RNS
Browse Projects > Detailed View

Comprehensive Review and Synthesis of Emerging Urban Street and Intersection Design Guides

Description:

A joint mid-year Transportation Research Board (TRB) meeting was held in Woods Hole, Massachusetts in July 2016 as a joint effort of three committees: the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Technical Committee on Geometric Design, and the TRB’s Geometric Design Committee (AFB10) and Operational Effects of Geometrics Committee (AHB65). The discussion topic of “providing research-based design guidance for bicycles and pedestrians” was identified as a major need and voted as one of the highest priorities. This research is being proposed to identify, and then synthesize, the emerging urban street and intersection design guides that have been developed in the transportation planning, design and operations profession over the past 8 to 10 years. A large number of guides have been developed across a diverse group of organizations and agencies to primarily address the complex roadway design challenges that exist in urban and suburban areas, as well as smaller villages and towns. These challenges are broad and include: (1) integrating a wide range and mix of users, (2) varying densities and types of land use (context), (3) transit accessibility and operations, (4) freight operations, (5) frequently constrained rights-of-way, (6) the concentrated presence of above and below-ground utilities, (7) enhanced landscaping and border amenities, (8) on-street parking, and (9) community desires for slower operating speeds to improve mobility, accessibility, and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, and quality of life generally. Dozens of design policy and guidance documents have been produced in the United States (U.S.) to reflect and address these new concerns and desires for a different approach to street design at the local and regional levels. Among these new resources, the more broadly accepted and used documents in use today include: the NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) Urban Streets Design Guide, the NACTO Transit Street Design Guide, the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, the NACTO Global Street Design Guide, and the ITE/CNU (Institute of Transportation Engineers/Congress for the New Urbanism) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context-Sensitive Approach. These new resources are being increasingly used by the design profession, particularly at the regional and local government level for lower-speed roadways (design speed of 45 mph or less) in suburban and urban contexts. The introduction of this new design guidance brings new design philosophies and policies to projects that maximizes use of available design flexibility and sometimes even contradicts more conventional design guidance produced by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and endorsed by FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), such as A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (the Green Book) and other long-standing design guides used by state DOTs (Departments of Transportation) and many local agencies. To further complicate the challenges for today’s designers in interpreting this increasing range of design guidance, other new and updated design guidance is being produced by AASHTO, FHWA, TRB, and ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). Near-term updates to AASHTO’s Guide for Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities and Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities are expected to bring new and revised guidance. Recent new library additions such as AASHTO’s Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets (2014) also introduce expanded guidance for designers to consider, but even newer research suggests revisions to the AASHTO transit guide (TCRP Web-Only Document 66) and provides guidance on managing bus and bicycle conflicts (TCRP Report 183). ITE has just released an Application Supplement to the NACTO Transit Street Design Guide_ and a new edition of the AASHTO Green Book is expected to be available to the profession in 2018. Finally, FHWA and other Federal agencies also continue to produce new guidance for designers to consider, including these resources: Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts (2016); Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks: A Review of International Practices (2015); Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects (2015); Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015); Road Diet Informational Guide (2014); Statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Handbook (2014); Signalized Intersections Informational Guide, Second Edition (2013); Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way_, U.S. Access Board (2011).

Objective:

The objective of this research is to identify, and then synthesize, the emerging urban street and intersection design guides that have been developed in the transportation planning, design and operations profession over the past 8 to 10 years.

Benefits:

Improve consistency in design and construction of urban streets and intersections, thereby improving operations, safety, and user expectancy for urban road users.

Related Research:

Based on the identification and initial cursory review of an extensive number of roadway design references from our preliminary literature search (see list below), none of these documents have included a scope of work or work product similar to the one being proposed in this research statement.

This initial literature search of geometric design research and practice documents will allow the research team to quickly identify the group of “benchmark” documents that best represent the foundational guidance for today’s U.S. geometric design practices. The design guidance from this benchmark group of documents will be compared against the recent guidance that has been produced by NACTO, ITE, CNU and other agencies and organizations. This comparison exercise will assess the key relationships between the established, conventional benchmark design guidance and the more recently developed guidance that has not been vetted by or produced by AASHTO or FHWA. This assessment will identify the key differences, and potential gaps, between the policies, practices, recommendations and supporting scientific basis of each group of design guidance documents.

PRELIMINARY LITERATURE REVIEW

*Transportation and University Research Program Sources *

· Ongoing - NCHRP 15-45: Proposed Update of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (draft guide is under review)

· Ongoing - NCHRP 15-47: Developing an Improved Highway Geometric Design Process (expected completion late 2015, early 2016)

· Ongoing – NCHRP 03-112: Operational and Safety Considerations in Making Lane Width Decisions on Urban and Suburban Arterials (expected completion 2017)

· Ongoing - NCHRP 03-78b and 03-78c: Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes to Assist Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities (under review)

· Ongoing – NCHRP 15-52: Developing a Context-Sensitive Functional Classification System for More Flexibility in Geometric Design (expected completion 2016)

· TCRP Report 183: A Guidebook on Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies (2016)

· TCRP Web-Only Document 66: Improving Transportation Network Efficiency Through Implementation of Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies (2016)

· NCHRP Report 803: Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads – ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook (2015)

· NCHRP Report 737: Design Guidance for High-Speed to Low-Speed Transitions Zones for Rural Highways (2014)

· NCHRP Report 737: Appendix B: Design Guidance Document (2014)

· NCHRP Report 766: Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics (2014)

· NCHRP Report 783: Evaluation of the 13 Controlling Criteria for Geometric Design (2014)

· NCHRP Report 785: Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2014)

· NCHRP 15-34A: Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets: Supplemental Research Materials (2014)

· Addressing Deficiencies in the Highway Capacity Manual Bike Level of Service Model for Arterial Roadways, Theodore A Petritsch, Bruce W Landis, Tyrone Scorsone, Transportation Research Record 2641 (2014)

· The Highway Capacity Manual's Method for Calculating Bicycle and Pedestrian Levels of Service: The Ultimate White Paper, Herbie Huff And Robin Liggett, University of California Transportation Center (2014)

· Exploration and Implications of Multimodal Street Performance Metrics: What’s a Passing Grade? Madeline Brozen, Herbie Huff, UCTC-FR-2014-09, University of California Transportation Center (September 2014)

· Massachusetts Department of Transportation Complete Streets Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service Study, Lovas, Nabors, Goughnour, Rabito, TRB paper Submission (2014)

· NCHRP Report 745: Left-Turn Accommodations at Unsignalized Intersections (2013)

· TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd edition (2013)

· NCHRP Legal Research Digest 57: Tort Liability Defense Practices for Design Flexibility (2012)

· NCHRP Synthesis 432: Recent Geometric Design Research for Improved Safety and Operations (2012)

· MTI Report 11-19: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, Mineta Transportation Institute (2012)

· Safety and Operational Analysis of 4-Lane to 3-Lane Conversions (Road Diets) in Michigan, Lyles, Richard W., M. Abrar Siddiqui, William C. Taylor, Bilal Z. Malik, Gregory Siviy, and Tyler Haan, Lansing, Michigan: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University (2012)

· NCHRP Web-Only Document 208: Design Guidance for Channelized Right-Turn Lanes (2011)

· NCHRP Report 707: _Guidelines for the Use of Auxiliary Through Lanes at Signalized Intersections _(2011)

· NCHRP Synthesis 417: Geometric Design Practices for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (2011)

· NCHRP Synthesis 422: Trade-Off Considerations in Highway Geometric Design, A Synthesis of Highway Practice (2011)

· NCHRP Synthesis 412_: Speed Reduction Techniques for Rural High-to-Low Speed Transitions _(2011)

· An Assessment of Multimodal Level-of-Service as a Performance Measure for Signalized Intersections, Srinivas S. Pulugurtha1 and Prasanna R. Kusam, TRB Paper # 11-4266 (January 2011)

· Guidelines for Road Diet Conversions, Stamatiadis, Nikiforos, Adam Kirk, Chen Wang, Andrea Cull, and Nithin Agarwal, Lexington, Kentucky: Kentucky Transportation Center, College of Engineering, University of Kentucky (2011)

· NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition (2010)

· NCHRP Web-Only Document 158: Field Test Results of the Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets (2010)

· NCHRP Report 659: Guide for the Design of Driveways (2010)

· TCRP SYNTHESIS 83: Bus and Rail Transit Preferential Treatments in Mixed Traffic, A Synthesis of Transit Practice (2010)

· NCHRP 20-07/Task 263: Update of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2010)

· Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe, International Technology Scanning Program, FHWA in cooperation with AASHTO/NCHRP (2010)

· NCHRP Web-Only Document 128: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets: Users Guide (2009)

· NCHRP Report 642: Quantifying the Benefits of Context Sensitive Solutions (2009)

· NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets (2008)

· NCHRP Report 612: Safe and Aesthetic Design of Urban Roadside Treatments (2008)

· NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan - Volume 18: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Bicycles (2008)

· Pedestrian and Bicyclist Level of Service on Roadway Segments, Transportation Research Record, Volume 2031 / 20 (2008)

· Potts, I. B., D. W. Harwood, and K. R. Richard, Relationship of Lane Width to Safety on Urban and Suburban Arterials, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2023, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 63–82.

· Potts, I. B., D. W. Harwood, D. J. Torbic, K. M. Bauer, K. R. Richard, D. K. Gilmore, D. K. Lay, J. F. Ringert, J. D. Zegeer, D. L. Harkey, and J. M. Barlow, Lane Widths, Channelized Right Turns, and Right-Turn Deceleration Lanes on Urban and Suburban Arterials, Final Report of NCHRP Project 03-72, Midwest Research Institute, August 2006.

· NCHRP Report 562/TRCP Report 112: _Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings _(2006)

· Transforming an Urban Arterial into a Multiway Boulevard: A Design Proposal for Kennedy Boulevard in Tampa Florida, Mikulski, Andrzej Kris, Gainesville: Urban and Regional Planning Department, University of Florida (2006)

· NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan - Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians (2004)

· NCHRP Report 504: Design Speed, Operating Speed, and Posted Speed Practices (2003)

· Intersection Level of Service: The Bicycle Through Movement, Bruce W. Landis, Venkat R. Vattikuti, Russell M. Ottenberg, Theodore A. Petritsch, Transportation Research Record 1828 (2003)

· TCRP REPORT 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines (2003)

· NCHRP Report 480: A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions (2002)

· Bicycle Facility Selection: A Comparison of Approaches, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center and Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill (2002)

· Evaluation of Lane Reduction" Road Diet" Measures on Crashes and Injuries, Huang, Herman F., J. Richard Stewart, and Charles V. Zegeer. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1784 (2002)

· NCHRP Synthesis 299: Recent Geometric Design Research for Improved Safety and Operations (2001)

· TRB Circular E-C019, Urban Street Symposium 1999 Conference Proceedings:_ Linking Land Use and Transportation through Street Design_ (2000)

· Real-Time Human Perceptions Toward a Bicycle Level of Service, Bruce W. Landis, Venkat R. Vattikuti, and Michael T. Brannick, Transportation Research Record 1578 (1997)

· TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops, Transportation Research Board (1996)

· NCHRP Report 362: Roadway Widths for Low-Volume-Traffic Roads (1994)

· NCHRP Report 330: Effective Utilization of Street Width _on Urban Arterials (1990)

Federal Sources

· Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, 6th edition, TRB (2016)

· Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks: A Review of International Practices, FHWA-15-051 (May 2015)

· Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE), FHWA (2015)

· Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (BIKESAFE), FHWA (2015)

· Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM), and Safety Analyst Software Suite, FHWA (2015)

· Accelerating Roundabout Implementation in the United States (Seven Volume Series), FHWA (2015)

· Median U-Turn Informational Guide, FHWA (2014)

· Restricted Crossing U-Turn Informational Guide, FHWA (2014)

· Displaced Left-Turn Informational Guide, FHWA (2014)

· Diverging Diamond Interchange Informational Guide, FHWA (2014)

· Road Diet Informational Guide, FHWA (2014)

· Statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Handbook, Report FHWA-HEP-14-035, FHWA (2014)

· Signalized Intersections Informational Guide, Second Edition, Report FHWA-SA-13-027 (2013)

· Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures, 2013 Edition, FHWA

· Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way, U.S. Access Board (2011)

· Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures, EPA Report 231-K-10-004 (2011)

·Designing for Nonmotorists -Highway and Street Facilities: Designing for All Users, Presented at the FHWA Field Engineers Learning & Development Seminar, April 20, 2010, Dallas, TX, Christopher Douwes, Trails & Enhancements Program Manager, FHWA

· Sustainable Design and Green Building Toolkit for Local Governments, EPA 904B10001 (June 2010)

· Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA (2009)

· Speed Concepts: Informational Guide, FHWA-SA-10-001 (2009)

· A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safe and Walkable Communities, FHWA-SA-07-016 (February 2008)

· Context Sensitive Solutions Strategic Planning Process Summary Report, AASHTO/ FHWA (March 2007)

· Special Report: Accessible Public Rights-of-Way Planning and Design for Alterations, U.S. Access Board (2007)

· Pedestrian and Bicyclist Intersection Safety Indices: User Guide, FHWA-HRT-06-130 (April 2007)

· Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions, Report FHWA-SA-07-011, FHWA (July 2007)

· Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT): Version 2.1.1, FHWA

· Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way (Revised_, U.S. Access Board (2005)

· Flexibility in Highway Design, FHWA (2004)

· A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroa_, Report FHWA-RD-03-042 (2004)

· Context Sensitive Solutions in Large Central Cities, Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Ph.D., and Isabella Pierson, Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management (2004)

· Safety Effects of Marked Vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines, Report FHWA-RD-01-075 (2002)

· Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide - Providing Safety and Mobility, FHWA-RD-01-102 (March 2002)

· Geometric Design Practices for European Roads, FHWA (2001)

· An Analysis of Factors Contributing to “Walking Along Roadway” Crashes: Research Study and Guidelines for Sidewalks and Walkways, Report FHWA-RD-01-101 (2001)

· Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access: Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, FHWA/Beneficial Designs, Inc. (2001)

· Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part I of II: Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices, FHWA/Beneficial Designs, Inc. (1999)

· Bicycle Lanes versus Wide Curb Lanes: Operational and Safety Findings and Countermeasure Recommendations, Report FHWA-RD-99-035 (1999)

· A Comparative Analysis of Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Final Report, FHWA-RD-99–034 (1998)

· Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, Report FHWA-RD-92-073 (1994)

AASHTO Sources

· Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets (2014)

· Highway Safety Manual (2010 & 2014 Supplement)

· Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012)

· A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011)

· Roadside Design Guide & Chapter 11 (Erecting Mailboxes on Streets & Highways), (2011)

· Roadway Lighting Design Guide (2005)

· Guide for Accommodating Utilities within Highway Right-of-Way (2005)

· Guide for Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)

· A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design (2004)

· Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤ 400), (2001)

· Guide for Transportation Landscape and Environmental Design (1991)

International Sources

· Focus on Cycling: Copenhagen Guidelines for the Design of Road Projects, Copenhagen Municipality (2013)

· Guide Information for Pedestrian Facilities, Austroads (2013)

· Collection of Cycle Concepts, Danish Embassy for Cycling (2012)

· CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, Netherlands Design Guide (2007)

· Vibrant Streets, Toronto’s Coordinated Street Furniture Program Design and Policy, City of Toronto (2006)

· Street Design Guidelines for Landcom Projects, Sydney GM Urban Design and Architecture (2006)

· Manual for Streets, UK Department for Transportation (2007)

· Cycle Network and Route Planning Guide, New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority (2004)

Tasks:

Task 1: The literature search of geometric design research and practice documents will be accomplished.

Task 2: The research team will identify the group of “benchmark” documents from the literature review that best represent the foundational guidance for today’s U.S. geometric design practices.

Task 3: The research team will identify the group of “evolving” emerging non-conventional design guidance source documents that are being increasingly used by local and regional agencies for geometric design purposes.

Task 4: The design guidance from the benchmark group of documents will be compared against the “evolving” design guidance that has been produced by NACTO, ITE, CNU and other agencies and organizations. This comparison exercise is intended to assess the key relationships between the established, conventional benchmark design guidance and the more recently developed guidance that has not been vetted by or produced by AASHTO or FHWA. This assessment will identify the key differences, and potential gaps, between the policies, practices, recommendations and supporting scientific basis of each group of design guidance documents.

Task 5: The research team will conduct an agency review of both state and local agency DOTs to assess the relative use of both groups of documents and if, and how, these documents are being used in their design practice processes. The research team will also gather and document available before/after studies that have been conducted by these state and local agency DOTs that will support emerging multimodal design treatments.

Task 6: Based on the comparative analysis of the benchmark and evolving design guidance document groups, the research team will make recommendations for changes and/or additions to both groups of documents to address consistency issues and research-based design guidance. These recommendations will be transmitted to the appropriate agencies and organizations responsible for the subject documents.

Task 7: The research team will also identify areas where new research may be needed to address the gaps in design knowledge identified through the research.

Task 8: To facilitate distribution of the final research products will include a draft PowerPoint presentation summarizing the research and its outcomes, a draft outline for a future workshops on the research process and findings, and a draft professional article for publication in the AASHTO Journal, Public Roads, ITE Journal and subsequent periodicals aimed at specific target audiences in the geometric design profession.

Implementation:

Target Audience: State DOTs and local agency DOTs, public works agencies, traffic engineers, roadway designers, transportation planners and MPOs (Metropolitan Planning Organizations)* Key Decision-makers:* DOT secretaries, commissioners, chief engineers and design section heads. Local agency DOT directors, public works directors, city engineers, city traffic engineers

AASHTO Responsibilities: Committee on Design, Sub-committees on Geometric Design and Non-Motorized Transportation, and possibly others

Early Adopters: Massachusetts DOT, New Jersey DOT, Virginia DOT, Maryland DOT, Florida DOT, Minnesota DOT, Michigan DOT, Washington DOT, Oregon DOT, California DOT, multiple NACTO-member city and county agencies

Relevance:

Transportation professionals in the United States are facing new challenges and are seeking innovative approaches to address transportation goals for their communities. There are often competing demands placed upon transportation professionals to provide safe and reliable transportation for automobiles, freight, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit and yet reduce environmental impacts and enhance surrounding communities.

Design decisions have become increasingly complex, demanding analysis of many influences and outcomes and a balance of competing needs. Agencies are embracing innovative approaches to design decision-making and emerging tools and technologies to achieve performance goals for the surface transportation system. At the same time, increasing numbers and percentages of aging persons using our transportation system in the decades ahead will pose many challenges to transportation designers and operations.

Considering all these emerging factors, roadway designers face many complex tradeoffs. A quality design must satisfy the needs of a variety of users, and must balance cost, safety, accessibility, and mobility for all users with historical, cultural, and environmental impacts. Quality design increasingly requires more analysis than simply assembling elements from the available tables, charts, and equations of criteria outlined in design manuals. Roadway engineers and designers work within complex relationships that allow an acceptable level of flexibility in roadway designs that require managing the related risks. Over the past decades – through policies, guidelines, conferences, training, and new partnerships – transportation agencies across the U.S. have been bridging knowledge gaps and enabling engineers to design with flexibility and employ context-sensitive approaches with greater confidence and regularity.

Transportation designers also use Context-Sensitive Solutions (CSS) and design flexibility as tools to contribute to creating more livable communities. With the incorporation of CSS and livability principles the transportation design and operations profession is realizing it must look beyond the right-of-way and consider the connections to corridors and communities, taking advantage of the opportunities to enhance the quality of life. The increasingly important livability concept in transportation design promotes linkages between jobs, housing, schools, and safe transportation to improve quality of life. CSS and livability apply to transportation processes, outcomes, and decision making and are founded upon collaborative decision-making strategies that engage a full range of stakeholders early and continuously throughout the project planning and development process. Both help meet community goals and national goals of environmental sustainability.

Sponsoring Committee:AFB10, Geometric Design
Research Period:12 - 24 months
RNS Developer:Marshall Elizer, Hermanus Steyn, Jim Rosenow
Source Info:Developed as part of the 2016 mid-year meeting of the TRB Committee on Geometric Design (AFB10), TRB Committee on Operational Effects of Geometrics (AHB65), and AASHTO Technical Committee on Geometric Design.
Date Posted:10/26/2016
Date Modified:11/14/2016
Index Terms:Highway design, Intersection elements, Land use planning, Cyclists, Pedestrian movement, Highway operations, Accessibility, City planning, Urban areas, Guidelines, Mobility, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, State departments of transportation,
Cosponsoring Committees:AHB65, Operational Effects of Geometrics
 
Subjects    
Highways
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Design
Operations and Traffic Management
Safety and Human Factors

Please click here if you wish to share information or are aware of any research underway that addresses issues in this research needs statement. The information may be helpful to the sponsoring committee in keeping the statement up-to-date.