RPDM2ndEdVolume1 PDF

Road Planning and Design Manual
2nd edition
Queensland Practice
July 2013
Volume 1 Legislation and Design Philosophy
Copyright
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/
State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) 2013
Feedback: Please send your feedback regarding this document to: mr.techdocs@tmr.qld.gov.au
Road Planning and Design Manual (2nd edition) Volume 1, Transport and Main Roads, July 2013
Amendment Register
Issue /
Rev no.
Reference
section
All
Description of revision
Authorised by
Initial release of manual (2nd edition)
Steering committee
Date
July 2013
iii
iv
Contents
1
Legislative Accountability ............................................................................................................7
1.1
Principal Legislation........................................................................................................................ 7
1.2
Other Legislation............................................................................................................................. 8
Design Philosophy.......................................................................................................................10
2.1
2.7
Design Concepts .......................................................................................................................... 10

2.1.1
Context Sensitive Design .............................................................................................11
Design Domain ............................................................................................................................. 14
2.2.1
The Normal Design Domain (NDD)..............................................................................18
2.2.2
The Extended Design Domain (EDD) ..........................................................................21
2.2.3
Design Exceptions........................................................................................................25
Road Design Classes ................................................................................................................... 26
2.3.2
Design Classes and Applicable Design Criteria...........................................................29
Design Criteria and Guidelines ..................................................................................................... 31
2.4.1
Introduction...................................................................................................................31
2.4.2
Development of design criteria.....................................................................................31
2.4.3
Application of design criteria and the resulting standard of the road ...........................33
Design Consistency ...................................................................................................................... 34
2.5.1
Background ..................................................................................................................34
2.5.2
Cross section consistency............................................................................................35
2.5.3
Operating speed consistency .......................................................................................36
2.5.4
Driver workload consistency.........................................................................................37
Design Considerations.................................................................................................................. 40
2.6.1
Road Safety..................................................................................................................40
2.6.2
Human Factors .............................................................................................................42
2.6.3
Driver Perception of Roadway......................................................................................42
2.6.4
Medical Factors ............................................................................................................48
2.6.5
Effects of Age ...............................................................................................................49
Design Process............................................................................................................................. 53
2.8
Design Management..................................................................................................................... 53
References....................................................................................................................................54
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Figures
Figure 2.1: The Design Domain Concept (Transportation Association of Canada 1999)..................... 14
Figure 2.2: Design Domain Example - Shoulder Width (Transportation Association of Canada
1999)...................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.3: Diagram showing the NDD and the EDD (for a parameter where an increase in its
value produces a higher benefit) ........................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.4: Relationship between values traditionally used in road design guides and manuals
and the bounds of the NDD (for a parameter where an increase in its value produces a higher
benefit)................................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.5: Example of NDD for total lane width for a two-lane, two-way road..................................... 20
and the bounds of the NDD (for a parameter where an increase in its value produces a lower
benefit)................................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.7: Example of a design domain for the side friction factor for 50km/h .................................... 21
Figure 2.8: Example of EDD and NDD for a crest curve size for a 110km/h design speed.................. 23
Figure 2.9: Conceptual diagram showing the Design Domain, the Extended Design Domain and
how the risk of liability increases (for a parameter where an increase in its value produces a
higher benefit)........................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 2.10: Conceptual process on selecting the design class for a project ....................................... 29
Figure 2.11: Mean collision rate versus mean speed difference between successive geometric
elements ................................................................................................................................................ 36
Tables
Table 1.1: Principal legislation affecting Transport and Main Roads (TMR)........................................... 8
Table 2.1: Road Design Classes........................................................................................................... 28
Table 2.2: Driver response time (Lay 1998) .......................................................................................... 48
vi
1 Legislative Accountability
Legislative Accountability
The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) receives its authority from the Acts of Parliament
that define its responsibilities and powers and enable it to function. In addition, other Acts of the
Parliament of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia impact on the activities of the
department.
In all circumstances, Transport and Main Roads must act in accordance with the prevailing laws of the
State and Commonwealth.
Further, the particular policies of the Government of the day must be implemented in accordance with
the prevailing laws and Acts.
1.1
Principal Legislation
Transport and Main Roads principal legislative obligations lie in Queensland's Transport Infrastructure
Act (1994). The fundamental requirements, as stated in Section 9, Chapter 3 of the Act, are as follows:
Obligations about government supported transport infrastructure
The chief executive must ensure that
a) the construction, maintenance and operation of all government supported transport
infrastructure for which the chief executive is responsible is carried out in a way that,
within the objective of this chapter
i.
takes into account best practice and national benchmarks; and
ii.
promotes the safe transport of persons and goods; and
iii.
reduces adverse environmental impacts; and
iv.
encourages efficient and competitive behaviour in the construction and

maintenance of transport infrastructure; and
b) the construction, maintenance and operation of all government supported transport

infrastructure for which the chief executive is responsible is carried out in accordance
with standards
i.
published by the chief executive; and
ii.
designed, within overall transport objectives, to achieve efficiency, affordable

quality and cost effectiveness; and
c) contracts that are let for the construction, maintenance or operation of transport
infrastructure are designed in a way that encourages efficient performance by the
contractor.
Transport and Main Roads also has clear obligations under the Transport Operations (Road Use
Management) Act 1995, regarding the provision of infrastructure. No practitioner should design or
install any facility that requires or encourages road users to contravene the Queensland Road Rules.
The Road Planning and Design Manual guidelines are consistent with the Queensland Road Rules at
the time of publication.
The principal Acts applying to the normal activities of Transport and Main Roads are summarised in
Table 1.1.
Road Planning and Design Manual (2nd edition) Volume 1, Transport and Main Roads, June 2013
Table 1.1: Principal legislation affecting Transport and Main Roads (TMR)
Administering
Authority
Legislation
Objective or Purpose of Legislation
Transport
Infrastructure Act
1994
To provide a regime that allows for and

encourages effective integrated
planning and efficient management of
a system of transport infrastructure.
TMR
Transport
infrastructure
strategies and
implementation
programs
Transport
Operations
(Road Use
Management)
Act 1995
To provide for the effective and

efficient management of road use in
the State
TMR
Road use
management
strategies and
implementation
programs
Transport
Planning and
Coordination Act
1994
To improve the economic trade and

regional development performance of
Queensland, and the quality of life of
Queenslanders, by achieving overall
transport effectiveness and efficiency
through strategic planning and
management of transport resources.
TMR
Transport Coordination
Plan
Sustainable
Planning Act
2009
To achieve ecologically sustainability

by managing the process by which
development takes place, including
ensuring the process is accountable,
effective and efficient and delivers
sustainable outcomes; managing the
effects of development on the
environment, including managing the
use of premises; and continuing the
coordination and integration of
planning at the local, regional, and
State levels.
Department of
State
Development
Infrastructure
and Planning
State Planning
Instruments; regulatory
provisions, regional
plans, State planning
policy, and standard
planning scheme
provisions
Environmental
Protection Act
1994
To protect Queenslands environment

while allowing for development that
improves the total quality of life, both
now and in the future, in a way that
maintains the ecological processes on
which life depends (ecological
sustainable development).
Environmental
protection
authority
Environmental
Protection Policies,
Environmental
authorities,
Environmental
Management
programs, Codes of
Practice
Environment
Protection and
Biodiversity
Conservation Act
1999
To establish a legislative framework for

commonwealth environmental law, with
an emphasis on the protection of those
aspects of the environment that are of
national environment significance.
Commonwealth
of Australia
Management Plans
1.2
Output documents
Other Legislation
Planners, designers and all engineering consultant contractors, when preparing road infrastructure
designs for construction in Queensland, must be aware of and comply with the requirements of
applicable legislation. Road designers have responsibilities under legislation to design sustainable and
safe environments. The following list (which may not be complete) of legislative requirements needs to
be taken into consideration:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Commonwealth)
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (State)
Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (State)
Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 (Commonwealth)
Evidence Act 1977 (State)
Explosives Act 1999 (State)
Fisheries Act 1994 (State)
Land Act 1994 (State)
Professional Engineers Act 2002 (State), together with the Code of Practice for Registered
Professional Engineers 2008 (Board of Professional Engineers, Qld)
Public Records Act 2002 (State)
Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (State)
Soil Conservation Act 1986 (State)
Vegetation Management Act 1999 (State)
Water Act 2000 (State)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (State).
All of these Acts are in force in Queensland. Each Act may be amended from time to time, and
designers have the responsibility to comply with the most recent version of the Act concerned, and
also become aware of any new Acts that impact on road infrastructure delivery.
The Environmental Legislation Register (TMR) provides summaries of a range of other Acts
impinging on Transport and Main Roads activities. The Register has brief comment on the areas
where this impact occurs, but for full detail planners and designers must read the relevant Act.
Particular attention is required where legislation requires approvals or permits from other agencies.
The Register provides details of environmental approvals permits.
The Register is intended as a guide only, identifying the key legislative provisions and providing a
laypersons interpretation. The Register does not claim to identify all possible provisions that may
affect the departments operations. If required, expert advice should be sought if any matter is to be
relied upon or considered in detail.
2 Design Philosophy
Design Philosophy
Design Philosophy is made up of many components. This chapter outlines each component, except
for Design Management and Process which is contained in Volume 3 Part 8.
2.1
Design Concepts
Design is the process of selecting the elements that, combined, will make up the end product.
Geometric design of roads requires the selection of the visible features and dimensions of the road
e.g. lane and shoulder widths (Transportation Association of Canada 1999).
All road design is a compromise between the ideal and what is a reasonable outcome (in terms
of cost, safety, driver expectation, economic drivers, environmental impacts and social issues refer to Section 2.1.1).
Judgements have to be made on the value of improving the standard of a road and the impact this
might have on the ability to make improvements elsewhere on the road system. These judgements are
usually made on the basis of the level of safety of the road in question and analyse the benefits and
costs resulting from the proposed improvements. Environmental and social impacts are also major
considerations.
The Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (Transportation Association of Canada 1999)
makes the following observation:
Design is an activity in which judgement and experience play significant roles. Designers
choose the features of the road and dimensions of the primary design elements. They may
use judgement, technical references and calculations to assist in selecting the appropriate
design elements, but selection of design elements in isolation from each other is not design.
Designers must also know the effect of combining design elements under different
circumstances. Because of the nature of the process, the design that emerges cannot
generally be called correct or incorrect, but rather more or less efficient (in terms of moving
traffic), safe (in terms of collision rate), or costly (in terms of construction costs, lifecycle costs
and environmental impacts).
What is clear is that design is a complex task. Design can never be merely the application of numbers
from a set of tables developed from the various theoretical constructs used for that purpose. There is a
need to apply judgement and experience in arriving at the appropriate design. In the past, the
complexity of design gave rise to the development and use of standard values for the various
elements to be used in various sets of defined circumstances, in order to simplify the process. This
approach is not always appropriate, although it allows people of limited experience to achieve an
acceptable design in many circumstances. Where more complex combinations of circumstances
occur, however, designers require considerable skills and experience to enable them to choose the
optimum solution.
This manual recognises the importance of judgement and experience and provides designers with the
background to the methods adopted and the reasons for the approach to selecting design elements. A
wide range of dimensions for various parameters (i.e. the Design Domain, refer to Section 2.2) is
provided with comment on the circumstances for their use. The decision on the combination of values
to adopt is one to be made in the context of the complex range of issues that apply in individual
circumstances. The competing alternatives must be properly considered within the framework of the
particular case to ensure that the solution is a context sensitive design (refer to Section 2.1.1). The
final design is the sum of all of the decisions taken, and judgements made, during the design process.
10
2 Design Philosophy
This manual provides the following to assist designers apply the concept of design domain:
Numerical guidance in the form of tables and graphs showing upper and lower bounds of the
design domain (where practicable).
Commentary on the design criteria with the underlying basis or technical foundation for the
development of the criteria, the various factors affecting them and if possible, the sensitivity of
road safety to changes in the criteria. Some discussion of the effects of various design
decisions is given to provide qualitative guidance to designers for various circumstances.
Where necessary, some of the issues to be considered (i.e. design considerations) when
applying or selecting design criteria given.
Where possible, quantitative evaluation of performance is provided for various points in the
design domain (e.g. Volume 3 Part 4A).
Where possible, quantitative evaluation of safety performance is provided for various points in
the design domain using crash rate as the safety measure (e.g. Volume 3 Parts 4A and 4B).
Some worked examples are provided throughout this manual to give further guidance (e.g. Volume 3
Part 4A).
The design philosophy is applicable for designs in both greenfield and brownfield sites.
A broad definition adapted from Austroads and NSW Roads and Maritime Services for a greenfield
site is:
A greenfield site is a location on which a new road is being built where there is no development that
prevents the use of design values predominately within the guidelines relating to Normal Design
Domain (NDD). Accordingly, the road alignment is relatively unrestricted in terms of the geometry that
can be used. These sites are generally away from existing roads and do not need daily traffic control.
At such sites all associated road infrastructure must be provided and this often involves quite major
work.
A broad definition (ARRB 2012) for a brownfield site applicable to Queensland conditions is:
A brownfield site is one where infrastructure, such as the road pavements; utilities, such as power
lines, telecommunication lines, water and sewer services; drainage systems, vegetation and the
access to abutting or nearby properties has been in place for some time. Removing, altering or
adjusting this existing infrastructure can be very expensive and so often, the retention of this
infrastructure is required to minimise the costs of the work. There are also many cultural, heritage or
environmental issues to be considered.
A further constraint on a brownfield site may be the need to retain all or part of the road in service
during the course of the works. These requirements can then place limitations or constraints on the
design.
2.1.1
Context Sensitive Design
Context Sensitive Design is described in Austroads Guide to Road Design - Part 2. It has also been
referred to as fit for purpose design or flexible design.
In Queensland, planners and designers should always aim to produce context sensitive
designs.
11
2 Design Philosophy
The challenge for any road design is to develop a design solution that takes account of the competing
expectations, interests and alternatives and the trade-offs that might be needed. It is important that
this, and consideration of the following issues, occurs from the Concept Stage onward. Factors to be
considered in making trade-offs include:
level of service
flexibility to provide for a range of possible futures or scenarios; for example staging (how,
when and its effects)
flexibility for future upgrading/ rehabilitation at reasonable cost (e.g. foreseeable changes in
road function or requirements due to changes in land use, operating speeds, design vehicles,
designated routes)
appropriate design criteria and the resulting standard of the road/s
mobility and reliability
environmental impacts, including noise and vibration
safety
consistency of design (an issue that can affect safety) along the entire link (not just the road
section under consideration refer to Section 2.5)
maximisation of the use of existing assets
reduction in the life of the infrastructure
stakeholder expectations and needs (e.g. community, government, users)
flood immunity
cultural heritage impacts
social impacts
capital costs
the requirements and objectives of the government and Transport and Main Roads (e.g.
legislation, whole of government requirements, departmental policies, Roads Connecting
Queenslanders
whole of life costs (e.g. maintenance costs, rehabilitation costs, costs of staged construction,
vehicle operating costs)
aesthetics.
2.1.1.1
Discussion on Context Sensitive Design
Good designers display the ability to optimise and foresee the repercussions of their decisions on the
costs, benefits and impacts of the design. Issues such as the relative importance of these elements
and the costs to be applied to the more subjective areas are policy decisions that should be guided by
the investment strategy and/or directed by Transport and Main Roads management. Within the
context of these policy decisions, the designer has the ability to influence these factors.
It is important that the trade-offs are considered at the strategic stage of the preconstruction process
since the standard of major elements of the road will be established in these early planning activities.
Achieving consistency of design, while achieving an appropriate balance between level of safety,
12
2 Design Philosophy
environmental impact, aesthetics, future flexibility and costs will depend on the decisions made in
developing and analysing the options and preparing the business case. A limited scope for change in
these fundamental aspects may be possible during the preliminary design stage but by the detailed
design stage, designers will not be able to make major trade-offs without major cost implications. On
new roads, if desired features are incorporated in the earliest phases, the cost implications (e.g. to
provide a higher standard) will often be manageable. Trying to modify the detailed design to improve
some features is often expensive.
In making judgements about trade-offs, the life of the project and the life of individual components of
the project must be considered and an appropriate balance between capital and maintenance (i.e.
whole of life) costs derived. Adopting a multi-staged approach to some elements (e.g. pavement
thickness) can reduce capital costs, with a consequent commitment to additional costs earlier than
would be the case for the single stage approach.
However, the basic geometry and drainage cannot easily be staged and must be suitable for the life of
the facility - the basic geometry will endure long after a project reaches the end of its design life.
The experience and insight needed when making trade-offs is dependent upon the designers
understanding of the technical foundation of the relevant design parameters, how they relate and what
the outcome of the resulting combination will be or is likely to be (e.g. what capability will be provided).
It is only with this in-depth knowledge that it is possible for a designer to determine if the design is in
fact a context sensitive design.
The design challenge is to develop a solution to the problem at hand taking account of the competing
alternatives and the trade-offs that might be needed to accommodate the budget available and the
circumstances of the project. To this end the final product must be internally consistent, be consistent
with the expectations for the type of road, and be compatible with road design principles presented in
this manual and other relevant documents. The reasons for adopting any particular design criteria
and/or parameters must be robust, defensible and fully documented. However, community
expectations need to be addressed as part of the design process. At times these expectations could
lead to a less safe outcome.
Risks associated with the above issues must also be considered. Design requires a large element of
risk management. The risks involved in the various decisions that have to be made must be assessed
and considered according to accepted risk management processes. The risks have to be identified for
all stakeholders (e.g. the users, the public and Transport and Main Roads) and assessed in
accordance with the potential effect on them.
It is a question of balancing cost against risk rather than simply attempting to decide which solution is
correct versus incorrect. Since it is not possible to create a completely safe road (i.e. a road that has
no crashes on it) each design will be more safe or less safe than some other alternative. The
appropriate balance depends on the circumstances and the combination of design elements (refer
also to sections in other volumes on Road Safety).
Finding the appropriate balance relies on experience and judgement assisted by objective
measurement and research. This inevitably introduces a significant element of variation in the possible
solutions derived for a particular problem because of different perceptions of the people making the
decisions. Transport and Main Roads can reduce the scope for this variation by applying appropriate
policies to define the extent of trade-offs it requires, but it cannot reduce the variation to zero.
13
2 Design Philosophy
In considering all of the above it should be noted that:

The choice between improved safety and increased cost, or reduced safety and lower cost, is
not only technical but also requires policy decisions, particularly at the macro level.
(Transportation Association of Canada 1999).
Such decisions influence the investment strategies. Transport and Main Roads investment strategies
and policies must be considered when making trade-offs. The requirements of the state are reflected
in legislation and Transport and Main Roads documents (including this manual).
2.2
Design Domain
Design Domain is described in Austroads Guide to Road Design - Part 2. The following is
additional information for use in Queensland.
The Design Domain concept was introduced into the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads
(Transportation Association of Canada 1999) to provide an approach where the designer is required to
select design criteria from ranges of values, considering the benefits and costs of the selected criteria.
This approach places an emphasis on developing appropriate and cost-effective designs rather than
providing a design that simply meets standards.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the concept. With the example in Figure 2.2 the lower regions of the domain
represent criteria that would generally be considered to be less safe, less efficient but usually less
expensive than those in the upper regions of the domain.
Figure 2.1: The Design Domain Concept (Transportation Association of Canada 1999)
Note:
1. The value limits for a particular criterion define the absolute range of values that it may be assigned.
2. The basic domain for a particular criterion is the range of values, within these limits, that may practically be assigned to
that criterion.
14
2 Design Philosophy
Figure 2.2: Design Domain Example - Shoulder Width (Transportation Association of Canada
1999)
The decision on the values to adopt should be made using objective data on the changes in cost,
safety or levels of service caused by changes in the design together with a benefit cost analysis. Such
data is not always available and this manual provides guidance to designers on the potential effect of
changes in design of the elements involved.
With the example in Figure 2.2 values towards the upper end of the domain will tend to be selected,
for a particular parameter, for the following:
On roads with high traffic volumes
When other parameters at the same location are approaching their respective lower order
values. (For a parameter where an increase in its value produces a higher benefit the lower
order values are those that approach the lower bound [e.g. Figure 2.5]. For a parameter where
an increase in its value produces a lesser benefit the lower order values are those that
approach the upper bound [e.g. Figure 2.7].)
Where little additional cost is required (to provide the higher value)
Where a significant crash history exists at a particular location
Where the parameter is considered to be a significant parameter with respect to level of

safety.
15
2 Design Philosophy
Conversely, values towards the lower end of the domain will tend to be selected, for a particular
parameter, for the following:
Where significant additional cost is required (to provide a higher value)
Where there is no crash history at a particular location
Where the use of a lower order value is reasonable, defensible and the logic of both of these
aspects is documented (as discussed in this Section). (For a parameter where an increase in
its value produces a higher benefit the lower order values are those that approach the lower
bound [e.g. Figure 2.5]. For a parameter where an increase in its value produces a lesser
benefit the lower order values are those that approach the upper bound [e.g. Figure 2.7].)
When other parameters at the same location are above their respective lower order values
On roads with low traffic volumes
On temporary roads used during construction
Where the parameter is not considered to be a significant parameter with respect to level of
safety.
Using this concept provides some benefits to the designer:
It is more directly related to the road design process since it places a greater emphasis on
developing appropriate and cost-effective designs rather than merely following prescriptive
standards
It reflects the continuous nature of the relationship between service, cost and safety and
changes in the design dimensions the designer must consider the impacts of trade-offs
throughout the domain and not just where a standard threshold is crossed
It provides an implied link to the factor of safety a concept commonly used in civil
engineering design processes where risk and safety are important.
Figure 2.2 illustrates how the Design Domain concept might be applied to a single design parameter,
the example used being shoulder width. It can be seen from the graphs that a value for shoulder width
might be chosen that optimises the balance between costs and safety. Selection of a value within the
domain will depend on a trade-off between the various benefits and costs. In other cases, values for
several design parameters must be selected, these parameters working together to optimise the
design.
In practice, the concept of a design domain with an upper and lower limit (i.e. bound) with a
continuous range of values in between may not be practical or desirable. For example, the lengths of
transitions are usually rounded to multiples of 20m for the convenience of set out calculations. In some
cases, there may be no upper bound other than that imposed by practicality or economics and the
upper bound is defined by typical values found in practice or by the threshold of cost-effective design.
With some design parameters, such as the coefficient of side friction, higher values represent a lower
order of service. However such parameters still have a design domain and the benefits gained from
having to make decisions on values still apply.
The designer must take account of the nature and significance of controls and constraints. Often, the
designer will not be able to choose design dimensions that will satisfy all of the controls and
constraints and compromise (i.e. trade-offs) will be required. These are engineering decisions that call
for experience, insight and a good appreciation of community values.
16
2 Design Philosophy
Some design criteria are set by policy (e.g. vertical clearance to structures), while others may be little
more than suggestions. Some are chosen on the basis of safety, some on service or capacity, while
others are based on comfort and aesthetic values. The judicious choice of design parameters is very
important in the design process and it is important that designers have a good appreciation of the
background to, and derivation of, the parameters being used.
By using this knowledge and understanding, and having regard for community values, a designer will
be able to produce a design to the required level of service and safety with acceptable economy.
For many elements, a range of dimensions is given in this manual and the designer has the
responsibility to choose an appropriate value for a particular situation. A designer with economy
uppermost in mind may be tempted to apply the lower order value in the range on the basis that so
long as the value is within the accepted range, the design is satisfactory. This may, or may not, be the
case.
The designer might conclude that it is appropriate to use lower order values for design parameters and
this is not necessarily a bad decision. However, if this course of action is followed, the consequences
of the action need to be thoroughly understood, particularly with regard to safety but also with regard
to costs, benefits and level of service. It is necessary to consider ameliorating measures (e.g. traffic
control devices) at the same time as the geometric design. If a design involves compromise, it might
be better to compromise several elements a little rather than to compromise one element excessively.
The design must be balanced.
This highlights the need for the proper combination of elements and the effect of decisions on one of
them by decisions on others. For example, where it has been necessary to adopt a lower order value
for one element, it might be necessary to compensate by being more generous with an associated
element. The design must always consider the inter-relationship between the elements, adopting a
holistic approach to the design (refer also to Sections 2.4.3 and 2.1.1).
To some extent, this approach formalises the means by which previous manuals have defined the
range of values within which the designer should operate. However, the design domain approach
clarifies the extent of trade-offs and highlights the interrelationship between the various elements of
design. It encourages a holistic approach to the design.
As shown in Figure 2.3, the design domain consists of the following two elements:
The Normal Design Domain (NDD)
The Extended Design Domain (EDD).
At this stage only a limited number of design criteria have an EDD. Both the NDD and the EDD are
discussed in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 respectively.
17
2 Design Philosophy
Figure 2.3: Diagram showing the NDD and the EDD (for a parameter where an increase in its
value produces a higher benefit)
2.2.1
The Normal Design Domain (NDD)
The part of the design domain normally used for a new road is referred to as the Normal Design
Domain (NDD). The extent of the NDD defines the normal limits for the values of parameters selected
for new roads and major upgrades.
The extents of the NDD within the various manuals and guidelines are usually based on the
experience and judgement of practitioners, even where the relationship with safety has been identified
by research. These extents can change over time with current thinking (e.g. Austroads decrease in
eye height from 1.15m to 1.1m has increased Austroads minimum size crest vertical curves).
Over time all design criteria in this manual will be described in terms of their design domain and in
some cases their extended design domain. Pending this, Figure 2.4 shows the relationship between
the minimum and maximum values traditionally used in road design guidelines and the bounds of the
NDD for a parameter where an increase in its value produces a higher benefit. As shown by Figure
2.4:
an absolute minimum or minimum value corresponds to the lower bound of the NDD
a desirable minimum, general minimum or preferred minimum falls within the NDD
a desirable maximum, general maximum or preferred maximum falls within the NDD
an absolute maximum or maximum value corresponds to the upper bound of the NDD.
18
2 Design Philosophy
and the bounds of the NDD (for a parameter where an increase in its value produces a higher
benefit)
An example for a parameter where an increase in its value produces a higher benefit is shown in
Figure 2.5:
The lower bound (i.e. minimum) total lane width for a two-lane, two-way rural road is 6.0m
from Volume 3 Part 3. This is shown as the lower bound of the NDD in Figure 2.5. In general,
values below the lower bound should not be chosen.
The upper bound (i.e. maximum) of total lane width for a two-lane, two-way rural road is 7.0m
(exclusive of curve widening) from Volume 3 Part 3. This is shown as the upper bound of the
NDD in Figure 2.5.
19
2 Design Philosophy
Figure 2.5: Example of NDD for total lane width for a two-lane, two-way road
Further Figure 2.6 shows the relationship between the minimum and maximum values traditionally
used in road design guidelines and the bounds of the NDD for a parameter where an increase in its
value produces a lower benefit.
and the bounds of the NDD (for a parameter where an increase in its value produces a lower
benefit)
20
2 Design Philosophy
An example for a parameter where an increase in its value produces a lower benefit is shown in
Figure 2.7:
The upper bound (i.e. absolute maximum) side friction factor on a horizontal curve for 50km/h
is 0.35 from Volume 3 Part 3. This is shown as the upper bound of the NDD in Figure 2.7. In
general, values above the upper bound should not be chosen.
The desirable maximum side friction factor on a horizontal curve for 50km/h is 0.30 from
Volume 3 Part 3. This value falls within the NDD.
Longitudinal grade is another example of a parameter where an increase in its value produces a lower
benefit.
Unless specifically stated otherwise the terminology described in this section applies to this manual
(i.e. the minimum and maximum values given define the boundaries of the NDD and so apply to the
design of new roads).
The only exception to this is when the quoted minimum or maximum values specifically state they
relate to the EDD or restoration projects.
Figure 2.7: Example of a design domain for the side friction factor for 50km/h
2.2.2
The Extended Design Domain (EDD)
As shown in Figure 2.3, the Extended Design Domain (EDD) is a range of values below the lower
bound of the Normal Design Domain (NDD) (for a parameter where an increase in its value produces
a higher benefit). The scope to use such lower order values comes when the models used in the NDD
contain considerable latitude. This is usually due to some conservative assumptions. The new values
are based on engineering grounds and use data from modern and comprehensive international
research.
Conversely, for some design parameters where an increase in its value produces a lower benefit, such
as the side friction factor, the EDD would be a range of design values above the maximum values
21
2 Design Philosophy
traditionally used in road design guidelines. However an EDD has not been developed for the side
friction factor.
EDD values are generally only used for existing roads in constrained situations as specified in
Transport and Main Roads Road Planning and Design Manual. Throughout the Austroads Guide to
Road Design, the NDD is described within the body of each part and values for the EDD, where
appropriate, are introduced within an appendix to the part.
EDD values are developed based on the following principles:
an appropriate risk-based process
a sound technical and engineering basis
engineering and professional judgement
an existing satisfactory safety performance.
As the name implies, the EDD extends below the NDD (for a parameter where an increase in its value
produces a higher benefit, i.e. below the lower bound of the design domain that is used for a new
road). Where there is an EDD, the term only refers to the extension (Figure 2.3).
The use of EDD may be limited to particular parameters (e.g. sight distance) where research has
demonstrated that the adoption of EDD will not result in significantly higher crash rates. While EDD
may be the least preferred design solution, it may be necessary in certain circumstances, usually for
existing roads (brownfield sites) in constrained situations. Improving existing roads, particularly the
geometry of existing roads, is relatively expensive. Furthermore, the cost differential between
upgrading a road to a level within the NDD compared to a level within the EDD is usually high within
these cases. In contrast, the relative cost differential between providing a road that conforms to the
NDD compared to the EDD is likely to be much less for a new road at a greenfield site or major
upgrade. An existing road also represents a significant prior investment.
Therefore, the focus when restoring existing roads (brownfield sites) should be to optimise the asset to
maximise the investment already made and to be made while still providing adequate safety.
The use of the EDD will also be applicable in the case of a major re-alignment on a low volume road,
as generally the NDD for many design parameters has to suit operation at moderate to high traffic
levels.
Section 2.3 discusses situations where the use of NDD and the EDD may be applicable. Some
discussion is also included below in Section 2.2.2.1 Guides for the Extended Design Domain.
Figure 2.8 provides an example of using the EDD for a crest curve in a restoration project when the
design speed is 110km/h:
The lower bound of the Normal Design Domain as shown in Figure 2.8 is K84m being for a
rural highway where the environment helps maintain a high level of driver interest and
alertness.
The EDD lower bound crest curve size for a restoration project must be determined on a case
by case basis (but still within the absolute minimum specified under EDD). The designer
should refer to the discussion and examples in the Austroads Guide to Road Design - Part 3,
Appendix A to do this. An example may be that Norm-day-2s-wet-0.2m stopping is the
appropriate minimum capability for a particular crest in a particular restoration project. For a
110km/h design speed this corresponds to a lower bound crest curve radius of about K61m.
22
2 Design Philosophy
Designers should be aware that simply adopting lower order values for a parameter (including EDD
values) for several design criteria may produce an unsafe and/or unsatisfactory result. For example,
combining a minimum radius horizontal curve with a minimum radius crest curve and a minimum
carriageway width may be a hazard to road users; even though individually they comply, in
combination they may produce an undesirable result. Where a lower order value is adopted for one
geometric element it is usually desirable to adopt a value that is above the lower order value for other
elements (e.g. increase the pavement width to allow vehicles to manoeuvre on an absolute minimum
radius vertical curve).
This philosophy is particularly relevant when applying the EDD concept.
Figure 2.8: Example of EDD and NDD for a crest curve size for a 110km/h design speed
# Value to be determined by the designer on a case-by-case basis.
Figure 2.9 is another conceptual diagram that shows the Design Domain, the Normal Design Domain
and the Extended Design Domain, and how the risk of litigation may change for a given geometric
parameter.
The risk of litigation needs to be considered when adopting particular values of a geometric parameter
for restoration of an existing road.
In Figure 2.9:
Area 1 represents the NDD
Line A represents the minimum value of a geometric parameter given in a road design
manual or the design of a new road
The vertical line denotes a geometric parameter whose minimum value is not influenced by
traffic volume (e.g. crest curve size)
23
2 Design Philosophy
Area 2 represents the EDD. It still ensures reasonable capability and safety for road users
capability that can be identified, explained and defended when it is applied appropriately.
Area 3 represents design exceptions (refer to Section 2.2.3).
The use of the EDD requires documentation of the decisions made in accordance with the
requirements described in the Guidelines for Road Design on Brownfield Sites.
The recommended process for using the EDD is also described in the Guidelines for Road Design on
Brownfield Sites.
Figure 2.9: Conceptual diagram showing the Design Domain, the Extended Design Domain and
how the risk of liability increases (for a parameter where an increase in its value produces a
higher benefit)
2.2.2.1
Guides for the Extended Design Domain
Guides for the application of the Extended Design Domain are included in the relevant parts of Volume
3 and the Guidelines for Road Design on Brownfield Sites. Refer to:
Guidelines for Road Design on Brownfield Sites for guidance on Extended Design Domain
process and documentation
Volume 3 Part 3 for:
Extended Design Domain for sight distance on roads
Extended Design Domain for adverse superelevation on horizontal curves in urban areas
guidance in relation to evaluating cross sections using the Extended Design Domain.
Volume 3 Part 4A for:
Extended Design Domain sight distance at intersections
Extended Design Domain for short length right turn slots.
24
2 Design Philosophy
Further information
For further discussion on the Extended Design Domain the reader should refer to Cox and others (Cox
2002; Cox 2003; Cox and Foley 2003; Cox 2004; Cox and Arndt 2005). For further information about
the Extended Design Domain and unsignalised intersections, readers should refer to Arndt (2004).
2.2.3
Design Exceptions
Design exceptions are the range of values outside of the design domain (i.e. outside NDD and
EDD). Design exceptions therefore represent the design values lower than the minimum limits or
greater than the maximum limits of geometric parameters listed in road design guides.
Values in the range denoted by Area 3 of Figure 2.9 fall below the Extended Design Domain because
they are not likely to be supported on the grounds of reasonable design capability (e.g. cannot provide
reasonable stopping capability). It is not the prerogative of road designers to decide whether to retain
a design exception.
Existing roads can consist of geometry with values that are below the design domain. Strategic
planners within road authorities allocate funding, determine investment strategies, and describe the
general intent or purpose for road projects based on an economic assessment (e.g. using a
benefit/cost analysis), competing network priorities and a range of other factors (e.g. factors discussed
in Section 2.1.1).
A designer, whether from a consultancy or the road authority itself, takes joint responsibility with the
approving officer whether to retain a design exception. If a designer is particularly concerned about the
adoption of a design exception (e.g. reasonable evidence exists that there is a major safety concern or
the designer believes the design exception can be eliminated), the designer must raise the issue with
the Transport and Main Roads Regional Management (e.g. Regional Director).
It is the role of the Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) to ensure that the
use of the design exception is appropriate given the context of the project and that Transport
and Main Roads processes have been followed. It is the role of the regional management (e.g.
Regional Director) to approve the use of the design exception and the degree that the design
exception is outside the design domain (with the aid of appropriate technical advice where
necessary).
Cases where designers are forced to retain values outside the design domain constitute design
exceptions. Any decision to use values outside the design domain must be documented in accordance
with the Guidelines for Road Design on Brownfield Sites. Note that the level of documentation is
influenced by the type of work (see Section 2.3 Road Design Classes) and perceived safety
ramifications.
Design exceptions should only be accepted where the element can not be upgraded because it is not
possible, practical or affordable. However, fit for purpose / context sensitive design recognises that
design exceptions will sometimes be necessary.
Even so, fit for purpose / context sensitive design does NOT promote design exceptions, hence:
a design exception can not simply be justified by claiming that it is fit for purpose or fit for
context - it is necessary to first determine how fit for purpose or fit for context the situation is
design exceptions are less acceptable on higher order roads than lower order roads.
25
2 Design Philosophy
2.3
Road Design Classes
The primary purpose of Road Design Classes is to define the aspects of geometric road design
that must be analysed to align the upgrading philosophy selected for the project.
There are four road design classes (Classes A, B C and D). The road design classes generally reflect
the level of investment and intervention being undertaken on the road network. Furthermore, the
classes generally set Transport and Main Roads expectations with respect to relevant design criteria
(e.g. Extended Design Domain (EDD), design exceptions).
The design approach is different for each Road Design Class. Each Class has a design approach that
delivers a business case and detailed design as explained in Volume 3 Part 8.
Design Classes have no relationship with OnQ Project Types 1, 2 and 3.
2.3.1.1
Design Class Definitions
Road Design Class A

Design Class A projects are significant projects that in the main, are complex, high risk and/or
relatively expensive. This design class could be for greenfield or brownfield sites. These projects have
a requirement for a high level of consultation, investigation, rigour and control. Examples of this class
are:
new roads
duplication of existing roads
major intersection upgrades
interchanges
realignment of part (>500m say) of an existing road including realignment in conjunction with
a bridge replacement
upgrading a road to motorway standard
new climbing lanes and overtaking lanes involving significant earthworks and/or containing
intersections.
Road Design Class B

Design Class B projects are of medium risk and less complex and usually less expensive than Class A
projects. Examples are:
where existing road alignments are largely retained with improved cross section (i.e. widening
required)
major intersection upgrade/s
non-complex roadworks associated with bridge replacement
overtaking lanes that do not involve significant earthworks and do not contain intersections
pavement rehabilitation that increases the structural and/or functional capacity of the
pavement (e.g. an overlay) - note that with an AC overlay of an existing chip seal or a change
of AC type, the road must be assessed for water flow depths on the road surface.
26
2 Design Philosophy
Road Design Class C

Design Class C projects consist of:
Simple shoulder seal projects (the additional seal width being insufficient to change driver
perception and the operating speed of the roadway by more than about 5 km/h)
Minor intersection improvements (e.g. adding short channelised right turn treatments)
Upgrade/retrofit of safety barriers
Culvert / floodway replacement works.
Pavement overlay projects or rehabilitation projects that include surface shape correction projects that
maintain the existing carriageway widths (but require the re-establishment of a geometric control line)
will also fit this category if it is not necessary to undertake any more than short lengths of localised
formation widening in order to accommodate the pavement overlay.
Road Design Class D
Design Class D projects are essentially maintenance type projects but where some heavy /
specialised plant is required. To qualify for design class D, the roadway must have retained its shape
with respect to crossfall and grade (as determined by an inspection or through maintenance history).
Design Class D is essentially restoring to previous state with respect to geometry. Examples are
pavement rehabilitation or pavement rehabilitation with a minor or profile correcting overlay (where no
earthworks / formation widening is required) and / or minor drainage.
Table 2.1 lists all four design classes (A, B, C and D) along with the expected geometric design
requirements. The table also provides examples of projects that relate to a particular design class.
It is critical that designers firstly identify the most appropriate design class for a given project
before applying criteria from the Road Planning and Design Manual. This is because not all of the
design criteria in the Road Planning and Design Manual need to be applied for each design class. For
example, design criteria for horizontal and vertical curve size and carriageway width will not normally
be applied on a Class D part shoulder sealing project. Refer to the fourth column of Table 2.1 to
identify relevant geometric parameters to be assessed for each design class.
Although design classes allow for different levels of design analysis, a project must not introduce
design elements that make a road less safe.
Examples where a road could be made less safe with design classes D or C include:
a seal width increase that results in the 85th percentile speed of the road rising above the
geometric elements of the existing road
a seal width increase that is implemented by significantly steepening the batters within the
existing formation.
27
2 Design Philosophy
Table 2.1: Road Design Classes

Road
Design
Class
Project Types
New roads.
Geometric
New
alignments
or major
modifications
to existing
roads
Complex, high risk and/or relatively

expensive projects involving
modification to existing roads e.g.
Duplication of existing roads
>500m realignment of existing road
New climbing / overtaking lanes
Sealing of an unsealed road.
Major crosssectional
Restoration projects (roads and/or
changes
intersections) involving increases to
including
the earthworks footprint for most of
road
the project length e.g.
widening
Shoulder widening
Overlay and widening
Restoration projects (roads and/or
Surface
intersections) where the earthworks
profile
footprint does not change or there is
changes that
localised marginal change to the
do not
footprint. This includes projects with:
involve road
Significant increases in seal width widening
Structural overlays
Surface shape correction
Full shoulder seal projects (if the
change in seal width is likely to

significantly increase driver speed,
use Class B)
Batter flattening/ reshaping
Typical Geometric
Parameters/
Minimum Design Criteria for
Assessed Parameters
Elements
Assessed #
All
EDD* if a brownfield site
Design exception, if an
exceptional circumstance
NDD for all other instances
All
EDD* otherwise NDD

Design exception where
prohibitively expensive to justify
i) Crossfalls
ii) Superelevation
For geometric parameters i) to

iii) in previous column: EDD*
otherwise NDD
iii) Flow path depths For geometric parameters iv) in

at curve transitions previous column:
a) EDD* otherwise NDD;
iv) Verge width and
b) Design Exception if
sight distance
prohibitively expensive to
requirements, if
justify.
retrofitting roadside
barriers
For geometric elements v) in
previous column, consider:
v) Geometric
a) EDD* otherwise NDD
elements
(remove hazard); or
associated with a
b) Application of suitable
significant crash
mitigating devices.
history (in spite of
existing appropriate For all other geometric
mitigating devices) parameters/elements other than
i) to v) in previous column,
retain Design Exceptions.
i) Verge width and For geometric parameters i) in
sight distance
previous column:
requirements, if
a) EDD* otherwise NDD;
retrofitting roadside b) Design Exception if
barriers.
prohibitively expensive to justify.
Maintenance type projects that do not None

involve structural overlays, formation
restoring
widening or significant increases in
existing
seal width, but where some heavy /
geometry,
specialised plant is required, as given (except for
by the examples:
very minor
and localised ii) Geometric
For geometric elements ii) in
Pavement rehabilitation
elements with
surface
previous column, apply suitable
Minor overlays (small height
crash histories
profile
mitigating devices.
increase)
identified in Road
changes)
Resheet of unsealed road
Safety Audits
For all other geometric
parameters/elements other than
Reseal
i) to ii) in previous column, retain
Part shoulder seal
Design Exceptions.
Signs (e.g. Advisory speed
signs; CAMS)
Safety Barriers
Where the pavement is not being
rehabilitated/ reconstructed, the
roadway must have retained its shape
with respect to crossfall and grade to
classify as Class D.
# In this table, geometric parameters are defined as those that impact the shape of roadway formation e.g. parameters
that effect the horizontal and vertical alignment, cross section, intersection geometry etc. Examples of such parameters
are lane width, batter slope, stopping sight distance, side friction, intersection turn treatment type and taper length.
* Where an EDD exists
D
28
2 Design Philosophy
Selecting the Design Class

The selection of the appropriate design class should be made in the strategic planning stage or as
early as possible in the project planning stage. The purpose of the design class is to clarify the scope
of works, departmental responsibility and individual responsibilities. It aims to set the framework for
mutual understanding between the project manager, supervising/certifying engineer and designers
with respect to elements of project scope, the level of geometric design analysis, level of intervention
and need for documentation, justification and approval of any use of Extended Design Domain or
design exceptions.
Figure 2.10 indicates a conceptual process for selecting design classes. The project could be in
response to long term corridor planning or a recent natural disaster such as flooding. There are likely
to be funding constraints identified prior to the commencement of the design process which must be
considered.
Figure 2.10: Conceptual process on selecting the design class for a project
Select
Project Type
Corridor
Planning
Road Safety
Audit
Funding
Constraints
QTRIP
Select
Design Class
Design
Class A
Refer to
Table 2.1
for specific
details on
project types.
Design
Class B
Design
Class C
Design Effort
and Investment
Speed Assessment
Project
Motivator
Refer to
Table 2.1
for specific
details on
design effort
and
investment.
Natural
Disaster
Maintenance
2.3.2
Design
Class D
Design Classes and Applicable Design Criteria
Design Class A
As outlined in Table 2.1 Road Design Class A projects may be greenfield projects or complex
brownfield projects. It is not normal practice to have design exceptions in a greenfield project and any
proposed design exception must be justified, documented and approved as outlined in Section 2.2.3.
Complex brownfield projects may involve the use of Extended Design Domain (EDD) and may have to
retain design exceptions because of the difficulty and cost of upgrading them. Where practical, design
exceptions should be upgraded to conform to EDD (if there is an EDD). Again, design exception must
be justified, documented and approved as outlined in Section 2.2.3.
29
2 Design Philosophy
Design Class B
As outlined in Table 2.1 Road Design Class B projects require an assessment of all geometric
elements in order to check the adequacy of the existing and restored road sections. With Road Design
Class B projects involving pavement overlay and/or pavement widening, the aim should be to bring
design exceptions involving sight distance and cross section width into EDD otherwise the design
exception will be locked in for another 20 or more years due to the substantially enhanced pavement
asset.
However any decision to upgrade a road section will be influenced by factors such as:
Crash history
Constructability and traffic management constraints
Project constraints
Cost (e.g. it may not be cost effective to increase the size of a vertical curve through a major
rock cutting).
Examples of specific instances where design exceptions should be upgraded include:
Horizontal curves with:
a crash history and which already have the appropriate signage, safety barriers or run-out
areas; or
an unsatisfactory combination with other minimum parameters.
Intersections with deficient sight distance experience shows it will end up being rebuilt
sooner rather than later
Crests these should be brought into EDD when:
minimal earthworks are required (e.g., < 1m cut)
rehabilitation or reconstruction of the existing pavement is required; or
there is an unsatisfactory combination with other minimum parameters.
Design Class C
As outlined in Table 2.1, design exceptions for geometric elements such as crossfalls, superelevation,
and flow path depths at curve transitions within Road Design Class C projects are normally expected
to be upgraded. Normally, all other geometric elements comprising a design exception (if known) are
not expected to be upgraded. However, the following is required on all Class C projects:
Review and upgrade signage if necessary to comply with the Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (Queensland) (MUTCD)
Comply with the departmental policy on road safety auditing of projects
Seek to improve the geometry of any feature that has a significant crash history in spite of
appropriate mitigating treatments already in place
Mitigate geometric elements with a known crash history, by:
clearing roadside hazards
updating / installing safety barriers etc.
30
2 Design Philosophy
providing additional signage; and/or
applying a speed limit reduction, if justified in accordance with Section 4 of the MUTCD.
For full shoulder sealing projects, it is desirable to be able to demonstrate that any design exception
(or any other geometric parameter for that matter) is not made worse. With these projects, it is
desirable to undertake an assessment of all geometric elements in order to determine if there is any
adverse effect due to increased operating speeds as a result of changed driver or rider perception of
the road (e.g. problem horizontal curves).
Design Class D
Design exceptions for Design Class D projects (if known) require no treatment other than review of
signage and possibly clear hazards). It is assumed that we are simply restoring the road to its previous
state.
Sometimes, the appropriate design class is not clear cut. Other times, a project will have parts
that are clearly one class with other parts clearly another. However, it is the overall level of
intervention of the completed project, and the effect on future operating speeds and
operational safety, that will set the dominant design class and expected treatment of any
design exception.
2.4
Design Criteria and Guidelines
2.4.1
Introduction
Most design guidelines and design criteria in this manual are based on theoretical safety models (i.e.
most are not derived from relationships based on objective safety evidence). Relating road design
parameters to crash rates by research is a very difficult and time consuming process and many
studies have not been particularly successful in identifying relationships. Nevertheless, much useful
guidance on the effect of changes in standard on crash rate has been achieved through research (e.g.
shoulder widths, horizontal curve radius).
2.4.2
Development of design criteria
In developing design guidelines and design criteria, a range of circumstances must be considered and
the result is a balance between competing demands to produce a context sensitive design. Many road
design criteria have been developed from the laws of physics, empirical data and/or objective safety
evidence and provided to designers for application to their specific problems. In defining the
acceptable limits for the dimensions for various criteria (the Design Domain refer to Section 2.2), the
lowest acceptable value for the Normal Design Domain is often labelled the absolute minimum and
the preferred lowest value the desirable minimum (refer to Section 2.2.1). At the same time the
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (Transportation Association of Canada 1999) provides
guidance on a best practice solution. The designer then has to establish the affordability of the
solution recommended and show an acceptable balance between safety and cost.
2.4.2.1
Design criteria based on objective safety evidence
Design criteria where research has established a relationship between the various parameters and
crash rates are objective in nature. When using these design criteria a minimum or maximum value
can be set to limit the crash rates to a particular limit. Often this is prior to a point where the crash rate
will increase sharply.
Alternatively, when using these design criteria, a designer can choose an appropriate balance
between safety and cost by comparing the estimated/predicted benefits (the reduction in crash costs
31
2 Design Philosophy
for the community) with the additional cost of construction (community provided funds) to determine
the benefit cost ratio (BCR). Examples where this approach can be used in this manual are the
warrants for safety barriers using the Road Impact Severity Calculator (RISC) program (refer to
Volume 3 Part 6) and the design of roundabout geometry using the ARNDT program (refer to Volume
3 Part 4B). One problem with using only a BCR to determine whether to provide a certain standard is
that there is no lower limit for design parameters on low volume roads. This can lead to the provision
of road geometry with a high propensity for crashes.
Often, the funding available will not be enough to enable projects with a BCR of one to be constructed
and a higher BCR will be required to justify the project (based on the lowest BCR at the limit of
funding).
Prioritising projects using this process ensures that Transport and Main Roads funds are distributed
efficiently to those areas most likely to give the greatest return.
2.4.2.2
Design criteria based on theoretical models
Theoretical safety models are often based on physics, the performance characteristics of drivers and
vehicles and the experience and judgement of practitioners. This judgement and experience is usually
derived from objective measurements of performance and as much correlation with crash history as
possible. Further, for design criteria based on theoretical models, BCR techniques cannot be used to
compare the benefit of providing a higher or lower standard of geometry (e.g. with current information
it is not possible to measure if there is any benefit to be gained by providing a larger crest curve rather
than a smaller one).
An example of design criteria based on a theoretical model is the minimum radius crest curve. Driver
eye heights and reaction times, vehicle braking performance, and object height are some of the
parameters that are used to calculate the required radius. The values of each of these parameters are
based on a combination of measured values and subjective judgement. The theoretical model in this
example was first developed when vehicle performance was limited and traffic volumes were low. The
model was intended to ensure that roads would safely cater for future vehicle performance and traffic.
These criteria have existed over a considerable period of time and many are based on material from
international road design practice. They have also been influenced by many years of Australian
research and many design criteria have been modified accordingly. McLean (2000a; 2000b) shows
that the range of practice for cross section elements around the world can be wide and Australian
practice is within the range but not at the top. At the same time, Australia has the largest vehicles in
the world operating regularly on many of its roads.
Whilst theoretical safety models have a strong logical base, their actual effect on safety is often not
well known although general effects have been well demonstrated. Most general studies that have
attempted to relate geometric design criteria to accident rates have not been successful in showing
strong correlation between a specific geometric element and the expected accident rate although
trends have emerged. Research by the Australian Road Research Board has been successful in
showing the effect of curvature (McLean 1977) and shoulder width (Armour and McLean 1983; Armour
1984a; Armour 1984b) on crash rates. This has allowed the development of sensible Australian
practice in these areas.
Notwithstanding the difficulty of obtaining direct confirmation of the effect of all geometric elements on
accident rates, the methodology is logical, based on sound principles of physics and has produced
acceptable results. It is the best method available to develop design criteria in lieu of criteria derived
from objective safety evidence.
32
2 Design Philosophy
Because judgement is used inherently in the models, there can be conflicting opinions as to the
appropriateness of the chosen values, largely because of differences on the tradeoffs to be made.
2.4.3
Application of design criteria and the resulting standard of the road
Guidelines provide information and background material to assist the designer in choosing the
appropriate dimensions for the elements of the design. However, the range of combinations of
elements is large and these can apply to a large range of circumstances (e.g. local rural road to major
urban motorway). This manual must therefore be general - it cannot take account of specific site
circumstances but it does provide guidance to the designer to assist in deciding on an appropriate
standard for each set of circumstances/project.
There has always been a gap between road needs and the budgets to fulfil those needs.
Designers sometimes seek to reduce costs on a project by adopting values for design criteria at the
lower bound of the relevant design domain, usually on the basis that the application of such values will
provide a satisfactory solution. This is not necessarily the case.
In the following quotation about geometric road design, the term standard refers to the design criteria
and their design domain.
Design dimensions that do not meet standards do not necessarily result in unacceptable
design dimensions that meet standards do not necessarily guarantee an acceptable design.
In assessing the quality of a design, it is not appropriate simply to consider a checklist of
standards. The design has to be reviewed with judgement; standards merely assist the
reviewer in making those judgements (Louis 2002).
It is also the case that adopting lower order values for all elements in combination at a particular
location will not generally give a satisfactory result. The resulting design might be hazardous and/or
have operational difficulties. Where the lower order value is adopted for one element, it is usually
required that a better than lower order value be used for others to compensate (e.g. wider pavement
where a crest vertical curve of low standard must be adopted). As a further example, if a vehicle has
to stop on a minimum radius horizontal curve with restricted sight distance, the kinetic friction
associated with locked wheel braking on wet roads (part of the stopping distance model) is
accompanied by a reduction in available side friction. This means that many drivers are unable to
control the direction of their vehicle unless they brake in a manner that requires a longer stopping
distance (Olsen, Cleveland et al. 1984; Fambro, Fitzpatrick et al. 1997).
Experience and judgement must be used in these cases. Experience is, however, more than a gut
feel on the designers behalf. It must be developed from objective application of principles and
measurements of performance over a period of time. It is not enough to merely have completed a
project - its performance must be measured objectively over an appropriate period of time. The other
path to depth of understanding is through objective research of the issues using appropriate
techniques and matching of data to actual circumstances and performance. If judgements are to be
made, they must be able to be justified on the basis of real data and performance in circumstances
similar to those prevailing at the site of the design in question.
To a large extent, this manual incorporates significant amounts of data from research and experience
gained over a period of time by Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads and other
Australian authorities. However, this must of necessity be somewhat generalised, as circumstances
will vary between sites. A sensible mix of application of the manual and the practitioners experience is
required to gain the best result (i.e. a context sensitive design).
33
2 Design Philosophy
Roads should be fit for a particular purpose in that they should do what the reasonable user expects
them to do as well as performing in the way society needs them to perform. A context sensitive design
is therefore one that matches the way it will be used (e.g. matches how a road will be driven). It is not
a solution generated by making unrealistic design assumptions (e.g. choosing a design speed that is
unrealistically high or low).
For roads, the basis of producing a context sensitive design is that the standard adopted for a project
reflects the proper purpose of the road in question. The basic purpose determines the level of
standard appropriate to that road. For example, a highway provides a connection between major
centres giving a high level of service to the traffic on the road; it is a vital part of the economy of the
area and is more important for its traffic carrying function than for property access. On the other hand,
a local road is primarily for the purpose of access to property and connection to the higher order
elements of the road system; it can be a lower speed road with less generous features than the
highway counterpart.
However, having determined what the appropriate purpose is, the design standards of the elements
have to be in accordance with the accepted design practices as defined in this manual. That is, the
application of the principles of design does not change. Anything less than this means the solution is
NOT a context sensitive design.
2.5
Design Consistency
2.5.1
Background
An important component of reducing or eliminating uncertainty is design consistency. This consistency

should be applied over long lengths of road links and as far as possible, over a wide geographic area.
The more consistent the designs are, the greater the contribution of the designer to reducing crashes
on the road system. Different road functions exist within the road system; the road function reflects the
type of service provided by the road. In addition, there are significant variations in topography from
area to area and these need to be accommodated in the designs.
There should be consistency of design for each road function in each terrain type regardless of
location (Transportation Association of Canada 1999).
This approach leads to the concept of the self explaining road (Fuller and Santos 2002). That is, a
road whose features tell the driver what type of road it is and therefore what can be expected in terms
of the elements of the design. This provides a confidence in expectations for the driver, who then
operates the vehicle in accordance with those expectations, which in turn are in tune with the standard
of road.
Fuller and Santos (2002) explores in detail the effect of human behaviour and limitations in
approaching the driving task. Designers should take note of the following:
Drivers do not always operate at their optimal level of competence their performance may be
degraded because of several factors (e.g. fatigue, stress, poor motivation, and low level of
attention or arousal).
Task performance can be considered on three levels - skill based, rule based and knowledge
based:
Skill based performance is so well learned that a person performs the task automatically.
Rule based performance is guided by a set of rules such as the rules of the road (e.g. a
Stop sign ahead invokes a learned behaviour of slowing down and stopping at the sign).
34
2 Design Philosophy
Knowledge based performance has no rules to guide the driver and actions are taken on
the basis of experience of the situation confronting the driver.
Where events are such that there is no rule to guide behaviour (e.g. there is a novel problem
with which the driver has to deal) reference must be made to his or her knowledge of the
vehicle, the highway or traffic system, the behaviour of other road users or even of basic
principles, to enable formulation of an appropriate solution as to what to do. This is known as
knowledge based level of performance. This knowledge base grows with experience so that
experienced drivers have recourse to a relatively extensive knowledge base compared to
novice drivers. Thus the latter are likely to produce a higher proportion of wrong solutions
when faced with a novel situation (Fuller and Santos,2002).
These factors demonstrate the vulnerability of drivers to the driving task and the importance of
providing an environment where normal expectations are met and a learned response will be
appropriate. One way of providing this type of environment is to provide consistency in the design of
the road.
Therefore, other things being equal, the more predictable the roadway and its characteristics, the
easier the driving task and the easier it is to use safely. The implication for the highway engineer is
that the design of road features should take account of road-user expectations (Fuller and Santos
2002).
Consistency is a fundamental issue in the development of link strategies. Once the various
dimensions have been established, they should be applied consistently (e.g. lane and shoulder widths,
clear zone arrangements, road edge guide posts, signing conventions, intersection treatments).
Design consistency can be addressed in three areas:
cross section consistency
operating speed consistency
driver workload consistency.
An example of providing consistency is to use, where possible, a consistent intersection

layout/treatment on a link.
Actual crash history can provide insight into the design consistency of a road and this history should
be used on existing roads as the basis of any review of consistency.
Further, safety on roads is closely related to the drivers ability to anticipate events and react to them.
Perception and reaction times are critical to the development of sight distance criteria and the other
elements that rely on this parameter. In this, the drivers expectations play a major part. Perception
and reaction times for matters that accord with a drivers expectations are less than those that are
needed when the road ahead does not conform to the drivers expectations.
Designers should account for this by reducing or eliminating uncertainty or the unexpected for drivers
(or by allowing for increased perception and reaction times).
2.5.2
Cross section consistency
For a given road function, in given terrain conditions, cross section elements should be similar
everywhere. Ideally, they should be the same on a specific road since the operating speed can be
affected by the cross section. For example, a narrow, confined cross section is likely to result in a
35
2 Design Philosophy
slower speed of operation than one with similar geometric characteristics but a wide, open cross
section.
Designers should avoid creating incompatibilities between the road cross section and the
corresponding horizontal and vertical alignment. For example, given a road section with a poor
standard of alignment, improving the cross sectional elements without a corresponding improvement
in the alignment creates an inconsistency in the design. This can result in a driver perceiving the road
to be of a higher standard than it really is. Drivers might then operate at speeds that are excessive for
the critical alignment conditions.
There will be cases where the cross section dimensions change suddenly (e.g. where a four lane
divided road becomes a two lane, two-way road). In these cases, the designer should provide an
appropriate transition between the two cross sections with appropriate tapers and advance signing to
mitigate the impact of the change. Ideally a transition from two lanes to four lanes should occur in
conjunction with another obvious change (e.g. urbanisation). When the change is not obvious
experience indicates that head on accidents can increase significantly.
Another example occurs where the paved shoulder ends suddenly. Serious crashes involving cyclists
have occurred where the cyclist is forced back onto the road in these circumstances.
2.5.3
Operating speed consistency
Multiple vehicle crash rates on roads are closely related to the variations in speed between vehicles
on the road. These variations can be caused by individual drivers adjusting their speed to
negotiate/accommodate property entrances, intersections and changes in geometry. The greater and
more frequent the speed variations, the greater the probability of a higher crash rate. The other source
of speed differential is by drivers travelling substantially slower or faster than the average speed of the
traffic, and this also results in a substantially higher risk of crashes for these drivers. Figure 2.11
illustrates the mean collision (i.e. crash) rate versus speed difference between successive geometric
elements.
Figure 2.11: Mean collision rate versus mean speed difference between successive geometric
elements
36
2 Design Philosophy
Designers can therefore enhance the safety of a road by producing a design that encourages a
consistent speed of operation.
Volume 3 Part 3 discusses the methods for designers to allow for the operating speed of drivers on a
road. By applying the concepts of Volume 3 Part 3 (i.e. assessing the operating speed on each
element), including the detailed alignment design requirements, designers can produce a design that
encourages consistency of operation.
Road networks that do not provide an appropriate road hierarchy, thereby forcing short trip local traffic
to mix with high speed through traffic, may also result in an inconsistent speed of operation. Such
circumstances may include:
rural subdivisions accessing local services via a high speed arterial road
changing local roads to high speed arterial roads rather than adding new higher order roads
into the network.
An appropriate mix of higher and lower order roads in the network, access control and appropriate
integration of development can help to resolve these issues.
2.5.4
Driver workload consistency
Some of the human factors affecting driver performance are discussed in Section 2.6.2. Driver
workload also has a marked effect on performance at both ends of the spectrum. If the demand is too
low, the drivers attention (i.e. level of arousal) will be too low with probable loss of vigilance and the
driver may even fall asleep at the wheel. At the other end of the spectrum, if the arousal level is too
high (e.g. stress, information overload, emotional situations) the driver may compensate by ignoring
some relevant information leading to unsafe operation of the vehicle.
In these circumstances, driver response to unexpected situations may be too slow or inappropriate. It
is important that the designer ensure that abrupt increases in driver workload are avoided as these
provide the potential for a higher crash rate.
These increases can be caused by:
limited sight distance to the feature
dissimilarity of the feature to the previous feature (causing surprise to the driver)
large percentages of drivers unfamiliar with the road (e.g. tourist road as opposed to a local
road)
a high demand on the drivers attention after a period of lesser demand (e.g. a sharp curve at
the end of a long straight).
The criticality of the feature may also influence the crash rate (e.g. an intersection or lane drop is more
critical than a change in shoulder width).
Situations where most or all of these factors are encountered simultaneously should be avoided
(Transportation Association of Canada 1999).
Designers need to be aware of these factors and provide the driver with a consistent level of arousal
(that is not too low and not too high) but with adequate variation to maintain the arousal level. There
are implications for design where changes occur and designers should make allowance for additional
reaction times where a section of road with low arousal features changes to a situation requiring a
higher state of arousal. Some guidelines (based on Fuller and Santos (2002)) to assist are:
37
2 Design Philosophy
Avoid low arousal inducing road alignments (typically a straight alignment, with unchanging
landscaping). Medium complexity helps maintain activation. One device to use is to provide
specific aiming points for drivers (refer to Volume 3 Part 3). Note that this can usually be
readily achieved with curvilinear alignment.
Consider the needs of fatigued and drowsy drivers (e.g. provide rest areas, provide audible
edge lines).
Avoid stimulus driven high arousal states (e.g. too much critical information on a fast road
section).
Avoid things that compete for, or distract, a drivers attention when critical information is being
presented (e.g. other light sources near traffic signals; advertising hoardings near directional
or hazard signing; in merging and diverging areas on motorways, relocate all which is not
directly related to the merge/diverge to reduce driver distraction from this area of high decision
making).
Avoid information overload (e.g. avoid excessive signing).
Avoid memory related errors by providing the necessary information specifically rather than
relying on it being stored in the drivers head - locate it close to the vulnerable phases of the
task.
Design road features to take account of driver expectations.
Avoid incorrect speed expectations by using speed guidance at critical road segments.
Consider controlling the effects of speed adaptation (e.g. drivers will approach the first offmotorway curves and intersections at a higher speed than they imagine).
Employ practices of error management: prevention, tolerance and recovery (e.g. provide a
forgiving roadside environment, refer to Volume 3 Parts 6 and 6B).
Aim for error prevention and error tolerance.
Provide good information.
Consider elements of the roadway such as:
lighting
signing of hazards
marking of hazards
signing of routes
road marking
control by signals
rumble strips or surfaces
speed controls
traffic calming elements
enforced restrictions
roadway width
38
2 Design Philosophy
hard shoulders
clear zone
breakaway (i.e. frangible) light standards and roadside furniture
roadside furniture
safety barriers
error recovery areas
run out areas
vehicle design
road surface friction
batter slopes.
Increase feedback to drivers regarding the quality of their performance (which may only be
feasible where variable message signing is available).
In addition, designers should consider the requirements of motorcycle riders. Motorcycle riders require
constant attention to the road and its environment and are more likely to be subject to information
overload than car drivers. Motorcycle riders have to attend to:
keeping the vehicle upright (road surface, road alignment, wind conditions, stability when
braking)
anticipating the actions of other road users who may not expect a motorcycle
navigating without the assistance of a map or passenger
withstanding direct exposure to the elements.
The additional tasks are more likely to lead to stress and overload and the consequences of a mistake
are more severe than for other motorists.
The complexity of the motorcycle task means that riders are only capable of absorbing limited
amounts of information in addition to the needs of traffic monitoring and vehicle control. Designs must
therefore provide appropriate information; at the same time limiting it to that which is necessary for the
particular situation.
Further, in areas where driver workload is high, vulnerable road users may be overlooked by other
road users. Considerations to limit driver workload will have benefits on limiting crashes involving
vulnerable road users which are typically a high severity crash.
An example of the application of these principles is in the design of rural intersections over an
extended length of the road system. It is necessary to provide consistency of experience as the driver
traverses the route. Therefore, the dimensions of the elements of the intersection (e.g. tapers, length
of auxiliary lanes) should be consistent. Further, the layout of the intersection should be the same for
similar circumstances. This might mean that a higher level of treatment should be applied at an
isolated intersection to ensure consistent behaviour of drivers.
For example, if most intersections on a road link are of the Channelised Right (CHR) type then a driver
might be caught unaware by a vehicle turning right at an isolated Basic Right (BAR) type (possibly
resulting in a rear end collision or overtaking accident). Greater perception and reaction times could be
39
2 Design Philosophy
required in such cases to ensure that drivers perceive the different conditions, but it is usually more
appropriate to change this intersection type into a short CHR for consistency.
2.6
Design Considerations
2.6.1
Road Safety
A dictionary definition of safety includes the statements (The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd 2005):
the state of being safe
freedom from injury or danger
the quality of insuring against hurt, injury, danger, or risk
a contrivance or device to prevent injury or avert danger
the action of keeping safe.
There is no entirely safe road since crashes will occur. We only derive some meaning for safety by
measuring the number of crashes, deaths and/or injuries, and comparing the rate of their occurrence
on the roads in question with the crash rates established performance measures with performance on
similar roads in other jurisdictions (e.g. international experience).
Hauer (1998) writes that the safety of a road is measured by the frequency and severity of crashes
occurring on it, and that road safety is therefore a matter of degree. He also notes that since crashes
occur on all roads in use, it is inappropriate to say of any road that it is safe. However, it is correct to
say that roads can be built to a nominal level of safety.
2.6.1.1
Safety concepts
Road safety is therefore a relative term referring to the difference in performance between roads when
the crash rate is measured. Thus a safer road should have a relatively lower crash rate than a less
safe road. This does not mean that the number of crashes or deaths will be less on this safer road
than on other less safe roads when the safer road is a very highly trafficked road such as a
motorway.
While well designed motorways are built to a high design standard and can be considered among the
safest roads built, the very high traffic volumes mean that the number of crashes and deaths will
probably be larger than a rural road carrying a relatively small volume of traffic, even if that rural road
has a much higher crash rate.
What constitutes safety must be more closely examined. How does an agency or a designer
determine whether one road is safer than another? Traditionally, design has relied on developing
elements of the road by an objective analysis of the particular situation using the laws of physics and
measures of the factors being input into those laws (e.g. eye height, object height, deceleration rate)
applied using an objective assessment of human behaviour in that situation (refer to the discussion
pertaining to design criteria based on objective safety in Section 2.4.2.1).
But do design criteria determined in this way provide an assurance of safety? To assess this, a useful
approach is suggested by Hauer (1999) who proposes a clear distinction between two kinds of safety
to analyse situations, namely:
substantive safety is the measured or expected crash frequency and severity
nominal safety is produced by a design that complies with design criteria, warrants and
guidelines, and sanctioned design procedures.
40
2 Design Philosophy
Substantive safety is a matter of degree. A road in use cannot be safe; only safer or less so. What
level of substantive safety is appropriate is therefore governed by considering what level of safety is
attainable with the resources available. In contrast, a road can be nominally safe, meaning that it
conforms to design criteria, warrants and guidelines, and sanctioned design procedures. Whether a
road that is nominally safe is always (or even usually) substantively safer than a road that is not
nominally safe cannot be said definitively (from Hauer (1999)).
Ideally, there should be sufficient information on the effect of changes in design elements on the level
of safety to allow an objective assessment of substantive safety. In this ideal case it would be
unnecessary to consider nominal safety. This level of information is not currently available for many
design criteria but the following four aspects of nominal safety still have value (Hauer 1999).
Designs must enable road users to behave legally. This can be attained by nominal safety.
Designs should not create situations with which a significant minority of road users has
difficulties. This too can be secured by making roads nominally safe.
Nominal safety is useful protection against claims of professional and legal liability.
Resorting to nominal safety may be a temporary necessity when crash frequency and severity
consequences are unknown. In such cases, a statement about the absence of crash-based
information is needed.
It is the case that the nominal safety models are based on logical analysis and are intuitively sound.
They have in general stood the test of time with modifications implemented when actual crash rates
have indicated that change was necessary. They also provide a framework on which substantive
safety analysis can be based. However, most researchers have found difficulty in obtaining robust
relationships between road geometry and crash rates.
The crash history of a road should be observed and regularly assessed over time as part of the
assessment of the safety of a road.
2.6.1.2
Designing for road safety
There is an implicit contract of trust between the travelling public and the agency providing and
managing the road network on which they travel. By extension, this trust is also between the road user
and the road designer. The essence of the trust is that road users may rightly expect the agency and
its employees to use the best available knowledge in order to decide how much safety to build into the
roads they produce. Not using such knowledge amounts to a breach of trust (Hauer 1999).
The aim of those developing policies (e.g. policy makers, strategic planners), link strategies and
investment strategies, as well as all road designers, must therefore be to provide the safest road
network possible within the constraints of cost, operating efficiency and environmental impact, etc. All
road design is therefore a compromise between a range of factors (refer to Section 2.1.1).
To be able to produce the best result, there must be a clear understanding of what is meant by road
safety and how the decisions made firstly by the policy maker, then by the strategic planner and finally
by the designer that affect the safety of the road in question.
This section of the manual addresses the question of safety, what it means and how policy makers,
strategic planners, designers, and others need to act to achieve the appropriate level of safety in their
designs.
41
2 Design Philosophy
2.6.2
Human Factors
General
Driver behaviour is central to almost all of the decisions required in the design task. The efficient
operation of the road system depends on the interaction of the driver, the vehicle, other drivers and
vehicles and the road itself. Crashes occur when some part or parts of the system fail. The road
system is a complex, dynamic and fundamentally unstable system, the use of which has devastating
consequences for many (Fuller and Santos 2002). Understanding the road user, and the psychological
factors that make them vulnerable in roadway use, should allow designers to be responsive to those
characteristics thus creating a safer road environment.
2.6.3
Driver Perception of Roadway
Drivers use the visual information of the roadway geometry in combination with signage and
environment, moderated by their paradigms and experience to develop their perception of the road
conditions and thereby control the speed and position of their vehicles on the roadway. They need
sufficient information to allow them to take the necessary decisions to safely negotiate each geometric
feature.
The amount of visual information received by drivers can be limited by the following:
drivers travelling for relatively long periods of time at high speed become velocitised (losing
perspective of speed of travel and physical surroundings)
inadequate attention because of driver day-dreaming rather than concentrating entirely on

the driving task. In this state, a driver can often become more alert at a particular point in time
and not be able to recall the last few minutes of the trip.
driver fatigue
driver use of drugs and alcohol
driver distraction
driving at night/dawn/dusk
driving in the rain or fog.
All of the above factors (except use of drugs and alcohol) can affect most drivers at particular times.
This results in instances where drivers have reduced perception of the roadway. For this reason, it is
very important to provide drivers with as many clues as possible as to what lies ahead. This will
minimise any safety problems especially during periods of reduced driver perception. Roadside
conditions must not be ambiguous or misleading as this provides an inadequate level of driver
perception.
The provision of as many clues as possible as to what lies ahead is especially critical for geometric
elements comprising a large decrease in speed e.g. high speed road ending at a rural intersection.
Particular aspects of geometric design which provide good/poor driver perception are:
Coordinating horizontal and vertical alignments as discussed in the Road Planning and Design
Manual - Volume 3 Part 3 improves driver perception of the roadway.
The smooth curving face of a cutting can provide a good driver perception of the
corresponding curvature of the road. Conversely, a fill cannot provide good driver perception if
the view ahead is open to the sky where there may be no visual background of fixed objects.
42
2 Design Philosophy
Even on flat terrain, a horizontal curve can provide poor driver perception if there is no visual
background of fixed objects.
Vegetation or other obstructions on the inside of sharper curves can provide inadequate driver
perception of the tightness of the curve.
A driver will not expect a curve if the sole cue comes from a line of service poles or trees
which continue straight on, or from a deceptive gap in a line of trees on the outside of the
curve.
A crest should not obscure a potential hazard such as a narrow bridge, a railway level
crossing, an at-grade intersection or a horizontal curve which requires a significant reduction
of speed. Even small crests can obscure important features. The visual clues presented to the
driver by the view of the road surface are especially important on sections of sharp curvature.
Holistic Design Approach

Designers must take a holistic approach and consider the effects of each element on the other
elements of the design.
An important issue is the size of the road compared with its surroundings (its scale). The cross section
has the greatest effect on this - the wider the road, the greater the scale. In some environments, a
large scale may fit well with the surroundings and be compatible with them. However, it is often the
case that roads will have a scale too large for the environment and the design should attempt to
mitigate this effect.
Some design techniques that will tend to reduce the perceived width and therefore the perceived scale
include:
median planting
reducing the width of shoulder seal
independent grading
landscaping.
Using a holistic design approach will mean that designers will critically examine the application of
minimum requirements in the design. Combinations of minimum requirements of complementary
elements will rarely produce a satisfactory result and in many cases will produce an unacceptably low
level of safety. A better result will usually be achieved by adopting better than the minimum and this
can often be done at the same or lower cost.
Further, consideration of the common aspects of driver behaviour is necessary to provide the basis for
many of the details included in other parts of this manual (e.g. speed selection, operation on curves,
driving through intersections).
A drivers information system has to cater for the following tasks:
Strategy selection departure time, route, transport mode
Navigation which roads to use, maintenance of the route choice
Vehicle guidance placing the vehicle on the road in a specific lane and the location in that
lane
Vehicle manoeuvring how to move from one place on the road to another
43
2 Design Philosophy
Vehicle control
Compliance with traffic rules and laws
Interacting with traffic
Using peripheral communications
Responding e.g. to unexpected emergencies.
Planners and designers should note that the load on some road users varies (e.g. refer to Section
2.5.4).
The way these tasks are performed depends on the behaviour of the drivers and this can be
considered under the following headings:
Psychological traits intelligence, learning ability, motivation, desires, temperament,

emotional stability and attitudes
Sensory abilities vision and hearing
Physical abilities response time and physical limitations of the body
Medical factors influence of drugs and alcohol, disease, fatigue and physical impairment.
Psychological Traits
The drivers values and attitudes have a significant effect on the way the driver behaves in the traffic
stream. A large range of short-term and long-term needs and motives are brought into play in the
driving task (Lay 1998). These include emotions, goal fulfilment, peer group pressure, driving
satisfaction, exhibitionism and risk taking.
Much driving, particularly in rural areas, depends on self-paced tasks and the level of task demand is
under the control of the driver. Speed, headway and lateral position are in this category. The driver is
therefore an active part of the traffic system and not merely responding to external events. Many of the
stresses on a driver in these circumstances are self-imposed. However, the performance of the driver
is directly related to the workload placed on the driver. Poor performance can be expected with both
over-work and under-work.
If the driver is over stimulated (over-work), then he/she will make mistakes because of information
shedding to make the task tractable. On the other hand, under-stimulation (under work) leads to
monotony and boredom and insufficient attention to the task often leading to error. In addition, people
do not perform at an optimum level at all times.
Drivers do not always perform according to their capability and are influenced by a range of external
and internal factors that reduce their capability. Error often comes about because of human frailty and
some adverse consequences may result from the failure to build adequate error tolerance into the
road system.
Drivers do not use all of the information made available to them they frequently do not see a sign.
Their awareness of a sign often depends on the relevance assigned to the sign by the driver.
These traits indicate the need for a designer to provide cues and signs that stand out from the
surrounds and are very relevant to the driving population in the area for critical signs. It also indicates
that some repetition in the signing and other cues may provide some confidence that drivers will
become aware of at least some of the information made available.
44
2 Design Philosophy
Social factors also play a part in determining the behaviour of drivers in the traffic stream. People like
to conform and this may lead to behaviour that is contrary to the safe operation of the road system.
These forces can be used constructively to influence the behaviour of drivers (e.g. providing feedback
on the number of vehicles maintaining speed within designated limits has been shown to reduce high
speeds).
There are many human factors that influence performance of drivers that are beyond the ability of road
designers to overcome. However, there are some principles that assist the road designer in
responding to human factor problems:
Arousal:
Avoid low arousal inducing road alignments
Consider the needs of fatigued and drowsy drivers
Avoid stimulus driven high arousal states.
Information Processing:
Avoid conflict in attention when critical information is being processed
Avoid informational overload
Avoid memory related errors by placing the necessary information close to the vulnerable
phases of the task (do not rely on the information being stored in the drivers head)
Design road features to accord with driver expectations
Use speed guidance at critical road segments
Allow for the effects of speed adaptation (velocitisation) drivers will approach the first
curves after leaving a motorway at a higher speed than they think.
Error Management:
Employ practices of error management (refer to Fuller and Santos (2002))
Increase feedback to drivers regarding the quality of their performance.
For further comprehensive information on human factors in road design, refer to Fuller and Santos
(2002).
Sensory Abilities
This discussion is based on the Handbook of Road Technology (Lay 1998).
Vision provides about 90% of the information received by a driver. Touch provides some feedback in
acceleration and deceleration and hearing can be important in judging speed and becoming aware of
other vehicles but these senses have little effect on design decisions. However, the importance of
vision to the driving task warrants further attention.
Visual acuity and colour sensitivity are at their peak in the central region of the retina with an angular
radius of 1. These factors are still good within 3, reasonable within 10 and have some value within
35 of the line of sight. Using peripheral vision, the eye can detect objects within 95 of the line of sight
(the peripheral field). However, peripheral vision does not provide detail discrimination and is
influenced by a range of factors:
Gender women have a larger peripheral field than men
45
2 Design Philosophy
Age not well developed in children and declines with age (in old age, the peripheral vision
moves 10 closer to the line of sight)
Alcohol impairment begins at a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.02mg/100ml
Speed the peripheral field drops with increasing speed (refer to Austroads Guide to Road
Design Part 6B, Figure 3.1 Cone of Vision)
Vehicle design features such as window columns can restrict peripheral vision
Object being detected response to movement in the peripheral field is enhanced when the
objects are large and/or highly contrasted
Light level peripheral vision disappears at low light levels
Observer response to movement in the peripheral field is reduced when complex visual
decisions are being made in the central visual field.
The driver uses central vision for the tasks of steering, braking, accelerating and navigating.
Peripheral vision is used for detecting potential hazards outside the normal central visual field (e.g.
pedestrians and vehicles from cross streets).
Eye movements are used to gather information outside the central visual field to cover a region within
15 of the central visual field and these take about 50ms in time. Larger movements are
accommodated by head movements, which are much slower (typically 700ms). These times are
important factors in the total response time taken by drivers in reacting to roadway conditions.
Visual sensitivity is the ability of the eye to detect differences in light levels measured in terms of their
luminance. The threshold luminance contrast is the minimum difference that the eye can detect in the
luminance of an object and its background. This determines the eyes ability to draw useful messages
from the light signals received.
In conditions of low luminance, such as at night, the eye becomes more sensitive to light but suffers a
compensating loss of resolving ability. About 5% of the population is deficient in detecting low
luminance contrasts. This ability declines with age, particularly for people over 40years, and
deteriorates with alcohol intake making the reading of signs difficult for old or alcohol-affected drivers.
For elderly drivers, the threshold luminance contrast ratio (luminance difference divided by the
background luminance) is about double that of normal drivers (Lay 1998).
Visual recognition takes a finite time. The basic response time to a stimulus is about 250ms and this
increases with the number of possible responses. Then a visual search for an object following the
stimulus takes about 50100ms to complete. (If a head movement is required, a further 700ms is
required.) Thus a driver will take 250 + 50 = 300ms to have one look at the scene within the centrally
located field. After the visual field is scanned, the brain takes a further 60ms to perceive what the eye
has seen. Drivers will fixate on the object for at least 200ms so the total time to visually locate one
object is 300 + 200 = 500ms. The driver then needs to recognise the object and this can take a further
600ms.
Physical Skills
Visual ability was discussed above. The other physical abilities relevant to the driving task relate to the
driver-vehicle interaction part of the road system. Vehicle control, tracking, curve negotiation and
response time are discussed under this heading.
46
2 Design Philosophy
Vehicle control refers to the actions of steering, accelerating, decelerating and braking and their
management. These are not significant issues with modern vehicles and are not further discussed.
The design parameters relating to these factors are dealt with in relevant chapters in the manual.
Tracking refers to the maintenance of the vehicle position on the roadway and is a continuous activity
for all drivers. The drivers skill in this area determines the need for the width of lanes and necessary
clearances to lateral objects. Studies have shown that drivers have difficulties with lane widths less
than 2.5m, and that the optimum width for a 1.9m wide car is 3.1m. Allowances for conditions in
adjacent lanes often raise this to 3.5m. Trucks require wider lanes than cars and physically take up at
least 2.9m of width (2.5m plus wing mirrors). 3.5m lanes are desirable for this reason.
It has also been shown that drivers travel about 150mm closer to the pavement edge as the lane width
increases from 3.2 to 3.7m. This demonstrates that there may be a danger in making lanes too wide
since it may lead to poor discipline and attempts to make multiple use of a single lane. In addition, it
will be wasteful of road space and road funding since the driver does not need to use the additional
width (refer to Volume 3 Parts 3, 4, 4A, 4B and 4C for detailed discussion of required lane widths in
various circumstances).
Lanes that are too narrow result in difficult driving conditions and contribute to driver tension and
fatigue. The decline in driver performance is shown by a loss in safety on narrow lanes. Crash rates
for run-off-the-road and on-coming traffic crashes reduce as the lane width increases from 2.5 to 3.5m.
Curve negotiation is a major function of the driving task. The drivers perception of the curve has a
marked effect on the speed adopted and the behaviour on the curve (refer to Volume 3 Part 3 which
deals with these issues in detail).
Response or reaction time is a major component of the determination of a range of design parameters
including sight distance requirements and sign design. This time represents the period taken by the
driver to convert perceived information into action. Table 2.2 shows the components of response time
for the average (50th percentile) driver. This table cannot be precise because of the variations from
driver to driver. It is intended to be an indication of driver performance and an affirmation of the values
of this parameter adopted for design.
The components are:
visual detection
identification
decision making
driver response (or volition)
vehicle response.
For more detail, refer to the Handbook of Road Technology (Lay 1998). Table 2.2 suggests that the
range of response times for unexpected events is from 1.0 to 3.6s with 1.8s as a median value. The
commonly used 2.5s appears to be a reasonably safe one to respond to an event. However the
variance between drivers is very large and values up to 7s have been recorded at one extreme with 1s
being recorded for some forced stops. Volume 3 Part 3 gives guidance on the choice of reaction time.
47
2 Design Philosophy
Table 2.2: Driver response time (Lay 1998)

Driving Actions
Response Times (milli/seconds)

Variationa
Mean
1. Detect
1.1 Basic Perceptual Response to an intellectual or visual stimulus
1.2 Eye movement locates the object in one look
1.3 Eye dwells on the detected object
Total (1) detection time
250b
50c
200
500
+50/-0
+300/-0
+300/-0
2. Identify the detected object by recognising and interpreting it
600
+300/-400
3. Decide on a response to this identification (see also 6 and 7 below)
500
+500/-250
4. Respond
4.1 Driver responds (e.g. lifting foot from or applying it to accelerator)
4.2 Vehicle begins to respond
Total (1-4) Vehicle begins to respond
200
100
1800
+350d/-100
+1000e/-0
+1800/-800
5. Vehicle manoeuvre time

5.1 Brake
Move foot from accelerator to brake
5.2 Steer
Total (1-5) driver and vehicle response time
+1000/-100
Braking distance calculation
(refer Austroads Guide to Road
Design - Part 3, Section 5.3)
100
1900 +
+?/ -900
6. Additional time if two responses required
600f
+/-200
7. Additional time if three responses required
1200f
+/-300
Braking system completes operation
200
a) The +/- values are indicative variations and define a range that covers about 90% of the population.
b) Can increase for complex tasks
c) If the object is outside the desired visual field (typically, 15%) and a head movement is needed, this will add another
700ms.
d) Occurs if driver is not watching the rear light of lead car. Thus, in close traffic, the time for a following cars rear light to
illuminate after the lead vehicles rear light illuminates is 250 (from 1.1) + 200 (from 1.3) + 200 (from 4.1) + 50 (light
latence) = 700, + 350/-100 ms.
e) This may extend to 400ms for some large vehicles
f) Add 200 for older drivers
2.6.4
Medical Factors
Alcohol and drugs as well as fatigue affect driver performance/capability.

Alcohol and Drugs
Alcohol consumption by drivers has a degrading effect on their driving abilities. Of particular note for
designers is the effect on visual acuity, the reduction in peripheral visual field and the increase in
response times of alcohol affected drivers.
Drugs can have an effect similar to that of alcohol and contribute to at least 10% of road fatalities (Lay
1998). Both prescription drugs and recreational drugs are included in this category.
While it is not possible to adopt specific parameters to account for these types of drivers, it must be
recognised that they do exist and that the road should be as forgiving as possible to minimise the
consequences of alcohol and drug affected drivers. Longer reaction times, simple decision sequences,
less reliance on peripheral visual cues, lighting and clear roadsides are some of the factors that will
assist. These are also good design practices for other reasons.
48
2 Design Philosophy
Fatigue
Fatigue has become a major factor in road crashes. It can be defined as a diminished capacity or
inclination to perform and can be both psychological and physical (Lay 1998). Fatigue can result from
emotional stress, medical condition and from physical factors such as over-extensions of the drivers
physical capability, monotony, adverse environment and physiological factors such as over-eating.
The only way to properly overcome fatigue is by resting. It is therefore necessary for appropriate rest
facilities to be provided for drivers on the road system to encourage regular rest periods (refer to
Volume 3 Part 6B of this manual).
However, some improvement may be possible if monotony can be reduced and a more interesting
driving experience created. Designers should be aware of the possibility of creating this interest in
their designs (e.g. designing the alignment to bring a feature such as a landmark or mountain into
view). This will not be possible in all cases. Providing a longer reaction time for drivers who have been
subjected to monotonous driving conditions is desirable. Surprises should be avoided a desirable
feature in any case.
2.6.5
Effects of Age
Age effects occur at both ends of the spectrum. For young people, the issues involve psychological
and attitudinal factors as well as inexperience. The elderly suffer from declining physical abilities and
slowing of performance.
Some young drivers exhibit the traits of impulsive driving with poor risk management and display a
lack of strategic driving skills. These drivers tend to be focussed on the immediate tasks at hand, do
not scan the visual field efficiently and make poor use of peripheral vision. Many eighteen-year olds
have under-developed cognitive and perceptual skills. All of these factors lead to longer response
times at this stage of their driving career but they improve with age and experience.
At the other end of the spectrum, driving skills tend to start declining from the age of 55 and tend to
decline rapidly from the age of 75 (Lay 1998). Older drivers tend to compensate by driving more slowly
and limiting the times and places of their driving. Eyesight also begins to decline for most people after
the age of 45 and loss of light transmission makes night driving more difficult after the age of 40. For
such people illumination levels must be doubled for each 13 years of age to maintain equivalent
performance.
For both ends of the age spectrum, the overall effect is to increase the response times and design
should recognise this. The need for greater illumination for older drivers should be considered for
situations where more complex decisions are required. Further, the design should be tailored to these
needs where it is known that concentrations of younger and/or older people occur.
2.6.5.1
Designing for the Young Driver
Background
This discussion is based on Fuller and Santos (2002), Human Factors for Highway Engineering.
Young drivers (18 to 24 years) are significantly over-represented in the crash statistics in Australia.
They comprise about 20% of the driving population but account for about 50% of injury crashes and
about 35% of fatal crashes (Fuller and Santos 2002). Similar statistics are experienced in other
countries. The just trained are the most dangerous.
49
2 Design Philosophy
The conclusion is that the driving experience has to be learned on the road and drivers require
considerable experience to be able to cope with the range of circumstances that confront them in
practice.
Young Driver Characteristics
Factors that influence the characteristics of young drivers include:
Risk Life Style - a proportion of young drivers (e.g. 15 - 20% of young male drivers)
deliberately take risks, a factor in the lifestyle they have been conditioned to or have adopted.
They may be considered sensation seekers and they are more likely to be involved in traffic
violations and to crash.
Risk Exposure - young drivers operate in an environment that creates greater exposure to risk
- older cars (less protection), more passengers (more casualties in a crash), night driving.
Risk Seeking - attitudes play an important part in this as well as peer pressure. High risk
driving is often seen as a demonstration of superior skills.
Overestimating Competence - young male drivers often overestimate their ability and
therefore their ability to correct a situation.
Deficiencies in competence - they may:
2.6.5.2
be poor at identifying distant hazards
see less risk in various driving scenarios
put themselves in driving situations where they come in conflict with other drivers (e.g.
accepting shorter gaps)
find it difficult to manage and control their speed
be prone to drive too fast for the conditions.

Design Recommendations Young Drivers
The young driver has less well developed driving skills and does not find it easy to select the
appropriate behaviour when confronted by various situations. The appropriate speed to adopt often
escapes the young driver. The array of information may be too much and the young driver can suffer
from information overload, leading to some information being ignored. Design must consider the
approach of the young driver and their performance can be improved by:
ensuring that the drivers attention is directed to hazards ahead so that warning information is
picked up by the driver (e.g. adequate well located signage)
signing hazards clearly with high contrast and dynamic warning signs
providing clear guidance on what to do to cope with a particular hazard (i.e. where to go and
what speed to adopt, e.g. through signs, reduced speed limits)
providing information well in advance of a possible conflict, hazard, etc
allowing higher perception/reaction times where complex situations occur
using high skid resistance surfaces where drivers are likely to respond late (e.g. approach to
isolated traffic signals)
using traffic calming devices in urban areas to control driver behaviour
50
2 Design Philosophy
modifying perceptions of the roadway to give drivers heightened awareness and induce
greater vigilance (e.g. devices to give an illusion of higher speed such as rumble strips at
decreasing spacing longitudinally).
Providing for the expected performance of younger drivers will also assist all other drivers, and in
particular, the elderly. Even though the basis for the reduced performance represents conditions at
different ends of the scale, the methods used will usually benefit both groups and provide a more
comfortable experience for others.
In both cases, the designer needs to be creative, as there are no robust certainties about the best
solution. A good understanding of the attitudes and limitations of both groups is a necessity.
2.6.5.3
Designing for the Older Driver
Background
The numbers of older drivers involved in fatal and serious injury crashes can be expected to increase
as the proportion of elderly people in the population increases (Oxley, Corben et al. 2000). The
challenge of driving in the modern traffic environment increases exponentially with age.
Aging brings with it a gradual deterioration in physical and cognitive performance. For example, older
drivers can require signs three times brighter at night and two to three times the colour contrast during
daytime, than signs meeting the detectability and legibility needs of younger (20 to 35 years old)
drivers (Dunne 2001).
The aging process is associated with increases in functional disabilities that can lead to decreases in
safe driving and mobility. Road design should take account of these factors in making decisions on the
elements of a road design.
Aging and Functional Capacities
The main feature of aging is the progressive slowness of behaviour but the following characteristics
have also been identified (Fuller and Santos 2002):
The neuromuscular system changes in ways that influence both cognitive and motor
behaviour - loss in ability to perform complex tasks and coordination.
Loss of muscle strength, endurance and tone - decrease in joint movements and reaching
distances are the main factor in motor limitations.
Step length, step height and walking speed decrease - difficulty in performing daily tasks
(pushing buttons, opening doors, using stairs, using public transport).
Loss in the ability to detect, interpret and react to visual and auditory information - response to
illumination and colour discrimination declines, sensitivity to glare increases.
Memory loss and decrease in ability to learn are the main cognitive age-related changes semantic memory and procedural memory remain quite stable so these deficits can be
compensated by appropriate strategies based on previous knowledge and/or experience.
The effects of aging may be due to a reduction in mental energy or processing resources, reduction in
information processing speed, or inefficient inhibitory mechanisms in working memory leading to
attention to irrelevant details (reduction in focus on the task). These mechanisms tend to lead to a
requirement for increased response time for decision making.
51
2 Design Philosophy
Reduced information processing speed has a major effect on performance in several areas. It
emphasises the importance of the time available in areas requiring decision-making and particularly
where an unexpected change in road environment occurs. Additional response time is required to
cater for older people.
The inefficient inhibitory mechanism leads to the need to assume that the elderly are easily distracted
and may be confused by competing information. Therefore, clarity and simplicity of information being
provided is necessary.
Travel Needs of the Elderly
Identified needs and corresponding areas of difficulty for elderly drivers include (Fuller and Santos
2002):
Vehicle control:
Road-related tasks (difficulty in various manoeuvres)
Traffic-related tasks (car following, overtaking, etc)
Roadside service (difficulty in contacting breakdown service, changing a wheel).
Trip Information:
Determining whereabouts (difficulty in map reading, identifying visual displays,

understanding announcements)
Information on route changes (road works, traffic jams).
Environmental conditions:
Weather (difficulties in seeing, reading and understanding signs and audible information)
Night driving (difficulties resulting from visual deficits and sensitivity to glare).
Parking (identifying parking areas, manoeuvres required may be difficult for the elderly).
2.6.5.4
Improving the Road Environment for the Elderly Design Recommendations
Enhancing the road environment can be achieved by meeting the needs of the elderly driver as follows
(Oxley, Corben et al. 2000; Fuller and Santos 2002):
Intersections:
Signal controlled intersections are better than those without signals (replace Stop and
Give Way signs with fully controlled traffic signals where appropriate [lessens the
decision making task for older drivers])
Provide roundabouts - drivers need only select a gap in one direction of traffic at a time
(gap selection is a significant problem for older drivers involved in crashes)
Adequate roadside information is required
Clearly defined permissible vehicle paths are required (providing fully controlled right-turn
phases simplifies gap selection and addresses site-specific problems with limited sight
distance, high traffic volumes and high speeds)
Separate right turn movements are desirable
Greater prominence of traffic signals is necessary
52
2 Design Philosophy
Sight distances to intersections controlled by Stop and Give Way signs should be
improved (longer perception/reaction times - 3 seconds is desirable).
Motorways:
Provide adequate information with adequate size, lighting and glare protection
Allow increased distances to enter the required traffic lane where lane changes are
required.
Road works - advance and clear information is required (fluorescent signs have been claimed
to improve the legibility and recognition distance for older drivers by a significant margin - 3.2s
earlier at 100km/h (Dunne 2001)).
Railway crossings - clear and early warnings are required for at grade crossings.
Traffic manoeuvres - car following, overtaking, entering and leaving a traffic stream, lane
changing require:
Good visibility
Extended use of overtaking lanes on two-lane roads
Clear information.
Traffic-related tasks - elderly drivers require information in due time, correctly located, with
adequate dimensions and contrast and designed to accommodate environmental conditions.
Most measures designed specifically for the older driver also improve the environment for all drivers.
Some additional thought at the design stage can provide an enhanced driving environment at minimal
cost with potentially large benefits.
2.7
Design Process
Refer to Volume 3 Part 8 for information on Design Process in Transport and Main Roads.
2.8
Design Management
Refer to Volume 3 Part 8 for information on Design Management in Transport and Main Roads.
53
3 References
References
Armour, M. (1984a). The effect of shoulder design on fatal accident rates on rural highways - Internal
Report. Australian Road Research Board (ARRB)
Armour, M. (1984b). "The relationship between shoulder design and accident rates on rural highways."
Australian Road Research 12(5): 49-62.
Armour, M. and J. McLean (1983). "The effect of shoulder width and type on rural traffic safety and
operations." Australian Road Research 13(4): 259-270.
Arndt, O. (2004). Relationship between unsignalised intersection geometry and accident rates.
Doctoral Thesis, Queensland University of Technology.
Cox, R. (2002). Two sight distance models for road design (But I don't need to see that far! Do I?).
Main Roads Technology Transfer Forum.
Cox, R. (2003). Reduced sight distance on existing rural roads: how can we defend it? 21st Australian
Road Research Board (ARRB) Transport Research Conference; 11th Road Engineering Association
of Asia and Australasia (REAAA) Conference.
Cox, R. (2004). Process for using Extended Design Domain on a Restoration Project. presentation at
Main roads Extended Design Domain Training course.
Cox, R. and O. Arndt (2005). Using an Extended Design Domain concept for road restoration projects.
3rd International Symposium on Highway Geometric Design. Chicago, USA.
Cox, R. and A. M. Foley (2003). Fit for purpose - What are the legal liability implications? Main Roads
Planning and Design Symposium.
Dunne, F. (2001). "Accommodating the Aging Driver." Roads June/July 2001.
Fambro, D., K. Fitzpatrick, et al. (1997). Determination of stopping sight distances - Report 400.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board
Fuller, R. and J. Santos (2002). Human factors for highway engineers. Oxford, UK, Pergamon Elesevier Science Ltd.
Hauer, E. (1998). Literature review and analysis on collision rates on vertical alignment, University of
Toronto (reported in Geometric design Guide for Canadian Roads, 1999).
Hauer, E. (1999). Safety in Geometric Design Standards, University of Toronto (reported in Geometric
design Guide for Canadian Roads, 1999).
Lay, M. G. (1998). Handbook of Road Technology - Volume 2 Traffic and Transport, Gordon and
Breach Science Publishers.
Louis, L. (2002). Design standards and approach to "Fit for Purpose".
McLean, J. (1977). The interrelationship between accidents and road alignment - Internal Report.
Australian Road Research Board (ARRB)
McLean, J. (2000a). Effects of seal shoulders on road user costs. report for Austroads
McLean, J. (2000b). Study on cross sections for national highways. report for the Commonwealth
Department of Transport and Regional Services
54
3 References
Olsen, P., D. Cleveland, et al. (1984). Parameters affecting stopping sight distance - Report 270.
Transportation Research Board
Oxley, J., B. Corben, et al. (2000). Road environment design for older drivers. Monash University
Accident Research Centre
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2002). Roads Connecting Queenslanders.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2009). Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Brisbane, Australia.
Queensland Government (1994). Transport Infrastructure Act 1994.
The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd (2005). Macquarie Dictionary - Fourth Edition.
Transportation Association of Canada (1999). Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Ottawa.
55

RPDM2ndEdVolume1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RPDM2ndEdVolume1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Road Planning and Design Manual

Volume 1 Legislation and Design Philosophy

Initial release of manual (2nd edition)

Legislative Accountability ............................................................................................................7

Design Concepts .......................................................................................................................... 10

takes into account best practice and national benchmarks; and

promotes the safe transport of persons and goods; and

reduces adverse environmental impacts; and

encourages efficient and competitive behaviour in the construction and

b) the construction, maintenance and operation of all government supported transport

published by the chief executive; and

designed, within overall transport objectives, to achieve efficiency, affordable

Objective or Purpose of Legislation

To provide a regime that allows for and

To provide for the effective and

To improve the economic trade and

To achieve ecologically sustainability

To protect Queenslands environment

To establish a legislative framework for

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (State)

Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (State)

Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 (Commonwealth)

Evidence Act 1977 (State)

Explosives Act 1999 (State)

Fisheries Act 1994 (State)

Land Act 1994 (State)

Public Records Act 2002 (State)

Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (State)

Soil Conservation Act 1986 (State)

Vegetation Management Act 1999 (State)

Water Act 2000 (State)

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (State).

Context Sensitive Design

appropriate design criteria and the resulting standard of the road/s

mobility and reliability

environmental impacts, including noise and vibration

maximisation of the use of existing assets

reduction in the life of the infrastructure

stakeholder expectations and needs (e.g. community, government, users)

cultural heritage impacts

Discussion on Context Sensitive Design

In considering all of the above it should be noted that:

On roads with high traffic volumes

Where a significant crash history exists at a particular location

Where the parameter is considered to be a significant parameter with respect to level of

Where significant additional cost is required (to provide a higher value)

Where there is no crash history at a particular location

On roads with low traffic volumes

On temporary roads used during construction

Using this concept provides some benefits to the designer:

The Normal Design Domain (NDD)

The Extended Design Domain (EDD).

The Normal Design Domain (NDD)

The Extended Design Domain (EDD)

an appropriate risk-based process

a sound technical and engineering basis

engineering and professional judgement

an existing satisfactory safety performance.

# Value to be determined by the designer on a case-by-case basis.

Area 1 represents the NDD

Area 3 represents design exceptions (refer to Section 2.2.3).

Guides for the Extended Design Domain

Volume 3 Part 3 for: