry of a clear sight triangle is such that when the driver of a vehicle without the right-of-way
sees a vehicle that has the right-of-way on an intersecting approach, the driver of that potentially
conflicting vehicle can also see the first vehicle. Distance b illustrates the length of this leg of the sight
triangle. Thus, providing a clear sight triangle for vehicles without the right-of-way also allows the
drivers of vehicles with the right-of-way to slow, stop, or avoid other vehicles if necessary.
Although desirable at higher volume intersections, approach sight triangles like those shown in Figure
Figure 9.9.1 may not be needed for intersection approaches controlled by stop signs or traffic signals. In
that case, the need for approaching vehicles to stop at the intersection is determined by the traffic
control devices and not by the presence or absence of vehicles on the intersecting approaches.
June 2017 61
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.9.2.2 Departure Sight Triangles
A second type of clear sight triangle provides sight distance sufficient for a stopped driver on a minor-
road approach to depart from the intersection and enter or cross the major road. Figure 9.9.2 shows
typical departure sight triangles to the left and to the right of the location of a stopped vehicle on the
minor road.
I 3
~----- b +---1--ffll"" ~ - - - - - -b - ----4M
c_
Clear Sight Triangle
Decision Point
oep · ureSigl'I Triangle to Vievv:ing Tra 10 D · p.arture Sight T rian9le for Viewing T affie
Approcichmg1U1e Minor Road from the Le Approach ing the Mrnor Road from he Right
Figure 9.9.2: Departure Sight Triangles (Stop-Controlled)
Departure sight triangles should be provided in each quadrant of each intersection approach controlled
by stop or yield signs. Departure sight triangles should also be provided for some signalized intersection
approaches. Distance a2 in Figure 9.9.2 is equal to distance a1 plus the width of the lane(s) departing
from the intersection on the major road to the right. Distance a2 should also include the width of any
median present on the major road, unless the median is wide enough to permit a vehicle to stop before
entering or crossing the roadway beyond the median. The appropriate measurement of distances a1 and
a2 for departure sight triangles depends on the placement of any marked stop line that may be present
and may therefore vary with site-specific conditions.
The recommended dimensions of the clear sight triangle for desirable traffic operations where stopped
vehicles enter or cross a major road are based on assumptions derived from field observations of driver
66
gap-acceptance behaviour. Providing clear sight triangles like those shown in Figure 9.9.2 also allows
the drivers of vehicles on the major road to see any vehicles stopped on the minor-road approach and to
be prepared to slow or stop, if needed.
9.9.2.3 Intersection Control
The recommended dimensions of the sight triangles vary with the type of traffic control used at an
intersection because different types of control impose different legal constraints on drivers and,
therefore, result in different driver behaviour. Procedures to determine sight distances at intersections
are presented below, according to different types of traffic control, as follows:
• Case A- Intersections with no control
• Case B - Intersections with stop control on the minor road
62 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
• Case Bl - Left turn from the minor road
• Case B2 - Right turn from the minor road
• Case B3 - Crossing maneuver from the minor road
• Case C- Intersections with yield control on the minor road
• Case Cl - Crossing maneuver from the minor road
• Case C2 - Left or right turn from the minor road
• Case D - Intersections with traffic signal control
• Case E - Intersections with all-way stop control
• Case F - Left turns from the major road
Case A - Intersections with No Control
For intersections not controlled by yield signs, stop signs, or traffic signals, the driver of a vehicle
approaching an intersection should be able to see potentially conflicting vehicles in sufficient time to
stop before reaching the intersection. The location of the decision point (driver's eye) of the sight
triangles on each approach is determined from a model that is analogous to the stopping sight distance
model, with slightly different assumptions.
While some perceptual tasks at intersections may need substantially less time, the detection and
recognition of a vehicle that is a substantial distance away on an intersecting approach, and is near the
limits of the driver's peripheral vision, may take up to 2.5 s. The distance to brake to a stop can be
determined from the same braking coefficients used to determine the stopping sight distance in Table
2.5.2 (see Section 2.5 of this Guide).
Field observations indicate that vehicles approaching uncontrolled intersections typically slow to
approximately 50% of their mid-block running speed. This occurs even when no potentially conflicting
67 2
vehicles are present. This initial slowing typically occurs at deceleration rates up to 1.5 m/s •
Deceleration at this gradual rate has been observed to begin even before a potentially conflicting vehicle
comes into view. Braking at greater deceleration rates, which can approach those assumed in stopping
sight distance, can begin up to 2.5 s after a vehicle on the intersecting approach comes into view. Thus,
approaching vehicles may be traveling at less than their mid-block running speed during all or part of the
perception-reaction time and can, therefore, where needed, brake to a stop from a speed less than the
mid-block running speed.
Table 9.9.1 shows the distance traveled by an approaching vehicle during perception-reaction and
braking time, as a function of the design speed of the roadway on which the intersection approach is
located. These distances should be used as the legs of the sight triangles shown in Figure 9.9.1 as
dimensions a1 and b. Distance a2 is longer than distance a1, as defined in Section 9.2.1. Referring to
Figure 9.9.1, a major roadway with an assumed design speed of 80 km/h and a minor roadway with an
assumed design speed of 50 km/h needs a clear sight triangle with legs extending at least 75 m and 45 m
along the major and minor roadways, respectively.
June 2017 63
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.9.1: Length of Sight Triangle Leg - Case A, No Traffic Control
Design Speed Length of Leg (m)
20 20
30 25
40 35
50 45
60 55
70 65
80 75
90 90
100 105
110 120
120 135
130 150
Where the grade along an intersection approach exceeds 3%, the leg of the clear sight triangle along
that approach should be adjusted by multiplying the appropriate sight distance from Table 9.9.1 by the
appropriate adjustment factor from Table 9.9.2.
Table 9.9.2: Adjustment Factors for Sight Distance Based on Approach Grade
Design Speed (km/h)
Approach
Grade{%) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 - -
-6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 - -
-5 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 - -
-4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - -
-3 to +3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - -
+4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - -
+5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - -
+6 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - -
The departure sight triangle like that shown in Figure 9.9.2 is typically not needed at an uncontrolled
intersection since these intersections typically have very low traffic volumes. If a motorist needs to stop
at an uncontrolled intersection because of a conflicting vehicle on an intersecting approach, it is very
unlikely another potentially conflicting vehicle will be encountered as the first vehicle departs the
intersection.
64 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
This clear triangular area will allow the vehicles on either road to stop, if needed, before reaching the
1
intersection. If the design speed of any approach is not known, it can be estimated by using the 85 h
percentile of the mid-block running speeds for that approach.
The distances shown in Table 9.9.1 are generally less than the corresponding values of stopping sight
distance for the same design speed. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 9.9.3. Where a clear sight
triangle has legs that correspond to the stopping sight distances on their respective approaches, an even
greater margin of efficient operation is provided. However, since field observations show that motorists
slow down to some extent on approaches to uncontrolled intersections, it is not essential to provide a
clear sight triangle with legs equal to the full stopping sight distance.
130
I
I I
II I
/ I I I ....
J,,.•
~
120
I r
I
c;.,.,.A / I I ....-··r·-
.. .--
110
v
.- --Ssi,
I
100
I I
' I / i I I
/ I I J/ ,./
I
I
llO
I
I
Al
I
,,""
... . I I I I
v 80 .#' ,~
~
Q. I / ..
.,,.--'
I I I
v
I
(I) 70
•'
~
o;;;
Cl
"ill
llO
I ;.
, ·"'
•" "'
I I I I I
I
I
,-' / j II I I
r
§0
I I
40
II11__,. ,
,.,,,,."'
I _J I IL
30
I I I I I I I
20 ·'
/ ·( II II I I I I
0 50 100 150
l ength of Sigh Tniangle Leg (m)
Figure 9.9.3: Length of Sight Triangle Leg - Case A, No Traffic Control
Case B - Intersections with Stop Control on the Minor Road
Departure sight triangles for intersections with stop control on the minor road should be considered for
three situations:
• Case Bl - Left turns from the minor road
• Case B2 - Right turns from the minor road
• Case B3 - Crossing the major road from a minor-road approach
Intersection sight distance criteria for stop-controlled intersections are longer than the minimum
stopping sight distance to allow the intersection to operate smoothly. Minor-road vehicle operators can
wait until they can proceed safely without forcing a major-road vehicle to slow to less than 70% of their
initial speed.
June 2017 65
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Case Bl - left Turn from the Minor Road
Departure sight triangles for traffic approaching from either the right or the left, like those shown in
Figure 9.9.2, should be provided for left turns from the minor road onto the major road for all stop-
controlled approaches. The length of the leg of the departure sight triangle along the major road in both
directions, shown as distance bin Figure 9.9.2, is the recommended intersection sight distance for
Case Bl.
The vertex (decision point) of the departure sight triangle on the minor road should be 4.4 m from the
edge of the major-road traveled way. This represents the typical position of the minor-road driver's eye
when a vehicle is stopped relatively close to the major road. Field observations of vehicle stopping
positions found that, where needed, drivers will stop with the front of their vehicle 2.0 m or less from
the edge of the major-road traveled way. Measurements of passenger cars indicate that the distance
from the front of the vehicle to the driver's eye for the current North American passenger car
68
population is nearly always 2.4 m or less. Where practical, it is desirable to increase the distance from
the edge of the major-road traveled way to the vertex of the clear sight triangle from 4.4 m to 5.4 m.
This increase allows 3.0 m from the edge of the major-road traveled way to the front of the stopped
vehicle, providing a larger sight triangle. The length of the sight triangle along the minor road (distance a
in Figure 9.9.2) is the sum of the distance from the major road plus Y, lane width for vehicles
approaching from the left, or lY, lane widths for vehicles approaching from the right.
Field observations of the gaps in major-road traffic actually accepted by drivers turning onto the major
road have shown that the values in Table 9.9.3 provide sufficient time for the minor-road vehicle to
accelerate from a stop and complete a left turn without unduly interfering with major-road traffic
operations. The time gap acceptance time does not vary with approach speed on the major road. A
constant value of time gap, independent of approach speed, can be used as a basis for intersection sight
distance determinations. Observations have also shown that major-road drivers will reduce their speed
to some extent when minor-road vehicles turn onto the major road. Where the time gap acceptance
values in Table 9.9.3 are used to determine the length of the leg of the departure sight triangle, most
69
major-road drivers should not need to reduce speed to less than 70% of their initial speed.
The intersection sight distance in both directions should be equal to the distance traveled at the design
speed of the major road during a period of time equal to the time gap. In applying Table 9.9.3, it can
usually be assumed that the minor-road vehicle is a passenger car; however, road authorities may
provide more precise guidance on selection of the required design vehicle. Where substantial volumes
of heavy vehicles enter the major road (e.g., from a ramp terminal), the use of tabulated values for
single-unit or combination trucks should be considered.
Table 9.9.3 includes appropriate adjustments to the gap times for the number of lanes on the major
road and for the approach grade of the minor road. The adjustment for the grade of the minor-road
approach is needed only if the rear wheels of the design vehicle would be on an upgrade that exceeds
3% when the vehicle is at the stop line of the minor-road approach.
66 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.9.3: Time Gap for Case Bl, Left Turn from Stop
Time Gap (tg)(s) at
Design Vehicle
Design Speed of Major Road
Passenger car 7.5
Single-unit truck 9.5
Combination truck (WB 19 and WB 20 ) 11.5
Longer truck To be established by road authority
Notes: Time gaps are for a stopped vehicle to turn left onto a two-lane highway with no median and with
grades of 3% or less. The table values should be adjusted as follows:
• For multi-lane highways: For left turns onto two-lane highways with more
than two lanes, add 0.5 s for passenger cars and 0.7 s for trucks for each
additional lane, from the left, in excess of one, to be crossed by the turning
vehicle.
• For minor approach grades: If the approach grade is an upgrade that exceeds
3%, add 0.2 s for each percent grade for left turns.
• Some road authorities use higher values for certain specialized vehicles (e.g.,
Alberta uses 22 s for very long log trucks).
The intersection sight distance along the major road (distance bin Figure 9.9.2) is determined by:
ISO= 0.278 Vmajor tg (9.9.1)
Where:
ISD = intersection sight distance (length of the leg
of sight triangle along the major road) (m)
vm ajor= design speed of the major road (km/h)
tg = time gap for minor road vehicle to enter the
major road (s)
For example, a passenger car turning left onto a two-lane major road should be provided sight distance
equivalent to a time gap of 7.5 sin major-road traffic. If the design speed of the major road is 100 km/h,
this corresponds to a sight distance of 0.278(100)(7.5) =208.5 or 210 m, rounded for design.
A passenger car turning left onto a four-lane undivided roadway will need to cross two near lanes,
rather than one. This increases the recommended gap in major-road traffic from 7.5 to 8.0 s. The
corresponding value of sight distance for this example would be 223 m. If the minor-road approach to
such an intersection is located on a 4% upgrade, then the time gap selected for intersection sight
distance design for left turns should be increased from 8.0 to 8.8 s, equivalent to an increase of 0.2 s for
each percent grade.
The design values for intersection sight distance for passenger cars are shown in Table 9.9.4. Figure
9.9.4 includes design values, based on the time gaps for the design vehicles included in Table 9.9.3.
No adjustment of the recommended sight distance values for the major-road grade is generally needed
because both the major- and minor-road vehicle will be on the same grade when departing from the
intersection. However, if the minor-road design vehicle is a heavy truck and the intersection is located
near a sag vertical curve with grades over 3%, then an adjustment to extend the recommended sight
distance based on the major-road grade should be considered.
June 2017 67
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.9.4: Design Intersection Sight Distance - Case Bl, Left Turn From Stop
Design Speed Stopping Sight Intersection Sight Distance for Passenger Cars
(km/h) Distance (m) Calculated (m) Design (m)
20 20 41.7 45
30 35 62.6 65
40 50 83.4 85
50 65 104.3 105
60 85 125.1 130
70 105 146.0 150
80 130 166.8 170
90 160 187.7 190
100 185 208.5 210
110 220 229.4 230
120 250 250.2 255
130 285 271.1 275
Note: Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to turn left onto a two-lane
highway with no median and grades 3% or less. For other conditions, the time gap should be adjusted
and the sight distance recalculated.
Sight distance design for left turns at divided-highway intersections should consider multiple design
vehicles and median width. If the design vehicle used to determine sight distance for a divided-highway
intersection is larger than a passenger car, then sight distance for left turns will need to be checked for
that selected design vehicle and for smaller design vehicles as well. If the divided-highway median is
wide enough to store the design vehicle with a clearance to the through lanes of approximately 1 mat
both ends of the vehicle, no separate analysis for the departure sight triangle for left turns is needed on
the minor-road approach for the near roadway to the left. In most cases, the departure sight triangle for
right turns (case B2) will provide sufficient sight distance for a passenger car to cross the near roadway
to reach the median. Possible exceptions are addressed in the discussion of case B3.
68 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
130
III I I I I
I I
120
II I 9% ~
/
I ~ / ,,/
110
100
II II -~·
.. ... I"'
,1yf'
v~
~l
~
v ~~
.: , I
III I A.1- ~ ~ ~
CO B ~ ·~
I
i
90
I
II issoy ~~? » vA ~
v
I
I
'
/
J
I
"O
GI
8.
II)
80
70
I I , --t---
I ~ v
L.~ ?' /f::? v I II
~41
c: I I
Cl
"iii
eo I ' '// ;.;"
I
~ II
~
_,r
,'
I
/. ,v /. /' / l
~ A 1 I I II
50
/f I
, /. ~ ~~v
I
I II
,.'
/ 1_,,-;; j
40
~v1
::::=;;
't ~ ~· I I I I
30
20
D
_ I/
,
I
"'
'lY,. I -
150
- w LL JJ J Lll I lJ 300
- -
Length of Sight Triangle Leg (m)
Figure 9.9.4: Intersection Sight Distance - Case Bl, Left Turn from Stop
(Calculated and Design Values Plotted)
If the design vehicle can be stored in the median with adequate clearance to the through lanes, a
departure sight triangle to the right for left turns should be provided for that design vehicle turning left
from the median roadway. Where the median is not wide enough to store the design vehicle, a
departure sight triangle should be provided for that design vehicle to turn left from the minor-road
approach .
The median width should be considered in determining the number of lanes to be crossed . The median
width should be converted to equivalent lanes. For example, a 7.2-m median should be considered as
two additional lanes to be crossed in applying the multilane highway adjustment for time gaps in Table
9.9.3. Furthermore, a departure sight triangle for left turns from the median roadway should be
provided for the largest design vehicle that can be stored on the median roadway with adequate
clearance to the through lanes. If a divided highway intersection has a 12 m median width and the
design vehicle for sight distance is a 22 m combination truck, departure sight triangles should be
provided for the combination truck turning left from the minor-road approach and through the median.
In addition, a departure sight triangle should also be provided to the right for a 9 m single unit truck
turning left from a stopped position in the median .
Case 82 - Right Turn from the Minor Road
A departure sight triangle for traffic approaching from the left like that shown in Figure 9.9.2 should be
provided for right turns from the minor road onto the major road. The intersection sight distance for
right turns is determined in the same manner as for case Bl, except that the time gaps (t9 ) in Table 9.9.3
should be adjusted . Field observations indicate that, in making right turns, drivers generally accept gaps
70
that are slightly shorter than those accepted in making left turns.
June 2017 69
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
The time gaps in Table 9.9.3 can be decreased by 1.0 s for right-turn maneuvers without undue
interference with major-road traffic. These adjusted time gaps for the right turn from the minor road are
shown in Table 9.9.5. Design values based on these adjusted time gaps are shown in Table 9.9.6 for
passenger cars. Figure 9.9.5 includes the design values for the design vehicles for each of the time gaps
in Table 9.9.5.
Table 9.9.5: Time Gap for Case 82-Right Turn from Stop and Case 83-Crossing Maneuver
Time Gap (tg)(s) at
Design Vehicle
Design Speed of Major Road
Passenger car 6.5
Single-unit truck 8.5
Combination truck
10.5
(WB 19 and WB 20 )
Note: Time gaps are for a stopped vehicle to turn left onto a two-lane
highway with no median and with grades of 3% or less. The table
values should be adjusted as follows:
• For multi-lane highways: For left turns onto two-lane
highways with more than two lanes, add 0.5 s for passenger
cars and 0.7 s for trucks for each additional lane, from the
left, in excess of one, to be crossed by the turning vehicle.
• For minor approach grades: If the approach grade is an
upgrade that exceeds 3%, add 0.1 s for each percent grade
for left turns.
70 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.9.6: Design Intersection Sight Distance - Case B2, Right Turn from Stop,
and Case B3, Crossing Maneuver
Design Speed Stopping Sight Intersection Sight Distance for Passenger Cars
(km/h) Distance (m) Calculated (m) Design (m)
20 20 36.1 40
30 3S S4.2 SS
40 so 72.3 7S
so 6S 90.4 9S
60 8S 108.4 110
70 lOS 126.S 130
80 130 144.6 14S
90 160 162.6 16S
100 18S 180.7 18S
110 220 198.8 200
120 2SO 216.8 220
130 28S 234.9 23S
Note: Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to turn right onto or to cross a two-lane highway with no
median and with grades of 3% or less. For other conditions, the time gap should be adjusted and the sight distance
recalculated.
130
120
I I I I
'I PCI I I I I I I
I I I I
I/___ ,,,I f ,,' )'}/ /~
110
100
I I
,/
A
,//
v /
cd~
~
/
I / ~i v
- 90
E , ..,.,,. ;/"
E , .,,.,,.
~ 80
t
g 70
I I I .-:ViI suM ~
_,;:Y
c:
"' I sso,,
;f:' -·1/ I /I~ v 11
~ 80 ,
50
I ... // Iv ~
,,'
(,~
..?
~
~
'/
II
I ' l-1 /j /. ~ ~
I II I
40
,
v vt ~"'
/ ./ I II I
1l#'vv j
30
I I I I
20
I ,/I
50 100 150 200 250
Length of Sight Triangle Leg (m)
Figure 9.9.5: Intersection Sight Distance - Case 82, Right Turn from Stop, and Case 83, Crossing
Maneuver (Calculated and Design Values Plotted)
June 2017 71
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Case 83 - Crossing Maneuver from the Minor Road
In most cases, the departure sight triangles for left and right turns onto the major road, as described for
cases Bl and B2, will also provide more than adequate sight distance for minor-road vehicles to cross
the major road. However, in the following situations, it is advisable to check the availability of sight
distance for crossing maneuvers:
• where left or right turns, or both, are not permitted from a particular approach and the
crossing maneuver is the only legal maneuver, or
• where the crossing vehicle would cross the equivalent width of more than six lanes, or
• where substantial volumes of heavy vehicles cross the highway and steep grades that might
slow the vehicle while its back portion is still in the intersection are present on the departure
roadway on the far side of the intersection.
The equation for intersection sight distance in case Bl is used again for the crossing maneuver except
that time gaps (tg) are obtained from Table 9.9.5, which presents time gaps and appropriate adjustment
factors to determine the intersection sight distance along the major road that will accommodate
crossing maneuvers. At divided highway intersections, depending on the relative magnitudes of the
median width and the length of the design vehicle, intersection sight distance may need to be
considered for crossing both roadways of the divided highway or for crossing the near roadway only and
stopping in the median before proceeding. The application of adjustment factors for median width and
grade is discussed under case Bl.
Table 9.9.6 shows the design values for passenger cars for the crossing maneuver based on the
unadjusted time gaps in Table 9.9.5. Figure 9.9.5 includes the design values based on the time gaps for
the design vehicles in Table 9.9.5.
Case C - Intersections with Yield Control on the Minor Road
Drivers approaching yield signs are permitted to enter or cross the major road without stopping, if there
are no potentially conflicting vehicles on the major road. The sight distances needed by drivers on yield-
controlled approaches exceed those for stop-controlled approaches.
For four-legged intersections with yield control on the minor road, two separate pairs of approach sight
triangles like those shown in Figure 9.9.1 should be provided. One set of approach sight triangles is
needed to accommodate crossing the major road and a separate set of sight triangles is needed to
accommodate left and right turns onto the major road. Both sets of sight triangles should be checked for
potential sight obstructions.
For three-legged intersections with yield control on the minor road, only the approach sight triangles to
accommodate left- and right-turn maneuvers need be considered, because the crossing maneuver does
not exist.
Case Cl - Crossing Maneuver from the Minor Road
The length of the leg of the approach sight triangle along the minor road to accommodate the crossing
maneuver from a yield-controlled approach (distance a1 in Figure 9.9.1) is given in Table 9.9.7. Distance
a2 is longer than distance a11 as defined in Section 9.2.1. The distances in Table 9.9.7 are based on the
same assumptions as those for case A except that, based on field observations, minor-road vehicles that
do not stop are assumed to decelerate to 60% of the minor-road design speed rather than 50%.
Sufficient travel time for the major road vehicle should be provided to allow the minor-road vehicle: (1)
2
to travel from the decision point to the intersection, while decelerating at the rate of 1.5 m/s to 60% of
72 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
the minor-road design speed; then (2) to cross and clear the intersection at that same speed. The
intersection sight distance along the major road to accommodate the crossing maneuver (distance bin
Figure 9.9.1) should be calculated with the following equations:
W+L 0 (9.9.2}
0.167V minor
b = 0.278V majartg (9.9.3)
Where:
tg = time to reach and clear the major road (s)
b = length of leg of sight triangle along the major road (m)
ta= travel time to reach the major road from the decision point for a vehicle that
does not stop (s) (use appropriate value for the minor road design speed from
Figure 9.4.3, adjusted for approach grade, where appropriate)
w= width of intersection to be crossed (m)
La = length of design vehicle (m)
V minor= design speed of the minor road (km/h)
V major= design speed of the major road (km/h)
Table 9.9.7: Case Cl- Crossing Maneuvers from Yield-Controlled Approaches, Length
of Minor Road Leg, and Travel Times
Design Speed Minor-Road Approach Travel Time (t11 ) (s)
(km/h) Length of Le~ (m) Travel Time t/'!! (s) Calculated Value Design Valuef.!!.
20 20 3.2 7.1 7.1
30 30 3.6 6.2 6.5
40 40 4.0 6.0 6.5
50 55 4.4 6.0 6.5
60 65 4.8 6.1 6.5
70 80 5.1 6.2 6.5
80 100 5.5 6.5 6.5
90 115 5.9 6.8 6.8
100 135 6.3 7.1 7.1
110 155 6.7 7.4 7.4
120 180 7.0 7.7 7.7
130 205 7.4 8.0 8.0
Notes:
a. For minor-road approach grades that exceed 3%, multiply the distance or the time in this table by the
appropriate adjustment factor from Table 9.9.2
b. Travel time applies to a vehicle that slows before crossing the intersection but does not stop
c. The value of t 9 should equal or exceed the appropriate time gap for crossing the major road from a stop-
controlled approach
d. Values shown are for a passenger car crossing a two-lane highway with no median and with grades of 3%
or less
June 2017 73
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
The value of t9 should equal or exceed the appropriate travel time for crossing the major road from a
stop-controlled approach, as shown in Table 9.9.5. The design values for the time gap (t9 ) shown in
Table 9.9.7 incorporate these crossing times for two-lane highways and are used to develop the length
of the leg of the sight triangle along the major road in Table 9.9.8. These basic unadjusted lengths are
illustrated in Figure 9.9.6 for passenger cars and should be calculated separately for other design vehicle
types.
The distances and times in Table 9.9.7 should be adjusted for the grade of the minor-road approach,
using the factors in Table 9.9.2. If the major road is a divided highway with a median wide enough to
store the design vehicle for the crossing maneuver, then only crossing of the near lanes needs to be
considered and a departure sight triangle for accelerating from a stopped position in the median should
be provided based on case B3. For median widths not wide enough to store the design vehicle, the
crossing width should be adjusted, as discussed in case Bl.
Case Cl - left- and Right-Turn Maneuvers
The length of the leg of the approach sight triangle along the minor road to accommodate right turns
without stopping (distance a1 in Figure 9.9.1) should be 25 m. This distance is based on the assumption
that drivers making left and right turns without stopping will slow to a turning speed of 16 km/h.
Distance a2 for left turns is longer than distance al for right turns as defined in Section 9.2.
The leg of the approach sight triangle along the major road (distance bin Figure 9.9.1) is similar to the
major-road leg of the departure sight triangle for a stop-controlled intersection in cases Bl and B2.
However, the time gaps in Table 9.9.3 should be increased by 0.5 s to the values shown in Table 9.9.9.
The appropriate lengths of the sight triangle leg are shown in Table 9.9.10 for passenger cars and in
Figure 9.9.7 for the general design vehicle categories. The minor-road vehicle needs 3.5 s to travel from
the decision point to the intersection. This represents additional travel time that is needed at a yield-
controlled intersection, but is not needed at a stop-controlled intersection (case B). However, the
acceleration time after entering the major road is 3.0 s less for a yield sign than for a stop sign because
the turning vehicle accelerates from 16 km/h rather than from a stop condition. The net 0.5-s increase in
travel time for a vehicle turning from a yield-controlled approach is the difference between the 3.5-s
increase in travel time and the 3.0-s reduction in travel time.
Departure sight triangles like those provided for stop-controlled approaches (see cases Bl, B2, and B3)
should also be provided for yield-controlled approaches to accommodate minor-road vehicles that stop
at the yield sign to avoid conflicts with major-road vehicles. However, since approach sight triangles for
turning maneuvers at yield-controlled approaches are larger than the departure sight triangles used at
stop-controlled intersections, no specific check of departure sight triangles at yield-controlled
intersections should be needed.
Yield-controlled approaches generally need greater sight distance than stop-controlled approaches,
especially at four-leg yield-controlled intersections where the sight distance needs of the crossing
maneuver should be considered. If sight distance sufficient for yield control is not available, use of a stop
sign instead of a yield sign should be considered.
74 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.9.8: Length of Sight Triangle Leg along Major Road-Case Cl, Crossing Maneuver
at Yield-Controlled Intersections
Major Road Design Speed Stopping Sight Design Values (m) - Minor-Road Design Speed (km/h)
(km/h) Distance (m) 20 30-80 90 100 110 120 130 -
20 20 40 40 40 40 4S 4S 4S -
30 3S 60 SS 60 60 6S 6S 70 -
40 so 80 7S 80 80 8S 90 90 -
so 6S 100 9S 9S 100 lOS 110 llS -
60 8S 120 110 llS 120 12S 130 13S -
70 lOS 140 130 13S 140 14S lSO 160 -
80 130 160 14S 155 160 165 175 180 -
90 160 180 16S 17S 180 190 19S 20S -
100 185 200 185 190 200 210 215 225 -
110 220 220 200 210 220 230 240 245 -
120 250 240 220 230 240 250 260 270 -
130 285 260 23S 250 260 270 280 290 -
Note: Values in the table are for passenger cars and are based on the unadjusted distances and times in Table 9.9.7. The
distances and times in Table 9.9.7 need to be adjusted using the factors in Table 9.9.2.
130
,....,-....-~--,--:-1-.,...l -r-:-1-:-I,.....,..---.--.-..----:1=,=~~::_:___,_-_
· :-fl/J
100-
120
I I I I I I //h~ /
I I
110
m l-r--1~I 1---r-r-r-I.---r
I
ll 11
l -i ~n>0'~+===i-
1 120
110
11
100
90
I II II ..~~ 1. I
III
70
I I ) " l k~ II
II
50
II
& I
I
/
/
I
I II
30
III II
50 100
III 50
I I
200
II
0 250
Length of Sight Triangle Leg ~m)
Figure 9.9.6: Length of Sight Triangle Leg along Major Road for Passenger Cars
- Case Cl, Crossing Maneuver
June 2017 75
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.9.9: Time Gap for Case C2, Left or Right Turn
Time Gap (tg)(s) at Design
Design Vehicle
Speed of Major Road
Passenger car 8 .0
Single-unit truck 10.0
Combination truck {WB 19 and WB 20) 12.0
Note : Time gaps are for a vehicle to turn right or left onto a two-lane highway
with no median . The table values should be adjusted as follows :
• For left turns onto two-lane highways with more than two lanes, add
O.S s for passenger cars and 0.7 s for trucks for each additional lane,
from the left, in excess of one, to be crossed by the turning vehicle.
• For right turns, no adjustment is needed .
Table 9.9.10: Design Intersection Sight Distance- Case C2, Left or Right Turn
at Yield-Controlled Intersections
Length of Leg
Stopping Sight Distance
Design Speed (km/h) Passenger Cars
(m)
Calculated (m) Design (m)
20 20 44.S 4S
30 3S 66.7 70
40 so 89.0 90
so 6S 111.2 llS
60 8S 133.4 13S
70 lOS lSS.7 160
80 130 177.9 180
90 160 200.2 20S
100 18S 222.4 22S
110 220 244.6 24S
120 2SO 266.9 270
130 28S 289.1 290
Note : Intersection sight distance shown is fo r a passenger car making a right or left turn
without stopping onto a two-lane road.
76 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
130
I. . I I
120
vv
, .,, , ...
. ,• ,, VI SU Vi /
11(1
I
I. I , / ~/ /("
v COMB
./ -f l
100 I
,,, ,. I
I / / ~ .
€'
E
:!!..
90
eo
I . .' 1
,,r1 /
/
/
J
/'" y -- I
"O
I
!JI)
70
I 550
,' ~-r
I
PC /v /
/ v / I
e ,/
/
I
/ v I
.5:?'
"' 6D '
v
v ~/ I
.,f f / IA'/
0 /
/ IL- /
I/
/
I I I I 11
,,,r
I
50 ,
,, / I I
/j,, /L/1
40
I ,
/
I I I I I
·v
JO
11
20 '
/ ,, v I I I
0 100 200 300 400
Length ,of Sighl Triangle Leg ~ mJ
Figure 9.9.7: Intersection Sight Distance - Case C2, Yield-Controlled Left or Right Turn
Case D - Intersections with Traffic Signal Control
At signalized intersections, the first vehicle stopped on one approach should be visible to the driver of
the first vehicle stopped on each of the other approaches. Left-turning vehicles should have sufficient
sight distance to select gaps in oncoming traffic and complete left turns. Horizontal alignment of the
roadway and the offset of opposing left turn lanes can have a significand impact on these sightines (see
Section 9.1.2.3 for more detail). Similar requirements must be satisfied for right turns. Apart from these
sight conditions, there are generally no other approach or departure sight triangles needed for
signalized intersections.
However, if the traffic signal is to be placed on two-way flashing operation (i.e., flashing yellow on the
major-road approaches and flashing red on the minor-road approaches) under off-peak or night-time
conditions, then the appropriate departure sight triangles for case B, both to the left and to the right,
should be provided for the minor-road approaches. In addition, if right turns on a red signal are to be
permitted from any approach, then the appropriate departure sight triangle to the left for case B2
should be provided to accommodate right turns from that approach.
Case£- Intersections with All-Way Stop Control
At intersections with all-way stop control, the first stopped vehicle on one approach should be visible to
the drivers of the first stopped vehicles on each of the other approaches. There are no other sight
distance criteria applicable to intersections with all-way stop control and, indeed, all-way stop control
may be the best option at a limited number of intersections where sight distance for other control types
cannot be attained.
June 2017 77
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Case F - Left Turns from the Major Road
All locations along a major highway from which vehicles are permitted to turn left across opposing
traffic, including intersections and driveways, should have sufficient sight distance to accommodate the
left-turn maneuver. Left-turning drivers need sufficient sight distance to decide when to turn left across
the lane(s) used by opposing traffic. Sight distance design should be based on a left turn by a stopped
vehicle, since a vehicle that turns left without stopping would need less sight distance. The sight
distance along the major road to accommodate left turns is the distance traversed at the design speed
of the major road in the travel time for the design vehicle given in Table 9.9.11.
Table 9.9.11: Time Gap for Case F, Left Turns from the Major Road
Time Gap (tg)(s) at Design
Design Vehicle
Speed of Major Road
Passenger car 5.5
Single-unit truck 6.5
Combination truck (WB 19 and WB 20) 7.5
Note : Adjustment for multi-lane highways: For turning vehicles that cross more than one
opposing lane, add 0.5 s for passenger cars and 0.7 s for trucks for each additional lane to
be crossed .
The table also contains appropriate adjustment factors for the number of major-road lanes to be
crossed by the turning vehicle. The unadjusted time gap in Table 9.9.11 for passenger cars was used to
develop the sight distances in Table 9.9.12 and is illustrated in Figure 9.9.8.
78 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.9.12: Intersection Sight Distance - Case F, Left Turn from the Major Road
Intersection Sight Distance
Design Speed Stopping Sight
Passenger Cars
(km/h) Distance (m)
Calculated (m) Design (m)
20 20 30.6 3S
30 3S 4S.9 so
40 so 61.2 6S
so 6S 76.5 80
60 8S 91.7 9S
70 lOS 107.0 110
80 130 122.3 12S
90 160 137.6 140
100 18S 1S2.9 lSS
110 220 168.2 170
120 2SO 183.5 18S
130 28S 198.8 200
Note : Intersection sight distance shown is for a passenger car making a left turn from an undivided highway. For
other conditions and design vehicles, the time gap should be adjusted and the sight distance recalculated .
30
120
PC
I/
/
SU/ v .- •/
- ~~
--- .-
110
I /
/ I/ I/
/ COMB
I
00
I/
/
,.; v /v
:2
i
90
80
I I v
/ I -·
,.
/
/ I/ I
v
al
8. 10
, -/
IP'
vv / /
.r·/ / / v
Cj)
SSD,
c:;
·~
., 60
I I/
0
II ,'
,-'
A/ / ,, / v I
50
40 II
,
/
v /y/ I
v /
,~ ~_, v i
30
20
ly
,,,.I k;I v
/
0 so 100 150 250
Length of Sight Triangle Leg (m)
Figure 9.9.8: Intersection Sight Distance - Case F, Left Turn from the Major Road
June 2017 79
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
If stopping sight distance has been provided continuously along the major road and if sight distance for
case B (stop control) or case C (yield control) has been provided for each minor-road approach, sight
distance will generally be adequate for left turns from the major road. Therefore, no separate check of
sight distance for case F may be needed.
The availability of adequate sight distance for left turns from the major road should be checked when:
• Vehicles in opposing left turn bays may block sightlines.
• Sight obstructions in the median may block sightlines for left turning vehicles from a divided
highway.
9.9.2.4 Effect of Skew
When two highways intersect at an angle less than 60°, and when realignment to increase the angle of
intersection is not justified, some of the factors for determining intersection sight distance may need to
be adjusted.
Each of the clear sight triangles described in this section are applicable to oblique-angle intersections. As
shown in Figure 9.9.9, the legs of the sight triangle will lie along the intersection approaches and each
sight triangle will be larger or smaller than the corresponding sight triangle would be at a right-angle
intersection. The area within each sight triangle should be clear of potential sight obstructions as
described previously.
At an oblique-angle intersection, the length of the travel paths for some turning and crossing maneuvers
will be increased. The actual path length for a turning or crossing maneuver can be computed by
dividing the total widths of the lanes (plus the median width, where appropriate) to be crossed by the
sine of the intersection angle. If the actual path length exceeds the total widths of the lanes to be
crossed by 3.6 m or more, then an appropriate number of additional lanes should be considered in
applying the adjustment for the number of lanes to be crossed (see Table 9.9.3 for case Bl and Table
9.9.5 for cases B2 and B3). For case Cl, thew term in the equation for the major-road leg of the sight
triangle to accommodate the crossing maneuver should also be divided by the sine of the intersection
angle to obtain the actual path length. In the obtuse-angle quadrant of an oblique-angle intersection,
the angle between the approach leg and the sightline is often so small that drivers can look across the
full sight triangle with only a small head movement. However, in the acute-angle quadrant, drivers often
need to turn their heads considerably to see across the entire clear sight triangle. For this reason, it is
recommended that the sight distance criteria for case A not be applied to oblique-angle intersections
and that sight distances at least equal to those for case B should be provided, whenever practical.
80 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
A w, major road
c
acute angle
intersection
ISO Case 81 , 83, C ISO Case 81, 83, C1 or C2
acute intersection shown
W=
w,
2
sin8
Figure 9.9.9: Sight Triangles at Skewed Intersections
9.10 DECISION SIGHT DISTANCE
Minimum stopping sight distance generally allows drivers to bring their vehicles to a stop. However, this
distance is often inadequate when drivers must make instantaneous decisions, where information is
difficult to perceive and interpret, or unexpected maneuvers are required. Drivers may require longer
sight distances at critical locations, such as intersections where several sources of information compete,
where the intersection is on or beyond a crest of a vertical curve, or where there is substantial
horizontal curvature on the approach to the intersection area.
Decision sight distances provide designers with values for appropriate sight distance at such critical
locations and serve as criteria in evaluating the suitability of the sight lengths at these locations. If it is
not feasible to provide these distances because of horizontal or vertical curvature, special attention
should be given to the use of traffic control devices for providing advance warning of the conditions to
be encountered.
71
A range of decision sight distance values has been developed and are shown in Figure 9.10.1. The
range recognizes the variation in complexity that may exist at various sites.
Decision sight distance is based on pre maneuver and maneuver times converted into distance and
verified empirically. Pre-maneuver is the time required for a driver to process information relative to a
hazard. It consists of:
• detection and recognition and
• decision and response initiation times.
June 2017 81
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Maneuver time is the time to accomplish a vehicle maneuver. For design purposes, the calculated values
are rounded . For guidance on selecting decision sight distance, refer to Chapter 2.
120
I I I
110 I J J
.s
en
(V) Jl.l
r::::
I I I
"O !!! J sI I
100
Q) .![! ~ ff
Q)
:>
....C1l ii _'5/
.:.!!
i o/
~ ~1 ~ ~v
Q)
u
90 ~
in .§I
'.2
E
r6 ..,,
,,..
s
-~
'
n'?
"ti
I -~'
~/
~
"O
Q)
80 i/ §/ 1
g>
Q)
c..
en
c
sf ·Of;
fl
.{
rJ './
""
Ol
"(ii
Q)
"O 70 I I I
I
J I
60 J I J
I I I
I
50 J
I I
40 j I I
0 100 200 300 400 500
sight distance (m)
72
Figure 9.10.1: Decision Sight Distance
9.11 SIGHT DISTANCE AT BRIDGE STRUCTURES
Where a bridge is close to an at-grade intersection, such as at the intersection of an interchange ramp
with a cross road adjacent to an overpass, particular attention is required to ensure adequate sight
distance is provided. This is due to the potential visual obstruction created by the bridge railing or other
structural components. The typical critical factor, at a ramp intersection, is the sight distance required
for the left-turning vehicle departing from the ramp to clear the traffic approaching from the left on the
cross road . If the intersection is signalized, the minimum critical sight distance is then the distance
needed for vehicles turning right, off the ramp, to clear vehicles approaching from the left. However, it
82 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
is desirable to provide the left turning and crossing maneuver sight distance associated with stop control
to account for possible signal malfunctions or similar conditions.
The sight distances should be checked against both the vertical alignment design of the cross road and
the horizontal sight triangle. The horizontal sight triangle may be affected by the visual obstruction
created by the railing or parapet of the bridge structure. The two sight distances are illustrated in
Figure 9.11.1.
For the vertical alignment check, the assumed height of eye for the turning vehicle is 1.08 m for a car
and up to 2.3 m for a large truck (see Chapter 2 for more information). The object height in all cases is
assumed to be 1.3 m, the assumed height of a passenger car. Where concrete or similar solid barriers
are used along the cross roadway, particularly where the cross roadway alignment includes a crest
vertical curve, the possible restrictions on sightline are taken into account in determining the available
sight distance.
For the horizontal sight triangle check, the location of the bridge railing or parapet of an overpass
structure is often the critical factor for sight distance. In the case of a ramp terminal adjacent to an
underpass structure, the bridge abutments or piers may be the limiting factors. Sight distance at the
ramp terminals can be improved by increasing the lateral offsets from the cross roadway to the bridge
railings, abutments or piers, or by increasing the distance between the ramp terminal intersection and
the structure. Where sufficient distance cannot be provided, traffic signals may be considered at the
ramp terminal intersection to improve safety. In certain rare cases, the provision of mirrors can be
reassuring and can reduce the problem of perceived lack of sight distance.
For other intersections adjacent to bridge structures, the critical sight distance factors vary with the
actual physical roadway layout, traffic control, and traffic patterns.
June 2017 83
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
-- --- --- ----= -- -- - --- - --G'.
U3 1---
sight line
;Jx_~ ~-
end of bridge l y
v¥
railing
z
s(m)
x = offset from driver's eye through vehicle to edge of bridge railing (m)
y = offset from driver's eye to edge of bridge railing (m)
z = distance from driver's eye to end of bridge railing (m)
s = sight distance= z (x+y) (m)
y
a. horizontal sight triangle
height of eye= 1.08 m
for passenger car
j ?§'??Lo---""'--'- -_-_-_-_:- _~- _-_-_-"_7___'
s (m)
.
,ore . :solid.barriers
: :_, may
restrict the vertical
sight line
b. vertical sight line
Figure 9.11.1: Measurement of Sight Distance at Ramp Terminals
Adjacent to Overpass Structures
9.12 WIDENING THROUGH SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
At a signalized intersection where volumes are such that vehicles will be delayed for more than one
cycle length, the capacity through the intersection can be increased by providing an auxiliary lane in
advance of the intersection and carry it through and beyond the intersection for a considerable distance
before being terminated. This auxiliary lane permits a greater number of through vehicles to negotiate
the intersection during each cycle. The extended length of lane beyond the intersection allows vehicles
to adjust their speeds and positions to achieve a smooth merge back to the basic traffic lanes.
This intersection configuration may be advantageous in areas where it is common and drivers are
familiar with its operation. In areas where widening through a signalized intersection is uncommon, the
implementation may create driver confusion. Figure 9.12.1 shows a nomograph, sketch, and tables
indicating the suggested lane and taper lengths for various speeds. In preparing the design for these
types of widening in areas where pedestrians and cyclists are regularly present, special design provisions
will need to be considered to ensure that the level of service for these modes is maintained.
84 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
600
WA approach width in number of lanes OJ
c
including widening ro 500
'.2
taper deceleration and acceleration lane ~
change lengths derived from design Cl> 400
values calculated at 3.0 s and 3.5 s
E E
::i
:J
respectively for the appropriate 0 E
operating speed > 300 ·c
.r:.
Cl E
::i
Da length of auxiliary lane to the stop e 200
180
block determined either from the nomo- £
graph or by using appropriate traffic
>
II
150
I
factors to clear the through traffic 100 Cl>
c
or from the table below to permit the ~
right turning vehicle to decelerate, 2'."'
the larger of the two values 120
~
selected ·x
:J
ro
90 0
Db length of auxiliary lanes from the stop
block determined either by the formula
£Cl
c
Db = 3.5 G to clear the through traffic 60 ~
or from the table below to permit
the right turning vehicle from the ro
crossing road to accelerate , the 0
30
larger of the two volumes selected
nomograph
length of widening length of widening
beyond intersection (acceleration + taper) in advance of intersection (acceleration +taper)
design acceleration taper design deceleration taper
speed speed
(km/h) Db 3.5 s (km/h) Da 3.5 s
(m) Db-3.5 x G (m) (m) Da - nomograph (m)
50 50 50 40
• divide approach
60 15 60 60 20 50
G =green volume by no.
intervals of lanes in wA
70 55 in sec 70 70 30 • use volume 60
per lane in
80 90 80 80 45 above chart 70
• find 'Da' on
90 60 desirable 75
90 155 85
scale
100 220 95 100 85 80
73
Figure 9.12.1: Widening Through a Signalized lntersection
June 2017 85
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.13 SIMPLE INTERSECTIONS
9.13.1 OVERVIEW
The simple intersection design includes two kinds of intersection treatments:
• Open-throat and
• Flared .
9.13.1.1 Open Throat
In open-throat intersection design, the normal lane widths of the main roadway and of the intersecting
roadway are maintained through the intersection. Minimum radii treatment is provided. This type of
intersection is designed where one or more of the following conditions exist:
• Extensive roadside development involving high property cost (typically urban setting)
• Low turning volumes
• Low turning speed
• A minor roadway intersection with a through roadway
• Environmental sensitivities
• Significant pedestrian volumes
This is applicable to the T-intersection, also known as a three-legged intersection, and the cross-
74
intersection, also known as a four-legged intersection (see Figure 9.13.1}. This design is applied where
the turning vehicles do not appreciably impede the through traffic.
86 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
ig
111
I
- - - JA~
~-~-~-~-~-~-~~ -~
majorroadway
T- intersection
cross-intersection
Figure 9.13.1: Open Throat Intersections
9.13.1.2 Flared Intersections
Flared intersections exhibit tapers and/or auxiliary lanes. Intersections with tapers or auxiliary lanes
provide additional space for the separation of through and turning traffic movements. They are typically
used in rural situations where accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists is not a high priority. Flared
intersections can reduce the hazard caused by turning vehicles and increase intersection vehicular
capacity.
Examples of flared intersections are shown in Figure 9.13.2.
June 2017 87
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
( a ) added lane adjacent to intersecting roadway
i!t
~1
~e II
g I
EI
-----~IJ~
= -~ ~::.;:.:;:;:::,~:f:i:~~~
----- ........ ...=. · · ·-=--------~
majorroadway
( b ) added lane opposite intersecting roadway
( c) added lane in centre of roadway
Figure 9.13.2: Flared Intersections with Auxiliary Lanes for T-lntersections
Figure 9.13.2(a) shows an added lane on the side of the through roadway adjacent to the intersecting
roadway for right-turning vehicles. This arrangement is applicable where the right-turning movement
from the through roadway is substantial but does not exceed about 60 vehicles per hour and the left-
turning movement from the through roadway is minor. Figure 9.13.2(b) shows an added lane on the
side opposite the intersecting roadway. This arrangement is applicable where the left-turning
movement from the through roadway is substantial but insufficient to warrant a full left-turn lane, and
the right- and left-turn ing movement from the minor roadway is small. The added lane affords the
opportunity for the following through drivers to pass on the right of the slower moving or stopping
vehicles preparing to turn left.
88 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Figure 9.13.2(c) shows the added lane in the middle of the through roadway. The additional lane is used
for left turns from and to the roadway. Drivers turning left from the through roadway naturally edges
towards the centre and through traffic are encouraged to pass on the right of the vehicle slowing down
or stopping to turn left. The arrangements shown in Figures 9.13.2(a) and (c) are also applicable to
cross-intersections. The "slip-around" shown in Figure 9.13.2(b) is applicable to T-intersections only.
Figure 9.13.3 illustrates a flared intersection with a right-turn lane on each side of the through roadway.
Such an arrangement may be appropriate where the capacity of the two-lane roadway at the
intersection is taxed by the traffic volume and where signal control is required.
Figure 9.13.3: Intersection with Right-Turn Auxiliary Lanes
June 2017 89
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.13.2 CORNER RADIUS CONSIDERATIONS AND DESIGN
9.13.2.1 Overview
The design of the corner radii at intersections is affected by the location of the vehicle travel path as it
approaches and departs from the intersection. For instance, in urban areas where parking is allowed
adjacent to the curb, a vehicle typically makes the turn at an appreciable offset from the curb line. In
other situations, it is desirable to have the turning movement made totally within a curb lane on both
the approach and departure legs. Corner radii are designed in a different manner for each situation. An
appropriate curb radius design may be accomplished using vehicle turning path software.
Large corner radii encourage higher speeds by turning vehicles and increase the distance pedestrians
must travel to cross the roadway at an intersection. Where pedestrian crossing volumes are significant,
it is desirable to design the curb radii to conform to the minimum design vehicle turning path, thereby
reducing vehicular turning speeds and minimizing the pedestrian crossing distance. Refer to Section
6.4.4 in Chapter 6 for guidance on intersection curb/corner radii for accommodation of pedestrians.
The design of at-grade intersections are site-specific and depend on many influencing factors, such as
traffic, design vehicles, lane widths, pavement widths, angle of intersection, and degree of pedestrian
activity. In retrofit situations, the corner radii design may also be influenced by physical constraints and
right-of-way restrictions.
Typically, three types of curves are used in intersection design:
• Circular curve
• Two-centred compound curve and
• Three-centred compound curve.
9.13.2.2 Circular Curve
The circular curve is most commonly used at urban intersections, often with restricted rights-of-way. It
facilitates the passenger vehicle, single-unit truck, and single-unit inter-city bus turning maneuvers. The
size of the radius is dependent on the minimum turning radius of the selected design vehicle and turning
condition (either stop or yield).
For appropriate turning radii for a stopped turning condition, refer to Chapter 2. For a yield condition,
turning speed is typically assumed to be 20 km/h in an urban environment and up to 30 or 40 km/h in a
rural environment. The turn ing radii should be determined based on the desired turning speed.
The circular curve design can also be used where a right-turning tractor trailer approaching on a single
lane can turn into a four-lane roadway section, with the truck using more than one lane in making the
turn . Where it becomes necessary to ensure that large trucks turn into the right lane of a multilane
roadway section, a two- or three-centred compound curve design is appropriate.
75
Figure 9.13.4 illustrates simple curve geometric elements. The turning radius (R) can be determined
from Chapter 2. The angle of turn (~)varies from 70° to 110° as per the intersection angle.
90 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
R
b. = intersection angle
b.1 = angle subtended at
the centre by radius R
R = radius of curve
T =tangent length
L = curve length
Figure 9.13.4: Edge of Pavement Design - Circular Curve
9.13.2.3 Two-Centred Compound Circular Curve
The two-centred compound curve is the preferred design for all types of large trucks and usually fits the
minimum inside sweep of a design tractor trailer combination adequately. Although a three-centred
curve better fits the inside sweep of a tractor trailer combination, many benefits to using a two-centred
curve over a three-centred curve have been identified:
• Less pavement area for two-centred curves than for three-centred curves.
• Intersecting road vehicles are forced to proceed slowly with two-centred curves.
• Stop sign can be placed closer to the intersecting road centreline (more visible) with two-
centred curves.
• Two-centred curve design tends to be more economical.
In addition, a two-centred curve may be used to lay out the right edge of pavement for vehicles making
a right turn from the minor roadway and a three-centred curve could be used for the right shoulder for
vehicles making a right turn from the major roadway.
Figure 9.13.5 illustrates the application, symbol, and nomenclature of the two-centred compound
circular curve elements.
June 2017 91
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
0::
= intersection angle of the two roads or angle of turn
= radius of curve t:i.,
= radius of curve t:i.,
= angle subtended at the centre by radius R,
= angle subtended at the centre by radius R,
Ti, T2 = length of tangent
L1, L2 = length of curve
a = long tangent of the compound circular curve
b = short tangent of the compound circular curve
Figure 9.13.5: Edge of Pavement Design -Two-Centred Compound Curve
For large tractor trailer combinations, the recommended radii combination should be checked with the
appropriate template and adjusted if necessary. The clearance between the inner rear wheel and the
edge of pavement should be 0.5 m preferably and at least 0.25 m. When applying the template, the
vehicle should be properly positioned within the traffic lane at the beginning and end of the turn and
the inner rear wheel path should clear the curve with the indicated minimum clearance. The application
of the design vehicle template is described in Chapter 2.
When facilitating large trucks in non-industrial areas, consideration should be given to channelization, to
avoid large paved areas that may be confusing to a driver and difficult to control in terms of orderly
movement of vehicles. When pedestrians are a consideration at a signalized wide open-throat
intersection, the "walk" and clearance times may be affected; therefore, provision of adequate service
and protection for pedestrians may be required and should be verified by a qualified traffic engineer.
92 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.13.2.4 Three-Centred Compound Circular Curve
The application of a symmetrical arrangement of three-centred curves has proven advantageous to fit
the edge of pavement closely to the minimum inside sweep of a tractor trailer combination. This design
is the practical equivalent to a curve transition for most or all of its length. A three-centred curve is
typically used at a major intersection with exclusive left- or right-turn lanes. In an operational sense, it is
superior to the minimum circular arc design because it better fits the inner rear wheel turning path of a
tractor trailer, while providing some margin for driver error and requiring less pavement.
Three-centred curve design for angles ohurn more than 90° may result in unnecessarily large paved
intersections, portions of which are often unused. This situation may lead to confusion among drivers
and present a hazard to pedestrians. These conditions may be alleviated to a considerable extent by the
use of asymmetrical three-centred compound curves, or by using large radii, coupled with corner
islands. Figure 9.13.6 illustrates the elements of three-centred symmetric/asymmetric compound
76
curves.
The two-centred curve provides for tractor trailer off-tracking; however, there is not as much room for
driver error as there is on the three-centred curve.
The use of a two-centred curve is permitted in situations where a three-centred curve would normally
be used, but cost to purchase extra right-of-way is extreme or where surrounding roadway geometrics
do not allow for the application of a three-centred compound curve.
June 2017 93
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
~
/;~
~--.1
/j, = intersection angle
R1,R 2,R 3 = radii of curves /j,1 /j,2 /j,3
three-centred curve ( symmetric )
/j,1, /j,2,/j,3 =angle subtended at the centr
by radii R1,R 2,R 3
T1, T2, T3= tangent lengths
1-----
major roadway ~.2-i___L~1~, 1
:====~~=~~~~;::::::::-lr::T'5._~T'<~2 ~ 1~ !;,;___
-==/ L2, L3=curve lengths
p =offset
Note
l
ci
R1
Tbc
<
<
R3
T ec
Xbc > Xec
T1 < T3
three-centred curve ( symmetric)
Figure 9.13.6: Edge of Pavement Design - Three-Centred Compound Curve
94 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.13.3 SHOULDERS AT SIMPLE INTERSECTIONS
9.13.3.1 Overview
An urban cross section with barrier curb does not typically include shoulders. However, where shoulders
are provided, they are paved and a mountable curb and gutter is used.
The rural roadway at intersections includes shou lders or equivalent lateral clearance outside the edges
of pavement. A shoulder at intersections is provided for the same reasons as that for the open
roadways . It is an area adjacent to the driving lane where a driver can make a stop in case of an
emergency. It can also provide width for the occasional oversized vehicle and may be used as a bypass
lane for emergency vehicles.
Due to improper vehicle operations, shoulders at intersections are subject to deterioration at a faster
rate than along open roadways. Edge of pavement drop-off and gravel strewn onto the pavement are
main concerns and require frequent inspection and maintenance. This section deals with shoulder
treatment at intersections designed to minimize these concerns.
At intersections, the required shoulder width varies from a minimum of 0.5 m to that equal to the open
roadway shoulder width. Where two roads of different operational characteristics and functions
intersect, the shoulder width at the intersection normally varies and serves as a transition from a wide
shoulder on the main roadway to a narrow shoulder on the minor roadways.
Where the major roadway is designed with auxiliary lanes, the shoulder width from the major roadway
to the minor roadway is transitioned along the arc length of the edge of pavement curve.
For the far side of the major roadway intersection, the shoulder width of the minor roadway is extended
along the arc length of the edge of pavement and transitioned to the shoulder width of the main
77
roadway within the 30 m recovery taper length, as shown in Figure 9.13.7.
Figure 9.13.7: Shoulder Transition at Flared Intersection with Taper
June 2017 95
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
A uniform intersection shoulder w idth is designed where the intersecting roadways are of similar
importance.
There are three types of shoulder treatments at simple rural intersections:
• Gravel shoulders (rural)
• Paved or partially paved shoulders (rural)
• Concrete curb and gutter (rural and urban).
Each type of shoulder treatment is applied at intersections with or without tapers or deceleration lanes.
Edge of pavement delineators may be used with either gravel or paved shoulder treatment at
intersections. Generally, the application of delineators is discouraged as they are often damaged or
destroyed by turning vehicles, which greatly reduces their effectiveness. They also cause maintenance
problems during snow removal operations. However, delineators may provide guidance to the drivers
exiting and entering the roadway at locations with restricted visibility and during poor weather
conditions. Shoulder treatment at intersections should be evaluated and designed for each location
based on existing and anticipated future t raffic volumes and operational considerations.
9.13.3.2 Gravel Shoulders
Shoulder treatment at intersections is usually achieved by surfacing the shoulder with gravel (see
78
Figure 9.13.8). However, unstabilized shoulders generally undergo consolidation with time and the
elevation of the shoulder at the pavement edge tends to become somewhat lower resulting in
pavement drop-off. Also turning maneuvers contribute to gravel tracking onto the pavement area. As
such, gravel shoulders in intersection areas requ ire regular maintenance.
~ I
~ I
II eg II
I ·~ I
'"'""
--~- majorroadway-------+
I~ ~-r-vlh ,- ,
+-------~;ajor r-;adway--
-
minor roadway to major roadway major roadway to minor roadway
Figure 9.13.8: Gravel Shoulder Treatment at Open Throat Intersection
9.13.3.3 Paved Shoulders
At intersections, drivers of large trucks sometimes cut across the shoulder when turning right from the
through roadway to the minor roadway. Also, decelerating vehicles on gravel roadways, particularly
abruptly stopping vehicles, drag gravel onto the paved intersection area. To reduce the drop-off of the
pavement edge and gravel strewing onto the pavement, the paved shoulder treatment at intersections
79
is considered an effective design feature (see Figure 9.13.9). In many jurisdictions, it is common
practice to partially pave shoulders, providing many of the benefits of a fully paved shoulder.
96 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
paved shoulder paved shoulder
minor roadway to major roadway major roadway to minor roadway
Figure 9.13.9: Paved Shoulder Treatment at Intersection
9.13.3.4 Concrete Curb and Gutter
Where shoulder gravel tracking is attributed to, or is anticipated to be caused by turning maneuvers,
concrete curb and gutter, and shoulder paving may be applied as shown in Figure 9.13.10. A mountable
or semi-mountable curb is preferred in rural areas.
minor roadway to major roadway major roadway to minor roadway
Figure 9.13.10: Shoulder Treatment with Concrete Curb and Gutter at Intersection
June 2017 97
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
The paved shoulder with concrete curb and gutter is considered to be the most effective design. It
discourages drivers from deviating from the appropriate turning path onto the shoulder. Curbing may
however, cause difficulty for some oversized vehicles requiring the use of the shoulder and may also
cause drifting and present a roadside hazard on high speed facilities.
9.13.3.5 Summary
80
The following table provides a summary of guidelines for shoulder treatment at simple intersections.
Table 9.13.1: Guidelines for Shoulder Treatment at Simple Intersections
Type of Treatment Criteria
Gravel shoulders • Lightly travelled minor roadways
• Few commercial vehicle turns
• No recorded maintenance problems
Paved shoulders • Moderately travelled minor roadways
• Moderate commercial vehicle turns
• Identifiable shoulder maintenance problems
• When major shoulders are paved, or partially paved
Concrete curb and • Heavily travelled minor roadways
gutter • High volume of commercial vehicle turns
• Identifiable shoulder maintenance problems
• At superelevated roadway sections to contro l
drainage and erosion
• Areas of limited right-of-way
9.14 TAPERS AND AUXILIARY LANES
9.14.1 OVERVIEW
The flaring of one or more legs of an at-grade intersection using tapers and auxiliary lanes reduces the
severity of conflicts between through and turning traffic by separating slower, right-, and left-turning
vehicles from faster, through vehicles. The flaring of an intersection can also assist vehicles, particularly
larger trucks, in negotiating a turn. The use of tapers and auxiliary lanes at an intersection is typically
considered on the basis of vehicular capacity requirements and safety. However, tapers and auxiliary
lanes increase roadway crossing distances for pedestrians; therefore, the effect on pedestrians is an
important consideration when assessing the need for a flared intersection. Tapers and right-turn
auxiliary lanes may be disadvantageous to cyclists due to the increased conflict created between
through cyclists and right-turning vehicles. Transit operations may also be affected with respect to
transit stop locations, and the difficulty of buses re-entering the through traffic stream from a stop
located along an auxiliary lane.
In an urban setting, intersection flaring is rare along local roads and is used only occasionally along
collector roads. The use of tapers and auxiliary lanes is common at intersections along arterial roads,
particularly major arterials with high design speeds where the hazard to through traffic caused by slow
turning or stopped vehicles in the through lanes is significant. Tapers and auxiliary lanes are also
commonly used in a rural setting on higher-speed roads.
98 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Auxiliary lanes, at an intersection, serve as storage lanes, deceleration lanes, or a combination of the
two. They can be used to minimize hazard and inconvenience, to increase capacity, and to promote
operating efficiency where vehicles exit or enter the roadway. Acceleration lanes are seldom used along
urban roads, except for freeways and expressways, and are commonly used for higher-speed rural
roads. Added lanes on the departure legs of an intersection may be considered for capacity, access, or
safety reasons.
Auxiliary lanes may be either left- or right-turn lanes adjacent to the through lanes and in the same
direction of travel. Left-turn lanes can be added with or without divisional islands. A divisional island
effectively provides a measure of protection for vehicles queued to make a left turn at an intersection,
and can be used for the placement of traffic control devices and as a pedestrian refuge. In existing urban
locations where right-of-way is limited or where opportunities for widening are restricted by adjacent
development, it may not be possible to introduce a divisional island. The feasibility of an island may also
be influenced by the access needs of the adjacent land uses.
9.14.2 GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF RIGHT-TURN TAPER AND BAY TAPERS
WITH AUXILIARY LANES
Right- and left-turn tapers are normally provided at all at-grade intersections along major roads and
expressways. The consistent use of auxiliary lanes along major roads is often achieved through local
policies related to classification, design speed, and volume warrants. Along minor arterials and
collectors, the implementation of auxiliary turn lanes is considered on the basis of many factors,
including speed, design volumes, right-of-way availability, collision potential, access locations,
intersection spacing, cyclist and pedestrian needs, and implications on transit operation.
Right-turn tapers may be provided without auxiliary lanes on intersection approach legs to permit the
right-turn movement at the intersection with less interference to the through traffic. Right-turn tapers
normally connect to a separate right-turning roadway at a major channelized intersection.
Where it is desirable to flare an intersection to better accommodate the right-turn movement, it is
generally preferable to incorporate a right-turn auxiliary lane as part of the design. The auxiliary lane
serves to separate the through and right-turning traffic well in advance of the intersection, causes less
deceleration of the turning traffic in the through lanes, and provides a storage area for turning vehicles
stopped for pedestrians crossing the roadway on the green signal. Tapers without parallel lanes may
also be a disadvantage to through cyclists in determining a safe travel path through the intersection.
The following guidelines are suggested for the use of a right-turn auxiliary lane on urban and rural roads.
Refer to other publications, including the latest version of the TRB Highway Capacity Manual, for more
detailed procedures on determining the need for tapers and auxiliary lanes.
Unsignalized:
• When the volume of decelerating or accelerating vehicles compared with the through traffic
volume causes undue hazard.
Signalized:
• Right-turn lane without separate signal indication when the volume of right-turning traffic is
10% to 20% of the total approaching volume.
• Right-turn lane with separate indication when right-turn traffic is greater than 20% of the total
approaching volume.
June 2017 99
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
In urban areas, other factors such as pedestrian and cyclist accommodation and safety must be
considered
9.14.3 DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR RIGHT-TURN TAPERS WITHOUT AUXILIARY LANES
Right-turn tapers without auxiliary lanes may be added to intersection approach legs to facilitate the
right-turn movement and to reduce interference with through traffic. They are often used in rural and
suburban situations. The taper design provides the driver with a natural transition off the through lane.
In conjunction with the right-turn taper, a recovery taper is often provided beyond the intersection to
allow through vehicles to bypass standing left-turn vehicles in the travel lane and to safely return to the
through lane (30 mis suggested with an offset of 1.5 m) . Typical taper applications are shown in
81
Figure 9.14.1 and Figure 9.14.2.
_____ Cf. m~iorro~way - - - - - - - - - - - - -
w
taper
(see Table 9.14.1)
I I
Figure 9.14.1: Typical Right-Turn Taper Lane Design at T- lntersections
30m taper
recovery taper (see Table 9.14.1 )
(if desired)
w
major roadway 1.5 m
~-~---~-~-~-~-~---+--~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
1.5 m
w
I. taper
(see Table 9.14.1)
.1 30 m
recovery taper
(if desired)
Note : R is based on design vehicle (see Chapter 2)
Figure 9.14.2: Typical Right-Turn Taper Lane Design at Cross-Intersections
100 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Right-turn taper lengths are a function of design speed and are calculated based on the ratios presented
in Table 9.14.1. Lane widths (w) vary (see Chapter 4) . Some agencies use reduced taper ratios in
constrained urban environments where lower speeds are desired and where property constraints exist.
Table 9.14.1: Right-Turn Tapers without Auxiliary Lanes
Design Speed (km/h) Taper Length for
Taper Ratio Horizontal Curve• (R)
(through roadway) w = 3.5 (m)
50 15 :1 53 500
60 18:1 63 750
70 21 :1 74 1,000
80 24:1 84 1,200
Note: a) Flat radii as indicated can be used rather than tangent alignment for right-turn tapers.
The taper can be a straight line or a larger radius curve (see Table 9.14.1 for suggested horizontal curve
values); curves are typically used in an urban environment where curb and gutter is provided and
straight tapers in a rural environment where curb and gutter is not used.
Shortened taper lengths may be considered for intersections on curve to provide a visible break from
the through lanes. On high-speed roads, the taper length should generally conform to that discussed in
Chapter 10.
9.14.4 DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR RIGHT-TURN TAPERS WITH AUXILIARY LANES
The length of an auxiliary lane is based on deceleration and storage requirements. Deceleration should
occur exclusively within the auxiliary lane, although in an urban environment, deceleration (up to
15 km/h) over the bay taper is normally tolerable (especially in a peak-hour condition) .
Suggested taper and parallel lengths are shown in Table 9.14.2 and illustrated in Figure 9.14.4.
Adjustments for intersections on curves are discussed in Section 18.8.
Table 9.14.2: Right-Turn Taper with Parallel Deceleration Lane Design
Taper Ratio" Radius for Reverse" Parallel Lane Lengthb
Design Speed (km/h)
Design Domain Curves (m) Design Domain
50 11:1-17 :1 90-150 35-75
60 14:1-17 :1 150 40-90
70 17:1-20:1 150-220 50-110
80( 17:1-24:1 150-300 60-130
Notes: a) Taper may be straight line or may be symmetrical reverse curves; length is derived from design values
calculated for a 3 s lane change criterion for the appropriate operating s peed .
b) Additional parallel lane length may be required for storage.
c) For higher design s peeds, refer to Chapter 10.
June 2017 101
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
30 m
parallel lanea taper I
(see Table 9.14.2) I
taper arallel lanea j, 30 m , 1
(see Table 9.14.2)
A
GJ
Note: a. Design domain for parallel lane is from the deceleration length (m) to
the deceleration length + storage length (m)
b. R is based on design vehicle (see Chapter 2)
Figure 9.14.3: Right-Turn with Parallel Deceleration Lane Design
Auxiliary lanes can be developed using reverse curves or straight line tapers; reverse curves are typically
used in an urban environment with curb and gutter. On high-speed roads, the taper length to the
auxiliary lane should generally conform to that discussed in Chapter 10. Where auxiliary lanes are used
for the storage of turning vehicles at unsignalized intersections, the length of the lane in addition to
deceleration length and exclusive of taper is usually based on the number of vehicles that are likely to
accumulate in two minutes. The storage length required is calculated by the following formula and can
be used for right- or left-turning vehicles:
NL (9.14.1)
S=
30
Where:
S= Storage length (m)
Design volume of turning vehicles
N=
(v/h)
Length (m) occupied by each vehicle
L=
(see Chapter 2)
At signalized intersections, the storage lane length should accommodate about 1.5 times the average
number of vehicles to be stored per cycle for roadways with design speeds of 60 km/h or less, and about
twice the average number of vehicles for design speeds greater than 60 km/h.
The storage length calculated above should be checked against capacity analysis to ensure an acceptable
level of service. The required storage for two-lane operation is one half that for a single-lane operation.
Where there is a possibility that an auxiliary lane may be used for either storage or deceleration, the
length is determined for both conditions and the total is used in design. For urban and suburban roads,
the right-turn lane length tends to be used mainly for storage during peak hours (typically slower peak
102 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
hour speeds require less length for deceleration) and mainly for speed change at off-peak hours (the
queue length tends to be smaller, but the speed in off-peak tends to be greater). For auxiliary lane
widths, refer to Chapter 4.
9.14.5 EFFECT OF GRADE
For grades greater than 2%, deceleration length decreases for positive grades and increases for negative
grades. The factors shown in Table 9.14.3 should be applied to deceleration length requirements for
82
grades in excess of 2%.
Table 9.14.3: Grade Factors for Deceleration Length
Deceleration Lane Grade Factor
All Design Speeds
Down Grade (%) Grade Factor >1 Up Grade(%) Grade Factor <1
(km/h)
6-5 1.4 2-3 1.0
5-4 1.3 3-4 0.9
4-3 1.2 4-5 0.9
0.8
3-2 1.1 5-6
9.15 CHANNELIZATION
9.15.1 OVERVIEW
Channelization at an intersection can be used for one or more of the following functions:
1. Provide protected storage areas for turning vehicles, which enable drivers to decelerate and
make the maneuvers necessary for the turn outside of the path of the higher speed through
vehicles.
2. Provide a safe refuge area for pedestrians between the various traffic streams.
3. Reduce large areas of unused pavement, created by large corner radii or by skewed or flared
intersection designs.
4 . Separate and reduce areas of potential conflict and dilemma to ensure the driver is required to
make only one decision at a time.
s. Control the angle of merging traffic streams.
6. Segregate traffic movements into left-turning, right-turning, and through traffic streams.
7. Control the speed of vehicles.
8 . Physically prevent or discourage undesired, unsafe, or wrong-way movements at an
intersection.
9 . Restrict access to adjacent land uses.
10. Effectively locate and protect traffic control and safety devices, including such facilities as
traffic signs, signals, and roadway lighting.
11. Reduce conflicts with right-turning vehicles.
June 2017 103
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Channelization is achieved through the use of the following geometric and operational features:
• Pavement markings
• Islands of various shapes, sizes, and types
• Medians
• Corner radii
• Approach and departure geometry
• Pavement tapers and transitions
• Related traffic control devices, including signs and signals.
Marked channelization (painting or striping) can be made to increase efficiency and safety, and has the
advantage of being easily modified to match the true wheel paths as observed by the wear on the
pavement. Marked channelization may very well serve initially to establish the best layout arrangement
before permanent construction (curbed islands) is established. Inclement weather, such as a heavy
83
snowfall, decreases the effectiveness of marked channelization.
Raised islands are advantageous in that they physically restrict undesirable moves. Raised islands also
remain visible through moderate snowfall, although they can hinder snow plow operations.
Recent experience with "over-channelized" intersections has taught designers that simplicity in design is
desirable. The use of traffic islands should be kept to the minimum required for the channelization
functions of the location. Simple designs are easier to construct, more adaptable to changes in traffic
84
needs, and are better understood by drivers.
At rural locations where high speeds are prevalent and collisions are usually more severe, channelization
is often used for safety purposes. In some situations, raised islands can create maintenance issues, such
as snow drifting.
In industrial areas, raised channelization is generally avoided to provide maximum maneuvering areas
for large trucks turning at the intersections.
9.15.2 SMART CHANNELS
In urban areas where speeds are lower but where traffic volumes are usually higher, channelization is
used primarily to increase the capacity of an intersection. However, in congested urban areas, the right-
turn directional island may be of little value since the vehicles on the turning roadway can have difficulty
merging with the traffic on the intersecting road. Conflicts can also occur between vehicles and
pedestrians at these high volume locations. One way of addressing these types of situations is to use a
"smart channel" configuration. The urban "smart channel" is an emerging concept in the design of right-
turn channels, which varies from the traditional concept that are more sweeping, have higher free flow
speeds, and have a low adjacent road entry angle. Urban smart channels are designed to increase the
adjacent road entry angle, such that the turning speed can be reduced to be more consistent with yield
conditions (as it may require a full stop) and the reduced viewing angle can improve drivers' visibility of
pedestrians.
104 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
, t t
Figure 9.15.1: Right-Turn Channelization, "Smart Channel" Example Configuration
9.15.3 PRINCIPLES OF CHANNELIZATION
Due to the variations possible in intersection angle, design vehicles, traffic turning volumes, pedestrian
movements, and other physical conditions, channelization does not lend itself to standardization.
However, design consistency within a municipality or region reduces driver confusion.
The design of effective channelization requires consideration of specific characteristics of each
intersection and the following general design heuristics:
1. The path for each movement permitted at the intersection should be obvious to the driver.
Signage can play an important role in providing positive guidance.
2. Unwanted or unsafe movements should be discouraged by the channelization and perceived as
such by the driver.
3. The introduction of channelization should be avoided where sight distance is limited. The
approach ends of the channelization should be visible and obvious to the driver well in
advance. Decision sight distance is desirable, in accordance with the design speed.
4. The geometry of the channelization should favour the dominant traffic flows.
s. The geometry of the channelization should encourage speeds consistent with safe operation of
the intersection, with special attention to vehicle and pedestrian conflict areas.
6. Intersection angles should be between 70° and 110°.
7. Where the channelization provides for a merge condition, the angle of intersection of the two
streams of traffic should be small. Where the channelization provides for a yield condition, the
intersecting angle at the yield should be at least 60° to ensure that the driver is not required to
look back more than 120° to check the approaching traffic. The use of smart channel should be
considered in urban situations, particularly when pedestrians and cyclists are present.
8. The areas of potential vehicle conflict should be reduced as much as possible.
June 2017 105
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9. Turning traffic should decelerate in auxiliary lanes, removed from the high-speed through lanes
(in an urban environment, some deceleration in through lanes may be acceptable).
10. The number of islands should be minimized and configured as simply as practical to avoid
driver confusion.
11. Islands should be large enough to be easily seen, to clearly define the separation and direction
of desired traffic movements, and to provide adequate space for signing, pedestrian refuge,
traffic control, and utilities where required.
12. In a high-speed rural environment, the use of raised median islands may not be appropriate in
some locations, due to the potential hazard to high-speed traffic. In lower-speed suburban or
urban environments, the use of semi-mountable curbs to provide raised islands and medians is
acceptable. Although semi-mountable curbs are generally preferred (over barrier curbs) for
arterial road, barrier curb may be acceptable for design speeds of 70 km/h and less.
85
13. Where raised islands or medians are used, illumination should be provided.
9.15.4 GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF CHANNELIZATION
Channelization may also be implemented for any of the functions described in Section 9.15.1. Guidance
86
in determining the need for channelization is also provided in other publications.
9.15.5 RIGHT-TURN DESIGNS
A right-turn channelization volume warrant of 60 vehicles per hour is often used as in indicator that a
more detailed capacity analysis of the intersection and geometric options for accommodating right
turning traffic is required.
Figure 9.15.2 illustrates the typical layout and dimensions for four types of right-turn designs: stop,
yield, merge, and added lane. These configurations are commonly used in rural and suburban situations.
The form of traffic control should be selected to suit the design and to minimize conflicts between right-
turning, left-turning, and through vehicles.
If pedestrians and cyclists are present in substantive volumes, the intersection may need to be adapted
to be more appropriate in urban situations. One possible solution in such situations may be the use of
smart channels, as presented in Figure 9.15.1.
9.15.6 STOP DESIGN
The right-turn design for a stop condition at an intersection normally consists of a simple radius and
does not require channelization. Information on right-turn designs with simple radii is provided in
Section 9.13 and Section 9.14.
9.15.7 YIELD DESIGN
At major intersections, such as arterial/arterial or collector/arterial intersections, or within industrial
areas, the right-turn design for a yield condition is typically a three-centred curve with sufficient radii to
provide a small island. In industrial areas with minimal pedestrian activity, the raised island is normally
omitted to provide more maneuvering area for large turning trucks. The three-centred curve may be
preceded on the approach leg by either a right-turn auxiliary lane or a taper. Turning roadways are
addressed in Section 9.16. The auxiliary lane design is more common in urban areas and is typically
applied in consideration of capacity and storage requirements.
At the intersection of two local roads or a local and a collector road, particularly in residential areas, the
right-turn design for a yield condition could be a simple radius without an island. For the appropriate use
of two centered curves, refer to Section 9.13.2.3.
106 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.15.8 MERGE DESIGN
Merge right-turn designs are applicable for conditions where a turning speed of greater than 40 km/h is
desired at the intersection for capacity or operational reasons. Designs of this type are normally used at
freeway and expressway ramp terminals, and for connections onto high-speed arterials. The application
of the merge design is also a function of volume. If the merging volumes are too high, the result can be
congestion, in which case an added lane design is preferred.
The turning roadway (see Section 9.16) is introduced by a right-turn auxiliary lane and/or a tapered
approach, which provides the necessary deceleration characteristics.
auxiliary lane and I
or taper optional
(see Section 9.16.5)
Yield Stop
three-centred curve simple curve
(see Section 9.13.2) (see Section 9.13.2)
auxiliary lane
auxiliary lane
or taper
Merge Added lane (lane away)
turning lane geometry
dependent on deceleration
turning lane geometry and acceleration requirements
dependent on deceleration
and acceleration requirements low-speed turn preferred where
added lane is used for access
low-speed turn preferred where
pedestrians access
taper auxiliary lane
or taper
Note The four types of right-turn
designs are combined for
illustrative purposes , and are
unlikely to occur simultaneously
at the same intersection
Figure 9.15.2: Typical Right-Turn Designs
June 2017 107
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.15.8.1 Added Lane (Lane Away) Design
The added lane (lane away) right-turn design is normally for high volume right-turning movements. This
design is also appropriate at an intersection where an auxiliary lane is introduced for access purposes, as
discussed in Chapter 8.
If the added lane is an auxiliary lane used for access purposes, radii providing lower turning speeds,
40 km/h or less, are suitable. Where the added lane is an additional through lane on a high-speed road,
the right-turn design can vary substantially. Where no right-of-way, physical constraints, or intersection
spacing limitations are present and there are no pedestrian crossing considerations, the right turn is
often designed to minimize the speed differential between the vehicles on the adjacent through lane
and the turning vehicles on the added lane at the convergence point.
9.15.9 TRAFFIC ISLANDS
9.15.9.1 Overview
An island is a defined area between traffic lanes for control of vehicle movements in intersection areas
or for pedestrian refuge. Islands may be raised areas or may be painted. In rural areas, the two most
desirable and commonly used treatments are the raised island with mountable curbs and the painted
island. In urban areas, barrier curbs are used to protect pedestrians and to reduce various risks (e.g.,
vehicles striking poles, etc.). Delineation and approach end treatment is critical to good channelization
design. Island delineation can be divided into various types, including curbed, painted, non-paved area
formed by pavement edges, temporary, directional, divisional, and refuge.
9.15.9.2 Curbed Islands
This type can be applied universally and provides the most positive traffic delineation. Mountable curbs
should be used in most cases. In rural areas where curbs are not common, this treatment is often
limited to islands of small to intermediate size. Pedestrian refuge islands are usually protected with
barrier curb.
9.15.9.3 Painted Islands
This type of island is generally designed in urban or suburban areas where speeds are low and space is
limited. Application of this type of island may be considered in rural areas in advance of raised median
island, where maintenance and snow removal make curbs undesirable, and where high approach speeds
(urban or rural) make a curb a potential hazard. However, snow accumulation can obliterate pavement
markings.
9.15.9.4 Non-Paved Area Formed By Pavement Edges
This type of island is usually used for larger islands at rural intersections where there is sufficient space
and/or where added expense of curbs may not be warranted or may pose a traffic hazard. This island
type may be supplemented by delineators on posts, other guide posts, a mounded earth treatment, or
appropriate landscaping.
9.15.9.5 Temporary Island Installations
87
This type is usually constructed of asphalt curbing, precast bumper curbing or sand bags. Such islands
would typically be used in construction work zones. Two examples of the use of these islands are
88
illustrated in Figure 9.15.3 and Figure 9.15.4 and are described below.
108 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
't major roadway
- - - -2 __
---------~
------------------
H----- right-turning traffic
1 v - - + - - - - approach nose
Figure 9.15.3 : Directional Islands
1--~I
.~~
Elm
_,,__ .......-1el raised island
I
---~ I ~----
- - - - j - - - ---;1=:..=:.==-====:;ol!!='""1r.5'!1
approach to island
Figure 9.15.4: Divisional Islands
9.15.9.6 Directional
Directional islands control and direct traffic movements . They guide the driver into the proper channel
for the intended route. Directional islands are of many shapes and sizes, depending upon conditions and
dimensions. A common form is one of triangular shape to separate right-turning traffic from through
traffic.
June 2017 109
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.15.9.7 Divisional
Divisional islands, also called raised median islands, are introduced at intersections, usually on approach
legs, to separate streams of traffic travelling in the same or opposite direction. These islands are
particularly advantageous in controlling left turns at skewed intersections and at locations where
separate channels are provided for right-turning traffic.
Two types of divisional islands are commonly used:
• Opposing divisional islands (for T-intersections)and
• Offset divisional islands (for cross-intersections).
89
These islands are shown in Figure 9.15.5 and Figure 9.15.6.
Where the roadway is on a tangent, reverse curve alignment is necessary to introduce dividing islands.
In rural areas where speeds are high, reversals in alignment should have radii of at least 2,000 m. A
median on an approach leg may be regarded as a divisional island near the intersection.
9.15.9.8 Refuge
Refuge or pedestrian islands are typically constructed of barrier curb and are used to protect and aid
pedestrians crossing a roadway or transit riders loading and unloading. In congested areas, refuge
islands also expedite vehicular traffic flow by permitting vehicles to proceed without waiting for
pedestrians to cross the entire roadway.
In studying the need for refuge islands, consideration is given to width of pavement, proximity of traffic
signals, right- and left-turning movements at intersections, sight distances, and any other factors that
might have a bearing on the proposed installation . No refuge or loading island should be placed where it
will be separated by fewer than two traffic lanes from an adjacent curb, edge of pavement, or other
island.
When designing an island, the designer should consider that its location and configuration may result in
a hazard to vehicle drivers. It is undesirable to introduce curbed islands in the centre of a high-speed
road as they are considered hazardous obj ects. However, depending on the cross section of the
roadway, it often becomes necessary, at signalized intersections, to place signal poles and islands in the
medians; in these cases, barrier curbs should be used.
9.15.9.9 Shape
Directional islands are typically triangular and are positioned within the intersection, in consideration of
the tracking requirements of the turning vehicles . The dimensions and exact shape of directional islands
are a function of:
• Corner radii and associated tapers
• Angle of the intersection
• Design vehicle turning path.
Divisional islands are normally elongated with edges parallel to the opposing adjacent travel lanes.
Divisional islands are often configured to provide a protected left-turn lane at an intersection approach.
Refuge islands for pedestrians vary in relation to the pedestrian volumes and needs, the width of the
crosswalks, the intersection layout, and design constraints such as available right-of-way.
110 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
I • 15 m , I 30 m
(typical) raised island
(typical)
R=1m 3m
__major road~
raised island for reconstruction projects
the location of the centreline
may not be as shown
the island setback is determined
by applying the appropriate design
vehicle turning template
Figure 9.15.5: Opposing Divisional Islands
raised island
R= 1 m I
--------- ,-----...::>.....-------,~- ___ ~ = 1 m_ -..;:;a:..::-::..:.===
.- Q:_::..:5~
=m=T-=-::..:=="'i
-~-==-m=~~jo=r=ro=a_=dw=a=y=
15 m± i 15 m± l-~--------------
30 m
1 ~ I
(typical) I I ( \, 30m
(typical) •
Figure 9.15.6: Offset Divisional Islands
9.15.9.10 Minimum Size
Islands are usually sufficiently large to command attention. The smallest island that is normally
2
considered is one that has an area of 6 m • Larger islands are sometimes required to accommodate
components such as wheelchair ramps. Where pedestrian refuge is required, a minimum island size of
2
10 m is preferred to accommodate the curb-cuts and ramps as well as pedestrian storage. Islands
greater than the minimum offer a number of advantages including: defining desired travel paths, for the
effective placement of traffic signs, traffic control poles and utilities, and for pedestrian refuges and
ramps.
Divisional islands introduced at rural intersections on high-speed roads are preferably at least 30 m long.
Divisional islands in urban areas are preferably at least 1.5 m wide and 4 m long.
June 2017 111
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Where short islands are unavoidable, they are preceded by visibly roughened pavement, raised bars, or
markings. When situated near a high point in the roadway profile at or near the beginning of a
horizontal curve, the approach end of the island should be extended so as to be clearly visible to
approaching drivers.
9.15.9.11 Approach End Treatment
Where there are no curbs on the through roadway approaching an island, the minimum offset to the
edge of a curbed island (i.e., raised island) is 0.5 m to 1.0 m.
Where the approach roadway has a mountable curb, a similar curb on the curbed island could be
located at the edge of the through lane where there is sufficient length of curbed island to effect a
gradual taper from the nose offset. Non-mountable curbs should be offset from the through travelled
way edge, regardless of the size of the curbed island, to avoid a sense of lateral restriction to drivers.
These details are illustrated in Figure 9.15.7 and Figure 9.15.8.
The approach end of an island is designed to be conspicuous to approaching drivers and should be clear
of vehicle paths, physically and visually, so that drivers will not veer away from the island. The approach
nose is always offset with respect to the island edge. Where feasible, the total nose offset should be
1.0 m to 2.0 m from the normal edge of the through pavement, and 0.5 m to 1.0 m from the pavement
edge of a turning roadway. This is also achieved by a gradually widening the auxiliary lane pavement.
Where the shoulder is carried through the intersection, the island may be placed at the outer shoulder's
edge. Where speeds are high and the island is preceded by an auxiliary lane, it is desirable to offset the
nose of large islands 0.5 m to 1.0 m outside the shoulder's edge.
112 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
offset island offset
1
·1
b..----
section a-a
island
large island
I
~ 0.5mto 1.0ma I
------------------------------ _J offset
I
ti
1.0m
a
to2.0 m
offset
intermediate island
small island a
Note : a. Offset may exceed 1.0 m depending on number of lanes
and turning path of the design vehicle
lt?f/?/I Painted Stripes, contrasting surfaces, jigger bars , etc.
Figure 9.15.7: Example of Island End Treatments- No Shoulder
June 2017 113
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
~ I
I
a
island shoulder
I offset, I
section a-a
large
~ shou lder j
------------- ---------- ------
intermediate
----- ------ - -- - --------- ~d: _J
0.5 r
I
offset
~ I a
small I
I
~~~~~- ~~5d~~51 .0 m
I
~ shou lder J
~-~ - ~-~-~-~-~ - ~-__J
Figure 9.15.8: Example of Island End Treatments - Outside Shoulder
114 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.15.9.12 Bikeway Facilities at Channelized Turn Lanes
Merging of the cyclist and the right-turning motorist is also required at intersections with a channelized
turn lane (Figure 9.15.9). The pavement marking should be treated similarly to the standard intersection
with an introduced right turn lane. On high-speed roadways, configurations where a through lane
becomes a channelized turn lane, or configurations with multiple turn lanes, a bicycle ramp should be
provided to allow bicyclists to exit the roadway to a protected bike lane or bike path I multi-use path,
allowing them to cross the turn lanes at a perpendicular crossing area.
---
Figure 9.15.9: Bike Lane at Right Turn Channel
All pavement markings shown are indicative only. Refer to the MUTCDC or TAC Bikeway
Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada for approved guidance on pavement markings.
9.16 TURNING ROADWAYS
9.16.1 OVERVIEW
A turning roadway is a connecting roadway between two intersection legs. It varies from a simple right-
turn lane with channelization to a sweeping ramp layout. Turning roadways have many applications on
both rural and urban roads, to accommodate:
• Large trucks or buses without encroachment on adjacent lanes
• Skewed intersections
• High volumes of right-turning traffic
• Right-turning traffic at higher speeds (greater than 40 km/h).
June 2017 115
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Turning roadways are introduced to facilitate traffic by horizontally separating movements, and to
reduce the amount of pavement within an intersection area. The triangular island separating turning
roadways from through movements also serves as a refuge for pedestrians.
Turning roadways simplify traffic control at signalized intersections by typically separating the right turns
from the principal intersection. At both signalized and unsignalized intersections, turning roadways
provide for higher-speed turns, which are advantageous to vehicular operations. High-speed turning
roadways should be avoided in areas where pedestrian crossings are required. The use of right-turning
roadways is also disadvantageous to cyclists due to the crossing conflict created between right-turning
motorized traffic and the through cyclists.
Right-turn lanes forming channelized intersections may be considered when the following criteria apply:
• Right-turning traffic volumes for the design hour is 60 vehicles per hour or more
• Property is readily available
• The terminal points of the deceleration/acceleration lanes do not conflict with any adjacent
90
commercial development.
9.16.2 RADII AND CURVATURE FOR TURNING ROADWAYS
The radii for the right-turn design should be selected based on desired operational characteristics,
particularly speed.
Tighter radius curves can be used where the volume of turning vehicles is low, property cost is high, or
speed is to be minimized for safety reasons or to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. Minimum radii
are derived from the dimensions of design vehicles and driver behaviour. Values for minimum radii of
design vehicles are given in Chapter 2.
Where sufficient space is available at the intersection and where there is a need to incorporate a turning
roadway of design speed higher than 40 km/h, the interchange ramp controls of Chapter 10 should be
used.
In restricted urban areas, the radii selected for turning roadways often conform closely to the minimum
turning path of the selected design vehicle. Where right-of-way or physical space is restricted and it is
operationally desirable to incorporate a turning roadway at an intersection, the resulting design is often
determined by the minimum turning path and tracking width of the design vehicle, together with the
minimum island size requirements. Where feasible, it is desirable to design turning roadways for greater
than the minimum vehicle turning path and island sizes. However, the minimum turning paths for
tractor trailers require wide roadways to accommodate the off-tracking through the turn; the resulting
widths may be wrongly perceived as suitable for two-lane operation by drivers of passenger vehicles.
In selecting curvature for a turning roadway, in rural and suburban areas it is generally more appropriate
to design for a particular design speed rather than for minimum conditions described above. In this case,
the discussions in Chapter 3 and Section 9.7.2 on alignment generally apply.
An example of a turning roadway with spirals which would typically be used in a rural area is shown in
91
Figure 9.16.1.
116 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
-----1''"'=
---~~~~o=m~=
-,,,,_~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _major_r:_oadw~ _ _ _
0. 5 m
R = 0. 6 m
R = 900 m
Note : a. Curve radii are shown as illustrations only.
b. Curve values should suit site conditions.
92
Figure 9.16.1: Turning Roadway With Spirals
Three-centred curve combinations are frequently used in the design ofturning roadways in urban areas.
Three-centred curve radi i with ratios between 3:1:3 and 2:1:2 are common for the inside edge of
pavement for turning roadways . The radii chosen are a function of the design speed of the turn, the
design vehicle chosen, and the angle of the turn. The centre radius is normally offset from the tangents
by 0.5 m to 3.0 m, as required by the tracking characteristics of the turning vehicles. The use of turning
June 2017 117
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
vehicle templates is important in defining appropriate geometry. It is also important to ensure that at
least stopping sight distance is provided along the turning roadway, in accordance with the design
speed.
Some agencies use two-centred curve combinations for this application . For more details on this option,
refer to Section 9.13.2.3.
9.16.3 TURNING ROADWAY WIDTHS
Widths for turning roadways are governed by the volumes of turning traffic and the types of vehicles to
be accommodated. They are intended for one-way or two-way operation and their alignment depends
on the geometric pattern of the intersection.
Widths of pavement for turning roadways are classified for the following types of operation:
• Case l:one lane, one-way operation - no provision for passing
• Case II: one lane, one-way operation - with provision for passing a disabled vehicle
• Case Ill: two lane operation.
Because there is no room to accommodate a disabled vehicle, widths under case I usually can be used
for minor to moderate turning volumes, where the turning roadway is relatively short.
Under case II, widths are determined to allow operation with restricted clearance past a disabled
vehicle. Widths are applicable to moderate to heavy traffic volumes that do not exceed the capacity of a
single lane. In the event of a breakdown, traffic flow can be maintained at reduced speed.
Widths under case Ill are applicable where two lanes are needed to handle the traffic volume (one- or
two-way operation).
In each category, the required width of pavement depends on the dimensions of the design vehicle and
on the radius of the turning roadway. Selection of the vehicle for design is based upon the size and
frequency of vehicle types. The width of pavement increases as the vehicle size increases and the
turning radii decreases.
Design widths are shown in Table 9.16.1 for three conditions of traffic mix:
• Traffic condition A: predominately passenger vehicles but some consideration of single unit
trucks.
• Traffic condition B: sufficient single unit trucks to govern design but some consideration for
tractor-trailer vehicles.
• Traffic condition C: sufficient tractor-trailers to govern design.
In general, traffic condition A can be assumed to have a small volume of trucks or only an occasional
large truck; traffic condition B has a moderate volume of trucks (5% to 10% of the total traffic is
considered moderate); and traffic condition Chas more larger trucks.
Where the volume of large tractor trailer combinations is significant along the turning roadway, the
widths stated for design traffic condition Care normally confirmed using turning templates for the
appropriate design vehicle, applied to this specific design.
118 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.16.1: Design Widths for Turning Roadways at Intersections
Pavement Width (m}
Case I: One-Lane, One- Case II: One-Lane, One-
Radius Ron
Way Operation with Way Operation with Case Ill: Two-Lane
Inner Edge of
No Provision for Provision for Passing a Operation
Pavement (m}
Passing Stalled Vehicle
..... ..... ..... ..... .....
QI ~ .... ..9:!
QI ~ ..... ..9:! QI ~ .....I
bO
c -
di u
::::l
0
+-' ro
bO
c -
di u
::::l
0
+-' ro
bO
c -
di u
::::l
0 .....
QI ..... bO ..... u ..... QI ..... bO ..... u ..... QI ..... bO ..... +-'
u ..9:!
Vl ro c I- ro
.... Vl ro c I- ro Vl ro c I- ro ro
ro u
Vl
Vi ..~ I-
.! ro u
Vl
Vi -~
.....
I-
.! ro u
Vl
Vi -~
..... .....
E E I-
0...
Cl)
c 0...
Cl)
c 0...
Cl)
c +-'
::::l Cl) QI ::::l Cl) QI ::::l Cl)
<( Vl <( Vl <(
15 5.4 5.4 7.0 7.0 7.8 9.0 9.4 10.8 13.0
25 4.4 5.0 5.4 6.2 6.8 7.8 8.4 9.4 11.4
35 4.4 5.0 5.4 6.0 6.4 7.4 8.4 9.2 10.4
45 4.2 4.8 5.2 6.0 6.4 7.2 8.2 9.0 10.0
60 4.2 4.8 5.0 5.8 6.4 7.2 8.2 9.0 9.8
80 4.0 4.8 5.0 5.8 6.2 7.0 8.0 8.8 9.4
100 4.0 4.8 5.0 5.4 6.2 6.8 8.0 8.8 9.2
125 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 6.0 6.8 8.0 8.4 9.0
150 3.7 4.4 4.8 5.0 6.0 6.4 7.8 8.4 8.8
tangent 3.7 4.4 4.4 4.8 5.8 6.4 7.4 8.2 8.2
Notes : The turning roadway pavement width (w) is ba sed on barrier type curb on both sides, in combination
with a minimum gutter width or offset of 0.25 m. The " w" values given are exclusive of the gutter
width or offset dimension .
9.16.4 SPEED-CHANGE LANES AND TAPERS
For turning-lane tapers and/or auxiliary lanes, refer to Chapter 10. The lower end of the design domain
could be considered as drivers tend to expect more constrained operating conditions for at-grade
intersections than for grade-separated interchanges.
9.16.5 YIELD TAPER AT MINOR ROADWAY
A 60 m yield taper may be used for stop or acceleration and merge purposes on the minor roadway :
• In low-speed urban areas and on rural minor roadways carrying light traffic volumes
• At channelized T-intersections, or cross-intersections with stop control, where the minor
roadway traffic stops and the traffic turns from the minor roadway at low speeds (see Figure
93
9.16.2).
At channelized rural intersections with high-speed through traf fic and signal control, full acceleration
94
lane lengths should be provided to both roadways wherever possible.
June 2017 119
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
5
Figure 9.16.2: Yield Taper at Channelized Intersection, Major Roadway to Minor Roadway9
9.16.6 METHOD OF LANE DROP FOR DUAL LANE RIGHT-TURNING ROADWAY
Where a free-flow, right-turning roadway at a major intersection has two lanes, an auxiliary lane is used
along the through roadway to provide for only one merge maneuver at the convergence point. The
merging pattern can be designed in one of two manners, as illustrated on Figure 9.16.3. Merging the
two lanes into a single lane along the turning roadway, in advance of the through roadway, should be
avoided.
120 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Note : a : Merge area can also be painted so the
left turn lane of the two lane turning continues
as the through lane, and the right lane
merging lane merges with the left lane along the taper
- a
~,j/1
right turning
roadway
' '"
...>--------(.,.-s-ee___,,.C.,...ha-p-te-r""""'1~0--.,...ln-te-rc""""'h-a-ng_e_s.,...)- - - - - - -
a ) tapered design (suitable for high speed turning roadways with good sight distance)
merging lane
___. -~-ti::::.--r=----=---=----=~~-i---
~ane Jl
right turning
I parallel lane
(see Chapter 10 - Interchanges)
taper
roadway
b ) parallel design (preferred)
Figure 9.16.3: Lane Drop, Dual Lane Right-Turning Roadway
Method (a) is a tapered design, where the traffic in the left lane of the right-turning roadway is required
to merge with traffic on the through roadway. The right lane of the right-turning roadway continues
along the through roadway as an added lane. For the purpose of illustration, it is assumed that the
roadway continues with one added lane, rather than reverting back to the three through lanes that are
shown in advance of the right-turn merge. However, the additional lane can be dropped over an
appropriate distance (see Chapter 10).
Method (b) is a parallel lane design, where both right-turn lanes continue along the through roadway for
some distance beyond the island nose, before the right lane is dropped. The left lane continues as an
added lane along the through roadway. As with method (a), it is assumed that the roadway continues
with the added lane.
Both methods are acceptable; however, one or the other is normally used uniformly throughout the
route and preferably throughout the urban area or region. A driver accustomed to the parallel lane
design does not necessarily expect the maneuver for the taper design, and vice versa.
The parallel lane design (b) is generally preferred, particularly for high volumes, since the speeds in the
right lane are typically lower and drivers are more accustomed to lane drops from the right side.
The design of the dual-lane right-turn approach to the through roadway is based on the entrance
terminal design requirements outlined in Chapter 10.
June 2017 121
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.17 LEFT-TURN LANES
9.17.1 OVERVIEW
When the number of left-turning vehicles at intersections is such that it creates a hazard and reduces
capacity, consideration should be given to the provision of a separate left-turn lane. This will facilitate
the traffic flow on the through lanes. For undivided roadways, the application of the left-turn lane taper
results in a deflection of the through traffic lanes. However, this can be minimized or softened by the
use of flat curves at the beginning and end of tapers.
The following elements of a left-turn design are defined in Section 9.14.1:
• Approach taper (see Section 9.17.3 for length)
• Departure taper (see Section 9.17.3 for length)
• Bay taper (see Section 9.17.4 for the single left-turn lane)
• Auxiliary lane (for lane widths, see Chapter 4; for length, see Section 9.17.3)
For other left-turn elements of design refer to the following sections
• Left turn slip around (Section 9.17.4.9)
• Two-way-left-turn lane (Section 8.6 in Chapter 8)
• Divisional islands (Section 9.15.8.).
9.17.2 GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF LEFT-TURN LANES
The left-turn lane requirements for two-lane and four-lane divided and undivided roadways are based
on volume warrants and collision warrants.
9.17.2.1 Volume Warrants
Volume warrants for left turns are typically based on capacity analysis. When opposing traffic volumes
are such that left-turning vehicles must wait for a gap to make their turn, they interfere with the
through traffic. The magnitude of this interference depends on the opposing volume, the advancing
volume, and the percentage of left-turning vehicles. When traffic signals are warranted, storage lengths
are subject to the signal cycle timing.
9.17.2.2 Safety Warrants
A left-turn storage lane may also be considered at locations where four or more collisions related to left
turns occur per year, or where six or more occur within a period of two years, provided the collisions are
of a type that could reasonably be expected to be eliminated by providing a left-turn lane. The minimum
storage length for the collision warrant is 15 m.
9.17.3 APPROACH AND DEPARTURE TAPERS
For flared intersections along undivided roadways, approach and departure tapers are needed to
laterally shift the through lanes and provide the width needed for the left-turn lane and channelization,
if applicable. Figure 9.17.1 provides an example of a typical design.
Appropriate taper lengths are determined based on design speed and the desired lateral shift.
Table 9.17.1 presents a design domain for approach and departure taper ratios. The lower end of the
range would be more appropriate for constrained urban conditions or for intersection retrofits where
space is restricted. The higher end of the taper ratios would be appropriate for less constrained, rural
conditions.
122 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
The tapers can be made smooth by using horizontal curves at the beginning and end of transitions. The
radii of the horizontal curves typically vary from about 500 m for tapers at a design speed of 50 km/h, to
3,000 m for tapers at a design speed of 120 km/h.
Where space to develop tapers is limited, the taper length could also be based on running speed rather
than design speed . Gradual approach and departure tapers are particularly important for the higher
design speeds. It is also desirable to provide decision sight distance for the taper areas to enhance safe
operation. Combinations of minimum sight distance and minimum taper ratios should be avoided.
auxiliary lane
--- -=-- major roadway
-I
storage decleration length b
length
Notes: a. 15 m is the assumed distance from minor roadway centreline to auxiliary lane.
b. In a constrained urban environment, deceleration may occur over taper length.
c. Terms also apply to divided roadways.
Figure 9.17.1: Left-Turn Lane, Pictorial Description of Terms
Table 9.17.1: Approach and Departure Taper Ratios and Lengths for Left Turns at Intersections
Design Domain for Horizontal Curve to Smooth
Design Speed (km/h}
Taper Ratio Taper R (m)
so 8:1- 30:1 500
60 15:1- 36:1 750
70 15:1- 42:1 1,000
80 15:1-48:1 1,200
90 27:1-54:1 1,500
100 30:1- 60:1 2,000
110 33:1- 66:1 2,500
120 36:1-72:1 3,000
June 2017 123
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.17.4 SINGLE LEFT-TURN LANE
The left-turn lane can be developed:
• On the right of the roadway centreline
• On the left of the roadway centreline
• Centred on the roadway centreline.
The left-turn lane designed on the right of the roadway centreline is the preferred type. The bypass
lanes for the through traffic is developed on the right or outside of the original through lane, see
96
Figure 9.17.2 (a). The lengths of bypass lanes are governed by the lengths of the left-turn lanes, which
in turn vary with the volume of left-turning traffic and the roadway design speed . Appropriate curves
can be applied throughout the bypass lane to soften the deflection angles.
The left-turn lane designed on the left side is applicable at intersections where the restrictions to the
right-of-way do not permit the construction of an additional lane on the right of the roadway centreline.
A well-defined pavement marking should be applied in the left-turn run-out lane on the far side of the
intersection, to deflect opposing traffic around vehicles in the left-turn lane, especially in cases of curved
alignment (see Figure 9.17.2 (b)).
The left-turn lane designed in the middle of the roadway (centred on centreline) is acceptable where the
full additional lane width on the right of the centreline cannot be accommodated. Although the through
traffic is deflected by one-half of the lane width, a well-defined pavement marking should be applied in
the left-turn run-out lane (see Figure 9.17 .2 (c)).
The design illustrated in Figure 9.17.3 should be applied only when the projected traffic flow or collision
data does not indicate a need for a left-turn lane in two directions.
124 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
...
1 ...
, ____ r_u_no_u_t_la_n_e_ _ _ _ _,:i- ~ary lane approach taper
departure taper I 30 m I bypass lane
I
, I I I I --
(a) left-turn on right of centreline with bypass lane
r_u_no_u_t_la_n_e_ _ _ _
. . . , 1_ _ _ _ _ _,:i~ ~ary lane
I I approach taper
I I
I• departure taper 1
I i30 m, I
--~=m=a=Jo=r=r:::io•acd=w=a::y'.:=:==;-~.r-,r--rw__________ _
~r
ES'
(b) left-turn lane on left side of centreline
in case where condition (a) and (c)
cannot be applied
...._ _ _ _ _r_u_no_u_t_la_n_e_ _ _ _
1 _,:i~ ~ary lane approach taper
I, departure taper , I i30 m, I
major roadway
_ _ _ _ _ _ _s_ _ _ _ _ ____-___ -..-W-- _____ _
+--f---- ::::::::::!:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
~i(
EE'.
(c) left-turn centred on centreline
Figure 9.17.2: Left-Turn Lanes at T-lntersections
June 2017 125
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
15 m
runout lane
departure taper
l30ml
I rI
l .
auxi lia ry lane approach lane
----------:==:--
ma1or fo'a'CM~Y'ss@ --t- ~=======-=~---L
-~ _::~--=--=------=--=---- - -
I
\~r E1e
I
Figure 9.17 .3: Left-Turn Lane at Cross-Intersection
9.17.4.1 Bay Tapers
On divided roadways, the bay taper is used to introduce the left-turn lane into the median. It is
measured from the edge of the through lane at the start of the taper to the beginning of a full-width,
left-turn lane at the end of the taper. This is different from the approach taper, which is used to shift the
through lanes laterally to the right to provide width for a left-turn auxiliary lane.
Bay tapers can be designed as straight-line tapers or with reverse curves to smooth the alignment.
Straight-line tapers generally provide a more visible definition of the transition area, and are therefore
more effective than curvilinear tapers where the bay taper is defined solely with pavement markings.
For tapers defined with curbs, it is common practice to use symmetrical reverse curves with a length of
tangent between the two curves. Figure 9.17.4 illustrates a bay taper utilizing the symmetrical reverse
curve design.
126 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
edge of pavement
BT s
L
I w = 5.0-6.0 m I w, = 2.0-2.5 m W, = 3.0-3.5 m (see Chapter 4)
left-turn lane 1
1 1
~ ~ Lminimum =BT+S~Ld
L desirable = Ld +S
section a-a section b-b
where BT = bay taper length
(see Tables 9.17.2
and 9.17.3)
S = left turn storage length
Ld = deceleration length
Figure 9.17.4: Left-Turn Lane and Taper with Symmetrical Reverse Curves
Bay taper designs are a function of design speed and the width of the left-turn auxiliary lane.
Table 9.17.2 provides suggested straight-line bay taper ratios for a range of design speeds. Table 9.17.3
provides suggested taper ratios and radii for bay tapers designed using symmetrical reverse curves. Both
tables are applicable to tangent main line alignments. Where the main line alignment is on curve,
adjustments to the bay taper may be required.
Table 9.17 .2: Bay Tapers Straight Line
Design Speed Taper Ratio
(km/h} Design Domain
so 10:1
60 10:1-12:1
70 10:1-18:1
80 13:1-20:1
Note: For higher design speeds, the 80 km/h design speed dimensions are used and
the storage length is increased to provide deceleration length.
June 2017 127
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.17 .3: Bay Tapers Symmetrical Reverse Curves
Design Speed Taper Ratio
Radii (m)
(km/h) Design Domain
so 10:1 90-150
60 10:1-12:1 150
70 10:1-18:1 150-220
80 13:1-20:1 150-300
Note: For higher design speeds, the 80 km/h design speed dimensions are used and the
storage length is increased to provide deceleration length.
9.17.4.2 Deceleration Requirements
In the design of left-turn auxiliary lanes, it is important to consider the deceleration requirements. The
minimum deceleration length is based on the distance needed for the driver to brake comfortably to
come to a full stop at the intersection. Desirably, the distance needed for deceleration is provided by the
auxiliary lane, exclusive of storage requirements. In urban conditions, it is often not feasible to provide
both the deceleration distance and storage length due to other considerations, such as intersection
spacing, access needs, and other physical controls. In these cases, the taper length may be used for
deceleration distance. The deceleration distances for a range of speeds are provided in Chapter 2.
9.17.4.3 Storage Length
The storage length is normally designed to accommodate not only left-turning vehicles. It is also made
sufficiently long so that vehicles queued in the through lanes do not block the entrance to the turning
lane. As a minimum, the auxiliary lane length should be determined by checking that the storage length
plus the bay taper length is equal to the deceleration length required for the design speed. Ideally,
however, storage length should be provided in addition to deceleration length.
The storage length required to accommodate the left-turning vehicles depends on the number of left-
turning vehicles approaching the intersection and whether or not the intersection is, or will be,
signalized.
For an unsignalized intersection, storage length can be calculated using the equation outlined in
Section 9.14. If the intersection is to be signalized, either initially or in the future, the turn lane provided
is normally sufficiently long to store the left-turning traffic and to clear the equivalent per-lane volume
of traffic stored on the through lanes, during unsaturated flow conditions. Additional storage length
must be provided for larger design vehicles. The minimum storage length that should be provided is
15 m (see Section 9.17.2).
9.17.4.4 Run-out Lane
The run-out lane terminates the bypass lane on the far side of the intersection. The width of the parallel
section of the run-out lane is the same as that of the bypass lane. The taper length varies with the
design speed and is the same as that applied to the acceleration lane (see Chapter 10). The run-out lane
is shown in Figure 9.17.2 and Figure 9.17.3.
128 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.17.4.5 Left-Turn Lanes On Both Approaches
Two types of left-turn lane designs are applicable: opposing left-turn lanes (see Figure 9.17.5 (a)) and
adjacent left-turn lanes (see Figure 9.17.5 (b)).
Opposing Left-Turn Lanes: The opposing left-turn lanes design is a desirable treatment for new
construction of unsignalized intersections in rural areas. This configuration reduces the probability of
head-on collisions as this configuration has the advantage of enabling drivers making simultaneous left
turns to see past each other's vehicle; therefore, this design contributes to the ease and safety of left-
turn movements. Visibility of approaching vehicles, however, can be reduced with larger vehicles in the
left-turn lane. This treatment could also be applied to urban intersections where left-turn lanes are
required.
Adjacent Left-Turn Lanes: The provision of adjacent left-turn lanes is not generally recommended due
to the potential for collisions caused by visibility problems for left-turning vehicles. Visibility problems
result from the presence of vehicles in adjacent left-turn lanes and, for this reason, such movements
should generally only be used at signalized intersections with protected left turn phases. Adjacent left-
turn lanes can be designed where the intersection is on or at the base of a steep down grade. The
provision of an unobstructed run-out lane can help a driver avoid conflicts in adverse weather
97
conditions when encroachment in the opposing left-turn lane may be a safety concern.
June 2017 129
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
approach I
auxili ary lane departure
aper
~- I
--===--- -~~~~~ ! _ ____
_ _ _ _----.F"
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
\fi l
(a) opposing left-turn lanes
runout lane
departure auxiliary lane approach
taper taper
I
- - =-=---=-::::- =.-=-:::_- - -~_i:o~~ ~-- - i-:::_~ -- - ___f_ - - --= .=.._-::.-==--- -
~1;: I
~g I
.E
(b) adjacent left-turn lanes
98
Figure 9.17.5: Left-Turn Lanes in Two Directions
9.17.4.6 Partially Shadowed and Shadowed Turn Lanes
Figure 9.17.6 provides examples of minimum designs for intersections providing a left-turn area for
four-lane roadways in rural areas. In these examples, the approach/departure and bay tapers are
combined. This type of layout is often referred to as a partially-shadowed turn lane. In this design,
deceleration of the turning vehicles is typically initiated while the vehicle is within or partially within the
through lane. The turn lane area is not as well defined or protected as is a left-turn lane with a painted
bay taper and/or an introduced median. Overhead signing may be desirable.
Figure 9.17.7 illustrates a left-turn lane with a painted approach and bay taper median area. The raised
divisional island shown is optional but, where space permits, is desirable to assist in delineating the
through and turn lanes. This type of design is commonly known as a shadowed turn lane. The design
parameters in Table 9.17.1 and Table 9.17.2 should be used to define the geometry of a shadowed left-
turn lane.
130 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
runout lane
a
departure lane I 30m 15 mI auxiliary lane approach lane
I I
four-lane undivided road, T-intersection
a roach I de arture ta er auxilia lane
four-lane undivided road , cross-intersection
Note : a. 15 m is assumed distance from
minor roadway~ to auxiliary lane.
Figure 9.17.6: Left-Turn Lane Designs Along Four-Lane Undivided Roadways, No Median
June 2017 131
....
I.Al
N
I
n
a
\ departure taper
.-'ri
a R
R tangent
'i'. -
a <t ) {
0.5 11 • • D I
romm;. t
1 r5m
a. desirable : median offset from centreline
'Tl
ciQ' section a - a
c.., A departure taper a
ID v ~b
~d·--r~
Ill tangent R
R
i->
- -"'"r"'"'
- - " "E ------ .
.....
:-:i
..,....
:I
0
c..
c
i R mogMt -
approach taper a
- -
b
R
:
I Y.
:::: \r
0.51 r- • • Di romm;.
n
ID
c..
::ti
t 1 r5m
QJ
b. acceptable : median split on centreline, ~
iii' ID
ID approach nose offset from ~ section b - b 0
c.. 3
s:
ID I' departu~e taper a 1
....
ID
..,
c.. r:;·
iii'
:I R !anent __ ~ _ _
1
_ _ _ _ ~ c
ID
- - - - - -- ~ ---------- ----~ "':I
ciQ'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n gi
I R tangent R f :r c..
QJ
-·
, approach taper a C , I ....
"Cl ID
ct. .., O'
ID
..,
n
0.5 ~ I-
I
~ i-J-:0 mmin..
~5 m Note : a. See Table 9.17.1
Ill
I QI
+ +
:I
II
b
lr-1--,.1 I t t 1d I ....5' c..
..,
ID
QI
iii'
i: :I
::I
ID
section c - c "'n
ID
::ti
N c. minimum : median split on centreline, ~. 0
0 QI
....'-I
0 approach nose on ~ :I c..
"' "'
PRINTED BY: Cloud Creus <cloud@creus.ca>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.17.4.7 Introducing Raised Median
The ideal manner of widening the roadway to introduce a median is to widen gradually over the length
of a large radius, on a main line horizontal curve. However, since most intersections occur on tangent
alignments, it is often necessary to use other methods, three of which are illustrated in Figure 9.17.7.
This figure illustrates the geometry of the approach departure tapers needed to introduce a raised
median and provide a protected left-turn auxiliary lane. The lane, median, and gutter widths shown are
typical and vary in accordance with cross section requirements.
The raised median, protecting the left-turn area, is effective in clearly defining the through vehicle paths
and the left-turn storage area in all weather conditions. Also, if accesses exist near the intersection, the
raised median reduces the type and number of turning-vehicle conflicts within the zone of the
intersection. However, in instances where the length available for the left-turn auxiliary lane may not be
sufficient to store all the left-turn vehicles during peak periods, it is advantageous to use a painted
rather than a raised median area in advance of the left-turn lane. In this case, the painted median area
can be used to provide additional storage during occasional peak traffic periods, reducing the problem
of left-turning vehicles blocking the through lanes.
The approach and departure taper designs are a function of the design speed of the roadway. For high-
speed roads (design speeds> 70 km/h), the importance of using a gradual taper cannot be over
emphasized. Refer to Table 9.17.1 for approach and departure taper geometry with design speed.
The characteristics of each of the three methods of introducing a median, as shown in Figure 9.17.7, are
described in the following paragraphs.
• Method "A" illustrates the geometry for a median introduced totally to the left of the roadway
centreline. A lateral shift is not required for the traffic approaching the intersection. For this
condition to occur on both approaches to a single intersection, the centrelines of the approach
roadways must be offset from each other. Although this is a desirable means of introducing a
median, it is a rare case, occurring only where excess right-of-way is available, where the
roadways are not centred within the right-of-way, or where the rights-of-way are offset
appropriately across the intersection. In this method, only the lanes leaving the intersection
are required to taper back to the normal undivided roadway cross section. To minimize the
median length, the departure taper typically commences at the beginning of the parallel lane
portion of the left-turn lane.
• Method "B" shows the centreline continuous through the intersection and the roadway
widened symmetrically. In this method, the departure taper is continued beyond the approach
taper, enabling the nose of the introduced median to be on the left side of the roadway
centreline on the approach. The geometry results in a longer median length than that created
by methods "A" or "C".
• Method "C" is similar to method "B" in that the roadway is widened symmetrically about the
centreline. To reduce the median length, the departure taper commences near the beginning
of the parallel lane portion of the left-turn lane. The approach nose to the median is centred
on the roadway centreline.
9.17.4.8 Divided Roadway
Figure 9.17.8 illustrates a typical layout of a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane along a divided roadway.
The right-turn lane layout is also applicable to undivided roadways.
June 2017 133
....
I.Al
""
n
"Tl a b
oti'
c
iil
ID ~ ~ ~~ ~;~ ~;~~ ;~ ; ;; ~m ;~i ~ ; ~~ ;~ ; ~;~~~~¥{~~~~~ ; ; ~m ;mrrrrrm
j... ~ ~,,, ', '>ITE <mrn mrnnn:' :' :' n':' :' : ':':P'! rnn, :y' : 'n': Y ': ': 'nn:::::: : : : y::::::'~'~~:rrrTTBTD;lii".'
......
~ ::: :;:~ : ;; ~ = ~ t l ;:;:; :;:;:;:;:;:;:;>Y : :;:; ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::, :;:;:;:;:;:;:; u;:; :m: ;:·':,,:,) #j;
-t
c.., a
::I b
:;·
·,,~r·
OQ
r-
CJ
"P". .I • • .,;. , ,. . . • 1 I
::I
ID
0
ID
"'
oti'
~::I
I OO mm• I > ~
ID
• •
0
::c
CJ
iii'
t t 3
ID
ID Notes : a. Storage should be determined based on ..,
r+
Cl. traffic volumes , although in constrained r:;·
section a - a
s:
ID
urban environments it may not be possible 0
ID
to provide the full storage lengths required.
Cl.
iii' b. Development of auxiliary lane as per
"'
oti'
::I
::I
2.0 m the opposing auxiliary lane.
----,.
•• 11.. Ti:=
t t . c:r
c. See tables 9.14.2 , 9.17.2 , 9.17.3
n
:r Cl.
CJ
"Cl
r+
-·
.., O'
ID
ID
gi
CD
..,
n
section b - b I CJ
::I
5'
r+
CJ
Cl.
i: ..,
ID iii'
::I
::I
ID
"'n
ID
::c
N ~. 0
0 CJ
....'-I
0
::I Cl.
"' "'
PRINTED BY: Cloud Creus <cloud@creus.ca>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior
permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.17.4.9 Left-Turn Slip-Around Treatment at T-lntersections
A left-turn slip-around can be introduced on a two-lane roadway at T-intersections under the following
conditions:
• Where the left-turning volumes do not warrant a full left-turn lane but are sufficient to
potentially affect through traffic
• Where through vehicles bypassing occasional left-turning vehicles throw gravel from the
shoulder onto the roadway
99
The slip-around design includes an auxiliary lane and tapers at each end, as shown in Figure 9.17.9.
See Section 9.17.3 for taper lengths. Usually the slip-around design is not applied on four-lane undivided
roadways; however, where the left-turn lane is not warranted and turning vehicles impede the through
traffic, the slip-around has its merit.
----~_
--- - - - - - - - -
ma1or _r:oa way_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
approach taper a 30 m b I 15 m b I departure taper a
Notes : a. see Table 9.17.1
b. Parallel section dependent on cross section of minor roadway
Figure 9.17.9: Left-Turn Slip Around Design -Tangent Alignment
June 2017 135
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.17.4.10 Left-Turn Lane Design on Minor Road
It is undesirable to have a two-lane entry from the minor roadway to the main roadway with stop
control, except at certain low-speed urban locations. The possibility of an adjacent standing vehicle
blocking the vision of a driver preparing to enter the major roadway may create an unsafe situation.
Signalization should be considered for intersections with two-lane entry on the minor road. If signal
100
warrants are not met, the intersection should be designed for one-lane entry only.
9.17.4.11 Left-Turn Lanes for Four-Lane and Six-Lane Roadways
The method chosen to accommodate the left turns from the centre lane is normally used uniformly
along a road to avoid driver confusion. Where accesses to adjacent developments are spaced
sufficiently, back-to-back painted left-turn lanes may be considered in the centre lane. Figure 9.17.10
illustrates typical painted left-turn lanes within a four-lane cross section. The same concept may be
applied to a six-lane cross section.
Typical left-turn lane design for four-lane undivided roadways is illustrated in Figure 9.17.11 and
Figure 9.17.12. This design is applied at T-intersections, and also at cross-intersections, where the
opposing left-turn lane design is utilized, providing that the horizontal alignment within the area is on
tangent. The deceleration lane length is the same as for two-lane roadways.
136 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
. - - - - - l e f t-turn l a n e - - - - - .
~----left-turn lane----~
Figure 9.17.10: Painted Left-Turn Lanes, Four-Lane Undivided Roadway
June 2017 137
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
runout lane
departure taper 30 m I 1s m 1 auxiliary lane approach taper I
I I I I I
- - -- - -- - -- - -- - ==--==--==-=--===-=!jf"""E:=--=-==-::--=~f'""E°:::--==~C:::E:::-::--=:=::-==,.,:::=- - __-:--=
--1 -~-
(
~
- - - - - - i -L- -
-
<fm
- ajorroadway-
<f minor roadway
101
Figure 9.17.11: Left-Turn Lane Design, Four-Lane Undivided Roadway T-lntersection
15m I I I I 15m
h _I d_e_pa_rt_ur_e _ _-i-_a_u_
i--- -a_p_pr_oa_c,-- xil_
ia~
ry_la_n_
e---tl I I l,___a_u_
xi_
lia~
ry_la_n_
e _,___ _a_p_pr_oa_c_h _I d_e_pa_rt_ur_e _ __,
•Pff 30 m vi ~ opp<00:~~~'
r~ '°"'~'1 . . .=. .
~~--Cl5:E===::::::::::==::::::=::::::::::::==:=::==~----t- ....
--~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- i
< mmm
102
Figure 9.17.12: Opposing Left-Turn Lane Design, Four-Lane Undivided Roadway Cross lntersection
9.17.5 MULTIPLE LEFT-TURN LANES
The following sections describe some multiple left-turn lane configurations.
9.17.5.1 Double Left-Turn Lanes
Where high left-turning volumes exist at signalized intersections or driveways onto major traffic
generators, double left-turn lanes are often implemented. The dual left-turn lanes typically increase the
capacity of the turning movement at the intersection by 75% to 80%, and reduce the need to extend
green time to accommodate the left-turning volumes.
138 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
With the use of double left-turn lanes, special care and attention should be given to several intersection
details, including:
• Selection of the design vehicles
• Tracking widths and turning paths of the design vehicles in each lane through the turn and in
relation to other simultaneous turning movements at the intersection
• Protection of the left-turning traffic from the through traffic
• Storage lane length requirements
• Signing
• Traffic sign a I phasing
• Well-defined pavement markings.
The lane widths for the double left-turn lanes on the approach leg of the intersection are established in
the same manner as single auxiliary lanes. Widening of the departure leg is normally required to
accommodate the total width of the swept paths of the two turning traffic streams plus clearance. The
width required is normally determined using the appropriate turning vehicle templates for the chosen
design vehicles.
Figure 9.17.13 illustrates the typical turning path considerations at an intersection employing double
left-turn lanes and where opposing left turns may occur simultaneously. Double left-turn lanes are
normally a design consideration when the peak left-turn volumes exceed 300 vehicles per hour.
Configurations commonly used for double left-turn lane designs are illustrated in Figure 9.17.14. They
include:
• Exclusive double left-turn lanes - both lanes protected
• Double left-turn lanes - one lane protected (not desirable)
• Double left-turn lanes - one lane optional.
Exclusive Double Left-Turn Lanes - Both Lanes Protected
The top part (A) of Figure 9.17.14 illustrates a typical double left-turn lane configuration where both
turn lanes are protected and separated from the through lanes. A median width of approximately 8.5 m
to 9.0 m is needed in advance of the bay taper to provide the protection. The storage lengths are
designed to avoid overflow of the double left-turn lane and blockage of the through movements. This
arrangement is the simplest to effectively define with traffic signs and pavement markings.
Double Left-Turn Lanes- One Lane Protected
This layout is generally only considered when the left-turn volume is significantly higher than the
through volume and right-of-way is restricted. The through lane adjacent to the median is terminated as
an exclusive left-turn lane at a major intersection. Effective signing and pavement markings are required
to assist in preventing through vehicles from being caught unaware in the left-turn lane. This
arrangement is shown in the middle part (B) of Figure 9.17.14.
June 2017 139
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
1.5-2.0 m clearance
provided for simultaneous
opposing left turns
I
I
-- /
---/ /
//
/
/
/
/I
fi
.....
~
-
::?-
---
---
I 'l /
I I; /
I Ill I
I I
pavement widening _.._..
needed for departure leg
path of
design vehicle
Figure 9.17.13: Turning Paths of Double Left-Turn Lanes
140 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
~
,;:;;;--==;;:;-;=--=___h;:Y-'"...................'L______ _
a ) exclusive double left-turn lanes - both lanes protected (preferred)
b ) double left-turn lanes - one lane protected (not desirable)
c ) double left-turn lanes - one lane optional
Figure 9.17.14: Double Left-Turn Lane Configurations
June 2017 141
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Double Left-Turn Lanes- One Lane Optional
Figure 9.17.14 (c) illustrates an arrangement with one exclusive left-turn lane and an adjacent lane
available for either left-turning or through vehicles. This layout is typical of an interim traffic
management technique that is a stage toward a future protected double left-turn lane or a grade
separation.
The advantage of this arrangement is the ability to accommodate varying left-turn traffic demands at
the intersection if there is excess capacity in the through lanes. It also requires less median width than
the first option with both turn lanes protected. In areas where right-of-way is restricted, such as in
retrofit situations in developed areas, this configuration can be used effectively.
In this option, it is very desirable to operate the left-turn movement simultaneously with the associated
through movement, but without the opposing through or turn movements. This signal phasing
consideration avoids blockage of the optional through lane and reduces the risk of rear-end collisions in
the optional lane. However, the signal phasing as described may be inefficient for the other traffic
movements at the intersection.
Effective signing and pavement markings are required to clearly identify the movements permitted in
the optional lane.
9.17.5.2 Triple Left-Turn Lanes
In recent years, the concept of triple left-turn lanes has been introduced for at-grade intersections with
severe left-turn capacity and operational problems, and where land use constraints and construction
costs preclude a grade-separated interchange. Very little guidance on the design of triple left-turn lanes
is available. Guidelines are presented in this section for the geometric design of triple left-turn lanes
103
based on the design and operational experiences in other jurisdictions.
Three general types of triple left-turn lane configurations have been gaining acceptance. These schemes
are extensions of those commonly found for dual left-turn lanes:
• Exclusive triple left-turn lanes with all lanes shadowed
• Exclusive triple left-turn lane with outside "trap" lane (lane that ends)
• Permissive triple left-turn lane with outside third left-turn optional.
Design Concerns and Advantages
The geometric design of triple left-turn lanes at signalized intersections has raised various issues and
concerns, the most common of which include:
• Lane widths for the travel lanes receiving the triple left-turn movement
• Intersection width to accommodate the design vehicles turning three abreast through the left-
turn maneuver
• Driver confusion and acceptance of the simultaneous three left-turn maneuver and fears of
side swipe in the middle lane
• Clearance between opposing vehicles during concurrent left-turn movements
• All weather and permanent pavement markings to accommodate design vehicle tracking and
turning characteristics as well as vehicle drift during the turn maneuver
• Placement of offset stop bars between through and left-turn lanes
• Existing and additional right-of-way requirements for the triple left-turn intersection geometry
• Vehicle weave downstream of the triple left-turn lane
142 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
• Increased pedestrian-vehicle conflict potential
• Roadway width and its resulting effects on pedestrian crossings and signal timings
• Pedestrian/vehicle clearance times and intersection capacity.
The design experience and operation of triple left-turn lanes offer several distinct advantages which
have promoted their further use:
• The ability to increase intersection capacity to handle a large volume of left-turn maneuvers
{600 vehicles per hour or more), and reduce vehicle delays and intersection queues
• Reduction in upstream driveway conflicts by reducing vehicle queue lengths and resulting
vehicle storage lane lengths per left-turn lane
• The ability to reduce the minimum green time given to the left-turn movement so that it may
be assigned to other intersection movements.
Warrants
The triple left-turn lane facilities have been considered inappropriate for signalized intersections when:
• There is a potential for a high number of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.
• Left-turning vehicles are not anticipated to queue evenly within the provided left-turn storage
lanes due to downstream conditions (this may occur where a high potential for downstream
weaving exists).
• Conditions exist that obscure, or result in confusing pavement channelization markings within
the intersection.
• Right-of-way restrictions prohibit adequate design vehicle turning space within the
intersection.
• The installation is not economically justified when compared with other alternatives to
improve intersection capacity.
Design Guidelines
The geometric design elements for the development of triple left-turn lanes follow the general
standards of practice for dual left-turn lanes. The major difference is that the number of turning vehicles
being handled is generally larger and the space between turning queues of traffic must be carefully
evaluated. However, one of the most important geometric design elements is the designer's engineering
judgement. Each intersection being considered for triple left-turn lanes is a unique situation . It is
essential that drivers can comprehend and interpret the facility with comfort, efficiency, and safety.
Figure 9.17.15 shows a typical triple left-turn lane layout.
June 2017 143
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
set back median nose
approximate outside vehicle path
intersection channelization
delineation (typical) _____,
lane numbering
~1 ~2 ~3 4t
,c,. = intersection angle
b = left-turn lane length
t = lane taper length
d = minimum distance between
opposing left-turn vehicles
104
Figure 9.17.15: Triple Left-Turns
144 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Design Vehicle and Turning Paths
Selection of design vehicle is discussed in Chapter 2. It is essential that the appropriate design vehicle is
chosen as turning radius and off-tracking considerations are important in triple left-turn lane design .
When the design vehicle is a larger truck (e.g., WB-20), it should be assumed it will utilize the outside
lane. Accommodating multiple trucks turning at one time is not typically practical, especially in urban
areas.
The designer can determine the turning and off-tracking characteristics of the design vehicle by using
turning vehicle templates and/or computer program models. The design vehicles should be placed three
abreast and tracked through the left-turn movements.
The lateral clearance between the design vehicles should be maintained at a minimum of 0.6 m on each
side of the design vehicle overhang limits within the turning maneuver. With this lateral clearance
criteria, the centre left-turn lane (lane 2) becomes wider to accommodate off-tracking of the design
vehicle turning characteristics. The wider centre lane reduces the potential for vehicle sideswipe when
turning through the intersection . This additional lane width also allows for variation in passenger car
driver operation. Under conditions of concurrent opposing left turns, a recommended 3.0 m of lateral
vehicle body clearance between opposing vehicles was found to be acceptable. This clearance is
measured between the opposing turning paths, as they pass each other.
Approach and Departure Lane Widths
Left-turn approach lane widths used at a triple left-turn have been at least 3.3 m. Similarly, downstream
departure lane widths have been designed to an absolute minimum of 3.5 m with a desirable width of
3.7 m. A key factor controlling the geometry of the downstream receiving throat width is the tracking
path of the design vehicle as it transitions from a circular to a tangential motion. The tracking path
approximates a spiral as the design vehicle completes the left-turn movement. Therefore, the width of
the clear portion of the intersection may need to be widened based on the design vehicle turning
characteristics. The turning geometry may be accommodated by setting the median island nose on the
receiving crossing roadway a significant distance back from the intersection. A 0.6 m offset from the
vehicle turning path in lane 1 has been used in locating the median island nose. The receiving roadway
width at the intersection may also be widened by increasing the curb return radius of the opposite
intersection quadrant. These geometric adjustments have to be carefully evaluated for the intersection
angle and roadway widths.
Due to the high volumes of vehicle traffic, raised median islands should be at least 0.6 m wide (1.5 m
desirable) on the approach and departure legs of an intersection with two-way traffic. Wider roadway
median islands provide the intersection w ith larger radius curves, thereby improving the intersection's
left-turning geometry. A raised median island has been found to provide a driver in lane 1 with a visual
point of reference to guide a vehicle through the left-turn maneuver. A raised median island also
provides delineation for the stop bar location on the receiving roadway. This is especially important
when the left-turn lane stop bar is offset from the through movement to accommodate triple left-turn
lane geometry.
Auxiliary Lane and Taper Length
These are determined as per single and double left-turn lanes. The total storage capacity of all lanes
should be considered, as well as deceleration lengths.
June 2017 145
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Roadway Delineation and Signage Considerations
Even though intersection geometry may be adequate to accommodate three-abreast left-turn
movements, roadway delineation and signage are equally important to the safe operation of the facility .
Advance overhead signage of the triple left-turn lane configuration is a critical element to inform
motorists of the intersection and lane options. Turn lanes and paths should also be clearly delineated to
avoid driver confusion.
9.17.6 SLOT LEFT-TURN LANES
9.17.6.1 Overview
Slot left-turn lanes may be provided at intersections along major arterial roads or expressways wherever
a median of about 10.8 m or more in width is available. This width is needed to accommodate a
divisional island between the left-turn lane and the adjacent through lane. Typical designs are shown in
Figure 9.17.16. The major advantages are:
• Turning paths are clearly defined within an expansive median opening.
• Increased safety resulting from improved visibility for left-turning drivers and the fact that
simultaneous opposing left turns are offset from one another.
• When signalized, increased capacity of the left-turn lane movement due to reduced distance
and time involved in making the maneuver.
• Improved safety since lane changes from left to through, and vice versa, are not possible in the
immediate area of the intersection because of the divisional island.
A candidate location for a slot left-turn lane is typically subject to a comprehensive investigation of both
the traffic conditions and physical characteristics to determine whether or not the warrants are met and
to acquire the required data for proper design and operation.
The application of a slot left-turn lane may also be considered in an early stage of a major road's
ultimate development, where the median width includes provision for future through lanes. This is
common when a four-lane divided arteria l is a stage of a future six-lane divided arterial. The slot left-
turn design is typically eliminated when the median is narrowed to accommodate the additional through
lanes. The slot left-turn lane design is also effective where tractor trailers with long rear overhangs (e.g.,
log hauling trucks) routinely turn left at an intersection. The separation provided from the adjacent
through lane assists in preventing the swept path of the rear overhang from conflicting with the
adjacent through traffic.
If the median is sufficiently wide and added left-turn capacity is a requirement, then a double left-turn
lane arrangement may be incorporated.
146 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
vi
I varies 2.0ml
vi
r- 3.Bm
,,,.
E
"I T
E _
"'
<»
E
0
"'
_
11 I
c:
E
"' ~I
I f.D:'. Q)
·~
II
"'
Q)
D:'. I ·~
I I I I
'~ '
storage storage
ttI
t,t length
plus fIf t,t length
plus
11.0 m 9.5 m
bay bay
ta pd tape rd
future
lanesb
I U--
13.0 m
min
a. double 10.8 m
~
b. single
lane lane
Notes: a. See Chapter 4 for lane widths.
b. Slot design eliminated when future lanes added in median area.
c. All nose locations to be checked using design vehicle turning templates.
d. See Table 9.17.3.
Figure 9.17.16: Typical Slot Left-Turn Lane Designs
June 2017 147
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.17.6.2 Application Heuristics for Slot Left-Turn Lanes
The four warrants to be considered are as follows:
• Geometric
• Volume
• Safety
• Systems .
The geometric warrant and at least one of the other three warrants need to be satisfied before a slot
left-turn lane is implemented.
Geometric Requirements
For a single slot left-turn lane, a minimum median width of 10.8 m is needed. It is common for a single
slot left-turn lane to be designed opposite double slot or parallel left-turn lanes.
The installation of double slot left-turn lanes is considered when a median width of 13.0 m or greater is
available and the accommodation of U-turns is not a significant consideration.
The retrofitting of an existing parallel left-turn lane with a narrow median to a slot left-turn lane is
generally not undertaken, due to the associated high costs of both reconstruction and extra right-of-
way.
Volume Warrant
The volume warrant may be determined by applying the chart in Figure 9.17.17. The following data is
needed: the major left-turning volume (10 hour (h) average), the opposing through volume, and the
ratio of the green time for the left turn to the cycle length (g/c). If the point of intersection formed by
using the two volume values falls on or above the corresponding g/c ratio line, a slot left-turn lane is not
warranted. If the point falls below the corresponding g/c ratio line, then the volume warrant is met.
Safety Warrant
The safety warrant is intended for application in the situation where an intersection approach exhibits a
"high left-turn across-path" collision history (based on analysis of collision statistics) resulting from a
parallel left-turn lane having been constructed within a wide median.
System Warrant
The system warrant applies where:
• An intersection approach on a major arterial, expressway, and/or a designated truck route is
subject to a high percentage (typically more than 10%) of opposing left-turning trucks.
• An intersection approach is opposite double left-turn lanes.
• An at-grade intersection is to be constructed as an interim stage of an ultimate interchange
and the median width available is sufficient for the slot design.
9.17.6.3 Design Elements
Many important elements need to be considered in the design of slot left-turn lanes, including bay
tapers, width of left-turn lanes, divisional islands, storage length, and location of divisional islands and
raised median noses.
148 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
3751---+~---+-~-1-------i1-+I--+~-+-~+---+~--+-~+-~~--+-~-+-~+---+~~
~.......~.......~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~...____.I.....___.~. . . .~. . . . ~. . . .~~
400.____......_........ ........ ....... ....... ....... .......
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
opposing through volume (v/h)
Example:
Given: major left-turn volume : 185 (v/h)
opposing through volume : 450 (v/h)
g/c ratio (green time for left-turn lane/cycle length): 0.5
Solution: since intersecting point is above corresponding g/c ratio line,
volume warrant not met
Figure 9.17.17: Volume Warrant for Slot Left-Turn Lane
June 2017 149
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Bay Tapers
For single slot left-turn lanes, the bay taper design used for a parallel left-turn auxiliary lane design is
provided. Table 9.17.3 provides bay taper geometry for varying design speeds. For double slot left-turn
lanes, it is desirable to provide additional bay taper length to provide a rate of lateral shift away from
the through lanes consistent with that for the single-turn lanes.
Width of Left-Turn Lanes
Refer to Chapter 4 for auxiliary lane width.
Divisional Island
The width and length of the divisional island between the left-turn lane(s) and the through lane varies
with the median width available and the storage length of the turn lanes. A minimum width of 3.6 m,
including gutters or offsets, is suggested for the end of the island nearest the intersection. The other end
of the island is positioned by providing a minimum width of 2.0 m, including gutters or offsets.
Storage Length
This should be based on traffic volume requirements.
Location of Divisional Island and Raised Median Noses
It is important to position the noses of the divisional island and the raised median to accommodate a
smooth turning path for a design vehicle turning left from the crossing road. The median nose is
therefore set back a greater distance from the intersection than the nose of the divisional island and is
not available for effective pedestrian refuge. Proper positioning of the two noses also assists in
discouraging wrong-way movements into the slot turn lane by vehicles turning left from the crossing
roadway (as the offset increases, so does the possibility of a vehicle turning left into the channelled
roadway and heading the wrong way into the slot).
9.17.7 INTERSECTIONS ON CURVE
9.17.7.1 Taper and Auxiliary Lane Design
If normal taper lengths are used along curved roadways, it may be difficult for the driver to perceive the
added turn lane, resulting in through traffic drifting into the auxiliary lane. Therefore, it is desirable for
bay tapers located along curved main lines to provide a visible break from the alignment of the through
lanes. Appropriate deceleration length must be provided in the auxiliary lane.
Figure 9.17.18 provides guidelines for reducing bay taper lengths over a range of main line radii. For
main line radii of 800 m or greater, the bay taper length suggested on Figure 9.17.1 is 50 m. This is the
normal length required for the example design speed of 60 km/h. Tapers for other design speeds should
be reduced in a similar manner.
Figure 9.17.18 depicts shorter tapers with asymmetrical smoothing curves. The same criteria for
adjusting taper lengths for curvilinear tapers can be applied to straight-line taper designs for turn lanes
on the outside of main line curves. With the straight-line taper design, however, shortening the taper on
the inside of the main line curve is not necessary. The start of the auxiliary lane on the inside of the
curve remains distinctive due to the absence of the smoothing curve.
Alternatively, some jurisdictions lengthen straight-line tapers along the inside of main line curves to
provide the same rate of lateral shift from the main line as that provided in a normal tangent section.
150 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
bay taper (BT)
~ turn lane controls
(for 60 km/h)
----.. R 100 250 350 600 ;::300
.,.,- R4 BT(m) 20 25 30 35 50
R3
bay taper (BT)
I I R, (m) 30 55 80 105 150
R, (m) 25 35 50 75 150
a) major roadway curved right
turn lane controls
(for 60 km/h)
._
R 100 250 350 600 ;::300
~
........._ BT(m) 20 25 30 35 50
-.r R4
R3 R, (m) 25 35 50 70 150
R, (m) 30 55 80 105 150
bay taper (BT)
b) major roadway curved left
Note: Bay taper length and radii are based on a design speed of 60 km/h example.
Figure 9.17.18: Intersections on Curve
June 2017 151
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.17.7.2 Su perelevation
The maximum superelevation suggested through an urban intersection area is 0.04 m/m. This allows
reasonably smooth operation for turning vehicles, especially those turning against the superelevation.
The superelevation rate on an auxiliary lane at an intersection curve is normally the same as that of the
through lanes. In restricted areas, it may be advantageous to reduce the superelevation along the
auxiliary lane (as compared to the through lane), reflecting the lower running speeds of the turning
vehicles on the auxiliary lane.
At intersections controlled with traffic signals, reduced superelevation rates may be considered along
the curved roadway to improve the profile for the through vehicles on the cross roadway. For reduced
superelevation rates, as related to radius of curve and design speed, based on maximum lateral friction
factors see Chapter 3. It provides an alternative method of selecting superelevation rates based on
lower maximum lateral friction factors, which provides greater protection against skidding during
slippery pavement conditions.
9.18 TRANSITION BETWEEN FOUR-LANE AND TWO-LANE ROADWAYS AT
INTERSECTIONS
9.18.1 UNDIVIDED ROADWAYS
The lane arrangement for the transition from a four-lane to two-lane roadway, and conversely from
two-lane to four-lane roadway, is illustrated in Figure 9.18.1. The typical taper lengths for diverging and
merging values are shown in Table 9.18.1, as well as the design domain for parallel lane length 'A'
105
beyond the intersection. Special consideration is given to the merging operation by providing
increased taper lengths, since it is recognized that merging is more critical when drivers, missing the
warning signs, may be surprised by the sudden lane drop. Length 'A' is needed for signing purposes.
9.18.2 DIVIDED ROADWAYS
Principles similar to those used for undivided roadways are employed in the initial design stages of a
divided control access roadway (see Figure 9.18.2).
J
Ii
0
·~1 diverging
• 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _mEjor roadwjl'L___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
length ·;:.: merging
I·
Figure 9.18.1: Transition between Undivided Four-Lane and Two-Lane Roadways at an Intersection
152 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.18.1: Parallel Lane and Taper Lengths for Transition Between
Undivided Four-Lane Roadway and Two-Lane Roadway
Design Speed Length 'A' Design Merging Taper Diverging Taper
(km/h) Domain (m) (m) (m)
50 80-150 85 40
60 100-175 100 50
70 120-195 115 60
80 140-215 130 70
90 160-240 145 75
100 180-265 160 80
110 205-290 170 85
120 230-310 180 90
length 'fl: merging 'B' diverging 'C'
design speed design doma in design speed taper design speed taper
(km/h) (m) (km/h) (m) (km/h) (m)
50 80 -1 50 50 85 50 40
60 100-175 60 100 60 50
70 120-195 70 115 70 60
80 140- 215 80 130 80 70
90 160 - 240 90 145 90 75
100 180-265 100 160 100 80
110 205 - 290 110 170 110 85
230 - 310 180
j--1-----------
j
120 120 120 90
diverging 'C' 30
~ -I ---------
--~-- ---
l1
len th 'fl: taper as per Table 9.18.1
Figure 9.18.2: Transition between Four-Lane Divided and Two-Lane Roadway Merge
June 2017 153
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.19 MEDIAN OPENINGS
9.19.1 USE AND FUNCTION
Openings in medians perform one of the following functions:
• Accommodate cross traffic and left-turn movements at intersections
• Permit left turns for access to adjacent development at locations other than intersections
(such development normally generates significant traffic or has other special characteristics)
• Permit U-turns on divided roadways at locations other than intersections.
The use and function of median openings are related to road classification.
Median openings are generally not provided along freeways except for accommodating U-turns for
emergency and maintenance vehicles. Along major divided arterials with fully controlled access, median
openings are normally provided only at the intersections. For divided arterials where the provision of
access to adjacent developments is only partially controlled, median openings may be provided at
entrances to major developments (e.g., shopping centres) that generate significant traffic volumes (see
Chapter 8). The provision of median openings may also be considered for other developments (e.g.,
shipping terminals) that generate significant volumes of large trucks. Such vehicles are typically
discouraged from making U-turn movements within the road network and median openings may be a
preferred means of providing access where other alternatives are not possible.
Where intersections along divided arterials are widely spaced and access to adjacent development is
permitted, median openings that safely accommodate only U-turn movements may be desirable to
improve access.
In certain circumstances, median openings or crossings may be provided to allow emergency vehicles to
exit from adjacent fire, police, and ambulance facilities, or to make turns that are otherwise prohibited
at intersections. On divided arterial roads with widely spaced intersections and controlled access,
median openings may also be desirable to permit only emergency vehicles to make U-turn movements.
9.19.2 ELEMENTS OF DESIGN
The design of a median opening and median ends should be based on traffic volumes, adjacent land use,
and the type of turning vehicles, as discussed in Chapter 2. Crossing and turning traffic should operate
with the through traffic on the divided roadway. As such, it is necessary to know the volume and
106
composition of all movements occurring simultaneously during the design hours. The design of a
median opening becomes a matter of considering what traffic is to be accommodated, choosing the
design vehicle to use for layout controls for each through and turning movement, investigating whether
larger vehicles can turn without undue encroachment on adjacent lanes, checking the intersection for
capacity, and evaluating the potential for operational problems related to undesirable driving behaviour.
If the capacity is exceeded by the traffic load, the design should be expanded, possibly by widening or
otherwise adjusting widths for certain movements.
The length of the median opening, measured nose to nose, is normally a function of the median width,
the turning paths of the design vehicles making the left turn from and to the crossing roadway, and the
location of the pedestrian crossings. If U-turns are permitted at the median opening, additional length
may be required to avoid conflicts. The bullet nose design is advantageous in reducing the length of the
median opening, thereby bringing the raised median end near the pedestrian crossing and making it
available for refuge.
154 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
The minimum lengths of median openings needed to accommodate varying turning radii and median
widths should be determined based on the design vehicle (see Chapter 2).
The minimum length of the median opening, in all cases, should be 12.0 m, or the width of the crossing
roadway measured between the outside edges of pavement plus 3.0 m, whichever is greater.
See Chapter 7 for discussion and further references on median barriers, end treatments, and transitions.
9.19.3 U-TURNS
Median openings designed to accommodate vehicles making U-turns are needed on some divided
roadways, in addition to openings provided for cross- and left-turning movements. The locations for
separate U-turn median openings are as follows:
• Beyond an intersection for accommodating minor turning movements not otherwise provided
for in the intersection
• Ahead of an intersection where through and other turning movements would be interfered
with by U-turn movements at the intersection
• At regularly spaced openings to accommodate maintenance and emergency veh icle
operations.
Unless the median is wide, vehicles making U-turn movements interfere with through traffic by
encroaching on part of the through traffic lanes. Li-turns are made at low speeds, and the required
speed change is normally made on the through traffic lanes. Moreover, U-turns often require weaving to
and from the other lanes of the divided roadway. Allowing U-turns across narrow medians where
through traffic flow may be impeded is undesirable and may create safety concerns.
The provision of median openings specifically for U-turns is effective along divided roadways where
intersections are widely spaced and access to adjacent developments is permitted.
This provision may be particularly important where U-turns are selectively restricted or totally
prohibited by law at the signalized intersections. Median openings for U-turns reduce circulation on the
adjacent local road system and improve access to adjacent developments by simplifying the maneuvers
necessary to reverse direction .
Normally, protected left-turn lanes are provided in advance of the median opening for the U-turn
maneuver. In areas with low traffic speeds and low U-turn volumes, the U-turn movement may be
permitted from the through lane. In these limited cases, the median is normally sufficiently wide to
allow a single vehicle to stop in the median opening without encroaching into the paths of the through
traffic.
Table 9.19.1 provides the minimum median widths required for various design vehicles to make three
types of U-turn maneuvers on a divided road: auxiliary lane to inner lane; auxiliary lane to outer lane,
four-lane divided roadway; auxiliary lane to outer lane, six-lane divided roadway. The minimum median
widths for the latter two cases are based on through lane widths of 3. 7 m. As demonstrated by the
table, the median widths needed to accommodate the turning paths of trucks are beyond the typical
widths available in urban areas. In special cases, where truck drivers must be able to reverse their
direction, other alternatives such as jug handle left turns may be considered.
June 2017 155
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Table 9.19.1: Minimum Median Widths for U-Turns
Type of Maneuvre (M} Minimum Width of Median
for Design Vehicle (m)
Passenger Single Unit Tractor-
Car Truck Trailer
Auxiliary lane to
12.1 22.1 24.5
inner lane
Auxiliary lane to
outer lane, four- 8.4 18.4 20.8
lane divided
Auxiliary lane to
outer lane, six-lane ~·L§:?S 4.7 14.7 17.1
divided - - ---\~~-=-~--~ ~~=- - u.1 m
9.19.4 EMERGENCY AND MAINTENANCE VEHICLE CROSSINGS
There are some locations where it is desirable to allow only emergency and maintenance vehicles to
cross the median, including:
• At fire, police, or ambulance facilities along divided roadways
• Along divided roadways with fully controlled access and widely-spaced intersections, and
where median openings for all vehicular traffic are not desirable
• At intersections where it is desirable, from a traffic operations perspective, to restrict all but
emergency vehicles from making through and left-turning movements across the median.
A variety of treatments can be implemented to limit the cross-median movements to emergency
vehicles only. These include:
• Use of signing at a conventional median opening to restrict all traffic except emergency
vehicles
• Use of automatic gates, in the median opening, remotely controlled from within the adjacent
emergency facilities
• Provision of a raised or rippled median with a reduced height of 30 mm to SO mm, rather than
the normal raised median height of lSO mm
• Provision of semi-mountable or mountable curbs at the crossing locations, and barrier curbs
along the remainder of the adjacent median area
• Installation of flexible or breakaway posts across crossing
The first treatment offers the least positive control or restriction to other vehicular traffic and is typically
appropriate where there is little need or desire for other traffic to cross the median. The second
treatment offers more positive control but often presents maintenance and operational problems.
The next two treatments are median crossings, rather than median openings, since the median remains
visually closed. With a reduced median height of 30 mm to SO mm, the median area usually consists of a
concrete slab suitable to accommodate the types of emergency vehicles likely to cross. Ripples or
corrugations may be incorporated into the median surface, transverse to the direction of travel, to
further discourage the use of the median area by non-emergency traffic.
156 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
The last treatment provides a visible physical restriction to non-emergency traffic, but also presents a
significant obstacle to an emergency vehicle making the crossing maneuver, since the median curb
height is typically in the range of 75 mm to 125 mm. Crossing the median in this case should be
undertaken at a low speed, which may be a disadvantage. However, where it is highly desirable to
discourage median crossings by other traffic, this treatment may be optimal. In this treatment, the
median crossing area, between the curbs, is paved with asphalt or concrete and the emergency vehicle
turning path is kept clear of signs, surface utilities, or other appurtenances.
9.20 PART 3: ROUNDABOUT DESIGN PRINCIPLES
9.20.1 BACKGROUND
107
In their Green Book , AASHTO notes that circular intersections have been part of the transportation
system in the US since 1905, when the Columbus Circle was opened in New York City. While Canadian
use of such intersections may have come a bit later, large circles or rotaries began to be used in both
countries in the following years. Designs, at that time, included only traffic circles and rotaries which
were remarkably different than those now being deployed: not only did they allow high-speed merging
and weaving of vehicles, but priority was given to entering vehicles-a measure that permitted high-
speed entries and tended to produce high crash experience, as well as congestion. These challenges led
to traffic circles and rotaries falling out of favour by the 1950s, though many continue to operate to this
day.
What we know as the "modern roundabout", now more generally referred to just as a "roundabout",
had its origins in the United Kingdom (UK), in an attempt to rectify the problems noted above. Crucially,
in the mid-1960s, the UK adopted a mandatory "give way" rule at all circular intersections, which
required entering traffic to yield to circulating traffic. By not allowing vehicles entering the intersection
until there were sufficient gaps available in circulating traffic, the intersections no longer locked up. In
addition, the UK introduced the notion of using smaller circles with horizontal curvature of vehicle paths
to control both entering and circulating speeds in the roundabout. These design principles are now well
established and proven.
9.20.2 CIRCULAR INTERSECTIONS IN CANADA TODAY
Circular intersections operating in Canada today take many forms, as noted below:
• Rotaries and traffic circles: Generally installed in Canada before the 1960s, rotaries are
characterized by large diameter central islands, sometimes greater than 100 m in diameter. They
require vehicles to change lanes within the circulatory roadway and therefore have large distances
between intersecting approaches, contributing to their large overall diameter. The large size of
rotaries results in higher circulating speeds and weaving between entries and exits, greatly
increasing the risk of collision. Additionally, some rotaries gave priority to traffic entering the rotary,
which contributes to congestion in the circulatory roadway. Similarly, traffic circles are old-style
circular intersections typically constructed in urban areas. In many cases, traffic circles are equipped
with traffic signals to control one or more entries, or to facilitate high pedestrian volumes.
Monuments or statues are often located within the large central island. Signal controlled traffic
circles require queue storage space within the circulatory roadway and signal progression.
• Neighbourhood traffic circles: Typically constructed in residential areas for traffic calming and/or
aesthetic reasons, these typically have a diameter between 15 m and 30 m. In many locations,
neighbourhood traffic circles can be installed within the footprint of the existing intersection
June 2017 157
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
without affecting the curb lines. They typically do not include raised channelization to guide the
approaching driver into the circulatory roadway. In addition, while they do not necessarily enhance
intersection control or capacity, they help slow approaching vehicles, which may improve both
safety and pedestrian movements. A few traffic circles still use traffic signals to control one or more
entry circulating points. Their operational characteristics are therefore distinctly different from
yield-control roundabouts.
• Modern roundabouts: Now simply known as a "roundabout", this is by far the most common
circular intersections being deployed in Canada today. These circular intersections include the
following specific design and traffic control features :
o Yield control for all entering traffic
o Channelized approaches
o Appropriate curvature designed into the intersection geometry so that travel speeds on the
circulating roadway typically do not exceed 50 km/h
o Splitter islands on each leg of the roundabout to separate entering and exiting traffic, deflect
and slow entering traffic, and provide refuge for pedestrians.
Although the terms rotary, traffic circle, and roundabout are sometimes inappropriately used
interchangeably, these different forms of intersection control have distinct features and characteristics.
Table 9.20.1 summarizes the principal differences between roundabouts and rotaries/traffic circles.
Roundabouts provide a number of advantages over traffic circles and rotaries, resulting in improved
intersection safety and operational performance.
158 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
108
Table 9.20.1: Comparison of Roundabouts and Rotaries /Traffic Circles
Feature Roundabouts Rotaries/ Traffic Circles
Traffic All entries have yield control and no Stop control or signals may be present on
Control control within the circulatory roadway. one or more entries. The entire circle may
also be uncontrolled.
Priority to Circulating vehicles have the right-of-way. Some require circulating traffic to yield to
Circulating entering traffic.
Vehicles
Deflection Large entry angle helps to create entry Entry angle likely to be reduced to allow
deflection to control speed through the higher speed at entry.
roundabout.
Splitter Raised splitter islands physically separate Splitter islands may or may not be
Islands vehicles, deflect and slow entering traffic, present.
and allow for a two stage pedestrian
crossing. Raised islands can also help to
prevent vehicles from travelling the
roundabout in a clockwise direction.
Parking Parking is prohibited in the circulatory Parking may be allowed in large traffic
roadway. circles.
Pedestrian Crosswalks are located around the Crosswalks may be installed to cross on
Crossings circulatory roadway. Pedestrian crossings the central island (pedestrians cross the
are prohibited to the central island. circulatory roadway).
June 2017 159
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.20.3 CURRENT CANADIAN PRACTICE
The roundabouts now being deployed in Canada have adopted modern design practices and are
109
summarized in the TAC Canadian Roundabout Design Guide. They represent a type of circular
intersection in which vehicles travel counter-clockwise around a central island because of the right-hand
traffic rule in Canada. Vehicles entering the roundabout must yield to circulating traffic.
Roundabouts have specific geometric design and traffic control features, as illustrated in Figure 9.21.1.
Their features are intended to enhance the safety and capacity of the intersection. The following is a
brief summary of key design elements. For more information on these and other roundabout features,
refer to the TAC Canadian Roundabout Design Guide.
Central island - The central island is the raised area in the centre of the roundabout, which the
circulatory roadway travels around. The central island is not always circular in shape, and may be
traversable in the case of a mini-roundabout.
Splitter island - Splitter islands are raised or painted areas provided between the entry and exit lanes of
an intersection leg to separate traffic, deflect and slow entering traffic, and allow for a two stage
pedestrian crossing.
Circulatory roadway- The circulatory roadway is the curved path used by vehicles to travel in a
counter-clockwise manner around the central island.
Truck apron -A truck apron is a traversable, hard surfaced portion of the central island adjacent to the
circulatory roadway with a mountable curb to accommodate the wheel tracking of large vehicles.
Aprons can also be provided on the outside of the circulatory roadway at entrances and exits.
Entrance line - The entrance line is a dashed line that marks the point of entry into the circulatory
roadway. In some instances, the entrance line functions as the yield line, if no separate line is present.
Pedestrian crossings - For roundabouts with pedestrian crosswalks present, the crosswalks are located
upstream of the roundabout entrance line and downstream of the exit. The splitter island is cut at the
crossing to allow pedestrians of all abilities to pass through. The pedestrian crossings should be
accessible with detectable warnings and appropriate slopes.
Landscape buffer - Where provided, landscape buffers separate vehicular and pedestrian traffic and
assist with guiding pedestrians to the designated crossing locations. The buffers, which form part of the
boulevard, can also help to enhance the aesthetics and appearance of the roundabout.
Inscribed circle diameter (ICD) - Critical design dimension that influences the operational and safety
performance of a roundabout. The ICD is defined as the diameter of the largest circle that can fit into
the intersection outline.
160 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Entrance line
Truck apron
Entry
Accesslble pedestrian
crossing ,,
·.:';
110
Figure 9.20.1: Basic Features of a Roundabout
9.21 ROUNDABOUT TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS
Roundabouts are generally divided into three distinct categories: mini-roundabouts, single-lane
roundabouts, and multilane roundabouts. This section differentiates the three categories by size and
number of lanes, since that breakdown facilitates the discussion of specific performance and design
issues.
A broader range than these three categories is currently in use today, but they are not addressed in this
text, since most have only been implemented outside Canada. These include grade-separated
roundabouts, signalized roundabouts, double roundabouts, and turbo roundabouts. Information about
these forms of roundabouts can be found in the TAC Canadian Roundabout Design Guide.
Any category of roundabout noted above may be applicable to rural, urban, or suburban areas.
Roundabouts in urban areas may feature smaller inscribed circle diameters due to smaller design
vehicles and right-of-way constraints. They may also include more extensive pedestrian and bicycle
features. Roundabouts in rural areas will typically have higher approach speeds, which may necessitate
additional attention to visibility, approach alignment, and cross-section details. Suburban roundabouts
may combine features of both urban and rural conditions. Table 9.21.1 summarizes and compares some
of the basic design and operational elements for each of the three roundabout categories.
June 2017 161
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
111 112
Table 9.21.1: Roundabout Categories and Characteristics
Single-Lane Multilane
Design Element Mini-Roundabout
Roundabout Roundabout
Desirable maximum
25-30 km/h 30-40 km/h 40-50 km/h
entry design speed
Maximum number of
entering lanes per 1 1 2+
approach
Typical inscribed circle
1 14-27 m 28-60 m 46-100 m
diameter
Raised (may have Raised (may have
Central island treatment Fully traversable
traversable apron) traversable apron)
Up to Up to Up to approximately
Typical daily service
approximately approximately 45,000 vehicles per
volumes on four-legged
15,000 vehicles 25,000 vehicles per day for two-lane
roundabout2
per day day roundabout
Notes:
1. These values are from the TAC Canadian Roundabout Design Guide. Values outside these
ranges may be required for certain combinations of design vehicles, roundabout layouts, and
intersection configurations.
2. These values represent the volumes below which the roundabout may be expected to operate
without requiring detailed capacity analysis. Intersections with traffic volumes higher than
these values may still operate acceptably as roundabouts. Operational analysis should be
carried out to verify the upper limit for specific applications or for roundabouts with more
than two lanes or four entry legs.
162 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
9.21.1 MINI-ROUNDABOUTS
Mini-roundabouts are small and characterized by a fully traversable central island that allows large
vehicles to maneuver through the intersection without travelling around the island. They are commonly
used in low-speed urban environments and locations where roadway right-of-way constraints cannot
accommodate a typical single-lane roundabout. Figure 9.21.1 illustrates the features of a typical mini-
roundabout.
.,
Little or 1110 add itional
Ful ly mountabl,e pavement requ ired
central Island
·.·.!.: ,: .· :~ -·~ . ..... ,..
-J iiii - - : • • . , • • •• • ,I • "'I' :: • • •,L • . ; • • • ,L • 0 • •
.. •... -.... ~ .... · ~·.. •: .,/ff · ~ -- ~ ..; •. .
- \
.
- --£>-07
Perpendicular
pedestrian
crossing
Strip ed or mountable
·: sp litter is land
113
Figure 9.21.1: Features of a Typical Mini-Roundabout
9.21.2 SINGLE-LANE ROUNDABOUTS
Single-lane roundabouts are characterized by deflection on the approach/entry, single-lane entries, and
one circulatory lane. Compared to a mini-roundabout, the central island diameter is much larger and the
island is non-traversable. The overall size of the roundabout depends on the design vehicle chosen. The
geometric design often includes a non-traversable central island with a mountable truck apron (if
required to accommodate the wheel tracking of large vehicles), raised splitter islands, and crosswalks.
Figure 9.21.2 illustrates the features of a typical single-lane roundabout.
June 2017 163
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Ralsedl splltter Truc:k apron
Island (if required!)
Non-mountalb le
central Island
Landscape buffer Slngle lan1e entrance,
exit, and clrcu latory
roadway
114
Figure 9.21.2: Features of a Typical Single Lane Roundabout
9.21.3 MULTl LANE ROUNDABOUTS
Multilane roundabouts are characterized by at least one entry with two or more lanes. Some cases may
have a different number of lanes on one or more approaches. The circulatory roadway is wider to
accommodate vehicles operating side-by-side and may have higher entry, circulating, and exit speeds.
The geometric design typically includes a non-traversable central island with a mountable truck apron,
raised splitter islands, crosswalk, and in some instances a bypass for bicycles . Figure 9.21.3 illustrates
the features of a typical multi lane roundabout. As can be seen from the figure, the roundabout is
designed to accommodate a specific set of lane configurations for each approach. The circulatory
roadway and exits are striped to accommodate each turning movement of the entry lane configuration
in such a way as to require no lane changes for any movement through the roundabout.
164 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Number of circulatory
Truck apron
roadway lanes based
upon approach (If required)
lane configurations
Raised splitter
Landscape buffer
Island
Non-mountable
Two entry lanes on one
central island
or more approaches
Note: the pavement markings shown in this figure are indicative only. De signers should refer to the latest version for
the MUTCDC for guidance on pavement markings and signage
115
Figure 9.21.3: Features of a Typical Multilane Roundabout
9.22 PART 4: INNOVATIVE INTERSECTIONS
9.22.1 OVERVIEW
Today's transportation professionals are challenged to meet the mobility needs of an increasing
population with limited resources. At many highway junctions, congestion continues to worsen. Drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists experience longer delays and greater exposure to risk. Today's traffic and safety
problems are more complex and complicated than ever. Conventional intersection designs are
sometimes found to be insufficient to mitigate transportation problems and land constraints limit
options. Consequently, many engineers are investigating and implementing innovative treatments in an
116 117
attempt to improve mobility for roadway users.
9.22.1.1 Scope of Discussion
This material is not intended to provide a comprehensive discussion of innovative intersection designs.
Rather, it is meant to give intersection designers an overview of the features and challenges associated
with four specific alternative intersections that can currently be found in service in the United States and
that may offer additional benefits compared to conventional at-grade intersections and grade-separated
diamond interchanges. This information deals with selected treatments that may not be generally
considered for implementation during the alternatives analysis phase of an intersection design. It should
be noted that these innovative designs are, at this point in time, in conflict with recommendations in
June 2017 165
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
this Guide to provide road users with consistent designs and expectations. Much like the initial
introduction of roundabouts into Canada, driver education and careful attention to signage and
pavement markings will be needed to address the lack of familiarity with any innovative intersection
design implemented.
9.22.1.2 Four Alternatives Discussed
The four alternative treatments presented in this overview are identified in Table 9.22.1. Figure 9.22.1
illustrates the four alternative intersection configurations.
Table 9.22.1: Alternative Intersection Treatments
Alternative Treatment Installation Examples
Maryland, New York, Louisiana, Utah
Displaced left turn intersection (DLT) US; Mexico; Swindon UK; Hamburg
GER; Toronto (Bathurst at Lakeshore)
Median U-turn intersection (MUT) Michigan, Florida, Louisiana
Restricted crossing U-turn
Maryland and North Carolina
intersection (RCUT)
Quadrant roadway intersection Cherry Hill NJ; Detroit Ml (variants)
166 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Displaced Left-Turn Median U-Turn
Restricted Crossing U-Turn Quadrant Roadway
Figure 9.22.1: Illustration of Four Innovative US Intersection Treatments
While the four alternative at-grade intersection designs are noticeably different from each other, they
all attempt to remove one or more of the conventional left-turn movements from the major
intersection. By removing one or more of the critical conflicting traffic maneuvers from the major
intersection, fewer signal phases are required for signal operation. This can result in shorter signal cycle
lengths, shorter delays, and higher capacities compared to conventional intersections.
9.22.2 DISPLACED LEFT TURN (DLT)
DLT intersections are also referred to as continuous flow intersections (CFI) and crossover displaced left-
turn intersections (XDL). At conventional intersections, left-turn movements are frequently made to
cross the path of the oncoming through traffic from the opposite direction. At a displaced left-turn (DLT)
intersection, left-turn traffic is laterally displaced . In other words, left-turning traffic crosses over the
opposing through movement at a location that is several hundred feet upstream of the major
intersection. This upstream crossover location is typically signal controlled. The left-turning traffic then
travels on a separated roadbed, which is on the outside of the opposing through lanes, as those vehicles
proceed toward the major intersection. When these left-turning motorists reach the major intersection,
they can proceed without conflict concurrently with the opposing through traffic. The following two
figures illustrate the general appearance of this type of intersection.
June 2017 167
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Figure 9.22.2: DLT Intersection at US Route 30 and Summit Drive (Fenton, MO)
168 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
.l ~. -.".
.I
,,. ..
' :
II
"
~· _j
l\~ in
:
.. ....
N
~
I
l
i
II I\ \
= : : : ·= -= -= -= -= -= -= -= -=
I_ _
-~ ·.z-:·=· · ~ ,-.: da-i'
- ·
------ : ------ --- -- - -- -
~ II
. ."
I
~~
i/i : '
Ii
111
111
111
:11
. I"
ti 11
Figure 9.22.3: Full DLT in Plan View (DLT on all approaches)
9.22.2.1 Safety and Operational Benefits
The DLTis best suited to intersections with moderate to high overall traffic volumes, and especially to
those with very high or unbalanced left turn volumes. It can be a competitive alternative to a full, grade-
separated interchange.
June 2017 169
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
It is also flexible and can be tailored to meet the needs of a particular intersection and all of its users.
Because it can be implemented as a full or partial design, it can be adjusted to balance benefits, costs,
and effect, and can also support community goals for pedestrians and cyclists, provided that these
needs are allowed to help shape the overall design.
A primary safety advantage of the DLT is the use of unopposed left turns and simpler traffic phases. This
means that signal cycles can often be shorter, which reduces delay. The DLT design reduces the total
number and overall severity of veh icle-to-vehicle conflict points, the latter being cut from 32 to 28. The
unopposed left turns at the main intersection also eliminate the need for drivers to judge the speed of
oncoming traffic, greatly simplifying the maneuver.
9.22.3 MEDIAN U-TURN (MUT}
The median U-turn (MUT) intersection, which is also referred to as Michigan lefts, has been used
extensively in Michigan. At an MUT intersection, left turns are not allowed at the major intersection .
Rather, drivers turning left from the major approach must first proceed through the intersection. At a
location that is several hundred feet downstream of the major intersection these drivers can make a U-
turn, travel back toward the intersection, then subsequently execute a right turn onto the crossroad.
This type of treatment is most effective on boulevard-type streets with wide medians. The MUT
intersection can be classified as either a partial MUT intersection or a full MUT intersection. At a partial
MUT intersection, the side road approaches operate in a manner similar to the side road approaches at
conventional intersections. Specifically, left-turn movements can be made directly from left-turn lanes
on the side road approaches. For partial MUT intersections, left turns from the major road at the
intersection with the crossing side road are prohibited. At a full MUT intersection, no left turns are
permitted from either the major road or the intersecting side road .
Figure 9.22.4: MUT Intersection in Michigan
170 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
Maior sheet mo,vements Minor street movemenfs
Figure 9.22.5: MUT Left Turn Movements
9.22.3.1 Safety and Operational Benefits
Left turn crashes account for over 20% of fatal crashes at signalized intersections. The MUT addresses
this concern by eliminating direct left turn movement at the intersection. In so doing, they reduce the
number of vehicle-to-vehicle conflicts by half and can reduce severe crashes caused by these conflicts by
118
nearly 70%.
MUTs can also help reduce congestion and resulting delays. Without the left turns, simpler two-cycle
phases can be used at the main and U-turn intersections of signalized junctions. In some instances, this
has been shown to improve intersection throughput by between 20-50%. Without the need for left turn
lanes at the main intersection, they can sit in smaller rights-of-way and result in fewer effects to
adjacent properties. This can make them less costly and quicker to build than conventional designs.
All roadway users, including cyclists, pedestrians, transit, and commercial vehicles can benefit from MUT
intersections. This is because the number of left turns is reduced, resulting in a reduction of the
complexity of conflicts between traffic, cyclists, and pedestrians. The design and use of medians can also
be transformed when left turn lanes are not needed. For example, they can be adapted as pedestrian
refuge areas that allow crossings to take place in two stages.
9.22.4 RESTRICTED CROSSING U-TURN (RCUT}
The restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) intersection, also known as a super street intersection, is similar to
the MUT intersection treatment in that left-turning traffic from the minor-road approach must first turn
right then execute a U-turn maneuver downstream. The distinguishing characterist ic is that the through
and left-turn maneuvers are not allowed from the side road. Rather, all traffic approaching the major
road on the side road must first turn right onto the major road, travel a short distance downstream on
the major road, then make a U-turn on the major road. Drivers on the side street who want to go
through on the side road can then make a right turn from the major roadway onto the side road.
While conventional intersections can be converted to RCUT intersections at individual spot locations,
the RCUT intersection treatment is more applicable as a treatment for arterial segments. Another form
of the RCUT intersection is the Hurn intersection, named by the Maryland State Highway
Administration (MOSHA). At a Hurn intersection, traffic signal control is not installed, but all traffic from
the side road must turn right onto the arterial. Left turns from the major arterial are still permitted at
June 2017 171
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
the crossroad similar to a conventional intersection. This treatment is typically implemented where left-
turn volumes and side road volumes are relatively low. The benefit of the Hurn intersection is that it
allows the major arterial through traffic to proceed w ithout stopping for traffic signal control.
Figure 9.22.6: RCUT intersection in Troy, Ml
Side street
Main street
Figure 9.22.7: Basic RCUT Intersection with No Direct Left Turns
9.22.4.1 Safety and Operational Benefits
The RCUT design reduces the total number and overall severity of vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points from
32 to 18, a nearly 50% reduction. Further, in an FHWA before/after study of nine Maryland intersections
with unsignalized RCUT treatments, intersection crashes were reduced by 49%. Most notably, fatal
119
crashes decreased by 70% and injury crashes declined by 42% over the 3-year post installation period .
In addition to costs being comparable to equivalent conventional designs, their reduced complexity
usually reduces their effect on adjacent properties, and makes them faster to build. Access to local
businesses can by maintained in commercial areas because the U-turns accommodate all movements.
172 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
RCUT intersections can also support pedestrian and cyclist activities, provided these are considered
during the design process, and are allowed to help shape the design appropriately.
9.22.5 QUADRANT ROADWAY (QR)
The quadrant roadway (QR) intersection is a design at which the mainline left-turn movements are
relocated to a connector roadway that is located in one of the quadrants. The connector roadway
provides a separate connection between the major road and the crossroad. Drivers who want to turn
left from the major road at a conventional intersection turn left onto this connector roadway at a
location upstream from the major intersection. They then turn left again from the connector roadway to
the cross street. At the time of this report, there are no known QR intersections in the United States, if
held to the strict definition that no left turns are allowed at the primary intersection. However, there are
many locations where one or more left-turn movements have been prohibited at the primary
intersection and directed via existing streets in the local roadway network. The removal of even one left-
turn movement from a heavily congested intersection can reduce delays and improve flow through the
intersection. Therefore, the QR intersection, in its purest form, removes all left turns from the primary
intersection in an attempt to maximize throughput on both the major and minor intersecting roadways.
A) Left 1um b) eft turn
pattern from pattern from
the arteria 1 the c oss
sire t
Arte rial Arterial
2
u
Figure 9.22.8: Left Turn Movements at a QR Intersection
June 2017 173
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 - Intersections
I I
I I
I I
s I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I I
~
R 00
I I
:
- 150'
: : ------------
------------
~
I I
I
I
~
I I
I I
11 '·
~
' I R2'0 I ~
.,
Figure 9.22.9: QR Intersection with Four-Lane Connecting Roadway
9.22.5.1 Safety and Operational Benefits
The main reason to choose a QR intersection design is to gain operational performance that is better
than other intersection designs. Since a complete QR intersection has not been built as of the
preparation of this report, there is no empirical basis on which to draw when making estimates on the
expected safety of a QR intersection. Nonetheless, clues about conflicts and from collision models are
helpful to make some inferences about QR intersection safety. The number of vehicle-vehicle conflict
points at a QR intersection is reduced to 28, compared to 32 at a conventional intersection. This
reduction in conflict points may serve as an indicator of improved safety, although research shows no
definitive relationship to crash experience.
174 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 Intersections
REFERENCES
1 Adapted from AustRoads Safe System Approach. [online; viewed November 2, 2016]
http://www.safe rj ou rn eys.govt. n z/ a bout-safer-journeys/the-safe-system-approach
2 Kuciemba, S.R., Cirillo, J.A. November 1992. Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Volume V:
Intersections. Report FHWA-RD-91-078. Washington, DC: Federation Highway Administration.
3 Treat, J.R., Tumbas, N.S., McDonald, S.T., Shinar, D., Hume, R.D., Mayer, R.E., Stansfin, R.L., and
Castellen, N .. J. 1977. Tri-level study of the causes of traffic accidents. Report DOT-HS-034-535-77-TAC,
Bloomington, IN: Institute for Research in Public Safety, Indiana University.
4 Robinson, G.H., Erickson, D.J., Thurston, G.L., and Clark, R.L. 1972. "Visual search by automobile
drivers." Human Factors, 14(4), pp. 315-323.
5 Treat, J.R., Tumbas, N.S., McDonald, S.T., Shinar, D., Hume, R.D., Mayer, R.E., Stansfin, R.L., and
Castellen, N .. J. 1977. Tri-level study of the causes of traffic accidents. Rep. No. DOT-HS-034-535-77-TAC,
Bloomington, IN: Institute for Research in Public Safety, Indiana University.
6 Sta pl in, L.K., Harkey, D., Lococo, K., and Tarawneh, M.S. 1997. Intersection geometric design and
operational guidelines for older drivers and pedestrians. Volume I: Final Report. FHWA-RD-96-132,
Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration.
7 Olson, P.L., Dewar, R.E., and Farber, E. 2010. Forensic Aspects of Driver Perception and Response: Third
Edition. Tucson AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, p. 206.
8 Treat, J.R., Tumbas, N.S., McDonald, S.T., Shinar, D., Hume, R.D., Mayer, R.E., Stansfin, R.L., and
Castellen, N.. J. 1977. Tri-level study of the causes of traffic accidents. Rep. No. DOT-HS-034-535-77-TAC,
Bloomington, IN: Institute for Research in Public Safety, Indiana University.
9 Tarawneh, M.S. and McCoy, P.T. 1996a. "Effect of intersection channelization and skew on driver
performance ." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1523,
pp. 73-82; and Tarawneh, M.S. and McCoy, P.T. 1996b. "Effect of offset between opposing left-turn
lanes on driver performance." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board No. 1523, pp. 61-72.
10 Hutton, J. M., Bauer, K.M., Fees, C. A. & Smiley, A. 2015. "Evaluation of left-turn lane offset using the
naturalistic driving study data." Journal of Safety Research, 54.
11 Ibid.
12 Harwood, D.W., Pietrucha, M.T., Wooldridge, M.D., Brydia, R.E., and Fitzpatrick, K. 1995. NCHRP Report
375: Median Intersection Design. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies.
13 Gattis, J.L. and Low, S.T. 1998. "Intersection angle geometry and the driver's field of view."
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1612, Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 10-16.
June 2017 175
Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 Intersections
14 Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J., Van Houten, J., and Retting, R. 1997. "Using auditory pedestrian signals to
reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board No. 1578. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
pp . 20-22 .
15 Hoffmann, E.R. and Mortimer, R.G. 1996. "Scaling of relative velocity between vehicles. " Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 28(4), pp. 415-421.
16 Harwood, D.W., Mason, J.M., Brydia, R.E., Pietrucha, M.T., and Gittings, G.L. 1996. NCHRP Report 383:
Intersection Sight Distance. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
17 Campbell, J.L., Lichty, M .G., Brown, J.L., Richard, C.M ., Graving, J.S., Graham, J., O'Laughlin, M ., Torbic,
D., and Harwood, D.W. 2012 . NCHRP Report 600: Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems: Second
Edition. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
18 Olson, P.L. 2015 . " Chapter 5: Driver Perception-Response Time", in Human Factors in Traffic Safety,
Third Edition . A. Smiley, Ed . Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, In c.
19 Cole B.L, and Hughes, P.K. June 1984. "A Field Trial of Attention and Search Conspicuity." Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 26 (3 ), pp . 299-313 .
20 Smiley, A., Kline, D., Cai rd, J., Smahel, T., Shorten, J. and Jung, G. 2008. Visual behaviour and
consp icuity/effectiveness of grade crossing elements. Report No. TP14801E. Ottawa : Transportation
Development Centre, Transport Canada .
21 Chandraratna, S. and Stamatiadis, N. 2003. "Problem driving maneuvers of elderly drivers."
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1843. Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board, pp . 89-95.
22 Oxley, J., Fildes, B., Corben, B., and Langford, J. 2006 . " Intersection design fo r older drivers."
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 9(5), pp . 335-346.
23 Tarawneh, M.S. and McCoy, P.T. 1996. " Effect of Offset between Opposing Left Turn Lanes on Driver
Performance. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1523.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 61-72.
24 Parsonson, P.S., Isler, R.B., and Hansson, G.J . 1999. " Ageing and Driver Behaviour at Rural T-
intersections." New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 28(1), pp . 51-54.
25 Alexander, G. and Lunenfeld, H. 1975. Positive guidance in traffic control. Wash ington, DC: Federal
Highway Administration.
26 Adapted from AustRoads. 2009. Guide to Road Design Part 4: Intersections and Crossings. Canberra:
AustRoads.
27 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) . 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Downsview, ON : Ontario Ministry of Transportation .
28 Jack E. Leisch & Associates. 1981. Planning and design guide, at-grade intersections: a design reference
book for course of instruction. Evanston, IL: Jack E. Leisch & Associates.
29 Ibid.
30 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) . 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
31 Ibid .
176 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 Intersections
32 Jack E. Leisch & Associates. 1981. Planning and design guide, at-grade intersections: a design reference
book for course of instruction. Evanston, IL: Jack E. Leisch & Associates.
33 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
34 Kuciemba, S.R., Cirillo, J.A. November 1992. Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Volume V:
Intersections. Report FHWA-RD-91-078. Washington, DC: Federation Highway Administration.
35 Neuman, T.R., Leisch J.E. 1985. NCHRP Report 279: Intersection Channelization Design Guide.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
36 Ibid.
37 Kuciemba, S.R., Cirillo, J.A. November 1992. Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Volume V:
Intersections. Report FHWA-RD-91-078. Washington, DC: Federation Highway Administration.
38 Hanna, J.T., Flynn, T.E. and Webb, L.T. 1976. Characteristics of Intersection Collisions in Rural
Municipalities, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 601.
Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
39 David, N.A. and Norman, J.R. July 1979. Motor Vehicle Collisions in Relation to Geometric and Traffic
Features of Highway Intersections: Vol. II. Report FHWA-RD-76-129. Washington DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
40 Kuciemba, S.R., Cirillo, J.A. November 1992. Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Volume V:
Intersections. Report FHWA-RD-91-078. Washington, DC: Federation Highway Administration.
41 Parker, M.R., et al. September 1983. Geometric Treatments for Reducing Passing Collisions at Rural
Intersections on Two-Lane Highways: Vol. I - Final Report. FHWA-RD-83-074. Washington, DC: Federation
Highway Administration.
42 David, N.A. and Norman, J.R. July 1979. Motor Vehicle Collisions in Relation to Geometric and Traffic
Features of Highway Intersections: Vol. II - Research Report. FHWA-RD-76-129. Washington DC: Federal
Highway Administration.
43 This section is adapted and in some cases used verbatim from AustRoads. 2009. Guide to Road Design
Part 4: Intersections and Crossings. Canberra: AustRoads.
44 Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa,
ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
45 Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). 1998. Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming.
Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
46 Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
47 Ibid.
48 Transport Canada. 2014. Grade Crossing Regulations Section 3 [online]. [Viewed November 2, 2016]
http:/llaws-lois.;ustice.qc.ca/enq/requlations/SOR-2014-275/FullText.html
49 Transport Canada. 2015. Determining Minimum Sightlines at Grade Crossings -A guide for Road
Authorities and Railway Companies. [online]. [Viewed November 2, 2016]
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ra i lsafety/ra i lsafety-978. html
June2017 177
Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 Intersections
50 Glennon, J. and Hill, P.F. 2004. Roadway Safety and Tort Liability, Tucson AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Publishing Company, p. 225 .
51 Transport Canada. April 2005. Canadian Grade Crossing Detailed Safety Assessment Field Guide. [online] .
[Viewed November 2, 2016]
https://tc.gc.ca/media/ docu ments/ra i Isafety/detailed assesment. pdf
52 Transport Canada. 2014. Grade Crossing Regulations [online; viewed November 2, 2016] http:l/laws-
lois.justice.qc.ca/enq/requlations/SOR-2014-275/FullText.html and Grade Crossing Standards. July 2014.
[online; viewed November 2, 2016] https:l/www.tc.qc.ca/enq/railsafetv/qrade-crossinqs-standards.htm
53 Adapted from AustRoads. 2009. Guide to Road Design Part 4: Intersections and Crossings. Canberra :
AustRoads.
54 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Downsview, ON : Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
55 Ibid .
56 Ibid.
57 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1994. A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Roadways. Washington DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
58 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) . 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Downsview, ON : Ontario Ministry of Transportation .
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid
61 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Toronto : Ontario Ministry of Transportation .
62 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1994. A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Roadways. Washington DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
63 Jack E. Leisch & Associates. 1981. Planning and design guide, at-grade intersections: a design reference
book for course of instruction. Evanston IL: Jack E. Leisch & Associates .
64 Rodegerdts, Lee A. et al. August 2004, Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. FHWA-HRT-04-091.
Washington DC: Federal Highways Administration .
65 Harwood, D.W., Mason, J.M., Brydia, R.E ., Pietrucha, M.T., and Gittings, G.L. 1996. NCHRP Report 383:
Intersection Sight Distance. Washington DC : Transportation Research Boa rd of the National Academies.
66 Ibid .
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid.
178 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 Intersections
71 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 All figures in this sub-section are from MTO. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways. 1985.
Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
75 All figures in this sub-section are from MTO's Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways, unless
otherwise noted.
76 Province of Alberta. 1995. Highway Geometric Design Guide, Edmonton, AB: Alberta Transportation and
Utilities.
77 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
78 Ibid.
79 Figures 9.14.9 and 9.14.10 are from : MTO. 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
80 Ibid.
81 Both diagrams from: MTO. 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways. Downsview, ON:
Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
82 Ibid.
83 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1994. A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Roadways, Washington DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
84 Neuman, T.R., Leisch J.E. 1985. NCH RP Report 279: Intersection Channelization Design Guide.
Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
85 Province of Alberta. 1995. Highway Geometric Design Guide, Edmonton, AB: Alberta Transportation and
Utilities.
86 Refer for example, to the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual.
87 Ibid .
88 Both diagrams from: MTO. 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways . Downsview, ON:
Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
89 Diagrams from: MTO. 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways. Downsview, ON : Ontario
Ministry of Transportation.
90 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
91 Ibid.
92 Ibid.
June2017 179
Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 Intersections
93 Ibid.
94 Ibid.
95 Ibid.
96 Figures in this section are from: MTO. 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
97 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways.
Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid.
102 Ibid.
103 Ackeret, K.W. December 1994. "Criteria for the Geometric Design of Triple Left-Turn Lanes", /TE Journal
64(12), pp. 27-33
104 Ibid.
105 The diagrams and table in this section are from: MTO. 1985. Geometric Design Standards for Ontario
Highways. Downsview, ON: Ontario Ministry of Transportation
106 Harwood, D.W., et al. 1995. NCHRP Report 375: Median Intersection Design. Washington DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
107 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2011. A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
108 Wisconsin Department ofTransportation (WiDOT). 2013. "Section 26 Roundabouts, Chapter 11 Design,"
Facilities Development Manual. Madison WI: Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
109 Chartier, G., et al. 2017. Canadian Roundabout Design Guide. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association
of Canada.
110 Rodegerdts, L., J. Bansen, C. Tiesler, J. Knudsen, E. Myers, M. Johnson, M. Mou le, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, S.
Hallmark, H. lsebrands, R. B. Crown, B. Guichet, and A. O'Brien. 2010. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts:
An Informational Guide, Second Edition. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board.
111 Ibid.
112 Chartier, G., et al. 2017. Canadian Roundabout Design Guide. Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association
of Canada.
113 Ibid.
114 Ibid.
115 Ibid.
180 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads
Chapter 9 Intersections
116 Hughes, W., Jagannathan, R., Sengupta D. and Hummer, J. April 2010. Alternative
Intersection/Interchanges: Informational Report {AllR}. Report FHWA-HRT-09-060. Washington DC:
Federal Highways Administration.
117 Kuciemba, S.R., Cirillo, J.A. November 1992. Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Volume V:
Intersections. Report FHWA-RD-91-078. Washington DC: Federation Highway Administration .
118 Hughes, W., Jagannathan, R., Sengupta D. and Hummer, J. April 2010. Alternative
Intersection/Interchanges: Informational Report (AllR). Report FHWA-HRT-09-060. Washington DC:
Federal Highways Administration.
119 Ibid.
June2017 181
Transportation Association of Canada
Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads
CHAPTER 10- INTERCHANGES
June 2017
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
Transportation Association of Canada
401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive
Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2
Tel. (613) 736-1350 ~Fax (613) 736-1395
www.tac-atc.ca
ISBN 978-1-55187-633-7
TAC REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM
Title and Subtitle
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 10 - Interchanges
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, WSP I MMM Group Thornhill, ON L3T OAl
Jim Dowell, WSP I MMM 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 human
factors research and practices for roadway geometric design. It replaces the 1999 edition Planning of Transport
of the Guide and subsequent revisions. The Guide provides guidance to planners and Infrastructure
designers in developing design solutions that meet the needs of a range of users while Access road
Canada
addressing the context of local conditions and environments. Design guidelines for
freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads, in both urban and rural locations are Entrance
included as well as guidance for integrated bicycle and pedestrian design. Exit
Interchange
The Guide is organized into ten chapters to cover the entire design process from design
Layout
philosophy and roadway classification to design parameters and specific guidelines for
Location
the safe accommodation of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on linear road elements
Motorway
and at intersections. The chapters are: Design Philosophy; Design Controls, Classification
Ramp metering
and Consistency; Alignment and Lane Configuration; Cross Section Elements; Bicycle
Safety
Integrated Design; Pedestrian Integrated Design; Roadside Design; Access; Intersections;
Trumpet junction
and Interchanges.
Chapter 10 - Interchanges provides a summary of relevant human factor aspects and
warrants for interchanges. Guidance is provided on interchange location, spacing,
coordination and a range of interchange types. Detailed guidance is provided for
interchange exit and entrance ramp design .
Supplementary Information
Index is available at www.tac-atc.ca
Chiu, M., Clayton, C., Millen, G. et al. 2017. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads: Chapter 10- Jnterchanges.
Ottawa, ON: Transportation Association of Canada.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
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 I MMM 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 Roads, 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 10 - Interchanges
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 l'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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
Project Steering Committee
Eric Christiansen, Manitoba Infrastructure (Co-Chair)
John Hammer, Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Co-Chair)
Ke ith 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 Dobush 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
Foreword
BACKGROUND TO THE GUIDE
In 1999 the Transportation Association of Canada relased 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 for 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 th is Guide.
June 2017 v
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
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
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 10
Chapter 10 - Interchanges provides a summary of relevant human factor aspects and warrants for
interchanges. Guidance is provided on interchange location, spacing, coordination and a range of
interchange types. Detailed guidance is provided for interchange exit and entrance ramp design.
vi June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
CONTENTS
10.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
10.1.1 General ................................................................................................................................ l
10.1.2 Pedestrians And Bicycles .................................................................................................... 1
10.1.3 Design Features .................................................................................................................. 2
10.1.3.1 Uniformity of Patterns and Design Consistency ................................................. 2
10.1.3.2 Single Exit ............................................................................................................ 2
10.1.3.3 Loop Ramps ........................................................................................................ 2
10.1.3.4 Return Movement .............................................................................................. 2
10.1.3.5 Over Versus Under ............................................................................................. 3
10.1.4 Road Safety and Human Factors Considerations ................................................................ 4
10.1.4.1 The Cha Ilenge of Complexity .............................................................................. 4
10.1.4.2 Understanding The Impact Of Driver Workload ................................................. 4
10.1.4.3 Interchange Driving Task Overview .................................................................... 4
10.1.4.4 Tasks And Risks: Entering The Freeway .............................................................. 4
10.1.4.5 Tasks And Risks: Exiting The Freeway ................................................................. 5
10.1.4.6 Tasks And Risks: Speed Change Lanes And Merging .......................................... 6
10.1.4.7 Tasks And Risks: Merging And Visual Search ...................................................... 6
10.1.4.8 Tasks And Risks: Merging And Mental Workload ............................................... 6
10.1.4.9 Tasks And Risks: Merging And Visual Search On Curves .................................... 7
10.1.4.10 Tasks And Risks: Mainline Driving Tasks ............................................................. 7
10.1.4.11 Tasks And Risks: Reading Guide Signs Prior To Exits .......................................... 7
10.1.4.12 Driver Gap Search And Lane Change Distance Requirements ........................... 8
10.1.4.13 Sight Distance to the Bull nose Area ................................................................... 9
10.1.4.14 Speed Reduction and Exiting .............................................................................. 9
10.1.4.15 Interchange Spacing and Driver Workload ....................................................... 10
10.1.4.16 Freeway Lane Drops and Additions .................................................................. 10
10.1.4.17 Accommodating Heavy Vehicles ...................................................................... 10
10.1.4.18 Best Practices for Safety In Interchange Design ............................................... 11
10.2 INTERCHANGE WARRANTS ...................................................................................................12
10.2.1 Classification ..................................................................................................................... 12
10.2.2 Traffic ................................................................................................................................ 13
10.2.3 Safety ................................................................................................................................ 14
10.2.4 Topography ....................................................................................................................... 14
10.2.5 User Benefits and Capital Cost .......................................................................................... 14
10.3 INTERCHANGE LOCATION AND SPACING ............................................................................... 14
June 2017 vii
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
10.4 CO-ORDINATION OF INTERCHANGES .................................................................................... 17
10.4.1 Left Exits and Entrances .................................................................................................... 17
10.4.2 Exit Location ...................................................................................................................... 18
10.4.3 System Considerations ...................................................................................................... 18
10.5 INTERCHANGE TYPES ...........................................................................................................19
10.5.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 19
10.5.2 Interchanges between Freeways ...................................................................................... 19
10.5.2.1 Four-Leg Interchanges ...................................................................................... 20
10.5.2.2 Three-Leg Interchanges .................................................................................... 20
10.5.3 Interchanges between Freeways and Other Roads .......................................................... 20
10.5.3.1 Diamond Interchanges .................................................................................... 21
10.5.3.2 Pardo A Interchanges ..................................................................................... 26
10.5.3.3 Pardo B Interchanges ..................................................................................... 27
10.5.3.4 Pardo AB Interchanges ................................................................................... 27
10.5.3.5 Rotary And Trumpet Interchanges ................................................................. 27
10.5.4 Interchanges between Roads Other Than Freeways ........................................................ 28
10.6 INTERCHANGE RAMPS .........................................................................................................29
10.6.1 General. ............................................................................................................................. 29
10.6.2 Ramp Design ..................................................................................................................... 29
10.6.2.1 Design Speed ................................................................................................... 29
10.6.2.2 Speed Change Lane ......................................................................................... 30
10.6.2.3 Gore And Bull nose .......................................................................................... 33
10.6.2.4 Sight Distance .................................................................................................. 33
10.6.2.5 Ramp Width .................................................................................................... 33
10.6.3 Exit Terminals .................................................................................................................... 34
10.6.3.1 Exit Terminal Design ....................................................................................... 34
10.6.3.2 Exit Terminal Length ....................................................................................... 35
10.6.3.3 Exit Ramp Transition Curve Criteria ................................................................ 37
10.6.3.4 Sight Distance To Exit Terminals ..................................................................... 38
10.6.4 Entrance Terminals ........................................................................................................... 39
10.6.4.1 Entrance Terminal Design ............................................................................... 39
10.6.4.2 Entrance Terminal Length ............................................................................... 40
10.6.4.3 Entrance Ramp Transition Curve Criteria ....................................................... 41
10.6.4.4 Sight Distance At Entrance Terminals ............................................................. 42
10.6.5 Ramp Terminal Spacing .................................................................................................... 42
10.6.6 Safety and Design Overview ............................................................................................. 42
viii June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
10.7 OTHER INTERCHANGE DESIGN FEATURES .............................................................................46
10. 7 .1 Operational Analysis ..... ...... ... .................... .... ................. .. .... ....................... ..... ................ 46
10.7.2 Ramp Metering ............. .... .............................................................................. .................. 46
10.7.3 Bus Interface ................. ... .......................... ... ............................................... ... .. ................ 47
10.7.4 Grading and Landscaping Development ........................ ......................... ......... ................ . 48
10.8 TYPICAL INTERCHANGE DESIGN FEATURES ............................................................................49
10.9 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................61
June 2017 ix
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
TABLES
Table 10.1.1: Lane Change Times and Distances at Design Speed of 120 km/h ........................................ 9
Tablel0.2.1: Selection of Interchanges, Grade Separations, and Intersections
Based on Classification ....................................................................................................... 13
Tablel0.6.1: Ramp Design Speed ............................................................................................................ 29
Tablel0.6.2: Design Length for Deceleration .......................................................................................... 31
Tablel0.6.3: Grade Factors for Speed Change Lanes .............................................................................. 36
Tablel0.6.4: Spiral Parameter for Exit Ramp Transition Length ............................................................. 38
Tablel0.6.5: Design Length for Deceleration .......................................................................................... 41
Tablel0.6.6: Spiral Parameter for Entrance Ramp Transition Curves ..................................................... 42
FIGURES
Figure 10.1.1: Sign Locations ..................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 10.1.2: Interchange Spacing Requirements (Based on 120 km/h design speed) ......................... 10
Figure 10.3.1: Interchange Spacing on Urban Freeways ......................................................................... 16
Figure 10.4.1: Consistency of Exits .......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 10.5.1: Four-Leg Interchange between Freeways ........................................................................ 21
Figure 10.5.2: Three-Leg Interchange between Freeways ...................................................................... 22
Figure 10.5.3: Diamond Interchanges ...................................................................................................... 23
Figure 10.5.4: Parclo Interchanges .......................................................................................................... 24
Figure 10.5.5: Rotary and Trumpet Interchanges .................................................................................... 25
Figure 10.6.1: Speed Change Lanes ......................................................................................................... 32
Figure 10.6.2: Gore Area and Speed Transition Zone on Ramp Exit.. ...................................................... 33
Figure 10.6.3: Sight Distance at Exit Terminals ........................................................................................ 39
Figure 10.6.4: Line of Sight and Sight Distance at Entrance Terminals ................................................... 44
Figure 10.6.5: Ramp Terminal Spacing .................................................................................................... 45
Figure 10.7.1: Typical Bus Interface at Interchange ................................................................................ 47
Figure 10.8.1: Typical Design Exit Terminal Parallel Single Lane ............................................................. 49
Figure 10.8.2: Typical Design Exit Terminal Tapered Single Lane ............................................................ 50
Figure 10.8.3: Typical Design Exit Terminal Two Lane ............................................................................. 51
Figure 10.8.4: Typical Design Major Fork ................................................................................................. 52
Figure 10.8.5: Typical Design Entrance Terminal Parallel Single Lane ..................................................... 53
Figure 10.8.6: Typical Design Entrance Terminal Parallel Two Lane ....................................................... 54
x June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
Figure 10.8.7: Typical Design Entrance Terminal Tapered Single and Two Lane ..................................... 55
Figure 10.8.8: Typical Design Entrance Ramp for Pardo A ...................................................................... 56
Figure 10.8.9: Two Quadrant Pardo A Ramp Terminal ........................................................................... 57
Figure 10.8.10: Four Quadrant Pardo A Ramp Terminal. .......................................................................... 58
Figure 10.8.11: Two Quadrant Pardo B Ramp Terminal. ........................................................................... 59
Figure 10.8.12: Four Quadrant Pardo B Ramp Terminal ........................................................................... 60
June 2017 xi
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10. INTERCHANGES
10.1 INTRODUCTION
10.1.1 GENERAL
An interchange is a system of interconnecting roadways in conjunction with one or more grade
separations that provides for the movement of traffic between two or more roads on different levels.
Interchanges are applicable for all types of intersecting roads and for any range of design speeds.
Interchange design is a particular form of intersection design; as such, Chapter 9 should also be
referenced. An interchange may be an appropriate solution to a problem encountered in an at-grade
intersection, as it permits high traffic volumes to operate safely and unimpeded on the intersecting
roads. An interchange, as distinct from a simple grade separation, provides at least one connection for
traffic between the intersecting roads. Crossing conflicts are eliminated by grade separation, and turning
conflicts are minimized, depending on the configuration of the particular interchange.
Interchanges are located and designed so that they provide the best possible traffic service consistent
with community interests. Although the design of each interchange is an individual task, it is considered
in conjunction with the design of adjacent interchanges or intersections at-grade. An interchange or
series of interchanges on a road through a community may affect large contiguous areas or even the
entire community. The safe functioning of local roads will also be impacted by the location of the
interchange and the type of crossroad intersections (terminals), the interchange geometry, and selected
traffic control approach (device or roundabout). By their nature, interchanges present a challenge for
pedestrians and cyclists. Particularly in developed urban areas, interchanges, as well as the higher
classification roadways with which they connect, are often barriers to cycling and pedestrian mobility.
As a result, guidance is provided for both urban and rural interchanges, as discussed below.
10.1.2 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
As noted above, interchanges can be particularly hazardous places for pedestrians and cyclists due to
vehicle speeds and free flow ramps. Where prior transportation planning has not allowed for the
separation of pedestrian and bicycle modes, the designer will likely need to account for these modes in
the design of some interchanges, particularly in urban areas. This chapter includes general design
guidance for pedestrians and bicyclists at interchanges. More extensive guidance can be obtained in
Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 as well as in ITE Recommended Design Guidelines to Accommodate Pedestrians
and Bicycles at Interchanges.
Visibility should be a primary design principle when accommodating pedestrians and cyclists at
interchanges. In addition to allowing the driver to detect the presence of pedestrians and cyclists in or
near the travelled way, adequate sight distance must be provided for anyone who must cross at ramp
terminals or travel along the roadway. Pedestrians must be able to see approaching vehicles and also
perceive gaps in the traffic flow. At ramp crossings where there are insufficient gaps in the traffic flow or
vehicle speeds are too high to allow them to cross, pedestrian-actuated signals or a pedestrian
overpass/underpass may be required. In general, it is desirable to provide pedestrian crossings in the
shortest distance feasible. Additional insight including preferred ramp terminal designs to accommodate
pedestrians is included as appropriate throughout this chapter.
June 2017 1
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.1.3 DESIGN FEATURES
Traffic entering an interchange area on one of the approach roads either remains on the through road or
makes a turning movement by means of a ramp or turning roadway. A driver wishing to pass through
should be disturbed as little as possible by exiting and entering traffic, and should have no difficulty in
recognizing that the through road is the correct one for the driver's destination. The driver making a
turn should recognize that, for the driver's destination, the driver has to negotiate one or more ramps
and should be prepared for this in sufficient time to make the maneuver safely. This can be
accomplished by the application of basic design principles of interchange design.
10.1.3.1 Uniformity of Patterns and Design Consistency
In the process of maneuvering through an interchange, a driver has a number of tasks to execute
successfully. The driver is required to select a suitable speed, accelerate and decelerate, choose
appropriate lanes, and successfully make diverging and merging maneuvers. To maintain and promote
safety in carrying out all of these tasks, it is important that the driver understand the operation of the
interchange and not be misled or surprised by some characteristic that may cause erratic driver
behaviour. Driver understanding is best promoted by consistency and uniformity in the selection of
interchange types and in the design of their particular features. Route continuity and uniformity of
signing are important features in this regard.
In the interest of design consistency, uniformity and safety, interchange exits and entrances should be
designed on the right-hand side of high-speed roadways (looking in the direction of traffic). Left-hand
entrances and exits should only be considered under special conditions. Apart from driver
understanding, there are practical advantages in placing entrances and exits to the right; these are
discussed in Section 10.4.
10.1.3.2 Single Exit
Ideally, an interchange has only a single-exit from a road in each direction, the division of traffic for
alternative destinations taking place after exiting from the road. This simplifies the workload and
decision process the driver has to make at any one time and improves operational efficiency of the
entire facility. There are, however, some cases where a two-exit design is more desirable. This situation
could apply to high-volume, high-speed directional interchanges.
10.1.3.3 Loop Ramps
Loop ramps are commonly used in interchanges and are satisfactory for many maneuvers. In general,
they are used for exiting traffic from low-speed roads. On high-speed roads such as freeways, drivers
may be surprised by the high rate of deceleration required on loop ramp exits. Care should be taken in
selecting the radius of the loop. This is discussed in Section 10.6.2.
10.1.3.4 Return Movement
For any travel movement provided from one road to another within an interchange, it is desirable to
provide the return movement. From the standpoint of convenience, safety, and, in particular, to prevent
wrong-way movements, interchanges in general should provide ramps to serve all directions.
2 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.1.3.S Over Versus Under
In most interchanges where a freeway (or an expressway) crosses an arterial road, the question of
whether to carry the freeway over or under the arterial arises. The choice depends on a number of
considerations, in particular terrain and construction cost. However, there are a number of advantages
in carrying the freeway under the arterial road:
• Exit ramps are usually on up-grades, assisting deceleration, while entrance ramps are on down-
grades, assisting acceleration.
• Sight distance on the freeway to the exit bull nose is usually superior since most exits occur in
advance of the structure.
• The view of the exit ramp from the freeway exiting driver is usually superior.
• At-grade intersections on the crossing road may include such features as left-turning lanes, traffic
signals or other traffic control devices; these are more readily visible since there are no obstructions,
such as bridge piers, that are usually associated with a road crossing under the freeway.
• The view of a bridge structure, to the freeway driver on the approach to the interchange, alerts the
driver to the possible presence of an interchange, offering the driver more time to determine
whether it is the desired exit and to make appropriate lane changes and adjustments in speed to
take the exit.
• The view of cross ing roads on structures crossing the freeway assists the long distance driver on the
rural freeway, who may experience boredom or tiredness, to remain alert.
• Freeways in cut (with, therefore, the increased likelihood of the crossing road going over) tend to
generate lower noise levels and visual intrusion to surrounding communities than freeways on fill.
• Truck noise on ramps is less if the exit ramps are on up-grades and entrance ramps on are down-
grades.
1
• Carrying the freeway under the arterial has been found to be safer than the alternative.
The selection and design of individual interchanges is strongly influenced by site specific engineering,
environmental, topographical, and operational considerations. However, an interchange is only one
element of a freeway system whose features influence the operation of each other. Freeway design and
interchange design are so intimately related that they cannot be separately dealt with. For the purpose
of geometric design, it is essential to treat a length of a freeway and its associated interchanges as a
single system, to ensure proper balance of features and consistent design and operational quality. The
principles of alignment design, lane balance, route continuity and weaving discussed in Chapter 3 and
cross section elements discussed in Chapter 4, apply to interchanges discussed in this chapter; they
should be referred to in the course of design of interchanges.
Signing is an important aspect of interchanges which, in some cases, influences the geometric design.
The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada provides the principles of signing.
Lighting at interchanges plays a significant role in the safety operations of interchanges at night time.
The TAC Guide for the Design of Roadway Lighting provides guidelines to the need and desirability of
roadway lighting at interchanges in general or at selective locations within the area.
Additional specific design features are described in Sections 10.3, 10.4, and 10.6.
June 2017 3
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.1.4 ROAD SAFETY AND HUMAN FACTORS CONSIDERATIONS
10.1.4.1 The Challenge of Complexity
Whether in rural or urban settings, freeway interchanges are locations of inherently complex design
challenges. That complexity is created by the variety of design elements that are present (e.g., entrance
ramps, exit ramps, ramp terminals, successive entrances and/or exits, topography, presence of other
users etc.), the intricacy of traffic operations on those elements (e.g., speed changes, merge operations,
diverge operations, traffic volumes and traffic volume changes, entrance or exit of large numbers of
heavy vehicles etc.), and the impact that design decisions revolving around these elements have upon
the users of the facility.
2
Cirillo reflected on the impact of various design decisions on road safety. Although this work was
carried out in the late 1960's, it is still relevant today. In Cirillo's study, collision rates on ramps were
found to vary significantly depending on the ramp type being used. The study also indicated that on-
ramps had a lower collision rate than off-ramps and the rates tended to increase as interchange spacing
decreased.
10.1.4.2 Understanding The Impact Of Driver Workload
The complexity of interchange design reflects directly on safety performance through its impact on
driver workload and drivers' consequent ability to make correct driving decisions based on what they
are seeing and experiencing. The fact is that, at freeway interchange locations, workload increases
substantially for all drivers, whether they are staying on the mainline lanes, merging onto the freeway,
or leaving the facility. Studies show that collisions are far more likely to occur here than on mainline
freeway sections between interchanges. An analysis of crash types on urban interstate freeways in
Northern Virginia found 48% involved exiting vehicles, 36% involved entering vehicles, and 16% occurred
at the midpoints of access roads or on ramps connecting two interstate freeways. Run-off-road crashes
were most likely to occur for drivers exiting interstates at night, in bad weather, or on curved portions of
ramps. A frequent entering-driver crash involved drivers merging into the sides of large trucks on the
3
mainline. The challenges of the interchange-driving task are highlighted further below.
10.1.4.3 Interchange Driving Task Overview
A clear understanding ofthe impact of interchange driving tasks on drivers can be particularly helpful to
designers involved in the development of freeway interchange layouts, since such an understanding can
help ensure that the varying impacts on driver workload resulting from different designs are accounted
for in any final design decision. In particular, such an analysis is helpful in determining where and why
driver errors and collisions may occur. Errors in vehicle control (i.e., control of speed and path), vehicle
guidance (interacting with other vehicles and traffic control devices), and vehicle navigation (wayfinding)
are of particular interest with respect to interchange design and are discussed below under various
interchange-driving task headings.
10.1.4.4 Tasks And Risks: Entering The Freeway
Drivers entering a freeway from an on-ramp have a number of sub-tasks to accomplish:
• Follow the on-ramp path.
• Bring the vehicle up to mainline traffic speed.
• Look behind at mainline traffic to locate a suitable gap.
4 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
• Pace the chosen gap between vehicles in the adjacent lane.
• Lane-change from the acceleration lane to a mainline lane.
• Monitor any ramp vehicles directly ahead.
• Monitor the length of on-ramp.
• Monitor mainline traffic directly ahead.
For entering drivers, this is a complex sequence of tasks that must be carefully coordinated with vehicles
moving through the merge area on the mainline. Most commonly, errors in any one of these sub-tasks
can lead to a run-off-road, rear-end or sideswipe crash can happen during both the control and guidance
tasks. Since the merge activity generally takes place at high speeds, the likelihood of higher severity
collisions is increased. With respect to vehicle control, some drivers - especially those who are overly
cautious or inexperienced - will not bring speed up sufficiently and will move into the slow lane in front
of a faster moving driver who must then take action to avoid a rear-end collision.
Drivers entering behind a slow driver also face risks in this situation, although their choices are
somewhat different: they can choose to remain behind the slow driver, or to move rapidly into the
passing lane when their speed is still significantly slower than the speed of the vehicle they merge in
front of. When acceleration lanes are short, or when the ramp is on an upgrade or the vehicle in
question is large, greater speed differentials are likely, as drivers do not have sufficient distance to bring
their vehicles up to highway speed. Greater speed differentials have been correlated with higher
likelihoods of collision occurrence.
10.1.4.5 Tasks And Risks: Exiting The Freeway
Drivers exiting a freeway have the following sub-tasks:
• Search for, and respond to, guide signs.
• Identify interchange area.
• Identify correct exit lane.
• Search for a gap and change lanes.
• Take exit.
• Reduce speed according to off-ramp requirements.
• Monitor any ramp vehicles directly ahead.
• Follow the off-ramp path.
• Adhere to traffic controls I signals.
Again, this is a complex sequence of tasks that must be carefully coordinated with vehicles moving
through the diverge area on the mainline. In this case, driver errors can occur with respect to control,
guidance and navigation, as follows:
• With respect to the control task, they may not bring their speed down sufficiently for a safe exit,
especially when the design speed for the ramp is considerably below the mainline speed.
• In the guidance task, drivers may not respond to the interchange by moving into the rightmost
lane until they see the interchange area or may initially move right in anticipation of the exit
being on the right (as it typically is) when it is actually on the left. If the sight distance to that
area is insufficient, they may make hurried lane changes and exit late.
Each of these errors has implications for both the exiting driver and the driver moving through the
diverge area on the mainline lanes. As noted in the merge case, since the diverge activity is also
June 2017 5
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
generally taking place at relatively high speeds, the likelihood of higher severity collisions also increases
in these situations.
10.1.4.6 Tasks And Risks: Speed Change Lanes And Merging
The length of the speed change lane required to allow a driver to accelerate and merge successfully with
moving mainline traffic is determined by the acceleration capability of the merging vehicle as well as by
driver merging behaviour. A study of merging drivers on a loop ramp and a diamond ramp showed that
merging begins when the on-ramp driver perceives that there is no speed difference between his own
vehicle and that of the vehicle he is merging in front of.
Merging drivers carry out a succession of acceleration, gap search, and decision tasks to determine
when they feel it is appropriate to execute their lane change. The length of speed change lane required
in any given situation can vary substantially depending on multiple factors, including the topography,
traffic volumes, freeway speeds, ramp controlling curve radii, the presence of heavy vehicles, available
sight distance, and other elements. It is for this reason that this Guide provides speed change lane
guidance expressed as a range of values for a variety of situations (for example, see Table 10.6.3). It is
the designer's responsibility to ensure that the value chosen from this design domain for application in
any given circumstance recognizes the driver tasks to be accomplished within the design context being
considered. Designers wishing to gain a more in-depth understanding of this design challenge and more
detailed information on speed change lane design may wish to consult the US National Cooperative
Research Program (NCH RP) Report #730 entitled Design Guidance for Freeway Mainline Ramp
4
Terminals.
10.1.4.7 Tasks And Risks: Merging And Visual Search
Studies involving eye movement cameras as well as video recordings show that drivers on the on-ramp
begin actively looking for upstream traffic about 10 seconds prior to approaching the entrance ramp
5
bull nose, and continue looking back intermittently about 10 seconds past that bullnose. Based on a
limited sample of young drivers, an average of 5 to 6 glances at the side-view mirror and 1 to 2 glances
at the rear-view mirror were made during the merge, with the majority of glances occurring within the
period 10 seconds prior to the bull nose and 10 seconds after the bull nose. This activity is one significant
part of the driver workload needed to allow the driver to reach a merge decision. It is substantial and
underlines the need for ramp and speed change lane designs to provide simplicity, clarity, appropriate
length, and substantive sight distances to reduce overall driver workload and the potential for driver
error during this activity.
10.1.4.8 Tasks And Risks: Merging And Mental Workload
A 2001 study of driver workload suggested that the physiological stress associated with merging onto a
6 1
freeway subsided 4 seconds after merging. Thus a distance equivalent to at least 4 seconds at the 85 h
percentile operating speed should be assumed to allow drivers adequate time before presenting them
with the next task of reading the guide sign for the upcoming exit. As mentioned in Section 10.1.3.7,
drivers continue looking back intermittently about 10 seconds past the bullnose. This finding reinforces
the need for a distance equivalent to at least 4 seconds and also suggests that at least some mental
effort directly associated with the merge continues beyond the 4 second period. Assuming that some
drivers will wait until the end of the acceleration lane to complete their merge, the 4 seconds should be
assumed to begin at the end of transition taper of this lane.
6 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.1.4.9 Tasks And Risks: Merging And Visual Search On Curves
Studies of driver eye movement show that ramps situated on curved alignments are visually demanding.
On a tangent section, drivers can maintain appropriate lane position and heading angle during the
merge process by looking straight ahead and using the streaming of information in peripheral vision. On
a curve, the current position and the future position in the lane are visually separated so drivers must
look in both locations, effectively doubling visual demand.
In addition to increasing visual demand of the driver, the placement of a merging area on a curve (as
opposed to a tangent) will also increase mental workload. Various studies have shown that the
7
negotiation of curves is mentally demanding, and the demand increases with sharpness of curvature.
Because of the increased workload, lane drops, entrances, and exits on curves should be avoided.
10.1.4.10 Tasks And Risks: Mainline Driving Tasks
The task of mainline drivers is to accommodate the merging of entering drivers and the lane changing of
drivers preparing to exit. In a merge situation, mainline drivers often also change lanes to the left to
accommodate slower entering drivers; sideswipe crashes can occur if their search prior to their lane
change is inadequate. The shorter the merge area speed change lane, the more pressure there is for
entering drivers to force their way into the through lane and for mainline drivers to move left,
sometimes abruptly. Where this type of activity is occurring, and depending on the design
circumstances, the use of minimum design domain values of speed change length may be inappropriate.
10.1.4.11 Tasks And Risks: Reading Guide Signs Prior To Exits
The TAC Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada should be referred to for the selection of
appropriate signs and their general location for given applications. The following is intended to help the
designer understand how that task of reading these signs should be borne in mind at the design stage
and it is relevant in that it can help the geometric designer consider the placement of decision points.
The time required for drivers to extract information from guide signs has been effectively studied using
eye movement cameras. In one study, the cameras were used to record the search behaviour of five
8
young subjects driving on a highway with which they were unfamiliar. Once the sign was legible, on
average, the first fixation occurred 7 to 10 seconds away and the last, at 1 to 4 seconds away from the
sign. Based on these values, it should be assumed that drivers will be engaged in sign reading starting at
a distance equivalent to 10 seconds from the sign at the operating speed, up to a distance equivalent to
1 second from the sign.
The results above apply to signs with letter heights of 40 cm. Signs for HOV (high occupancy vehicle)
drivers use smaller font text than those for general-purpose lanes. The legibility distance (m) can be
determined by multiplying the letter height (cm) by 4.8. The legibility distance can be used to determine
the time that drivers will have available to read the information and make a decision. Drivers need
about one-half to one full second per major word on the sign to read these panels while driving at
speed. This suggests that the distances indicated in Figure 10.1.1 should govern the placement of signs
relative to the presence of the exit. More importantly, the need to accommodate these distances may in
some cases govern specific design choices with respect to the interchange format and/or its location.
June 2017 7
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
SIGN
distance to painted gore: 400 m
(12 sec at 120 km/h)
reading & time available for
decision time: lane changes:
3 sec at 120 km/h 15 sec at 120 km/h
Figure 10.1.1: Sign Locations
10.1.4.12 Driver Gap Search And Lane Change Distance Requirements
Driver tasks on the approach to an interchange can include a significant amount of activity including lane
changing in preparing to move to the correct lane for upcoming exits or to move away to the left to
avoid the merging and diverging traffic. Lane changes take a finite amount of work and time. One study
recorded the time required for eight young male drivers to search for a gap and make a lane change.
Based on several maneuvers, the total mean gap search time from command to initiation of lane change
was greater for left merges and when traffic was present (6.1 seconds for left merges and 4.5 seconds
9
for right merges when traffic was present).
The total time required to search and carry out a lane change can be expressed as the gap search time
added to the t ime required to physically make the lane change maneuver. Field studies in which drivers
were filmed unaware, found lane change maneuver times to the right averaged 4.2 seconds and to the
10
left, 4. 7 seconds. Thus, taking the worst case from these data of a lane change to the left, with traffic
present, 10.8 seconds should be assumed for a single lane change.
Another study of drivers over the age of 70 on Highway 401 approaching Toronto Airport found an
average gap search and lane change time of 6 seconds (range 4.3 to 9.7 seconds) when no traffic was in
the adjacent lane (when a single lane change was requested) to an average of 12.7 seconds (range of 5.7
to 36 seconds) when there was traffic in the adjacent lane. Given the frequent presence of traffic in an
adjacent lane in this busy section of Canadian roadway, the use of younger male driver data on search
times, and the use of averages rather than 85 1h percentile values for the McGee et al. estimate, a figure
higher than 9.8 seconds, and closer to 12.7 seconds, seems an appropriate estimate to employ for a
single lane change on highways instead of the 10.8 seconds estimated above.
11
A naturalistic driving study of 16 commuters aged 20 to 64 years recorded over 8,000 lane changes.
Time from when the vehicle moved laterally until the vehicle was settled in the destination lane
averaged 6.3 seconds. If the Robinson et al. left merge with traffic gap search time is added, then total
lane maneuver time including gap search would be 12.4 seconds.
An instrumented vehicle study of gap search and lane-changing distances indicates that the time and
12
distance required to move from the left to the right side of a multi-lane highways can be considerable .
The amount of time and the distance were recorded for 20 subjects driving an instrumented vehicle
who, upon request, maneuvered from the far left lane to the far right lane on three and four lane
freeways in light (<725 vehicles per hour), medium (726 to 1,225 vehicles per hour) and heavy (>1,225
8 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
vehicles per hour) traffic. The posted speed limit was 55 mph {88 km/h). Distance was calculated
according to the speed traveled and the time taken from signaling to turn from the left-most lane until
all four wheels had crossed into the right-most lane. On high speed roadways {88 km/h), the average
time to search for gaps and complete two lane changes, from the time the lane change was requested,
was 15 seconds in medium traffic and 17 seconds in heavy traffic. The average time to search for gaps
and complete three lane changes was 24 seconds in both medium and heavy traffic.
Based on the above-noted research and for geometric design purposes, rounded values of 13, 17 and 24
seconds can reasonably be used to estimate the necessary times for drivers to search for a gap in traffic
and carry out lane changes of one, two, or three lanes for passenger car drivers once a sign has been
read. At a design speed of 120 km/h, this corresponds to a travel distance of 430 m, 570 m, and 800 m
respectively, as summarized in Table 10.1.1 below.
Table 10.1.1: Lane Change Times and Distances at Design Speed of 120 km/h
Number of Lane Changes
One Two Three
Time (sec) 13 17 24
Distance (m)* 430 m 570 m 800m
These values can appropriately be applied to distances required between :
• An on-ramp bullnose and the next off-ramp bullnose.
• An on-ramp bullnose and the entrance to express lanes.
• An HOV lane end of buffer zone (start of lane change zone) and off-ramp gore.
• An HOV lane start of buffer zone (end of lane change zone) and on-ramp gore.
It should be noted that tractor-trailers are likely to require more time for changing lanes; however, no
reliable research has quantified similar distances for such vehicles.
10.1.4.13 Sight Distance to the Bull nose Area
Providing good sight distance to a freeway exit/entrance bullnose area will assist drivers in identifying
the exit or entrance and preparing for it in a manner appropriate to their needs. Research shows that a
13
significant proportion of drivers wait until they can see the road layout before they change lanes. To
address this tendency, a decision sight distance of 11 to 14 seconds at the operating speed should be
provided whenever possible in such situations.
10.1.4.14 Speed Reduction and Exiting
Drivers easily adapt to high speeds on a freeway and can take time to bring their speeds down when
traversing from the freeway to lower speed facilities-including ramps. Although speed limits are posted
on all roadways and vehicles are equipped with speedometers, experience has shown that drivers do
not look at their speedometers frequently to choose suitable travel speeds.
Moreover, in situations such as an off-ramp, where geometry forces a driver to change speed, drivers'
14
workload increases, and they actually look at the speedometer less frequently. One study required
subjects to drive for 32 km (20 miles) on a freeway at 110 km/h (70 mph) and then drop their speeds to
what they estimated to be 64 km/h (40 mph) . The average they were able to achieve was 80 km/h
June 2017 9
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
15
(SO mph). This occurred despite the fact that the drivers were aware of this adaptation effect. This
suggests that drivers may not slow sufficiently on off-ramps with larger speed drop requirements.
Designers may wish to consider alternative designs or the application of other appropriate mitigating
measures when dealing with such situations.
10.1.4.15 Interchange Spacing and Driver Workload
The distance between the bull nose for the entry lane and the beginning of the deceleration lane for a
subsequent exit lane would ideally allow entering drivers to carry out one driving task at a time, that is:
merge and bring their vehicles up to highway speed before exiting drivers encounter the advance guide
sign, read it, search for a gap and change as many lanes are required to move from the leftmost lane to
the exiting lane.
Figure 10.1.2 shows interchange spacing that allows drivers to deal with one task at a time based on
these needs. The acceleration and deceleration lane lengths shown should be considered as examples
that might exist in the Canadian context, rather than specific values that should be achieved at all times.
Acceleration Deceleration
1
lane ends
Guide
sign
lane begins
. !. .+
Bull nose
.
Bullnose
I 500 m I
+II( • ..
Merging
Workload
4 sec. (134 m)
..
Reading
guide sign i
.........
9 sec. (300 m) 1 sec. (33 m)
345m
1 to 3 lane changes
13 - 24 sec. (433 to 800 m)
Figure 10.1.2: Interchange Spacing Requirements (based on 120 km/h design speed)
10.1.4.16 Freeway Lane Drops and Additions
The dropping or addition of lanes is a particular concern with close interchange spacing. NCH RP Report
176 16 provides an assessment of 65 freeway lane drop sites with respect to operational and safety
problems. They classify freeway lane drops as: outlying drop located at the perimeter of a metropolitan
area; an add-drop, usually added at the on-ramp and dropped at the off-ramp; a drop-add, generally
found at freeway-to-freeway interchanges; a step-over, where one lane is dropped and another added
commonly at left-hand exits; and a lane split. Based on this study, a number of design principles were
developed, including the principle that the lane drop should be placed away from attention dividing
conditions, such as ramps or complicated directional signing. In other words, drivers should not be
subject to the added workload of dealing with a lane drop when entering or exiting a freeway.
10.1.4.17 Accommodating Heavy Vehicles
Heavy vehicles face particular challenges in negotiating freeway interchanges. To promote greater levels
of truck safety, designers shou Id:
• Reduce speed differentials between the mainline freeway lanes and ramps.
10 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
• Check all horizontal curve elements for their potential to create truck rollover challenges. See
Chapter 3.
• Provide speed change lanes that are appropriate for heavy vehicles. This may not mean having to
move to speed change lanes that are longer than the ranges recommended in the current Guide, but
will usually require that such elements be designed at or near the upper limits of the design domain.
• When possible, eliminate all concrete curbs within the interchange. In every case, eliminate
concrete curbing on the outside of horizontal curves.
• Avoid steep downgrade and horizontal curve combinations on ramp designs.
• Provide adequate pavement friction and superelevation as required.
10.1.4.18 Best Practices for Safety In Interchange Design
At any time, the design of a freeway interchange is a complex and challenging task. Nonetheless, from a
safety conscious design standpoint, many key best practices are evident:
• Reduce driver workload: Whenever possible the design should attempt to reduce driver workload.
Reductions in driver workload provide users of the interchange with more time to understand and
react to the driving situation being presented
• Reducing workload will result in less potential for driver error.
• Place information appropriately: Drivers need time to perceive, read, and react to information that
is vital to their driving task and location on the freeway. Make sure that the design accommodates
these needs.
• Spread information whenever possible: Distribute information to the driver in a manner that
provides more than the minimum time necessary to react appropriately to it. This will enhance
drivers' abilities to make better choices and locate themselves in appropriate lanes, and will also
reduce the potential for driver error. All of these factors enhance road safety performance.
• Whenever a question of speed change lane length arises from a challenge of complexity, traffic
volumes, the presence of high volumes of heavy vehicles, or other factors, speed change lane
lengths should be chosen from the upper end of the design domain and, if necessary, extended to
ensure orderly operations in both merge and diverge areas of the interchange.
• Ramp sequencing within complex or sequential interchanges should be carefully considered for the
effects that it might have on driver workload and their ability to perceive and react appropriately to
the design that they must traverse. From time to time a more holistic approach may be required:
when doubt arises as to how a driver might understand or deal with the nuances of a complex or
unusual design, a human factors expert should be consulted.
• The cost-effectiveness of any given interchange design or elements thereof is a critical element that
must be considered in reaching final design decisions. Such cost effectiveness assessments should
include, wherever possible, a quantitative evaluation of the road safety performance of the
interchange and its various elements. Use of innovative tools such as IHSDM and the Highway Safety
Manual can be employed for such evaluations to be carried out.
• Reduce the error potential inherent in the design:
o Avoid placing excessive task demands on the driver.
o Avoid the deployment of designs that require the driver to make unusual or unexpected
maneuvers. Such requirements increase the potential for driver error and increased
numbers of collisions.
June 2017 11
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
0 Avoid using minimum forward sight distances. Providing generous sight distance allows the
driver greater time to understand what is required and to execute the necessary maneuvers
in an appropriate manner. This will positively influence road safety performance.
0 Do not violate driver expectancy. Such violations are known to be directly correlated to
higher levels of collision risk.
10.2 INTERCHANGE WARRANTS
The use of an interchange is a valid solution to many problems that may be experienced by at-grade
intersections. The following paragraphs suggest a set of guidelines as the basis for consideration of the
use of interchanges.
10.2.1 CLASSIFICATION
A freeway inherently precludes at-grade intersections and all access to and from the freeway is through
interchanges. Roads crossing freeways that do not provide access are either grade-separated or
terminated either side of the freeway. Roads crossing freeways that do provide access at an interchange
are normally arterial, expressway or freeway roads; however, in some cases, it is appropriate to develop
interchanges at collector roads or local roads where travel distance to adjacent arterial roads is
excessive. Table 10.2.1 offers a guide to the selection of interchanges, grade separations and
intersections, based on the classification of roads.
12 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
Tablel0.2.1: Selection of Interchanges, Grade Separations, and
Intersections Based on Classification
Consideration Based on Classification
Intersecting Roads
Rural Urban
Freeway I Freeway A A
Freeway I Expressway * A
Freeway I Arterial B c
Freeway I Collector or Local D E
Expressway I Expressway * A
Expressway I Arterial * F
Expressway I Collector or Local * G
Arterial I Arterial H H
Arterial I Collector or Local I Hor I
Collector or Local I Collector or Local J J
Note: *=varies by jurisdiction
Classification:
• A. Interchange in all cases.
• B. Normally interchange, but only grade separation where traffic volume is light.
• C. Normally interchange, but only grade separation where interchange spacing is too
close.
• D. Normally grade separation or, alternatively, the collector/local may be closed.
• E. Normally grade separation, but an interchange may be justified to:
o relieve congestion
o serve high density traffic generators.
• F. Normally interchange or intersection, refer to C or G.
• G. Normally grade separation, but an intersection may be justified to:
o relieve congestion
o serve high density traffic generators.
• H. Normally intersection, but an interchange may be justified where:
o capacity limitation causes serious delay
o injury and fatality rates are high
o one arterial may be upgraded to a freeway in the future.
• I. Normally intersection or, alternatively, the collector/local may be closed.
• J. Normally intersection or, alternatively, one road may be closed.
10.2.2 TRAFFIC
Traffic volume in relation to available capacity is the most tangible warrant to justify the introduction of
an interchange at or near the site of an existing at-grade intersection. Where demand volumes exceed
capacity or desired service volumes, consideration may be given to increasing the capacity of an at-
grade intersection or introducing an interchange. Interchanges are desirable at such locations, but may
not be justified because of the high cost of construction and property.
June 2017 13
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
The elimination of traffic bottlenecks, by means of interchanges, is not necessarily confined to freeways
and arterial roads. Such solutions may be appropriate where arterial roads intersect with collector roads
or local roads, as indicated in Table 10.2.1, Application H.
10.2.3 SAFETY
Some at-grade intersections exhibit high collision rates which cannot be lowered by improvement to the
geometry of the intersection or through the application of traffic control devices. In such cases, it might
be appropriate to introduce an interchange as a safety measure. Such situations are often found at
heavily travelled urban intersections or at lightly travelled, low volume, rural locations where speeds
tend to be high. There are a number of toolsets available to designers for the quantification of road
safety performance of various interchange alternatives. These include IHSDM and the Highway Safety
Manual.
10.2.4 TOPOGRAPHY
Interchanges may be used instead of at-grade intersections at locations where topography essentially
precludes an at-grade intersection.
10.2.5 USER BENEFITS AND CAPITAL COST
High-volume at-grade intersections cause delays to most drivers, and congested intersections de lay all
drivers. This incurs a cost in terms of waiting time as well as operating and maintaining vehicles. The
introduction of interchanges usually reduces these costs, although travel distance may be longer for
some movements. Economic, safety, and operational benefits should be weighed against the cost of the
interchange. If cost information is available, the analysis should also acknowledge that snow removal
and ice control may be significantly higher for an interchange.
On the basis of a series of simulation studies for a range of economic and traffic characteristics on rural
high-speed roads, the operational benefits of an interchange begin to outweigh its cost at traffic volume
17
levels that meet signal warrants . In general, road user benefits increase with increasing minor road
demand and decreasing discount rate (the market rate of return adjusted for inflation). An interchange
may be a more cost-effective alternative than a signalized intersection in replacing a non-signalized
18
intersection under typical rural high-speed road conditions.
An interchange may be the only available solution to replace a busy or collision-prone intersection on a
high-speed road or arterial if the introduction of a lower speed zone and signalized traffic control is
ruled out based on functional requirements.
10.3 INTERCHANGE LOCATION AND SPACING
Rural freeways passing close to or through communities require interchanges suitably located to serve
the needs of the community. It is sufficient to provide one interchange for small communities; larger
communities require more. The precise location depends on the particular needs of the community;
however, as a general guide, interchanges should be located at arterial roads recognized as major
components in the road system, having good continuity and a capability for expansion if required.
Interchanges should be located in the proximity of major development areas; for example, central
business areas and areas of existing or future concentrations of commercial or industrial development.
As a general guide in rural areas, interchanges are normally spaced at between 3 km and 8 km.
On urban freeways, traffic conditions and driver behaviour and expectations are different from those of
rural freeways, and this influences interchange spacing. Operating speeds tend to be lower, trip lengths
shorter, and traffic volumes higher. Additionally, drivers are accustomed to and anticipate the need for
14 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
taking a variety of alternative actions in rapid succession. Interchanges spaced at more than 3 km over a
length of urban freeway normally cannot provide adequate service to urban development; therefore,
closer interchange spacing is called for. If successive interchanges on urban freeways are too close,
however, the operation of the freeway might become impaired and the freeway loses its capacity to
collect and deliver traffic from the crossing arterial roads.
Interchange spacing in urban areas generally ranges from 2 km to 3 km, measured cross road to cross
road. Interchanges should be located at major arterial roads, forming part of the arterial system of roads
for the urban area and providing, or having the potential to provide, capacity to deliver to and collect
from the interchanges.
Minimum spacing of interchanges is determined by the distance required for weaving as outlined in
Chapter 3, speed change lanes, and the appropriate placement of directional signs as discussed in
Section 10.1.3.
If the arterial roads are spaced closer than 2 km, it is usually necessary either to omit some of the
interchanges in favour of grade separations alone or adopt some alternative means of combining
interchanges to serve closely located arterial roads.
Figure 10.3.1 illustrates how this might be done. In the upper diagram, the arterial roads are spaced at 2
km to 3 km, allowing each arterial to be served by its own interchange. In the lower three diagrams, the
arterial roads are at less than 2 km, calling for some form of combined ramp I service road system to
provide the overall interchange ramp capacity to serve the arterial system. The most suitable
configurations of ramps are very much site specific, and the design is dependent on the layout of the
arterial network and the particular needs of the community it serves.
19
Freeway collision rates tend to increase as interchange spacing decreases in urban areas. More recent
research suggests that safety on the mainline is also influenced by ramp spacing and ramp
2021
sequence. This effect is an important consideration in urban area interchange spacing.
June 2017 15
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
Freeway
arterial roads at 2 to 3 km spacing, each served by an interchange
Freeway
arterial roads at less than 2 km spacing, served as a group by ramp nesting
Freeway
arterial roads at less than 2 km spacing, arterial roads at less than 2 km spacing,
served by a combined interchange served by grade separated interchanges
Figure 10.3.1: Interchange Spacing on Urban Freeways
16 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.4 CO-ORDINATION OF INTERCHANGES
The configuration of an individual interchange should suit its particular location, taking into account
topographical features, engineering, and environmental considerations, and its capability to provide
service to the community. In addition, the configuration of a series of interchanges over a given length
of urban freeway should be examined to ensure that they meet driver expectations, match driver
behaviour and provide design consistency. These considerations are particularly important in urban
areas where interchanges are closely spaced.
Driver understanding and smooth flowing operation are best served by consistency of interchange
features and regularity of operation. The design of a series of interchanges, therefore, is a matter of
compromise between the site specific needs of individual interchanges and the operation of a set of
interchanges regarded as a freeway system.
10.4.1 LEFT EXITS AND ENTRANCES
Some earlier freeway designs incorporated both left and right exits and entrances. While left exits and
entrances might have been appropriate for certain individual interchange needs under special
conditions, the use of both left and right exits on contiguous sections of roads, especially high-speed
roads such as expressways and freeways, is not consistent with driver expectations. Left exits and
entrances generally create hesitant operation on the through roads because of unnecessary lane
changing and weaving, low-speed vehicles driving in the fast lane, and flow being disturbed due to
merging maneuvers. Left exits and entrances therefore reduce the level of service and capacity of the
road.
With left exits, some drivers-particularly slow drivers-tend to stay in the left lane to avoid getting
trapped and risk missing the exit. Similarly, with right exits, slow drivers generally stay in the right lane .
This latter behaviour is more desirable.
At left entrances, the driver has difficulty seeing approaching traffic on the through road as the driver is
sitting on the left side of the vehicle. This places more reliance on the use of driving mirrors to find a gap
and make the merge. With left entrances, the slower entering ramp traffic is forced to merge from the
left into the fast lane. Additionally, left exits and entrances can compound weave problems in some
situations.
22
A recent study by Moon and Hummer found that left-hand ramps have significantly higher collision
rates than right exits and entrances due to weaving and turbulence movements. It is now generally
accepted that all exits and entrances to freeways should be on the right, unless there is overwhelming
reason to do otherwise. Even in the case of major forks and branch connections, the less significant
roadway should exit and enter on the right. Exclusively right exits are reassuring and allow the driver to
concentrate on the many other activities that are required to be performed at interchanges. If left exits
and entrances are unavoidable, special attention should be given to signing and providing adequate
decision sight distance to alert drivers of the unusual situation ahead.
If capital cost is the overriding reason for connecting a site-specific left exit or entrance, the designer is
encouraged to carry out a broader-based economic analysis using life cycle costs and incorporating likely
collision increases related to left exits and entrances.
On express-collector roads, transfer lanes occur on the left side of the collector. However, the
weaknesses described above are not as severe since slow vehicles can elect to remain on the collector
June 2017 17
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
and are not forced to take left transfer lanes. In addition, drivers on the collector expect left side
transfer lanes on express-collector roads.
10.4.2 EXIT LOCATION
Ramp exits ahead of underpass structures are more readily visible to the driver, and allow the driver to
position the vehicle and adjust speed well in advance to make a collision free maneuver. Exit ramps
beyond structures are less visible to the driver. Exit ramps tend to be high collision locations in
interchange areas, and good visibil ity to exit bull noses is an important consideration.
At an interchange, a single exit from each direction of travel is preferable to multiple exits. A single exit
simplifies signing and the decision-making process of the driver, allowing time for separate choices: first,
to be assured that it is the correct exit and second, to determine which direction to take on the crossing
road. Figure 10.4.1.1 illustrates treatment of a set of interchanges to ensure consistency of exits.
For the reasons that exits ahead of underpass structures and single exits are preferable, it is desirable
for design consistency to maintain single exits ahead of structures throughout a length of freeway. This
design consistency for a series of interchanges can usually be achieved by adjusting individual
interchange designs.
10.4.3 SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS
Maintenance of basic lanes, lane balance and the proper design of weaving sections as outlined in
Chapter 3 are important to maintaining smooth operation, flexibility, and level of service on the
freeway. The configuration and design of interchange ramps should be reviewed, and adjusted if
necessary, to match the requirements of these features .
single exit single exit single exit
beyond structure two exits
before structure before structure
-
inconsistent exits
all single exits before structure
- -
consistent exits
Figure 10.4.1: Consistency of Exits
18 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.S INTERCHANGE TYPES
10.5.1 GENERAL
Many interchange types are available to the designer. The classification of the intersecting roads is a
prime determinant in the selection of the most suitable interchange type for any particular application.
Section 10.5.2 deals with interchanges between roads classified as freeways, either four-leg or three-
leg. Section 10.5.3 discusses interchanges between freeways and other roads, which are normally
arterial roads but in some cases are collector roads. Section 10.5.4 discusses suitable types for
interchanges between roads, neither of which is a freeway or an expressway. Such applications are
normally between two arterial roads or an arterial road and a collector road. In rare instances, there is
an application for an interchange between an arterial road and a local road.
Most interchanges provide for all movements between intersecting roads. Those that provide a limited
number of movements are referred to as partial interchanges. For any movement provided for in a
partial interchange, the corresponding return movement desirably should be available, since the driver
expects to be able to retrace his route in the return direction on any particular trip. The absence of the
return movement may even create a safety concern if a frustrated motorist attempts a "wrong way"
movement to regain access to a freeway.
The selection of the most suitable interchange for any particular application-and the details of its
design-depends on many controls and other considerations. The list that follows summarizes the most
important of these controls and considerations:
• Safety
• Functional and design classification of intersecting roadways
• Adjacent land use
• Design speed
• Traffic volume and traffic mix
• Turning volumes
• Number of interchange legs
• Topography
• Right of way and property requirements
• Service to adjacent communities
• Systems considerations and design consistency
• Environmental considerations
• Economics.
The relative importance of these controls and considerations varies between interchanges. For any
particular site, each control is examined and its relative importance assessed. Alternative types and
configurations are then studied to determine the most suitable in terms of the more important controls.
While the selection of the best interchange type may vary between sites, it is important to provide
regional consistency, where possible, in order to reinforce driver experience. This would in turn improve
driver expectancy and hence safety.
10.5.2 INTERCHANGES BETWEEN FREEWAYS
Interchanges between two freeways, also known as system interchanges, are normally the most costly
in terms of construction cost and property requirements.
June 2017 19
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
Since freeways are fully-controlled access facilities, at-grade intersections within the interchange
configuration are inappropriate. It is mandatory that they be avoided.
Fully directional interchanges provide for right and left turns through large radius ramps that have
design speeds between 70% and 80% of freeway design speeds and overall deflection angles of 90°.
Partially directional interchanges provide for some left-turn movements by means of loop ramps, which
have lower design speeds. Partially directional interchanges have applications where there are property
limitations, or where some left-turn volumes are low.
10.5.2.1 Four-Leg Interchanges
Figure 10.5.1 illustrates both fully-directional and partially-directional four-leg interchanges between
freeways. The fully-directional type shown in illustration (i) provides single exits from all four directions
and directional ramps for all eight turning movements. The through roads and ramps are separated
vertical ly on four levels.
Partially-directional interchanges allow the number of levels to be reduced as the number of loop ramps
is increased . The single-loop arrangement, illustration (ii), and two-loop arrangement in (iii) and (iv),
require three levels. A configuration in which loop ramps are carrying the lighter volumes of left-turning
traffic is preferable, and levels should be arranged so that exit loop ramps are on upgrades encouraging
deceleration, thus increasing safety.
Illustration (v) is a full cloverleaf with collector lanes, incorporating loops for four left turning
movements and two levels separating the through roads vertically. This type of interchange introduces
undesirable weaving sections, and is only suitable where left-turn volumes are low and property is
readily available. The collector roads are added to this type of interchange so that the weaving
maneuvers inherent in this interchange type occur on the collectors rather than on the main line.
10.5.2.2 Three-Leg Interchanges
Figure 10.5.2 illustrates a variety of fully-directional and partially-directional three-leg interchanges
between freeways. Illustrations (i) and (ii) are fu lly-directional interchanges requiring three levels of
roadways. Illustration (iii) is fully-directional, requiring only two levels. Illustrations (iv) and (v) are
partially-directional, referred to as trumpet interchanges; each incorporates one loop ramp for a left-
turn movement. The choice between the two depends on the availability of property, but desirably the
loop carries the smaller volume of the two left-turn movements.
10.5.3 INTERCHANGES BETWEEN FREEWAYS AND OTHER ROADS
In interchange types for this application, all ramps diverging and merging with the freeway have
acceleration and deceleration lanes so that traffic can enter and exit freeway lanes at, or close to,
freeway speeds. Where the ramps connect with the crossing roads, intersections occur and are designed
with suitable traffic control devices.
Left-turn movements often are accommodated on loop ramps, and loop ramps carrying traffic entering
the freeway are preferable to loop ramps carrying traffic exiting the freeway. Where other
considerations permit, it is desirable to arrange the levels of the through roads so that ramp traffic
entering the freeway is on a downgrade and ramp traffic exiting the freeway is on an upgrade, to assist
in acceleration and deceleration respectively.
In urban areas where pedestrian and bicycle traffic is expected, and capacity allows its implementation,
ramps terminals can be aligned at right angles to the crossing road, as shown in Figure 10.8.9 and Figure
20 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.8.11 at the end of this chapter. For additional guidance, refer to Chapter 5, Chapter 6 and ITE
Proposed Recommended Practice: Recommended Design Guidelines to Accommodating Pedestrians and
Bicycles at Interchanges (2014).
The choice of carrying the freeway over or under the crossing road depends on topography, cost, and
other environmental considerations. There are a number of operational advantages in carrying the
freeway under the crossing road, as discussed in Section 10.1.2.5.
Interchanges between freeways and other categories of crossing road normally provide for all turning
movements. In some cases it may be necessary to eliminate some turning movements; however, in such
cases, for any movement that is provided, the corresponding return movement desirably should be
available. Figures 10.5.3 to 10.5.5 illustrate interchanges for application between freeways and arterial
roads. They are shown diagrammatically with the arterial road crossing over the freeway and with
single-exit ramps from the freeway.
10.5.3.1 Diamond Interchanges
Figure 10.5.3 illustrates a simple diamond interchange. The ramps intersect with the crossing road at at-
grade intersections controlled by traffic signals or, where volumes are low, by stop signs on the exit
ramps. This interchange lends itself well to signing: it is simple to understand and is economical in
property. It is generally limited in its ability to handle left-turning traffic at the intersections, although
this can be alleviated by adding through lanes and left-turning lanes on the crossing road. Visibility for
traffic on exit ramps at the crossing road intersections may be restricted to some degree, depending on
the profile of the crossing roads and other design details such as the bridge railing. Signing on the
crossing road and detailing of the intersections is important to avoid wrong-way movements on the exit
ramps.
(v) full cloverleaf
(iii) partially directional (iv) partially directional
Figure 10.5.1: Four-Leg Interchange between Freeways
June 2017 21
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
(i) fully directional (ii) fully directional
(iii) fully directional (iv) trumpet A
(v) trumpet B
Figure 10.5.2: Three-Leg Interchange between Freeways
22 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
SINGLE DIAMOND • Single exit in advance of the • Limited capacity on minor road
INTERCHANGE structure due to left turning movements
• Single exit feature simplifies at ramps
1
- ------;:; ;.___ • signing
Economical property use and
Potentially conducive to
"wrong-way" movements
---==~------~' I 1 construction costs
• Where freeway is depressed,
• Stop on minor road for left
turn; storage lane may be
ramp grades assist deceleration required
for exiting and acceleration for
entering traffic
Compared to single diamond:
SPLIT DIAMOND • Increased capacity compared • Additional structure required
to other forms of diamond • Left-turn traffic has to travel
INTERCHANGE _-""I:.,.---....._.._~
interchanges through additional intersection
• Requires frontage road
TIGHT URBAN DIAMOND • Same as single diamond, plu s • Requires signalization
INTERCHANGE (TUDI) may be used in constrained • Coordination with other
urban settings signals along crossing road
• Economical in property may be difficult
~.......--cl I====:::=
SINGLE POINT DIAMOND URBAN • Economical in property • High structural costs
INTERCHANGE (SPUI) • Limited capacity at single
intersection
• Requires complex traffic
control signals
• Large open area of pavement -
long pedestrian crossings
• Requires separate phase for
pedestrians, compromising
capacity
DIVERGING DIAMOND • Fewer conflict points • Requires signalization
INTERCHANGE • Efficient, potential • Travel paths are contrary to
improvements in capacity drivers' expectations
(DOI) • Freeflow access and egress on • Complex passage for
minor road - reduce or pedestrians
eliminate need for turn lanes • Requires merging and weaving
on outside lanes
Figure 10.5.3: Diamond Interchanges
June 2017 23
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
Parti al cloverleaf Interchanges are evolved from th e Part ia l cloverlea fs are given names depending on wh ere the
cloverleaf interchange which has the benefit of allowing ramps connect to the main line (letter) and how many sides of
free -flow movements in all quadrants of the interchange. the qu ad rant are used (number). The letter A indicates that the
The full cloverleaf design tends to be avoided nowadays loop ramp meets t he main line in advance of the intersecting
because of the short weavi ng sections it introduces on both road, while B ind icates that the ramp meets t he main li ne
the main line and intersecting road . By eliminating two or beyond the crossing. Combinations and variations are possi ble.
more " leaves" of the cloverleaf, weaving sections can be A number of options are shown below and key advantages and
eliminated and repla ced by a merge lane or lane added . disadvantages are provided.
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Pardo A Single exit in advance of th e • Signals requ ired on minor
A4 structure road w hen t hrough and
Single exit feature sim pl ifies turning volumes are high
signing
Not conducive to wrong-way
movements
Stop for left turns confined to
ra mp
A2 Compa red to A4:
Reduced property Reduced ca pacity
requirement Natura l right turn is replaced
Ca n be used as initial stage of by left turn from minor road
A4 Stop condition on minor road
for left turn movement
Pardo B Single exit in advance of th e High speed traffic from the
B4 structu re, simplifies signing (if freeway must exit on loop
collectors provided) ra mps
Not conducive to wrong-way Loop ramp hidd en on far
movements side of structure
High capacity Longer bridge structure than
No stopping for exiting traffic Pardo A
Stop for left turns confined to
ramp
82 Compared to 84:
Reduced property requirement• Reduced capacity
Lower construction cost
Can be used as initial stage of
84
Pardo AB Req uires property only on one • Short weaving section on
side of the crossing crossing road
Could facilitate cycle track on • Limited ca pacity
side opposite ramps
Figure 10.5.4: Pardo Interchanges
24 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
• No intersections • The weaving sections
ROTARY limit speed and capacity
INTERCHANGE • Through-traffic crossing
road intercepted
• Com plex signing
• Not suitable for future
expansion
• Requires two wide
structures
• Not in common use,
hence low driver
fami liarity
TRUMPET A
• High capacity • High property
INTERCHANGE
• No intersections requirement
• Speed management
chal lenges with
approach to loop ramp
TRU M PET B • High capacity • High property
INTERCHANGE • No intersections requirement
• Loop ramp hidden at
far side of structure
Figure 10.5.5: Rotary and Trumpet Interchanges
June 2017 25
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
Figure 10.5.3 also illustrates a number of its variations of the diamond interchange and : the split
diamond, tight urban diamond and single point urban interchange {SPUI). The split diamond has
applications where a two-way crossing road is replaced by a pair of one-way roads, about 100 m to 200
m apart. It offers more capacity than the simple diamond, but has the disadvantages that all left-turning
traffic has to travel through three intersections and requires frontage/collector roads connecting the
two one-way roads.
The SPUI brings the four ramps together at a single intersection, and has applications where property is
severely restricted. The single intersection invariably has to be signalized. This design is expensive due to
additional structure required to accommodate the ramps.
The SPUI is primarily suited for urban areas where right of way is restricted. It may also be applicable to
rural settings where an adjacent right of way is not desirable due to environmental, topographical, or
other constraints. In addition to the benefit that the SPUI can be constructed within a restricted right of
way, it also offers the operational advantage where opposing left turns operate to the left of each other,
thus eliminating a major source of traffic conflict and increasing overall intersection efficiency. A skew
angle between the two roadway alignments has an adverse effect on SPls because it increases clearance
distances and adversely affects sight distance. Extreme care should be exercised in planning SPls when
the skew angle approaches 30°. In general, SPUls are not ideal for accommodating pedestrians or
cyclists as they result in long crossing distances and reduced operating efficiency due to the need for a
separate signal crossing phase. However, some agencies (Ministry of Transportation Ontario) have
anecdotally reported good performance from a pedestrian and bicycle perspective. An alternative is to
provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities to access adjacent intersections and not the ramp terminal
intersection. Right-turn lanes at SPUI are typically separated, often by significant distance, from the left-
23
turn lanes.
Similar to the SPUI, the tight urban diamond interchange is applicable where right of way is restricted.
The two intersections are signalized to operate as one. It requires 75 to 105 metres centre to centre to
coordinate signal timing and phasing of the two intersections to gain maximum efficiency.
Considerations should be given to the snow clearance problem usually associated with diamond
interchanges due to the proximity of the ramps to the lower roadway. Under drifting conditions,
visibility on the lower roadway could be seriously restricted by snow blowing off and across the ramps
connecting to the upper road.
10.5.3.2 Pardo A Interchanges
Figure 10.5.4 illustrates parclo A interchanges. The parclo A is a partial cloverleaf interchange with the
inner loop ramps both located on the freeway approach, in advance of the crossing road. The parclo A4
is generally regarded as the most effective interchange between a freeway and an arterial road. The
parclo A design has superior operational qualities and, where property, property cost, and other
considerations permit, it is preferable to all others. The parclo A4 differs from the diamond in that the
left-turn movements from the crossing road are accommodated on loop ramps. Right-turn movements
from the crossing road are isolated from the intersections on the crossing road, and the only conflict at
the intersections is between left turn traffic exiting from the freeway and through traffic on the crossing
road. This allows two-phase signal operation. For a given area of bridge structure, the capacity is
superior to that of the diamond. The parclo A4 lends itself to signing that can be readily understood by
the driver and discourages wrong way movements on exit ramps.
The parclo A2 differs from the parclo A4 only in that the right-turn ramps from the crossing roads are
replaced by left-turn roadways to the loop ramps. This has the advantage of eliminating property
26 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
requirements in two quadrants, but reduces capacity through the intersection on the crossing road,
requiring three-phase operation if the intersection is signalized. The capacity through the intersections
can be increased by the addition of through lanes on the arterial road. This form of interchange may suit
particular sites where property is a significant consideration. The parclo A2 may also be regarded as a
stage of a future parclo A4.
To accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, free flow ramps can be replaced with ramp terminal
intersections perpendicular to the crossing road. In these situations, careful consideration of peak hour
traffic volumes is required to ensure vehicle queues on the ramps do not extend onto high speed
segments of the freeway.
10.5.3.3 Pardo B Interchanges
Figure 10.5.4 also illustrates the parclo B. The parclo Bis a partial cloverleaf with two inner loop ramps,
both located on the freeway approach beyond the crossing road . In the parclo B4, left-turn movements
from the freeway are made through loop ramps and left-turn movements from the crossing road are
through at-grade intersections, having two-phase operation.
The figure shows sections of collector lanes accommodating both freeway exits. Another option, which
is less desirable, is to provide sequential exits from the freeway and eliminate the section of collector
road.
The parclo B2 is the same as the B4, but with right-turn movements from the freeway made through the
loop ramps and additional left-turn roadways to the crossing road . This form of interchange has the
advantage of eliminating property requirements in two quadrants, but reduces intersection capacity.
This can be alleviated by increasing the number of through and turning lanes on the crossing road and
exit ramps. If the intersections are signalized, they requ ire three-phase operation .
The parclo B interchanges require traffic exiting from the freeway at high speed to decelerate
significantly before negotiating the loop ramp. This feature surprises some drivers and loops carrying
freeway exiting traffic tend to have higher collision rates.
Similar to the parclo A, free flow ramps can be replaced with ramp terminal intersections perpendicular
to the crossing road to better accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. In these situations, careful
consideration of peak hour traffic volumes is required to ensure vehicle queues on the ramps do not
extend onto high speed segments of the freeway.
10.5.3.4 Pardo AB Interchanges
Finally, 10.5.4 also illustrates also illustrates the parclo AB interchange. The parclo AB has loop ramps in
adjacent quadrants and has application where there are property and/or environmental (e.g., river, rail
line) restrictions in two adjacent quadrants on the same side of the crossing road. This form of
interchange has similar capacity and operational features to the parclo A2, B2, and diamond
interchanges, and its ramp terminals can be configured to better accommodate pedestrians and
bicycles. The parclo AB is also referred to as a folded diamond.
10.5.3.5 Rotary And Trumpet Interchanges
Figure 10.5.5 illustrates rotary and trumpet interchanges. The rotary interchange has the advantage of
eliminating intersections on the crossing road, but it has the disadvantages of interrupting through
traffic on the crossing road and introducing undesirable weaving sections. Traffic exiting from the
June 2017 27
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
freeway may also have difficulty adjusting speed and merging with traffic on the circle. In addition, such
interchanges are uncommon in Canada and hence the principle of design consistency and driver
expectation is compromised. This concern should be addressed prior to constructing a rotary
interchange.
The trumpet interchange is used in a three-leg interchange. In the trumpet A, the loop ramp carries
traffic from the crossing road to the freeway and in the trumpet B, the loop ramp carries traffic from the
freeway to the crossing road. The trumpet A is generally preferred for operational reasons; however,
property considerations often dictate the choice. If the trumpet interchange connects two arterials,
either configuration is appropriate. Trumpets are inherently high speed designs and should not be
employed in where pedestrians and bicycles are expected.
If property is severely restricted in all quadrants, an alternative treatment is a diamond interchange in
which the crossing road is terminated at the freeway (not shown).
Interchanges between freeways and collector roads are normally those types offering lower capacity:
the diamond, parclo A2, parclo B2, and parclo AB. However, local conditions will dictate the type of
interchange needed.
Multi-level directional interchanges are not usually suitable for application between freeways and
arterials. In rural areas where capacity requirements are relatively low, the construction cost of such
interchanges is unjustified whereas in urban areas, property damage is usually high and unacceptable.
"Cloverleafs" are generally inappropriate for this application, since weaving sections on both the
freeway and the crossing road produce unacceptable interruption to through traffic. All other
considerations being equal, a parclo A4 will provide better operational qualities and characteristics than
the cloverleaf, at lower property and construction costs.
10.5.4 INTERCHANGES BETWEEN ROADS OTHER THAN FREEWAYS
This section covers the interchange types for application between two arterial roads, an arterial road
and collector road, and an arterial and local road. Normally, where roads of these classifications
intersect, at-grade intersections are appropriate. If an interchange is required, it may be due either to
terrain or because an at-grade intersection cannot provide enough capacity (e.g., in areas of localized
high traffic generation). Interchanges may also be considered for intersections that experience high
collision rates.
The types of interchanges used are generally the diamond, trumpet, parclo A2, parclo B2, or parclo AB.
Normally, the orientation of the interchange is such that the ramp terminal intersections are located on
the minor road or the road of lower volume. This allows the more major or higher volume road to
operate relatively freely and to provide higher capacity. Within urban environment where the right of
way is restricted, expensive, and perhaps difficult to acquire, the predominant type of interchange
expected to be used between roads other than freeways is the diamond type, or close variant such as
24
the tight urban diamond interchange.
In most regions, drivers generally expect to experience interchanges on divided roads. Hence, care must
be taken in introducing an interchange on a two-lane or four-lane undivided facility in those regions. In
such case, it may be prudent to consider introducing a section of divided road on the major road within
the area of the interchange.
28 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.6 INTERCHANGE RAMPS
10.6.1 GENERAL
An interchange ramp is a connecting roadway, usually one-way, carrying traffic between two grade-
separated through roads. The components of an interchange ramp are the exit terminal, the ramp
proper or the connecting roadway between terminals, and the entrance terminal.
The general configuration of an interchange ramp is determined when the interchange type is selected.
The geometric features of the alignment, profile, and cross section are influenced by many design
considerations, such as traffic volume and traffic mix, geometric and operational characteristics of the
adjacent through roads, terrain, traffic control devices, the likely presence of other users, and driver
expectation. All these features are taken into account in the geometric design and detailing of
interchange ramps.
Interchange ramps carrying traffic either from or to a freeway are controlled access. Ramps between
two arterial roads or an arterial road and a collector road may have a sidewalk and may not include a
shoulder.
10.6.2 RAMP DESIGN
10.6.2.1 Design Speed
It is rarely feasible to provide ramp design speeds in the same range as the through roads, but it is
desirable that drivers be able to use ramps at as high a speed as practicable. The design speed of the
ramp, therefore, is related to the design speed of the intersecting roads.
Ramp design speeds close to the average running speeds of the through road are preferred. However,
lower design speeds are often used due to site limitations. Additionally, some ramp configurations are
chosen based on economic factors. The view of the structure, associated ramps, and approach signing
encourage drivers to reduce speed. Most drivers are willing to reduce speed if the reduction is not
excessive, if they can decelerate appropriately, and if they can travel the ramp at a reasonable speed.
Guide values for ramp design speed in terms of roadway design speed are shown in Table 10.6.1.
Tablel0.6.1: Ramp Design Speed
Roadway Design Speed Ramp Design Speed, Design Domain*
(km/h} (km/h)
60 50-40
70 60-40
80 70-40
90 80-50
100 90-50
110 100-60
120 110-60
130 110-70
*Values between upper and lower limits are applicable as determined by type of approach roads, form
of interchange, traffic mix, and environmental characteristics. The selection of design speed for trucks is
discussed below.
June 2017 29
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
These values apply to the controlling ramp curve on the ramp proper. To cover the wide variety of
intersection types and site conditions, the ramp design speed is shown as a design domain. Ramp
designs should follow the upper limit design speeds where feasible. The selection of ramp design speed
within the domain provided depends upon the type of intersecting roads, form of interchange, site
controls, traffic mix and environmental characteristics (rural or urban).
For directional ramps and outer loops, higher values within the domain in Table 10.6.1 are preferable
and should generally be used. For inner loops, the upper range values of ramp design speed are not
generally attainable. Inner loops of ramp design speeds above 50 km/h require large areas that are
rarely available, particularly in urban areas. For an urban freeway, which is usually characterized by a
narrow median, high traffic volume, short trip lengths, roadway illumination, and limited property, the
minimum inner loop design speed should be 40 km/h.
The criteria for ramp radii in Table 10.6.1, and for superelevation in Chapter 3 are adequate provided
drivers adjust their speed to levels that are less than or equal to the design speed. Safety problems on
ramp curves are most likely for vehicles travelling faster than the design speed. Under most conditions,
drivers who stay within the design speed are unlikely to lose control of their vehicles. Loss of control due
to skidding or rollover is more likely for trucks than for passenger cars and is more critical at lower
25
design speeds than at high design speeds. Designers should also be aware that low ramp speeds can
cause problems on icy superelevated curves; the designer needs to consider how the interchange will
work under winter conditions.
26
Trucks can rollover when travelling at a speed only marginally over the design speed. Therefore, it is
important to select design speeds for ramps that will minimize the likelihood of trucks travelling faster
than the design speed. As such, the lower limits of the ramp design speeds in Table 10.6.1 should not be
27
used for ramps that carry substantial volumes of truck traffic.
Where designers find it necessary to use a reduced design speed for a ramp, an assessment should be
made as to whether drivers are likely to slow down to the selected design speed. This assessment
should take into account surrounding environment, signing, traffic mix, clarity of paths, view of the
ramp, etc. If a substantial percentage of vehicles are expected to travel faster than the design speed,
there is a need to change to a higher design speed or to incorporate effective speed control measures in
the design, such as special advisory speed signing, special pavement treatments, long deceleration lane,
and use of express-collector system.
For guidance on the design of ramp terminal intersections, refer to Chapter 9.
10.6.2.2 Speed Change Lane
Drivers leaving a road at an interchange are generally required to reduce speed as they exit to a ramp.
Drivers entering a road from a ramp accelerate until the desired speed is reached. Because the
necessary change in speed is usually substantial, provision should be made for deceleration and
acceleration to be accomplished on auxiliary lanes. This will minimize interference with through traffic
and reduce collision potential. Such an auxiliary lane, including tapered lengths, is called a speed change
lane. The term speed change lane, deceleration lane, or acceleration lane applies to the added lane
adjoining the travelled way of the roadway and does not necessarily imply a definite lane of uniform
width. It is a part of the elongated ramp terminal area.
A speed change lane should have sufficient length to enable a driver to make the necessary change
between the speed of operation on the road and the speed on the turning roadway in a collision free
and comfortable manner. In addition, in the case of an acceleration lane, there should be sufficient
30 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
additional length to permit adjustments in speed of both through vehicles and entering vehicles so that
the driver of the entering vehicle can maneuver into a gap in the through traffic stream before reaching
the end of the acceleration lane. This latter requirement has much to do with both the configuration and
length of an acceleration lane.
The length of a speed change lane is based on the combination of the following three factors:
• The running speed on the through lanes: this is the speed at which drivers maneuver into the
deceleration lane or merge with the through traffic after leaving an acceleration lane.
• The control speed of the ramp proper: this is the speed at which drivers drive the controlling ramp
curve.
• The manner of decelerating or accelerating: this is how the drivers decelerate or accelerate on the
speed change lane.
Table 10.6.2 and Figure 10.6.1 show the design domains of speed change lane lengths. Speed change
lanes are designed in one of two configurations: the "direct taper" type and the "parallel" type. The
taper type works on the principle of a direct entry or exit at a flat angle, whereas the parallel type has an
added lane for speed change. These two configurations of speed change lanes are illustrated in figure
10.6.1 and discussed in the following sections on ramp terminal designs.
Tablel0.6.2: Design Length for Deceleration
Speed of roadway Length Length of Deceleration Lane Excluding Taper (m)
(km/h) of Ld
Design Assumed Taper Design Speed of Turning Roadway curve (km/h)
Operating (m) Stop 20 30 40 so 60 70 80
Li condition
60 SS-60 SS 90-llS 8S-110 80-lOS 70-90 SS-60
70 63-70 6S 110-14S lOS-140 100-130 90-120 7S-10S 60-70
80 70-80 70 130-170 120-16S llS-160 lOS-lSO 9S-130 80-lOS
90 77-90 80 1S0-19S 140-18S 13S-180 12S-170 llS-160 100-13S 80-110
100 8S-100 8S 170-21S 160-210 1SS-20S 14S-200 13S-180 120-16S 100-14S
110 91-110 90 18S-2SO 17S-24S 170-240 160-230 lS0-220 140-20S 120-190 100-16S
120 98-120 9S 200-320 190-31S 18S-310 180-30S 170-300 lSS-280 13S-270 120-240
130 lOS-130 100 21S-33S 20S-33S 200-330 190-32S 180-320 170-300 1S0-28S 13S-270
Notes: 1. The selection of ramp design speed as discussed in Subsection 10.6.2.1 should be referred
2.
The upper limit values are based on deceleration-distance curves in the Geometric Design Standards for Ontario
Highways
June 2017 31
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
~r:lle_l_e_x+i-t ________ , , --:§
-
-- --
(ii) direct taper exit
Refer to subsection 10.6.3.2 for Lt and Ld
(iii) parallel entrance
(iv) direct taper entrance
Refer to subsection 10.6.4.2 for Lt and L.
Figurel0.6.1: Speed Change Lanes
32 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.6.2.3 Gore And Bullnose
The term "gore" generally refers to the area between a through roadway and a diverging exit ramp or a
converging entrance ramp. The gore nose, commonly known as the "bullnose", is il lustrated in Figure
10.6.2. The geometric layout of the exit gore area is an important part of the exit ramp terminal design.
It is the decision area that must be clearly seen and understood by the approaching drivers. In
comparison, the entrance gore area is less of a decision area since it separates traffic streams already in
different lanes.
Painted Gore Nose
Nose 'Bullnose'
Gore Offse
exit terminal
Figurel0.6.2: Gore Area and Speed Transition Zone on Ramp Exit
Collision rates near gore areas are higher than at other locations. For this reason, the gore area is usually
kept as free of obstructions as possible and the bullnose is usually offset from traffic to provide a
recovery area for errant vehicles. The offset of the bull nose varies depending on the speeds of the road.
10.6.2.4 Sight Distance
Maintaining stopping sight distance, as discussed in Chapter 2 and measured using the criteria discussed
in Chapter 3, is regarded as the minimum requirement for ramp design. A driver travelling between
roads through an interchange carries out complex maneuvers, and the additional sight distance
discussed in Chapter 2 is desirable throughout the length of the ramp, including the ramp terminals.
Also refer to the human factors discussion in Section 10.1.3.
For curved ramps on structures, full stopping sight distance can be difficult to achieve where the bridge
barrier is not offset sufficiently from the travelled lane. A possible solution is to consider the shifting of
the travelled lane to the right or left within the total pavement width. Other types of solutions may
include widening the total pavement if full shoulders are to be maintained both left and right. Adequate
28
sight distance can be particularly difficult when severe crest vertical curves are also present.
10.6.2.5 Ramp Width
The lane width for single-lane ramps ranges from 4.8 m to 5.0 m. This is based on the premise that
interchanges carry sufficient single unit and semi-trailer vehicles to govern design requirements. It also
provides for widening on curves of radius greater than 50 m. For smaller rad ii, the width should be
June 2017 33
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
increased according to Chapter 9. Lane widths for ramps of two or more lanes should be at least 3.7 m
and adjusted for curvature according to the above-noted reference.
10.6.3 EXIT TERMINALS
Exit terminal refers to the entire transition area between the through lanes of a road and a ramp.
Two forms of terminal are used-"parallel" and "direct taper"-and each has its characteristic features.
Both types of exit terminal designs will operate satisfactorily when properly designed for the
appropriate conditions. Driver understanding-and thus safety-will be promoted, as long as uniformity
is maintained by selecting consistent type(s) of design features along a route or within a region .
Guidelines for both types of exit terminal designs are provided Tables 10.6.3 and 10.6.4 and Figures
10.8.1to10.8.3. Typical designs for entrance terminals are shown in Section 10.6.4.
10.6.3.1 Exit Terminal Design
Single-lane exit terminals may be either parallel lane design or direct taper design. In the parallel lane
design, a short length of taper is applied to develop a lane of constant width for some distance,
gradually widening to the bull nose. An exiting vehicle is intended to move into the parallel lane without
reducing its speed then decelerate steadily as it approaches the bull nose. With this design, the exiting
maneuver does not impede the flow of through traffic. In high-volume conditions, the parallel lane
allows the vehicle to exit completely from the roadway lane where the driver can concentrate more on
the ramp turning conditions. Because this requires a reverse-curve maneuver that is somewhat
unnatural, under low-volume conditions a driver may choose to avoid the reverse-curve exit path and
turn directly off the through lane further downstream into the speed change lane. This may cause
undesirable deceleration on the through lane or undesirable conflict on the speed change lane. A design
for a parallel single-lane exit terminal is illustrated in Figure 10.8.1.
In the direct taper design, the right edge of the ramp terminal has a configuration by which the roadway
gradually widens from the beginning of the ramp terminal to the bull nose. The taper is designed so that
a vehicle exiting and following the direct taper alignment is discouraged from beginning deceleration
until the vehicle is entirely on the exit terminal lane, so as to avoid impeding the travel of through
traffic. The taper exit is a natural direct path preferred by most drivers, permitting them to follow an
easy path within the diverging area. The taper design, in general, has less property requirements. The
foreshortened view of the taper, however, may not provide approaching traffic with a good view of the
terminal and ramp conditions. Further, ifthe main line is on a significant left hand curve, a direct taper
would result in a tangential alignment and could be confusing to drivers. A design for a tapered single-
lane exit terminal is illustrated in Figure 10.8.2.
In a two-lane exit terminal design on a freeway where the principle of lane balance is maintained, the
number of lanes upstream of the terminal is equal to the basic number of lanes plus one. The additional
lane is an auxiliary lane that may have been added to maintain lane balance for a two-lane exit, or as an
auxiliary lane carried from a previous entrance terminal. The normal lane arrangement for this form of
terminal is to make the auxiliary lane continuous with the right-hand lane of the ramp and the adjacent
basic lane continuous with the first basic lane downstream on the through road and also continuous
with the left lane of the ramp. With this arrangement, traffic in the auxiliary lane (also known as a "must
exit" lane) is required to take the ramp exit and traffic in the first basic lane (also known as an
"either/or" lane) can continue through on the same lane or into the left lane ofthe ramp. A design for a
two-lane exit terminal is illustrated in Figure 10.8.3.
34 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
A major fork occurs when a terminating freeway/expressway divides into two directional ramps that
connect to another crossing freeway or when a freeway branches into two connecting ramps to
separate high-speed road routes of equal importance. In a major fork, there is effectively a left exit ramp
and a right exit ramp with no through movement. A high ramp design speed should be provided. The
design of major forks is subject to the same principles of lane balance as other diverging area. A design
for a major fork is illustrated Figure 10.8.4.
10.6.3.2 Exit Terminal Length
Table 10.6.2 shows design domain for lengths of deceleration lanes in single-lane exits. For parallel lane
form, the length of the deceleration lane, Ld is measured from the end of the taper (L1). For the direct
taper form, Ld is measured from the point at which the auxiliary lane is 3.5 m wide.
The length of deceleration, Ld, is measured from the beginning of the ramp controlling curve. If the ramp
is relatively straight and ends at a stop condition, as in a diamond interchange, the taper length, Lt, may
be measured to the intersection. Measurements of L1 and Ld are illustrated in Figure 10.6.1.
The length of an exit terminal is essentially determined by the distance required for deceleration after
the vehicle has left the through lanes. As discussed in Section 10.6.2, it is based on the combination of
the following factors:
• Running speed on the through lanes
• Control speed of the ramp proper
• Manner of deceleration
• Vehicle storage capacity.
Exit ramp intersection signal timings The latter two factors are intended to ensure that exiting vehicles
do not back up onto the main line. The design domain shown in Table 10.6.2 is based on the different
assumptions applied:
• The running speed on the through lanes is assumed to be in the range of operating speeds used in
Chapter 2.
• The control speed of the ramp proper downstream of the exit terminal is included in the range of
ramp design speeds in Table 10.6.1. The speed change lane lengths corresponding to the ramp
control speeds, which are governed by the design speed of the turning roadway curve shown in
Table 10.6.2.
• The manner of deceleration includes a domain of two different concepts. For both concepts, it is
assumed that drivers travel at the beginning of the speed change lane (start of taper) at the
operating speed and the speed is maintained until the end of the taper in the case of the parallel
lane form or until the speed change lane has widened to 3.5 min taper form. The first concept,
which provides the basis of the lower values of the design domain, assumes braking begins at the
start of the parallel section (parallel lane form) or at the 3.5 m wide point (taper form) to decelerate
to the control speed of the ramp. The second concept, which provides the basis of the higher values
of the design domain, assumes that the vehicle travels for 2.0 to 4.0 seconds in gear without braking
then starts leisurely braking to achieve the control speed of the ramp. This latter condition is
considered very generous, particularly in an urban situation. Two seconds in gear is assumed for
roadway design speeds up to 110 km/h; while 4.0 seconds in gear is assumed for roadway design
speeds of 120 km/h and higher.
The operation for two-lane freeway exits is different from the single-lane exit since it may require a
longer speed change lane. The length is based on a different concept whereby the exit curve to the
June 2017 35
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
bull nose is considered to govern the maneuver of the vehicle exiting to the left-hand lane of the two
lanes. For two-lane exits, a total speed change length (Ld) of 400 m to 450 m for mainline roadway
speeds of 100 km/h or above is recommended by both AASHTO and the Geometric Design Standards for
Ontario Highways.
Where deceleration lanes are on grades equal to or steeper than 3%, the length shown in Table 10.6.2
should be adjusted by the appropriate grade factor shown in Table 10.6.3.
Tablel0.6.3: Grade Factors for Speed Change Lanes
Deceleration Lanes
Grade Design Speed of Grade Factor *
Roadway (km/h) For All Turning Roadway Design Speeds
6% to 5% up all 0.8
3% to 5% up 0.9
Less than 3% 1.0
3% to 5% down 1.2
5% to 6% down 1.4
Acceleration Lanes
Grade Design Speed of Grade Factor *
Roadway For Turning Roadway Design Speeds
(km/h) 40 so 60 70 80
6% to 5% up 60 1.5 1.5
70 1.5 1.6 1.8
80 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0
90 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2
100 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
110 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.9
3% to 5% up 60 1.3 1.3
70 1.3 1.3 1.4
80 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5
90 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5
100 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
110 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8
Less than 3% all Grade Factor *
(up or down) For Turning Roadway Design Speeds
1.0
3% to 5% down 60 0.7
70 0.7
80 0.65
90 0.6
100 0.6
110 0.6
6% to 5% down 60 0.6
70 0.6
80 0.55
90 0.5
100 0.5
110 0.5
Note :
* Grade factor= ratio of length of grade to length of level
I (a s shown in Tables 10.6.2 and 10.6.5)
36 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.6.3.3 Exit Ramp Transition Curve Criteria
With their relatively severe geometrics, interchange ramp alignments are particularly appropriate for
the use of spirals. A spiral curve beginning near the bullnose is normally inserted between the exit curve
or taper ending at the bullnose and the controll ing curve on the exit ramp, as shown in Figure 10.6.2.
If the beginning of the spiral curve is placed some distance beyond the exit bull nose, drivers tend not to
slow down until they feel the change in curvature. (This is why the introduction of a horizontal curve on
a relatively tangential urban diamond exit ramp could be beneficial.) Beginning the spiral before the
bull nose may not provide sufficient braking distance to reduce speed to that of the ramp controlling
curve. The spiral normally begins at the bull nose and ends at the controlling curve of the ramp, as
illustrated Figure 10.6.1. This spiral length is the speed transition zone.
In main line design, a spiral curve is applied to achieve a smooth transition between tangent sections
and circular curves. The spiral parameter values shown in Chapter 3 assume that a constant speed is
maintained throughout the length of the spiral. The values are based on criteria for comfort,
superelevation and aesthetics. In exit ramp design, a spiral is applied to create a transition in radius over
which there is a reduction in speed. If the minimum values shown in Chapter 3 are used, the spiral for an
exit ramp design might be too short for safety. In this case, a further criterion controls: deceleration.
The safe speed at any point on the spiral is a function of the radius, coefficient of friction, and
superelevation. The radius of a point on the spiral is inversely proportional to the distance from the
beginning of the spiral. However, even if maximum superelevation is assumed along the spiral, the safe
speed does not reduce uniformly. In fact, it reduces at a rate faster than that of a vehicle decelerating at
a uniform rate along the length of the spiral. It is this characteristic that necessitates the application of
longer spirals. With this approach, the possibility of overdriving the initial length of the spiral is reduced
by providing an adequate transition between the bull nose and the ramp controlling curve.
The spiral parameter required to provide adequate deceleration length is a function of the speed ofthe
29
vehicle at the bull nose, and can be expressed by this simplified equation:
A= 2V-80
where:
A= minimum spiral parameter, m
V =vehicle speed at the bull nose, km/h
For spiral curve design purposes, a representative speed of exiting traffic at the bull nose is taken to be
80% of the design speed of the approach roadway. The remaining deceleration is assumed to be
uniformly distributed over the length of the spiral.
In selecting a spiral parameter for the speed transition zone, the tables in Chapter 3 should be used to
ensure that comfort, superelevation and aesthetics criteria are met. The expression A= 2V-80 should
also be used to ensure that the deceleration criterion is met. The larger of the two values governs.
Table 10.6.4 gives spiral parameter values required to produce the appropriate speed reduction zone for
a range of main line and ramp design speeds.
June 2017 37
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
Tablel0.6.4: Spiral Parameter for Exit Ramp Transition Length
Main Line Design Exit Speed at Controlling speed Minimum A
Speed (km/h) Bullnose (km/h) on Ramp (km/h) (m)
130 104 70 1302
120 96 70 11S 2
110 88 70 1103
100 80 70 1103
120 96 60 11S 2
110 88 60 1002
100 80 60 8S 3
90 72 60 8S 3
80 64 60 8S 3
70 S6 60 8S 3
100 80 so 80 2
90 72 so 6S 3
80 64 so 6S 3
70 S6 so 6S 3
60 48 so 6S 3
80 64 40 S0 3
70 S6 40 S0 3
60 48 40 S0 3
Notes: 1. Exit speed at bullnose assumes 20% speed reduction of main line design speed
2. Minimum A based on deceleration length criterion
3. Minimum A based on comfort, superelevation and aesthetic value
10.6.3.4 Sight Distance To Exit Terminals
It is important that a driver approaching an exit terminal, particularly on a freeway, sees it with
sufficient time to make appropriate speed adjustments then maneuver into t he speed change lane
safely, without disrupting through traffic. Providing sight distance longer than the stopping sight
distance for the design speed, as shown in Chapter 2, is desirable. Also refer to the human factors
associated with sight distance presented in Section 10.1.3. Traffic preparing to make an exit maneuver is
a frequent occurrence and calls for a somewhat different criteria.
It is preferable for the driver to see the pavement surface at the bull nose from a distance at least equal
to decision sight distance, as illustrated on Figure 10.6.3. A range of values is provided in Chapter 2 to
reflect the variation in complexity of different cases .
38 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
-
~--
:::::!:
-- -
--
llnEl--
-
-
- -
--
-
-
- --
-- --
-
--
--
- -
--
--
--
-
--
- - -
--
- -
--
sight distance to bullnose
measured to pavement surface
~ "'0
.f:
"5
.0
height of object
height of 0.0 (pavement
driver's eye surface)
1.05 m
- -
Figurel0.6.3: Sight Distance at Exit Terminals
10.6.4 ENTRANCE TERMINALS
Entrance terminal refers to the transition area between a ramp and the through lanes of a road, to
facilitate traffic moving from the ramp to the through lane. Entrance terminals allow traffic to merge
with the through traffic at speeds close to those of the through traffic. Terminals should be designed
such that drivers are able to evaluate their position on the ramp relative to the through traffic, make a
decision, then proceed with merging.
Two forms of terminal are used-"parallel" and "direct taper"-and each has its characteristic features.
Both types of entrance terminal designs will operate satisfactorily when properly designed for the
appropriate conditions. For the "direct taper" design, some agencies are concerned about the forced
merge on the tapered entrance ramp, especially on higher speed roads.
Guidelines for both types of entrance terminal designs are provided Tables 10.6.5 and 10.6.6 and
Figures 10.8.5 to 10.8.8. Typical designs for exit terminals are shown in Section 10.6.3.
10.6.4.1 Entrance Terminal Design
Single-lane entrance terminals may be either parallel lane design or direct taper design. In the parallel
lane design, an auxiliary lane of constant width is added to the right ofthe through lanes and is
discontinued, by means of a taper, some distance downstream. The driver entering on a parallel lane is
intended to accelerate to close to through traffic speed on the parallel section of the terminal before
making a lane change into the adjacent through lane. The process of merging onto the through roadway
lane is similar to a lane change to the left. The parallel design allows, but does not direct, vehicles to
follow a taper path. However, the parallel design can include a long acceleration lane thereby providing
more time and flexibility for the merging vehicles to find a gap in the through-traffic stream. This
operational and safety benefit of the parallel lane is particularly relevant to heavy-volume conditions
when headway is short and traffic gaps are infrequent. A design for a parallel single-lane entrance
terminal is illustrated in Figure 10.8.5.
June 2017 39
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
The direct taper follows a direct alignment from the entrance bull nose to the edge of the through lane
some distance downstream, to allow a vehicle to accelerate to close to through speed before
encroaching on the adjacent through lane. The taper design in general has fewer property requirements.
The taper design provides a more natural and direct path but offers a short merging length compared to
the parallel lane configuration. Short merging length is a concern under heavy-volume conditions. A
design for a tapered single-lane entrance terminal is illustrated in Figure 10.8.7.
NCHRP 730 suggests that vehicles on tapered entrances tend to merge at speeds closer to speeds on the
30
mainline. However, parallel entrances are more appropriate for heavy volume merges.
Where the main line is on a significant right-hand curve, the visibility is limited and the direct taper
could be less effective because the angle of convergence is too great. The parallel design allows the
driver in the merging vehicle to observe conditions on the main line.
Two-lane entrances, for the most part, apply to freeways and rarely have application on intersecting
roads. An auxiliary lane is added to maintain the principles of basic lanes and lane balance, and may be
discontinued further downstream or carried forward to the next exit.
The two-lane entrance may be of the parallel or direct taper form of design. In the parallel form, the left
ramp lane is continuous with the auxiliary lane downstream, and the right lane is continued for some
distance beyond the bullnose then merged with the adjacent lane. A design for a parallel two-lane
entrance terminal is illustrated in Figure 10.8.6. In the taper design, the left lane is merged with the
adjacent through lane, and the right lane becomes continuous with the auxiliary lane. A design for a
tapered two-lane entrance terminal is illustrated in Figure 10.8.7.
10.6.4.2 Entrance Terminal Length
The length of an entrance terminal is determined by the distance required to accelerate from the speed
as determined by the ramp controlling curve to through road speeds, and by the distance required to
complete a safe and convenient merge with through traffic.
Table 10.6.5 shows the design domain for lengths of acceleration lanes. For parallel lane form, the
length of the acceleration lane, L., is measured to the beginning of the taper (L1). For the direct ramp
curve, La is measured to the point at which the auxiliary lane is 3.5 m wide. Acceleration lengths, La, are
measured from the end of the ramp controlling curve. Measurement of L1 and La is illustrated in Figure
10.6.1.
As discussed in Section 10.6.2, the length of an entrance terminal is based on the combination of the
following factors:
• Merging with the through traffic
• Control speed of the ramp proper
• Manner of acceleration
• Vehicle storage capacity
• Exit ramp intersection signal timings.
The merging speed with the through traffic is assumed to be the range of operating speeds used in
Chapter 2.
The control speed of the ramp proper at the upstream of the entrance terminal is included in the range
of ramp design speeds shown in Table 10.6.1. The speed change lane lengths corresponding to the ramp
40 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
control speeds, which are governed by the design speed of the turning roadway curve, are shown in
Table 10.6.5.
The manner of acceleration assumes an increase of speed based on the acceleration of passenger cars
31 32
tested in the U.S.
Where acceleration lanes are on grades steeper than 3%, the length shown in Table 10.6.5 should be
adjusted by the appropriate grade factor given in Table 10.6.3.
The length of an entrance terminal also depends on the relative volumes of through and entering traffic.
Longer entrance terminals (i.e., higher values of the design domain in Table 10.6.5) are desirable on
higher volume roads to allow entering traffic to merge with through traffic safely and conveniently.
Trucks and buses require longer acceleration lanes than passenger cars. Where a substantial number of
large vehicles entering the road is expected, longer acceleration lanes are appropriate. Refer also to
Sections 10.1.4.17 and 10.1.4.18.
Research has shown that safety can be increased on acceleration lanes with increased length, especially
for high-speed facilities.
Where the entrance terminals occur on a crest curve, sight distances to the lane drop may be affected;
longer acceleration lanes will then be required, as discussed in Section 10.6.4.
Tablel0.6.5: Design Length for Acceleration
Speed of roadway Length Length of Acceleration Lane Excluding Taper (m)
(km/h) of ._,.
Design Assumed Taper Design Speed of Turning Roadway curve (km/h)
Operating (m) Stop 20 30 40 so 60 70 80
Li condition
60 55-60 55 85-115 70-100 60-80 45-60 20-35
70 63-70 65 120-60 115-150 100-135 80-115 50-85 15-40
80 70-80 70 160-225 150-215 130-200 115-185 85-160 40-100
90 77-90 80 215-325 200-310 180-300 160-285 140-250 50-200 40-145
100 85-100 85 275-450 250-440 240-420 225-405 200-375 140-325 100-285 40-230
110 91-100 90 330-650 320-645 305-630 290-600 260-575 210-525 150-475 100-410
120 98-120 95 410-730 400-725 375-710 370-690 340-660 285-590 250-515 135-430
130 105-130 100 550-885 540-880 510-870 500-850 470-820 400-745 340-655 300-550
Notes : 1. The selection of ramp design speed as discussed in Subsection 10.6.2.1 should be referred
2. The acceleration distance curves in 1994 AASHTO are used in developing the design domain
10.6.4.3 Entrance Ramp Transition Curve Criteria
In entrance ramp design, a spiral is introduced near the bull nose, between the ramp controlling curve
and the entrance curve or taper to achieve a smooth transition. Acceleration starts at the beginning of
the spiral and usually continues beyond the spiral on the ramp terminal section. The radius of the spiral
increases to accommodate the increasing speed of the vehicle accelerating. The spiral parameter needs
to be small enough to provide a sufficiently rapid rate of increase in radius to match the acceleration of
the vehicle. Conversely, the spiral parameter needs to be sufficiently large to ensure that the comfort,
superelevation, and aesthetic criteria are met. The spiral parameter can be selected from the range
given in Table 10.6.6.
June 2017 41
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
Tablel0.6.6: Spiral Parameter for Entrance Ramp Transition Curves
Ramp Controlling curve Speed Design Domain of Spiral
(km/h) Parameter (m)
40 50-80
50 65-130
60 85-140
70 110-280
80 125-360
10.6.4.4 Sight Distance At Entrance Terminals
At entrance terminals, the driver is looking for a gap in the traffic in the adjacent lanes to complete a
lane change and merge with traffic. A driver therefore has to look back to find an appropriate gap. This
view is best provided by maintaining the vertical alignment of the ramp near the bull nose at elevations
similar to, or above, those of the through road. If the ramp is significantly lower, the driver might have
some difficulty completing a safe merge. If the ramp is higher, the driver normally has good visibility
unless the view is obscured by a traffic barrier or other visual barrier.
A driver begins accelerating from the ramp controlling circular curve some distance before the bullnose,
usually near the beginning of the spiral curve. At this point, the driver looks for a gap in the stream of
traffic in the adjacent lane. The line of sight is taken to be at 120° from the direction of travel and the
object to be seen is taken to be in the centre of the adjacent lane, 1.0 m above the pavement surface.
This is illustrated in Figure 10.6.4. To merge safely, a driver ideally requires a view of the entire speed
change lane at the bull nose, as illustrated in Figure 10.6.4. The driver may not have this view if the
speed change lane is on a crest curve, in which case the vertical alignment should be adjusted so as to
shift the crest curve away from the speed change lane. If this is not feasible, either the speed change
lane should be lengthened or the crest curve should be flattened to provide, preferably, decision sight
distance to the end of the taper, as discussed in Chapter 2.
10.6.5 RAMP TERMINAL SPACING
Successive ramp terminals on freeways/expressways or within an interchange are spaced to allow
drivers to make decisions in sufficient time to make safe maneuvers.
In the case of successive exits, the distance is based on the provision of adequate signing. In the case of
successive entrances, the length is based on the merging maneuver length required for the first
entrance.
An entrance followed by an exit terminal creates a weaving condition, which is discussed in Chapter 3.
The distance between an exit that is followed by an entrance needs to be sufficient to allow a vehicle on
a through lane to prepare for the merge ahead after passing the exit bullnose. Figure 10.6.5 shows the
minimum values for ramp terminal spacing based on design speeds. Additional distances may be
required to ensure signing requirements are met.
10.6.6 SAFETY AND DESIGN OVERVIEW
The fundamental principle of an interchange is to move the interchange in a safe and efficient manner.
The ability of an interchange to accommodate drivers in this manner is closely related to the efficiency
42 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
with which information is provided to the driver and with the degree to which driver expectancy is met
at the interchange.
Interchanges present motorists with a complex set of decisions that require quick evaluation and action.
Designers can reduce drivers' stress at interchanges by keeping the alignment simple and direct,
maintaining design consistency, providing sight distances greater than the minimum stopping sight
distances, and using above-minimum design criteria for other geometric elements.
Collisions on ramps and connecting roads generally increase with traffic volume and with decreasing
33
curve radius. It also appears that upgrade exit ramps have lower collision rates. It is therefore
preferable, from a safety view point, for the connecting road to pass over the freeway or higher speed
road. The use of collector lanes for high volume interchanges enhances safety, especially where loop
34
ramps are used. The use of a collector introduces an intermediate-speed facility between the freeway
and the off-ramp, thereby encouraging deceleration before entering the off-ramp.
A number of tools are available to help designers assess road safety impacts associated with ramp
geometric design decisions. These tools include IHSDM and the Highway Safety Manual crash prediction
models for different interchange and ramp configurations.
One of the key issues related to interchange design involves heavy truck incidents at interchanges. In
general, tight radius curves on ramps and short speed change lanes cause problems for heavy trucks.
Truck incidents on interchange ramps generally involve loss of control, leading to rollover or jack-knife.
35 36
Recent research has identified many factors that promote truck safety, including: reducing the
speed differential between the ramp and the main line; checking for potential rollover problems;
providing an adequate deceleration lane; eliminating curbs on the outside of curves; avoiding a steep
down grade followed by sharp horizontal curves; and providing a pavement with an adequate friction
level. In addition, speed control devices and warnings are applied when required.
To improve the design of complex interchange configurations, consider the interrelationship of
horizontal alignment, vertical alignment, and superelevation and the effects they have on the driver.
This discussion has focused on the interchange ramp design and its impacts on vehicle traffic. In urban
locations where it may be necessary to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle activity, careful
consideration of the ramp terminal design is required. Additional guidance in this matter can be found in
Chapters 5, 6 and 9.
June 2017 43
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
(i) line of sight
----
-
a;
sight distance to end of taper $"
e--~~-m~ea_s_u-re_d_t_o_p_a-ve-m~en_t_s_u_rt_ac-e~~~-i o
"O
c
OJ
height of
driver's eye height of object
1.05 m 0.0 (pavement
surtace)
(ii) sight distance
Figurel0.6.4: Line of Sight and Sight Distance at Entrance Terminals
44 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
successive exits on a freeway successive exits on a ramp exit followed by entrance
77
7·~ .. ' ~j .
entrance followed by exit successive entrances successive entrances
on opposite sides
(applicable to express-
collector systems)
1 main line design speed (km/h)
spacing
(m) 80 90 100 110 120 130
L1 300 325 350 375 400 425
L2 200 225 250 275 300 325
L3 150 175 175 200 200
150
L. Refer to weaving requirements in Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration
L5 Sufficient to allow for acceleration and merging length before second entrance
L6 60 % of Ls
Note: 1. Minimum lengths from bullnose to bullnose
Figure 10.6.5: Ramp Terminal Spacing
June 2017 45
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.7 OTHER INTERCHANGE DESIGN FEATURES
10.7.1 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
A series of proposed interchanges or a proposed single ramp exit/entrance can be subjected to an
operational analysis, including capacity and design features, after the planning or preliminary design
stage. The operational analysis is a test for ease of operation and for route continuity from a driver's
point of view, both of which are affected by the location, proximity, sequence of exits and entrances,
merging and diverging movements, necessary weaving, practicability of signing, visibility of the target
destination, and clarity of paths to be followed. The operational analysis can be considered as an
application of the "driver workload" approach to the evaluation of design consistency.
A route may be tested by isolating a single path of travel and examining it only with regard to other
features of the layout that will affect a driver on the path being tested. The test can be made using an
overall plan on which the number of traffic lanes, the peak hour volumes, the expected running speeds,
the visibilities of downstream features, and the signing are shown.
The operational analysis indicates whether or not confusion is likely due to the proximity of exits and
entrances, or if traffic conflict is likely because of weaving movements. It should illustrate also the clarity
of the path and the feasibility of signing. The test may show that the path is easy to travel and direct, or
it may show that the path is overly complex and confronted with disturbing elements that require
adjustments in design.
The operational analysis can also include a check of the design adequacy (e.g., deceleration length and
ramp radius) along with tests for ease of operation. This is a particularly useful approach to check the
overall design of interchanges that have non-typical configurations.
10.7.2 RAMP METERING
Ramp metering consists of traffic signals installed on entrance ramps in advance of the entrance
terminal to control the timing and number of vehicles entering the freeway. The traffic signal may be
pre-timed or traffic-actuated to release the entering vehicles individually or in platoons.
The purpose of ramp metering is to reduce congestion or improve merge operations on urban freeways.
This strategy has been proven effective in many applications throughout North America. Ramp metering
can optimize freeway vehicle flows and improve merge area safety through uniform spacing of entering
vehicles.
The ramp metering system can include the following:
• Stop bar marking upstream of the ramp bull nose
• Passage loop downstream of the stop bar to monitor vehicles released from the queue
• Ramp control signs
• Demand detector loops upstream of stop bar
• Upstream queue detector on the ramp immediately downstream of the arterial street bull nose
• Freeway detector loop on the upstream approach to determine available gaps.
Provisions for ramp metering bypass lanes may be required for potential implementation of high
occupancy vehicle priority features. The suitability of ramp configurations to accommodate bypass lanes
hinges on the availability of required length along the ramp.
46 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.7.3 BUS INTERFACE
Accommodating transit on a freeway can lead to or support a high level of transit service in larger cities.
An interchange can provide a transfer point between freeway bus service and local bus feeder service
and, potentially, commuter parking facilities.
Design considerations of bus interface at interchanges include the following:
• Safety
• Capital costs
• Alignment and geometrics
• Intended operation with respect to interface location, platform facilities, and local bus facilities
• Effect on crossing and bus road access/egress locations.
Sufficient sight distance on the bus route is important for maintaining safe and efficient operation of the
buses. Interfaces at interchanges should be located as closely as practicable to crossing roads of suitable
geometrics and ridership potential. Walking distances should be minimized between local and freeway
buses. Increasingly, commuter parking facilities are being constructed near the transfer points. To
accommodate the resulting pedestrian traffic, appropriate facilities should be provided. In some
instances, these facilities may require grade separation.
On diamond-type ramps, the bus interface may consist of a widened shoulder area adjacent to the ramp
roadway or may be on a separate road. Generally, a bus interface provided on the entrance ramp is
preferred. Bus interfaces are more difficult to provide effectively within cloverleaf or directional-type
37
interchanges. Guidelines have been developed for use in preliminary design of parclo A interchanges
where bus interfaces are to be protected. Typica l bus interfaces at diamond interchange and at parclo A
interchange are shown in Figure 10.7.1. Bus interfaces may also be provided through a nodal transfer
(e.g. station) with vertical circulation to accommodate passenger transfers between freeway services
and local services on the overpass.
~ bu sstop
-([}[$:-
~ bus stop
( i ) transit interface at diamond interchange
( i ) transit interface at parclo A interchange
Figure 10.7.1: Typical Bus Interface at Interchange
June 2017 47
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.7.4 GRADING AND LANDSCAPING DEVELOPMENT
Grading at an interchange is determined mainly by the alignments, profiles, cross-sections, and drainage
requirements for the intersecting roads and ramps. Contour grading can be designed to increase safety
and enhance aesthetics. Flat slopes should be used where feasible, to increase safety and to enhance
the appearance of the area. V-ditches and small ditches with steep side slopes are usually avoided.
Drainage channels and related structures should be as inconspicuous and maintenance-free as feasible.
The need for a "forgiving" roadside on the outside of curves is particularly important for tighter
interchange ramps.
Contour design is usually applied to residual areas of land in interchange areas between ramps to create
noise berms and for material disposal areas. These areas can be graded with varying slopes to give an
undulating and natural looking appearance. Contour design is carried out in conjunction with drainage
design with consideration for safety and, where appropriate, in conjunction with landscaping. Residual
pockets of land in interchange areas, particularly loop ramps, can be used to dispose of surplus material
and to minimize spoil. Conversely, they may be used to generate additional excavation and to minimize
borrow. When placing fill in loop ramp areas, care must be taken not to compromise sight distance
requirements. The land areas inside loops and ramps may also provide opportunities for stormwater
management, spill containment, and salt maintenance management.
Grading of areas on the back slope can be contoured to match the adjacent topography and can greatly
improve the aesthetics of the road. This can be accomplished, in part, by rounding the edge of the
interface between the cut of slope and the adjacent hillside, and feathering the ends of slopes. Another
successful technique is to mimic the surrounding topography by using a 3.0 m rounding at the top and
38
toe of slopes to enhance the appearance of the roadside.
Proposed plantings should be selected with regard to the ultimate growth. Improperly located shrubs or
trees may seriously shorten horizontal sight distance on curves and seriously interfere with lateral sight
distance between adjacent roadways. Even low-lying ground covers can seriously shorten sight distance
on curved ramps.
Trees or shrubs may be used to outline travel paths or to give drivers a sense of an obstruction ahead.
For example, the ends of a directional island or approach bullnose may be planted with low-growing
shrubs that will be seen from a considerable distance and direct the driver's attention to the necessity
for a turn. These shrubs should not be of the type that could cause vehicle damage on impact, nor
should they ever obscure signs or warning devices.
Chapter 7 provides guidance on minimum clear zones. Distances greater than the minimum are often
necessary because of overhanging branches being a distraction, and leaves on the roadway reducing the
skid resistance, especially when wet. In areas where ice and snow are a problem, all trees should be
planted an adequate distance from the travelled way to allow for snow drifting and to prevent icing in
shaded areas.
48 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
10.8 TYPICAL INTERCHANGE DESIGN FEATURES
Examples of typical designs for ramp terminals, both tapered and parallel, for exits and entrances, are
shown in Figures 10.8.1to10.8.7, followed by examples of at-grade intersections of ramps with crossing
arterial roads for various interchange types in Figures 10.8.8 to 10.8.12. These designs should be
regarded as typical rather than "standard", and are for the guidance of the designer. In some cases, rigid
adherence to these designs may produce unsatisfactory operation. Dimensions are typical and variations
are required to suit local conditions of alignment, grade, profile, traffic volume, traffic mix, and local
physical and environmental features. Additional detailing may also be required.
r edge of pavement
ff-==== gutter
~R= 1 .2 curb
L edge of pavement -
40
L, Le
main line para llel transition w z
taper
class design speed lane A L, A Le Offset Offset
(km/h) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
RCU 100 85 20 125 45 350 40
RAU
RAD 120 95 60 125 45 350 40
80 70 20 1000 120 3.5
normal
RFD 100 85 60 1500 150 3.5 shou lder
UFD 120 95 80 2000 170 3.5
width
130 100 90 3000 210 3.5
* sp iral parameter determ ined by design speed and rad ius of turn ing roadway
Figure 10.8.1: Typical Design Exit Terminal Parallel Single Lane
June 2017 49
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
edge of pavement
40
circu lar R 1 circular R 2
L1 L2
main line circular R 1 circu lar R 2 w z
class design speed Offset Offset
R, L, Rz L,
(km/h) (m) (m) (m) (m)
rura l:
RCU
60 2000 60 2000 125 rural : 3.5 normal
RAD urban : 1.5 shoulder
80 2000 60 3000 145
UAD width
RCU 100 2000 60 3000 150 3.5
urban : 0
RAU 110 2000 60 4000 165 3.5
80 2000 60 5000 200 3.5
normal
RFD 100 2000 60 10000 235 3.5
shoulder
UFO 120 2000 60 15000 255 3.5
width
130 2000 60 15000 255 3.5
*spiral parameter determined by design speed and rad ius of turn ing roadway
Figure 10.8.2: Typical Design Exit Terminal Tapered Single Lane
50 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
edge of pavement
40
~ 1 .2
circu lar R 1 circular R 2
L1
main line circular R 1 circular R 2 w z
class design speed R, L, R, L, Offset Offset
(km/h) ( m) (m) (m) (m)
60 2000 60 2000 150 1.2
UAD 0
80 2000 60 3000 175 1.5
80 2000 60 5000 235 3.5
RFD normal
100 2000 60 10000 285 3.5
UFO shou lder
120 2000 60 15000 310 3.5
width
130 2000 60 15000 310 3.5
*Spiral parameter determined by design speed and rad ius of turn ing roadway.
Figure 10.8.3: Typical Design Exit Terminal Two Lane
June 2017 51
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
r edge of pavement
"--: ]!
"'"'0
curb
~ R = 1.2
".
gutter
\"")~
0
L .edge of pavement
187 123
I
circular R
I 7000
I-"'
40 --l
~
I
--- I
1.2
~ F= >- shoulder:~
circular R - 7000
/-. 40
--l
-
I 187
I 123
I
Figure 10.8.4: Typical Design Major Fork
52 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
l edge of pavement
curb \ R = 0 .8
gutter _ _ __.,_;_ _
l edge of pavement
======::::=::=~:3'.wc=======:~c~1.2~--- _ _ _ _ _ _ __
~
circu lar R para llel lane taper
main line w circu lar R parallel
class design speed Offset lane taper
R L
(km/h ) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
RCU 100 0.8 2000 120 170 85
RAU 120 0.8
RAD 2000 120 350 95
UAD 100 2000 105 185 85
80 3.0 2000 150 70
RFD 100 3.0 3000 185 105 85
UFO 120 3.0 4000 215 255 95
130 3.0 5000 240 310 100
Figure 10.8.5: Typical Design Entrance Terminal Parallel Single Lane
June 2017 53
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
r edge of pavement
c"rb
~~~~) R = 0. 8
gutter ---~--
L edge of pavement
cirular R para I lel lane taper
taper
main line w circu lar R parallel
taper
design speed Offset R L1 lane
(km/h) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
UAD 100 2000 135 210 85
80 3.0 2000 135 25 70
RFD 100 3.0 3000 165 125 85
UFD 120 3.0 4000 190 280 95
130 3.0 5000 215 335 100
UCU 60 and UCU 80 values use tapered design; see 10.8. 7
Figure 10.8.6: Typical Design Entrance Terminal Parallel Two Lane
54 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
edge of pavement
Notes:
curb .8 1. For a two-lane entrance, the parallel entrance terminal
gutter treatment is preferred; see Figure 10.8.6
edge of pavement 2. Figure not intended to be used for line painting purposes
e ::6 5 1.a
~___LL _
1
_-----11
soira l ta noent circu lar R 2000
main li ne L (m)
class design speed M w ra mo desian soeed r km/h )
( km/h) (m ) (m) 40 50 60 70 80
RCU
100 1' -30' 172 0.75 330 290 230
RAD
120 1' -1 5' 206 0.75 500 470 430 360
UAD
RCU
RAD 60 2'-30' 103 60 20
ucu 80 2' -00' 129
UAU 170 140 90
UAD
80 1' -30' 172 3.0 170 140 90
RF D 100 1' -1 5' 206 3.0 330 290 230
UFO 120 1' -00' 258 3.0 500 470 430 360
130 1·-00· 258 3.0 550 520 460 380
Figure 10.8.7: Typical Design Entrance Terminal Tapered Single and Two Lane
June 2017 SS
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
for ramp terminals , see
Figures 10.8.9 and 10.8.10
exit terminal according
to Figures 10.8.1 to 10.8.3
Figure 10.8.8: Typical Design Entrance Ramp for Pardo A
56 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
.,,
\\
see offset
insert 3.0 m
10m
(I) This treatment is preferred
when designing for pedestrians .
See Chapters 5 and 6 for
a discussion of pedestrian
and cyclist guidance
through the interchange
.,,
\\
0.8 m
(ii) Applicable for interchanges
mainly in rural settings or in
urban locations where
pedestrians are not
expected
Q)
u ro
c c
E
~ ....
+-'
c Q)
LU +-'
Figure 10.8.9: Two Quadrant Pardo A Ramp Terminal
June 2017 57
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
"'0
II
"'
edge of pavemen t
"!
II
"'
H
"!
II
"'
Figure 10.8.10: Four Quadrant Pardo A Ramp Terminal
58 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
11
spiral E
0
curb
spiral
(I) This treatment is preferred
when designing for pedestrians.
See Chapters 5 and 6 for
a discussion of pedestrian
and cyclist guidance
through the interchange
11
see
insert
(ii) Applicable for interchanges
mainly in rural settings or in
urban locations where
pedestrians are not
expected
Figure 10.8.11: Two Quadrant Pardo B Ramp Terminal
June 2017 59
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 Interchanges
gutter
edge of pavement
Applicable for interchanges
located mainly in rural settings
or in urban locations where
pedestrians are not
expected ;u
II
0
"'
Figure 10.8.12: Four Quadrant Pardo B Ramp Terminal
60 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
10.9 REFERENCES
1 American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO). 2010. "Part D: Crash Modification Factors,"
Highway Safety Manual 1st Edition Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway Officials.
2 Adapted from Cirillo, J. A. 1967. "Interstate System Accident Research Study II. Interim Report Part 1."
Highway Research Record 188, pp.1-7.
3 Mccartt, A.T., Northrup V.S., and Retting, R.A. 2004. "Types and Characteristics of Ramp-Related
Motor Vehicle Crashes on Urban Interstate Roadways in Northern Virginia," Journal of Safety Research
35(1), pp. 107-114.
4 Torbic, D. et al. 2012. NCHRP Report 730: Design Guidance for Freeway Mainline Ramp Terminals.
Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
5 Rockwell, T.H., Bhise, V.D. and Nemeth, Z.A. 1973. Development of a Computer-based Tool for
Evaluating Visual Field Requirements of Vehicles in Merging and Intersection Situations. Final Report of
Project RF3306. New York, NY: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
6 Chang, M., Kim, J., Kang, K., and Moon, Y. 2001. " Evaluation of driver's psychophysiological load at
freeway merging area." Proceedings of the Bdh Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
7 McDonald, L.B. and Ellis, N.C. 1975. "Driver workload for various turn radii and speeds." Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
8 Rockwell, T.H., Bhise, V.D. and Nemeth, Z.A. 1973. "Development of a Computer-based Tool for
Evaluating Visual Field Requirements of Vehicles in Merging and Intersection Situations." Final Report
of Project RF3306. New York : Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
9 Robinson, G., Erickson, D., Thurston, G., Clark, R., 1972. "Visual Search by Automobile Drivers". Human
Factors 14 (4), pp . 315-323.
10 McGee, H.W., Moore, W., Knapp, B.G., and Sanders, J.H. 1978. Decision Sight Distance for Highway
Design and Traffic Control Requirements. Report FHWA-RD-78-78, Washington DC: US Department of
Transportation.
11 Lee, S.E., Olson E.C.B., and Wierwille, W.W . 2004. A Comprehensive Examination of Naturalistic Lane-
changes. Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
12 McNees, RW. 1982. "In-situ Study Determining Lane-maneuvering Distance for Three and Four-lane
Freeways for Various Traffic Volume Conditions." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board No. 869. Washington DC : Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, pp. 37-43.
13 McGee, H.W., Moore, W., Knapp, B.G., and Sanders, J.H. 1978. Decision Sight Distance for Highway
Design and Traffic Control Requirements. Report FHWA-RD-78-78. Washington DC: US Department of
Transportation.
14 Parma, K., Fitzpatrick, K., and Krammes, R. January 1999. "Predicting speed on tangents using
alignment indices." TRB 78th Annual Meeting, Paper 990124. Washington DC: Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies.
June 2017 61
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
15 Schmidt, F., and Tiffin, J. 1969. "Distortion of Drivers' Estimates of Automobile Speed as a Function of
Speed Adaptation." Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(6), pp. 536-539.
16 Goodwin, D.N. 1976. NCH RP Report 175: Freeway Lane Drops. Washington DC: Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies.
17 Ockert, C.W., and Walker, C.R. 1968. "Criteria to Be Used in Developing Warrants for Interchanges on
Rural Expressways." Highway Research Record 244. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, pp. 69-89.
18 Bonneson, J.A., McCoy, P.T. and Eitel, D.S. 1993. "Interchange Versus At-Grade Intersection on Rural
Expressways." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No.
1395. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 39-47.
19 Twomey, J.M., Heckman, M.L., and Haward, J.C. 1992. "Interchanges" in Safety Effectiveness of
Highway Design Features. Report FHWA-RD-91-047. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
20 Ray, B. L. et al. 2011. NCHRP Report 687: Guidelines for Ramp and Interchange Spacing. Washington
DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
21 Le, T. and Porter, R.J. 2012. "Safety Evaluation of Geometric Design Criteria for Spacing of Entrance-
Exit Ramp Sequence and Use of Auxiliary Lanes." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board No. 2309, pp. 12-20.
22 Moon, J.P. and Hummer, J.E. 2009. "Development of Safety Prediction Models for Influence Areas of
Ramps in Freeways." Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, 1 (1), pp. 1-17.
23 American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO). 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington DC: American Association of State Highway Officials,
pp. 10-42-10-45.
24 Kruger, T.J., et al. 1991. Design Guidelines and Other Considerations for Strategic Arterial Streets.
FHWA/TX-92+1107-4. Austin, TX: Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin.
25 Harwood, D.W. and Mason, J.M. 1993. "Ramp/ Mainline Speed Relationships and Design
Considerations". Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No.
1385. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 121-125.
26 Ervin, R.D. 1986. "Effects of Expressway Ramps on Control of Tractor-Semitrailers." UMTRI Research
Review, Vol. 16, No. 4. Ann Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, pp. 1-
15.
27 Sanderson, R.W. 1996. The Need for Cost-Effective Guidelines to Enhance Truck Safety. Ottawa, ON:
Transportation Association of Canada .
28 Leisch, J.P. 1989. "Horizontal Sight Distance Consideration in Freeway and Interchange
Reconstruction". Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No.
1208. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 80-84.
29 Roads and Transportation Association of Canada. 1986 [updated 1994]. "Appendix A: Basis of
Standards". Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, 1986 Metric Edition. Ottawa, ON: Roads and
Transportation Association of Canada, now Transportation Association of Canada (TAC).
30 Torbic, D. J. et al. 2012. NCHRP Report 730: Design Guidance for Freeway Mainline Ramp Terminals.
Washington DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
62 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Chapter 10 - Interchanges
31 American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO). 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington DC: American Association of State Highway Officials.
pp . 10-42-10-45.
32 Olson, P.L. et al. 1984. NCHRP Report 270: Parameters Affecting Stopping Sight Distance. Wash ington
DC : Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
33 Twomey, J.M., Heckman, M.L., and Hayward, J.C. 1992. Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design
Features, Vol. IV: Interchanges. Report FHWA-RD-91 -047 . Washington DC: Federal Highway
Administration .
34 Ibid .
35 Technical Committee 5B-28. 1992. Geometric Design and Operational Considerations for Trucks.
Washington DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
36 Janson, B.N., Awad , W., Robles. J. January.1998. "Truck Accidents at Freeway Ramps: Data Analysis
and High-Risk Site Identification ." Journal of Transportation and Statistics 1(1), pp. 75-92.
37 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 1994. " Chapter G" in Geometric Design Standards for
Ontario Highways. Ontario: Ministry of Transportation .
38 Highway Engineering Branch. 1991. Manual of Aesthetic Design Practice. Victoria BC: Ministry of
Transportation and Highways, p. 71.
June 2017 63
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
GLOSSARY
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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 lanes.
June 2017 G-5
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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 pa int lines, between the
edge ofthe 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 Guiderail See Barrier.
Guidelines Outlines of acceptable practice.
G-6 June 2017
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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 lane 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 {ISD) 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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 min imum 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 Trai l (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 veh icle.
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 w idth 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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.)
Pardo 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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 typ ical 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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.
Shared 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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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
trave l.
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
Glossary
TERM DEFINITION/ DESCRIPTION
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
You might also like
- HD-MISC - MTO Design Supplement For TAC GDG - 2023-10No ratings yetHD-MISC - MTO Design Supplement For TAC GDG - 2023-10608 pages
- Chapter 10 - Interchanges - Geometric Design Guide For Canadian RoadsNo ratings yetChapter 10 - Interchanges - Geometric Design Guide For Canadian Roads96 pages
- Chapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration - GDGCRNo ratings yetChapter 3 - Alignment and Lane Configuration - GDGCR188 pages
- Hyundai Sonata (2009 - 2010) - Fuse Box DiagramNo ratings yetHyundai Sonata (2009 - 2010) - Fuse Box Diagram8 pages
- AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 4th Ed 2011 PDF86% (35)AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 4th Ed 2011 PDF316 pages
- 100 Bonus Transportation Theory Questions (V2 - Rev 0)No ratings yet100 Bonus Transportation Theory Questions (V2 - Rev 0)42 pages
- Toaz - Info Exhibitor List Till 17 Dec 2009 PRNo ratings yetToaz - Info Exhibitor List Till 17 Dec 2009 PR311 pages
- 3 - Guide For The Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrain Facilities100% (7)3 - Guide For The Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrain Facilities142 pages
- 2011 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide-V4 - Werrata78% (9)2011 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide-V4 - Werrata345 pages
- Highway Geometric Design Guide (Completed)100% (3)Highway Geometric Design Guide (Completed)685 pages
- Guide For Design Pavement Structure - Rev4-1993-Current100% (5)Guide For Design Pavement Structure - Rev4-1993-Current594 pages
- AASHTO Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide A Manual of Practice 2nd Ed 2015 PDF50% (4)AASHTO Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide A Manual of Practice 2nd Ed 2015 PDF227 pages
- Chapter 26 - Freeway and Highway Segments Supplemental - 700No ratings yetChapter 26 - Freeway and Highway Segments Supplemental - 700128 pages
- 4 - Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide-August 2015 Second Edition100% (4)4 - Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide-August 2015 Second Edition213 pages
- 3 - Roadside Design Guide - 4th Edition (Errata July 2015 Included)100% (7)3 - Roadside Design Guide - 4th Edition (Errata July 2015 Included)345 pages
- SECOND EDITION. Guidelines For Geometric Design of Low-Volume Roads13% (8)SECOND EDITION. Guidelines For Geometric Design of Low-Volume Roads20 pages
- Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets PDF100% (6)Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets PDF942 pages
- AGRD01-21 Guide To Road Design Part 1 Objectives of Road Design Ed5.1100% (2)AGRD01-21 Guide To Road Design Part 1 Objectives of Road Design Ed5.1201 pages
- Usace - em - 1110-2-1601 - Hydraulic Design of Flood Control ChannelsNo ratings yetUsace - em - 1110-2-1601 - Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels183 pages
- Physical Characteristics: Nov 23, 2021 ICAO Annex 14 Training Course 1100% (1)Physical Characteristics: Nov 23, 2021 ICAO Annex 14 Training Course 174 pages
- Chapter 29 - Urban Street Facilities Supplemental - 600100% (1)Chapter 29 - Urban Street Facilities Supplemental - 600108 pages
- Chapter 31 - Signalized Intersections Supplemental - 700No ratings yetChapter 31 - Signalized Intersections Supplemental - 700167 pages
- Group 4, Freud's Theory On SocializationNo ratings yetGroup 4, Freud's Theory On Socialization35 pages
- Revised Road Safety Design Manual - June 1, 2011100% (1)Revised Road Safety Design Manual - June 1, 2011165 pages
- Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments PDF100% (2)Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments PDF68 pages
- Singer Model NM-17-27 Electromagnetic Field Intensity Meter (1-500783-255 (Rec. A) ) Instruction Manual, 1973.100% (1)Singer Model NM-17-27 Electromagnetic Field Intensity Meter (1-500783-255 (Rec. A) ) Instruction Manual, 1973.29 pages
- Professional Traffic Operations Engineers Certification Program Refresher CourseNo ratings yetProfessional Traffic Operations Engineers Certification Program Refresher Course39 pages
- Qualitative Questions Transportation Depth Vf18No ratings yetQualitative Questions Transportation Depth Vf1828 pages
- Regional Road Corridor Design GuidelinesNo ratings yetRegional Road Corridor Design Guidelines67 pages
- CS 2336 Discrete Mathematics: Counting: Permutations and CombinationsNo ratings yetCS 2336 Discrete Mathematics: Counting: Permutations and Combinations29 pages
- Research Paper Coping Mechanism of SHS 2022No ratings yetResearch Paper Coping Mechanism of SHS 202229 pages
- Highway Safety Manual: An Introduction To The0% (1)Highway Safety Manual: An Introduction To The16 pages
- USGA Recommendations For A Method of Putting Green ConstructionNo ratings yetUSGA Recommendations For A Method of Putting Green Construction11 pages
- Road Layout Design - Blueprint For Iskandar Malaysia (Cycling Sections)No ratings yetRoad Layout Design - Blueprint For Iskandar Malaysia (Cycling Sections)13 pages
- Quantity Survey Notes: Index: Sub - Structure (Concrete Part)No ratings yetQuantity Survey Notes: Index: Sub - Structure (Concrete Part)304 pages
- HD-DOC-2020!04!1 - TACGDGDesSupp - Last VersionNo ratings yetHD-DOC-2020!04!1 - TACGDGDesSupp - Last Version518 pages
- Abt 1988 Development of Riprap Design Criteris by RiprapNo ratings yetAbt 1988 Development of Riprap Design Criteris by Riprap108 pages
- The Analysis of A Framed Building With Shear Walls Subjected To Horizontal and Vertical Load Is Essentially A ThreeNo ratings yetThe Analysis of A Framed Building With Shear Walls Subjected To Horizontal and Vertical Load Is Essentially A Three5 pages
- Engineering Design Code Urban and Rural Roadway Design Compressed100% (1)Engineering Design Code Urban and Rural Roadway Design Compressed53 pages
- Wind Energy Development in The CaribbeanNo ratings yetWind Energy Development in The Caribbean6 pages
- AASHTO - Green - Book - Changes - Auburn Transportation ConferenceNo ratings yetAASHTO - Green - Book - Changes - Auburn Transportation Conference36 pages
- CHAPTER 19 Signalized Intersection - Pages From Highway Capacity Manual 2022100% (1)CHAPTER 19 Signalized Intersection - Pages From Highway Capacity Manual 2022117 pages
- Final Examination Building and Enhancing New Literacies Across The Curriculum100% (1)Final Examination Building and Enhancing New Literacies Across The Curriculum3 pages
- A 12.4-32 GHZ Cmos Down-Conversion Mixer For 28 GHZ 5G New Radio (NR)No ratings yetA 12.4-32 GHZ Cmos Down-Conversion Mixer For 28 GHZ 5G New Radio (NR)11 pages
- Viscosity and Wettability of Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) Solutions and Artificial SalivaNo ratings yetViscosity and Wettability of Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) Solutions and Artificial Saliva9 pages
- 01 Designing Major Urban Road Corridors OttawaNo ratings yet01 Designing Major Urban Road Corridors Ottawa19 pages
- Important Bill Highlights: Your Electricity Usage Over TimeNo ratings yetImportant Bill Highlights: Your Electricity Usage Over Time2 pages
- Instant Download Process Validation in Manufacturing of Biopharmaceuticals 3rd Edition Anurag S. Rathore PDF All Chapters100% (10)Instant Download Process Validation in Manufacturing of Biopharmaceuticals 3rd Edition Anurag S. Rathore PDF All Chapters85 pages
- UPPSC Computer Operator Question Paper 2020 PDF (WWW - Examstocks.com)100% (2)UPPSC Computer Operator Question Paper 2020 PDF (WWW - Examstocks.com)15 pages