AP-R548-17 Fundamental Objectives of Road Design PDF

Research Report
AP-R548-17
Fundamental Objectives of Road Design

Prepared by Publisher
David Milling, Les Louis and Michael Luy Austroads Ltd.

Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
Mike Whitehead
www.austroads.com.au
Abstract About Austroads

This report identifies improvements to guidance, education and Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road
practice to ensure the fundamental objectives of road design are transport and traffic agencies.
achieved in new and existing road projects.
Austroads’ purpose is to support our member organisations to
The report provides a foundational road design definition and a deliver an improved Australasian road transport network. To
series of road design principles that it recommends be incorporated succeed in this task, we undertake leading-edge road and
into the Austroads Guide to Road Design. transport research which underpins our input to policy
development and published guidance on the design,
While the project concluded that the design guidance in Australia is construction and management of the road network and its
technically sound, it recommended: associated infrastructure.
• better educating designers and practitioners on the importance of
road design objectives and how to achieve them Austroads provides a collective approach that delivers value
for money, encourages shared knowledge and drives
• improving design development and evaluation guidance to enable consistency for road users.
designers to apply robust engineering judgment, value
engineering, Safe System principles, and assess whole-of-life Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of senior
costs executive representatives from each of its eleven member
• providing evaluation tools to encourage the development and organisations:
evaluation of multiple design solutions • Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
• adapting existing design practices including requiring practitioners • Roads Corporation Victoria
to demonstrate how design solutions achieve the objectives of
road design. • Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
• Main Roads Western Australia
Keywords
• Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
Objectives of road design, road design philosophy, road design South Australia
principles, road design process, road design guidance, road design • Department of State Growth Tasmania
development
• Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics
Northern Territory
ISBN 978-1-925671-04-9 • Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate,
Austroads Project No. TT1965 Australian Capital Territory
• Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and
Austroads Publication No. AP-R548-17
Regional Development
Publication date August 2017 • Australian Local Government Association
Pages 54 • New Zealand Transport Agency.
© Austroads 2017
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process
without the prior written permission of Austroads.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Summary
The Austroads Road Design Task Force (RDTF) identified that in Australia and New Zealand the road design
process and resulting design solution appears to be predominantly driven by design and construction cost.
The notion that a design is governed by cost is also found to vary by contract type and the phases of design
included in each contract.
The RDTF has indicated that there is a general perception that a design is considered compliant, safe and
efficient, if the design process follows and adheres to the relevant guides and standards. This results in less
emphasis on constructability, appearance of the road, how it will operate, incorporation of Safe System
principles, application of value engineering, and analysis of the resulting whole-of-life costs for the design
life. It appears that the concept of sound, robust engineering thinking and judgement has become a ‘lost art’.
The current design approach and way of thinking tend to minimise option development and analysis, risk
identification and mitigation, and can minimise innovation.
Proper design methodology and processes have a high potential to reduce whole-of-life costs. Whole-of-life
cost savings are likely to significantly offset additional costs incurred from a more thorough design process.
Proper design methodology and process should ensure that the design objective is achieved, whilst also
achieving a balance of the objectives of road design.
The purpose of this project was to identify the possible reasons that contribute to the fundamental objectives
of road design not being achieved. It sought to detect where the existing technical and design process
guidance can be improved to provide designers with the information and guidance to apply robust
engineering judgment, apply value engineering, apply Safe System principles, and assess whole-of-life
costs, whilst also achieving the fundamental objectives of road design.
The project concluded that the design guidance in Australia is technically sound including on
context-sensitive design and the use of design values within the design domain. The guidance, however,
does not adequately inform a designer how to achieve the objectives of road design while balancing
competing project objectives, or be cost-effective while considering value engineering and whole-of-life costs
(of all engineering disciplines and stakeholders), this includes guidance on how to evaluate a design to
determine if the objectives of road design have been achieved.
It was identified that if there is to be an improvement in achieving the objectives of road design in the final
design solution, designers and practitioners should be further educated as to what the objectives of road
design are, why it is important to achieve them, and how to achieve them. Improvements in education are
required in conjunction with providing additional guidance for design development and evaluation. Evaluation
tools should also be provided, particularly to encourage the development and evaluation of multiple design
solutions.
A further adaptation of a number of existing design practices have been identified to potentially contribute to
the objectives of road design being achieved. In addition, a Definition of Road Design and Road Design
Principles was developed to provide a foundation for design philosophy, providing guidance for designers to
develop a solution within the project constraints that also meets the objectives of road design. The definition
and principles should be integrated with the Austroads Guide to Road Design, so they can be referenced
within design tenders, briefs and contracts. Consideration should also be given to legislating that a design
solution is required to demonstrate that it achieves the objectives of road design, including being
cost-effective, provides value engineering and demonstrates acceptable whole-of-life costs.
Austroads 2017 | page i

Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Method.............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3.1 Fundamental Objectives of Road Design ............................................................................ 2
2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Austroads Guides ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Australian and New Zealand Design Guidance ............................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Design Options and Cost Benefit Analysis, Austroads Guides ........................................... 4
2.2.2 Design Considerations, AGRD Part 2 ................................................................................. 4
2.2.3 Process and Documentation, Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 8.............................. 7
2.2.4 Safety through Design, Other Austroads Guides ................................................................ 9
2.3 Jurisdiction Design Guidance ......................................................................................................... 10
2.3.1 Design Exceptions ............................................................................................................. 16
2.4 International Design Guidance ....................................................................................................... 16
2.4.1 Preliminary Design and Option Development ................................................................... 17
2.4.2 Design Philosophy and Policies ........................................................................................ 17
2.4.3 Other Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 19
2.4.4 European Guidelines on Process, Safety and Environmental Considerations ................. 19
2.4.5 Cost Benefit Analysis......................................................................................................... 19
2.4.6 Value Engineering ............................................................................................................. 20
2.5 Research Papers and Technical Reports ...................................................................................... 20
2.5.1 Multi-discipline Network-wide Design Approach ............................................................... 20
2.5.2 Safety in Geometric Design Standards ............................................................................. 24
2.5.3 Safety Risk and Design Parameters ................................................................................. 25
2.5.4 Philosophies Guiding Trade-off Decisions ........................................................................ 26
2.5.5 Practical Design................................................................................................................. 26
2.6 Analysis Tools ................................................................................................................................ 26
2.7 Literature Review Summary ........................................................................................................... 27
3. Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................................................................... 29
3.1 Workshop and Questionnaire ......................................................................................................... 29
3.1.1 Summary of Responses .................................................................................................... 29
4. Design Guidance and Practice Shortfalls ......................................................................................... 32
4.1 Issues and Restrictions .................................................................................................................. 32
4.1.1 Quick Delivery at a Low Cost ............................................................................................ 32
4.1.2 Design Contract ................................................................................................................. 33
4.1.3 Design Guidance, Value Engineering, WOLC and Objectives of Road Design ............... 33
4.1.4 Design Competency .......................................................................................................... 33
4.1.5 Misuse or Misunderstanding of Design Exceptions .......................................................... 34
4.2 Identified Road Design Practice Challenges .................................................................................. 34
Austroads 2017 | page ii

5. Interim Guidance .................................................................................................................................. 35

5.1 Further Adoption of Existing Design Approaches .......................................................................... 35
5.1.1 Network-wide Evaluation ................................................................................................... 35
5.1.2 Collaborative Concept Designs ......................................................................................... 35
5.1.3 Effective Use of Lower Design Domain ............................................................................. 36
5.2 Increase Competency, Provide Guidance and Tools ..................................................................... 36
5.3 Provide a Definition of Road Design and Road Design Principles................................................. 36
5.3.1 Developing a Definition of Road Design ........................................................................... 37
5.3.2 Principles of Road Design for Australia and New Zealand ............................................... 38
5.4 Using Guidance that is not Published in Austroads or Road Agency Guides................................ 40
5.4.1 Innovation and Emerging Treatments ............................................................................... 40
6. Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 41
6.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 41
6.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 42
References ................................................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix A Workshops and Consultations ...................................................................................... 46
Appendix B Issues, Restrictions, Challenges, Proposed Approaches .......................................... 54
Tables
Table 2.1: Project planning processes in national guides .......................................................................... 11

Table 2.2: State jurisdiction design guidance summaries .......................................................................... 11
Table 2.3: International road design guides/documents examined ........................................................... 17
Table 2.4: Road infrastructure elements that may be a factor in motorcycle crashes ............................... 25
Figures
Figure 2.1: The design domain concept ........................................................................................................ 7

Figure 2.2: The ‘Typical Road Planning Process’ shown in the PPM ......................................................... 13
Figure 2.3: The hold points and requirements for the design process specified in Tasmania’s
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Professional Services Specification ..... 14
Figure 2.4: An overview of the planning process in the project planning model in DPTI’s Part P20
Planning (General) .................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.5: Conceptual studies and preliminary design process model ...................................................... 18
Figure 2.6: Strategy process ....................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.7: Considerations to develop network-wide design at a ‘reduced’ standard ................................. 23
Figure 2.8: Head-on crash type infrastructure risk and safety risk score .................................................... 26
Figure 2.9: HiSafe model, crash type prediction ......................................................................................... 27
Austroads 2017 | page iii

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
It was identified by the Austroads Road Design Task Force (RDTF) that in Australia and New Zealand the
road design process and resulting design solution appears to be predominantly driven by design and
construction cost. The notion that a design is governed by cost is also found to vary by contract type and the
phases of design included in each contract.
The RDTF has indicated that there is a general perception that a design is considered compliant, safe and
efficient, if the design process follows and adheres to the relevant guides and standards. This results in less
emphasis on constructability, appearance of the road, how it will operate, incorporation of Safe System
principles, application of value engineering, and analysis of the resulting whole-of-life costs for the design
life.
It appears that the concept of sound, robust engineering thinking and judgement has become a ‘lost art’. The
current design approach and way of thinking tend to minimise option development and analysis, as well as
risk identification and mitigation, and they can minimise innovation.
Proper design methodology and processes have a high potential to reduce whole-of-life costs. Whole-of-life
cost savings are likely to significantly offset additional costs incurred from a more thorough design process.
Proper design methodology and process should ensure that the design objective is achieved, whilst also
achieving a balance of the objectives of road design.
1.2 Objectives
The purpose of this project was to identify:
• the possible reasons that contribute to the fundamental objectives of road design not being achieved
• where, or if, the existing technical and design process guidance can be improved to provide designers
with the information and guidance to apply robust engineering judgment, apply value engineering, apply
Safe System principles, and assess whole-of-life costs, whilst also achieving the fundamental objectives
of road design.
1.3 Method
This report examines practices in Australia/New Zealand and internationally, with a view to establishing
areas where Austroads Guides may be deficient in providing the information and guidance necessary to
ensure that the best design outcomes are achieved. It compares the approaches adopted in other countries
to ascertain where changes may be effective in achieving the objectives of this project.
A literature review of existing national and international design guidance, technical reports and research
papers was conducted. The purpose was to identify how the current Austroads Guides (in particular the
Austroads Guide to Road Design (AGRD)) do or do not enable a design team to effectively achieve the key
objectives of road design, whilst also exercising value engineering and considering the resulting whole-of-life
costs. A number of domestic and international design guides, technical reports and research papers were
also reviewed to identify practices that assist in achieving the desired design outcome.
Austroads 2017 | page 1

The findings from the literature review were shared with the RDTF and discussed during a workshop. Each
member of the RDTF completed a questionnaire that reviewed the findings from the literature review, which
provided a forum to identify further issues with current practice and/or potential improvements throughout the
design process that will contribute towards the desired design outcome.
The findings from both the literature review and the workshop are used to propose amendments to the
AGRD that are intended to further guide designers to achieve the fundamental objectives of road design,
whilst also achieving the current day requirements of value engineering and a desirable whole-of-life cost.
1.3.1 Fundamental Objectives of Road Design
The fundamental objectives of road design that should be achieved in all road designs are described in the
Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 2: Design Considerations (Austroads 2015b) as follows:
The objectives of new and existing road projects should be carefully considered to achieve the
desired balance between the level of traffic service provided, safety, whole-of-life costs,
flexibility for future upgrading or rehabilitation, and environmental impact. These objectives
should address areas including:
• strategic fit with relevant government policies, strategies and plans
• the nature and magnitude of transport demand
• road safety to reduce death and serious injury to all road users
• community views and expectations
• travel times and costs
• freight costs
• public transport provision
• provision for cyclists and pedestrians.

2. Literature Review
A literature review of existing national and international design guidance, technical reports and research
papers was conducted. The purpose was to identify how the current Austroads Guides (in particular the
Austroads Guide to Road Design (AGRD)) do or do not enable a design team to effectively achieve the key
objectives of road design, whilst also exercising value engineering and considering the resulting whole-of-life
costs. A number of domestic and international design guides, technical reports and research papers were
also reviewed to identify practices that assist in achieving the desired design outcome.
2.1 Austroads Guides

Austroads has published a wide range of documents applicable to the development of road design projects.
These include considerations of road safety, traffic management, road design (including drainage design),
bridge design and pavement design. These publications provide comprehensive guidelines to administrators
and designers on the processes required to produce appropriate designs.
This review has examined the Guides to determine whether these objectives have been met, and how the
documents may be improved where deficiencies have been detected. It is clear that the Guides have
incorporated the most recent technology and knowledge in their fields and that the fundamental technical
requirements are covered adequately.
However, it is recognised that more detail is often required and it is expected that practitioners refer to the
extensive literature available on the subject. Austroads has published reports in addition to the formal Guides
and ARRB has also published reports on many of the issues involved. Many of these are referenced in the
Guides, and these are updated when the Guides are reviewed. Inevitably, there will be a lag between the
availability of new research information and its inclusion/reference in the Guides. There is an implied
expectation that practitioners will keep abreast of these developments and apply them as appropriate in the
design process.
It should be noted that the Austroads approach is to minimise repetition of information between publications,
thus requiring cross-referencing between documents where the same or similar information is required in
another discipline. Therefore, designers must be aware of the need to reference the appropriate publication
for the whole picture where there is any gap in information.
2.2 Australian and New Zealand Design Guidance

Australian and New Zealand practice is based on the Austroads Guides. All members of Austroads have
agreed to adopt the Austroads Guide to Road Design (AGRD) as their primary reference for road design. All
agencies, however, produce ‘supplements’ to the Guides to reflect particular requirements of that jurisdiction,
arising from specific local conditions (physical and/or administrative). It is therefore reasonable to assume
that the Austroads Guides represent current Australian and New Zealand practice.
The review of the literature showed that Australian and New Zealand practice is in general accord with that in
other countries, particularly with regard to technical guidance. Many practices developed in other countries
have been adopted, sometimes with variations from their practice (e.g. context-sensitive design; self-
explaining road concept).
There are some procedures developed in Australia to account for local restrictions (largely restrictions on
available funding). In this category is the Extended Design Domain (EDD) concept, developed in Queensland
and now adopted by Austroads.

The upgrades of existing roads has led to the development of additional guidelines in Queensland and New
South Wales for design on brownfield sites (Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
(TMR) 2013, Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) (NSW) 2007 Brownfields Road Design Guide). These
guidelines provide a methodology for adopting values for design parameters below the EDD values, while
still retaining appropriate safety standards.
Examination of the Parts of the AGRD shows that the technical fundamentals for design in Parts 3 to 7 are
well covered, and the content of these Parts is appropriate for the purposes for which they were developed
(Austroads 2017a–c, 2016a, 2015c–e, 2013a–c, 2010d, 2008).
The process that should be adopted is outlined in the following parts of the AGRD:
• Part 1: Introduction to Road Design (Austroads 2015a) provides an overview of road design that briefly
describes the scope of the AGRD, the context of the road design process, the philosophy and principles
on which good design is based, and the design considerations that may be required.
• Part 2: Design Considerations (Austroads 2015b) provides a detailed description of the three critical
aspects of road design: the design objectives that apply to a road design project; context-sensitive
design; and the factors that influence road design, including road design in the context of the Safe
System philosophy. Guidance is provided on the range of influences, information, data, criteria, and other
considerations that may have to be assessed in developing a road project. Part 2 describes the basis of
the guidelines and the context in which they should be applied.
• Part 8: Process and Documentation (Austroads 2009b) discusses the means by which designs are
produced in an efficient manner, and ensures that all factors that should influence the desired outcome
are taken into account. Documentation enables the decision-making process to be retraced should this be
necessary, and is the basis for quality management. This part describes a systematic approach to design
and the typical requirements for quality of documentation and presentation.
2.2.1 Design Options and Cost Benefit Analysis, Austroads Guides
AGRD Part 2 (Austroads 2015b) and Part 8 (Austroads 2009b) indicate that during Phase 1 of the design
process, a number of design options will be developed and evaluated with a cost benefit analysis. From this
analysis, the preferred design solution for Phase 2 is selected.
The Austroads Guide to Project Evaluation (AGPE) provides strategic level advice along with some
evaluation spreadsheets to assist with evaluating the design options in Phase 1 (Austroads 2009a). It does
not provide guidance on design fundamentals or developing alternative projects that consider multiple
options inclusive of construction and whole-of-life costs. The Guide has a number of spreadsheet tools to
assist with the evaluation process. The 'Example 1–7 spreadsheet.xls' does provide a good framework to
evaluate a design option. This framework could be adopted to evaluate variations of a design after the
concept phase. This would include items such as construction costs compared to savings in whole-of-life
costs but would not replace the need for multiple design options being produced at the preliminary design
phase. The construction and whole-of-life costs, such as safety risk, maintenance and enforcement would
still need to be calculated for each design and then input into the tool.
2.2.2 Design Considerations, AGRD Part 2
AGRD Part 2 (Austroads 2015b) provides guidance to practitioners on the range of influences, information,
data, criteria and other considerations that may have to be assessed in developing a road. The focus of
AGRD Part 2 is on:
• design objectives that apply to a road design project: including appropriate recognition of transport
demands, safe and efficient traffic operations, and achievement of a balanced provision for the needs of
all road users
• context-sensitive design and associated concepts of design domain: including road design in the
context of the Safe System philosophy.

AGRD Part 2 describes the basis of the design guidelines and the context in which they should be applied. It
also provides links to other Austroads Guides and the resources that give further guidance on design inputs.
Design objectives
In AGRD Part 2, the following design objectives are identified:

• strategic fit
• nature and magnitude of transport demand
• safety
• satisfying stakeholder needs
• travel time and costs
• freight costs
• environmental care
• improving public transport
• providing for pedestrians and cyclists.
Commentary 2 in the Guide provides additional guidance for safety objectives, it outlines the Safe System
approach, and considers if design choices affect the expected crash frequency, severity or both. It identifies
that design choices with regard to the selection of values within the design domain, or the choice to include
or exclude a design feature (e.g. lighting, intersection signals) affect the safety of the design. It encourages a
designer to investigate what can be done to reduce the severity of crashes however does not provide clear
guidance on what could be done to reduce the likelihood of a crash occurring.
It is identified that additional expenditure on a design can provide safety improvements, and that cost
savings in a design can increase crash frequency, severity or both. It is also recognised that there is a limit to
which additional expenditure can provide a safety benefit and that a rational design is provided where a
balance between the expenditure and safety benefits is found. There is no specific guidance on how to find
this balance or reference to documentation or tools that may guide a designer to navigate through this
process.
There is no discussion in AGRD Part 2 with regards to the need to identify how design choices will affect
different crash types, and how the risks contributing to those crash types can be mitigated through design.
The section titled ‘Designing for Safety’ outlines considerations for intersection and midblock design, and for
providing a safer roadside. However, managing crash risk with regard to specific crash types is still not
mentioned. The Guide identifies the road safety audit process as a valuable tool to ensure that safety
aspects are ‘built in’ to a project and that these aspects are an integral part of the development of the road
design. The audit process can provide cost-effective opportunities to improve safety in a design, provided
that it occurs in the early stages of the design.
Within the design objectives, there is also mention of the consideration of community expectations, reduced
travel time and costs, reduced freight costs, improved public transport, and provision for cyclists and
pedestrians. There is no link provided on how these design objectives may affect the whole-of-life costs (e.g.
maintenance costs, safety costs, asset management, future upgrades).

Context-sensitive design
Context-sensitive design (CSD) is ‘an approach that provides the flexibility to encourage independent
designs tailored to particular situations’ (Austroads 2015b). This approach emphasises multi-disciplinary
teams to encompass and represent all the needs of the community (Dorothy & Thieken 2011). AGRD Part 2
acknowledges the challenge to develop a design solution that takes into account the competing alternatives
and trade-offs, and identifies factors for consideration that include:
• mobility and reliability
• environmental impacts
• loss of consistency of design (a safety issue)
• capital costs
• whole-of-life costs (e.g. maintenance costs, vehicle operating costs)
• aesthetics.
In Austroads (2015b), the Design Domain (DD), inclusive of the Normal Design Domain (NDD) and Extended
Design Domain (EDD) is discussed. NDD defines the ‘normal limits for the values of parameters traditionally
chosen’ for road features. The EDD is only used when it can be justified that a value outside the range
specified by NDD should be used. The relationship between the values in each design domain and the cost
or benefit is shown in Figure 2.1. It is stated that ‘the decision on the values to adopt should be made using
objective data on the changes in cost, safety and levels of service caused by changes in the design, together
with benefit-cost analysis’, and it is also stated that ‘such data is not always available, particularly data that
relates changes in the values associated with specific design elements and parameters to safety
performance’ (Austroads 2015b). This is not entirely accurate, as various tools are available to assess the
safety performance of different design scenarios. These include ARRB’s Road Safety Risk Manager
(RSRM), Australian Road Assessment Program (AusRAP), and the Australian National Road Assessment
Model (ANRAM). These tools will assist in identifying the safety benefits or dis-benefits and associated cost
benefits when selecting different values within the design domain. In addition, these tools can also identify
the crash risks associated with the design and what crash types the design is likely to affect.
The design domain concept also recognises that the design domain value chosen for single or multiple
parameters will result in a trade-off between the various benefits and costs of the design. The Guide states
that ‘the design domain approach clarifies the extent of trade-offs and highlights the inter-relationship
between the various elements of design. It encourages a holistic approach to design’ (Austroads 2015b), but
no further discussion or reference to methods to assess this is provided. It appears the Guide considers that
this action is perceived as the role of the design team/designer. However, it could be advantageous to
reinforce this requirement.

Figure 2.1: The design domain concept
Notes:
• The value limits for a particular criterion define the absolute range of values that it may be assigned.
• The design domain for a particular criterion is the range of values, within these limits, that may be practically be
assigned to that criterion.
Source: Austroads (2015b).
2.2.3 Process and Documentation, Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 8
AGRD Part 8 (Austroads 2009b) identifies the designer’s role and the various processes during the phases
of design. The Guide describes phases in which design decisions are most likely to contribute towards a
holistic design being developed:
• Phase 1 (establishing the preferred solution)
• Phase 2 (further developing the solution and finalising ‘the design’).
AGRD Part 8 identifies that during Phase 1 and 2, considerations of design options and individual decisions
(e.g. design selection and influence on construction costs) are required, but does not categorically give
advice with regard to assessing the balance between design, construction and whole-of-life costs.

Phase 1: establish the preferred solution
AGRD Part 8 identifies that during Phase 1, designers are required to undertake a series of activities
including information gathering, developing options, and analysing the options before a preferred solution is
selected. This planning process is similar across all the states and territories, and includes land use/transport
planning, environmental impact assessments, and community engagement before the preliminary design.
AGRD Part 8 notes that the options analysis ‘should be done in accordance with road authority requirements
but will typically involve the use of a decision-making aid, for example, a value management workshop’. No
specific guidance is given with regard to the value engineering process.
While Part 8 infers the need for benefit cost analysis and assessment of whole-of-life costs in Section 4.10:
The Design Development Validation, it does not state that as part of the validation, a benefit cost analysis or
assessment of whole-of-life costs should be carried out to validate if the design objectives have been met. As
a result, an assessment methodology (or guidance on where to source the methodology for such analyses)
is not provided. The only reference that is provided is to ISO 9001, which is a generic quality management
system requirements standard that, in short, states ‘validation activities are conducted to ensure that the
resulting products and services meet the requirements for the specified application or intended use’, which is
not specific to the road design task or meeting the fundamental objectives of road design.
Part 8 does state that the fundamental purpose of design validation is to assess the effectiveness of the
project and summarise the fundamental objectives of road design. It then states that ‘in road design it is
difficult to test the product completely until it has been built. Thus the validation is often deferred until the
completion. However, it is possible to partially complete validation by the use of modelling on a completed
design and by appropriate consultation’. This is counterintuitive to the purpose of the design development
validation process, for most fundamental objectives historical performance data and various model packages
are available to model the effectiveness of the design to determine at least the difference in performance of
one design option compared to a second or third option.
Design development
AGRD Part 8 states that for the design development process that ‘the designer should be aware that the
design of any unusual features should be carried out either by, or under the supervision of, a designer
experienced in that area of expertise. In this context 'unusual' means something outside the design
experience of the designer concerned’ (Austroads 2009b). This should be further defined and additional
guidance should be provided. It is unclear if this is referring to a designer’s experience in the design
processes as per Parts 3–7 of the AGRD (Austroads 2017a–c, 2016a, 2015c–e, 2013a–c, 2010d, 2008). It
may be the case that relevant experience is also sought from experts in safety, maintenance, construction,
asset management, etc.
The Guide identifies that design self-checks should be regularly undertaken during design development to
assure that the design complies with the project requirements and objectives, design standards and
principles, road safety criteria, and statutory and regulatory requirements (Austroads 2009b). There is no
mention of the balance of construction and whole-of-life costs, and this may not be considered unless it is
outlined in the project requirements and objectives.
Construction and maintainability considerations are outlined in the Guide. The challenges and costs related
to constructability and maintenance are touched on, but these are only discussed as a consideration in
isolation. It may well be the case that the design results in a high construction or maintenance cost but
achieves significant whole-of-life cost savings for safety, asset management, or even future design
upgrades. It is stated that ‘generally, on larger projects, these issues would be addressed by a team of
relevant specialists that guides the development of the design, to ensure the best working knowledge of the
circumstances surrounding construction and maintenance’. Perhaps it is desirable that decisions relevant to
construction and maintenance also be discussed with other road engineering discipline experts so that a
decision can be considered holistically including whole-of-life considerations.

Design review, verification and validation
The design review process indicates that the review should assess whether the design will be the best
possible within the constraints, and to achieve this, it is necessary to have a skilled and independent
designer as part of the review team to challenge the choices made during the design development process.
Part 8 (Austroads 2009b) states that:
The number of members needed for a design review team will vary depending on the size and
complexity of the project. The team must, for each discipline being considered, have knowledge
of design standards and principles, construction and user safety, environmental issues, road
construction techniques and requirements, and post-construction maintenance. If a road safety
audit is not carried out separately, the design review team shall include at least one person who
is competent in such audits.
This seems appropriate for this task, but the same approach should be taken for the design team.
Road safety and Safe System
It is stated that ‘the Guide to Road Design Part 8: Process and Documentation should be considered in the
broad context of road safety and the contribution that the Guide can make to the design of safer roads’
(Austroads 2009b). A summary of the Safe System approach is provided, however, no specific advice is
included. The four pillars of the Safe System are briefly mentioned but are overshadowed by the remainder
of the narrative which is focused on crash survivability in relation to impact speeds. A closing comment is
made that ‘road designers should be aware of, and through the design process actively support, the
philosophy and road safety objectives covered in the Austroads Guide to Road Safety’. It is imperative that
safety is part of a holistic design; however, the Guide to Road Safety does not provide a designer with the
complete skill set to cater for safety within design or for the design to include Safe System principles. A
designer’s role is not to be a safety specialist, nor is a safety specialist’s role to be an expert in design. Often
safety will only be incorporated in the design team through a road safety audit (RSA). An RSA is often
carried out as a mandatory part of the design process, however, an RSA is not always conducted by an
experienced safety engineering specialist, nor does it often consider the effect of the selection of design
parameters, the safety implications and the resulting whole-of-life costs.
2.2.4 Safety through Design, Other Austroads Guides
Austroads Guide to Road Safety
Austroads Guide to Road Safety (AGRS) sets out the Austroads approach to road safety, identifying the
responsibilities of the jurisdictions for safety and providing guidance on how to achieve that. The Safe
System approach is described. It is now common practice for all of the road design guides to identify the
need for a Safe System approach to improving road safety.
However, the Parts of the AGRS do not provide advice on how the design parameters affect safety.
Guidance is not provided on how to mitigate safety risk with changes to design parameters and evaluate the
benefits or dis-benefits, particularly when considering whole-of-life cost.
Austroads Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment Reports
Austroads report, Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment Part 1: Relationships between Crash Risk and
the Standards of Geometric Design Elements (Austroads 2010a), identifies a clear relationship between
design elements and crash risk. Lane and shoulder width, horizontal curve radius, vertical grade, sight
distance and crest vertical curves, and roadside design were each demonstrated to have an effect on
specific crash types. Differences in crash rates were attributed to changes in the design parameter values
only. Other mitigating measures were not referred to (e.g. dividing the road, roadside safety barriers, wide
centreline, rumble strips, curvilinear alignment to reduce operating speed).

Austroads report, Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment Part 6: Crash Reduction Factors
(Austroads 2010b), demonstrates crash reduction estimates associated with various road design features or
safety measures (termed ‘issues’) in different environments. The report assessed 47 issues, including
installation of roundabouts, delineation devices, street lighting and road surface improvements. Crash
reduction values were derived for most of these based on previously published research from Australia and
overseas, and around 100 crash reduction factors are provided.
Austroads report, Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment Part 7: Crash Rates Database
(Austroads 2010c), identifies broad crash rate information for different elements of the road network. Mean
casualty crash rates and casualty crash cost rates (which provide information on severity) were developed
for single and divided roads, urban and rural environments, different intersection types and various other
subsets. The crash rates provide information for concept/planning level decisions. Further information with
regard to crash type and the identification of influencing factors on crash likelihood and severity would need
to be provided so that the information could be used to make design decisions.
Austroads Guide to Road Design
AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2016a) does provide crash risk factors for some design elements, e.g. that a
horizontal curve causing a speed reduction of 30 km/h from an approach speed of 100 km/h elevates the risk
of a run-off-road casualty crash by 5.1 times, or a that wide centre line treatment (WCLT) reduces the risk of
head-on crashes. The design elements and crash reduction factors are provided in isolation from one
another, and the guidance is not road user specific. The guidance does not comment on any effects that
design decisions may have on asset management or maintenance. This may create a situation where crash
reduction is achieved, however asset management costs are increased but not considered as a whole-of-life
cost (e.g. wire rope barriers).
The soon-to-be-finalised Austroads technical report, Verification of Austroads’ Design Criteria Based on
Objective Safety Evidence (Project TT1966) identifies the relationship between the design domain values of
various design elements and the associated safety risk factors and resulting crash modification factors
(CMF). Further information from this report could be provided or referenced in the AGRD.
Evaluating options and identifying safety risk
An evaluation process to measure the change in risk on the road as a whole by altering the design value for
one parameter, particularly for design purposes, was not detailed or referred to in any of the mentioned
guides or technical reports. Risk was identified as a collective, and the influences on crash likelihood risk and
severity risk were not identified separately. An evaluation process to calculate the cost benefit with regard to
whole-of-life costs was not provided or referenced.
2.3 Jurisdiction Design Guidance

Publicly available design guidance on road agency websites in Australia and New Zealand were reviewed.
AGRD advises designers that the guidelines are provided to assist but do not preclude justified engineering
judgement. There is a consistent and strong focus on justification of decisions and documenting all stages of
the design process.
Four of the state road agencies provide additional guidance, while the remaining agencies reference
Austroads (see Table 2.1). Of the additional guidance provided, only the TMR Guidelines for Road Design on
Brownfield Sites (TMR 2013) and the TMR Supplement for AGRD Part 8 clearly indicated that alternative
design options should be considered and that the construction whole-of-life costs should be evaluated for
each option to provide a benefit cost ratio during Phase 2 (preliminary design/design development).

Table 2.1: Project planning processes in national guides
State/territory Additional guidance for design process model/outline

Queensland Department of Transport Cost-Benefit Analysis Manual (CBA) (TMR 2011)
and Main Roads (TMR) Preconstruction Processes Manual (PPM) (TMR 2005a–c, 2009a–b)
Project Cost Estimating Manual (TMR 2015a)
Transport Infrastructure Project Delivery System (TMR 2015b)
Guidelines for Road Design on Brownfield Sites (TMR 2013)
Supplement to AGRD Part 8: Process and Documentation (TMR 2015c)
Roads and Maritime Services (Roads Not specifically road design, but urban design in Beyond the Pavement
and Maritime), New South Wales (Roads and Maritime Services 2014)
VicRoads, Victoria No guidance in addition to Austroads
Transport Canberra and City Services No guidance in addition to Austroads
Directorate, ACT
Department of State Growth, Tasmania Professional Services Specification D1 – Road Design (Department of
Infrastructure, Energy and Resources 2012)
Department of Planning, Transport and Part P20 Planning – General (Department of Planning, Transport and
Infrastructure (DPTI), South Australia Infrastructure 2016)
Department of Infrastructure, Planning No guidance in addition to Austroads
and Logistics, Northern Territory
Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA), No guidance in addition to Austroads
Western Australia
Descriptions from each of the three road agencies providing guidance in addition to the AGRD are
summarised in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: State jurisdiction design guidance summaries
Road
Manual/guide Summary description
agency
TMR Cost Benefit The Cost Benefit Analysis manual provides a framework for organising
Analysis Manual information, listing the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative
(CBA) (TMR 2011) course of action in terms of economic values and ranking alternatives on the
criteria of net economic value. CBA can be used to compare alternatives for
transport and road projects by the net benefits they create over time, when the
broad social view is important and when projects may be characterised by a
flow of benefits and costs over time options. The CBA manual and tool allows
the assessment of multiple options.
Supplement to The TMR supplement indicates Chapter 4 of the TMR Preconstruction
AGRD Part 8: Processes Manual should be used in place of AGRD Part 8. The TMR
Process and supplement also indicates a requirement to comply with the Professional
Documentation Engineers Act 2002. This supplement provides advice on reducing costs,
(TMR 2015c) scope reduction and project risk reduction, however there is no guidance
provided to indicate that this considers whole-of-life costs/risks and appears to
be focused on capital costs/risks only, the narrative of this guidance is
contradictory to other guidance in the supplement, which focuses on success
criteria and innovative solutions.
In addition to AGRD Part 8 this supplement provides guidance for approval for
design exceptions. Although design exceptions are indicated to be used in
EDD, there is no mention of design exceptions related to site or link specific,
unique or innovative ‘specialist design’. The supplement provides a process for
justifying design exceptions, indicative guidance for developing alternatives
and evaluating risk. It is also inclusive of providing guidance to monitor and
evaluating the implemented design solution.
The supplement indicates that a Registered Professional Engineer of
Queensland (RPEQ) should ensure the use of design standards are
appropriate given the context of the project, however it is not specified that
RPEQ approval is required for elements of the design where an RPEQ
engineer from a discipline other than road design should be consulted
(e,g. road safety, asset management, pavements etc.).

Road
agency
Preconstruction Chapter 5 of this manual outlines techniques for scope development, including
Processes Manual considerations of value management, risk management, value engineering
(PPM) (TMR 2005a) reviews and group problem solving. These principles are transferable to the
design options analysis during Phase 2/development stage (preliminary and
detailed design).
Chapter 6 provides the basis and most influential material for the development
of a holistic design. The introduction outlines the influence the cost of a design
has on the life cycle costs, showing that the design is often no greater than
10% of the total project cost, however, 80% of the opportunity to influence life
cycle costs is exhausted during the design phase. Chapter 6 perhaps
demonstrates a benefit in robust design procedures during Phase 1 and Phase
2 of the design process, indicating that additional expenditure in the design
process provides whole-of-life cost benefits. The Auditing section of Chapter 6
outlines that a quality, road safety and constructability audit should be carried
out. A review process (Figure 2.2) is to be carried out and changes to the
existing design are to be undertaken if required. The manual does not,
however, indicate that additional items should be audited, nor should
alternative design options be considered and then compared.
Project The Project Management Practices Guideline (PMPG) acknowledges that
Management many technical or specialist disciplines should be included when assessing
Practices Guideline potential components of a project. The focus on including all disciplines in the
(PMPG) (TMR project management process is to assist in the development and delivery of
2016) the project throughout all of its phases (infrastructure project planning and
delivery). The PMPG methodology gives the opportunity for each discipline to
provide input and influence on design decisions.
The consideration of whole-of-life costs is identified in pavement design and
asset management. A consideration of whole-of-life costs for road safety is not
outlined, however it is indicated that road safety should be considered and a
road safety audit should be conducted. The manual does identify up to 30
disciplines that should be included in the concept, development, design, and
implementation of a road design project, however there is no specific reference
to conducting a whole-of-life cost assessment that considers all disciplines.
The PMPG also indicates that it is a challenge to identify, assess and balance
the needs or desired outcomes of each discipline. Formal guidance or a
process to overcome this challenge or calculate whole-of-life costs (including
all disciplines collaboratively) are not provided.
Project Cost This manual considers construction and principal costs. The principal costs are
Estimating Manual those costs which the principal incurs to plan, conceptualise, develop, deliver
(TMR 2015a) and finalise a project. Ongoing whole-of-life costs are not mentioned.
Transport Appendix G provides guidance for non-price based tendering. This gives
Infrastructure flexibility to request that the tenderer demonstrate the ability to develop a
Project Delivery design that meets the design brief, including being able to specify a
System requirement to provide multiple design options along with cost benefit analysis
(TMR 2015b) to demonstrate the design, construction and whole-of-life costs. This could also
be extended to a tenderer demonstrating the capability to develop and assess
these options with in-house experience and capabilities or with a
partnership/co-tender arrangement. The project brief within the tender could
therefore be carried over to the contract specifications for the design.
Guidelines for Road This Guide provides methodologies for assessing the acceptability of design
Design on parameters outside the range of values prescribed in the Austroads Guides.
Brownfield Sites The guidance is predominantly focused on using lower design domain values
(TMR 2013) to reduce capital costs with a minimal impact on safety.
Refer to Section 2.3.1 of this report for further information.
Department Professional This specification provides a brief outline of their recommended road design
of State Services process, split between preliminary design and final design. There are specific
Growth Specification hold points in each, which gives an idea of the order of completion in the
Tasmania (Department of recommended design process, shown in Figure 2.3. It lists the requirements for
(DoSGT) Infrastructure, preliminary design, including project objectives, defining standards, option
Energy and recommendations and risks. The section on final design is broken up between
Resources 2012) general requirements, drawings, specifications, cost estimates, and design
report and climate change considerations.

Road
agency
DPTI Part P20 Planning This Guide contains a Project Planning Model. The Guide states that the
(Department of ‘process will need to be modified to suit the circumstances of each project’.
Planning, Transport General requirements are set out for the planning study methodology,
and engagement of land owners, cost estimates and economic evaluation, risk
Infrastructure 2016) management and hold points. The table of hold points gives an idea of the
deliverables of the project, but are not necessarily in chronological order
(depending on the project) as specified by the Guide (Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.2: The ‘Typical Road Planning Process’ shown in the PPM
Source: Preconstruction Processes Manual (Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2005b).

Figure 2.3: The hold points and requirements for the design process specified in Tasmania’s Department of
Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Professional Services Specification
Source: Professional Services Specification (Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources 2012).

Figure 2.4: An overview of the planning process in the project planning model in DPTI’s Part P20 Planning
(General)
OVERVIEW OR THE PLANNING PROCESS
Stakeholder and Planning Process Typical Key Documented

Community Outputs
Engagement
Process
Determine approach to Concept Planning Planning Study Methodology,
and Stakeholder and Community Stakeholder and Community
Engagement Engagement Methodology
↓
Review and Initiation: Review existing Initiation Report or updated
information, identify issues, and gather Methodologies
further information as necessary.
Determine Evaluation Criteria
The level of ↓
involvement with the
Generate Alternative Concepts Draft Concept Planning Report
Community to be
considered in the ↓
Stakeholder and Assess Alternative Concepts (Select Concept Planning Report
Community Preferred Concept)
Engagement
Methodology. ↓
Design of Preferred Concept Reference Design – Stage 1
(EIA for Major Projects)
↓
Public Display (Also Public Exhibition of Stakeholder Submissions
EIA for Major Projects)
↓
Prepare Response to Submissions Response Document
received from Public Display / Exhibition
↓
Seek Approval for Preferred Concept Approval of Concept (Minister’s
(through the Minister for Major Projects) Decision for Major Projects)
↓
Completion of Reference Design Reference Design – Stage 2
& public display of design (final)
Source: Part P20 Planning – General (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 2016).

2.3.1 Design Exceptions
Design exceptions are a part of modern day road design, particularly in Australia. The development of design
exception guidance is an acknowledgement that the design parameters as set out in the AGRD cannot
always be met, or more importantly, when a design is considered in context (context-sensitive design), it may
be proven that a more economical design may be viable using lower design domain values.
TMR has developed guidelines for design on brownfield sites (TMR 2013). It provides guidance for
assessing the acceptability of design parameters outside the range of values prescribed in the Austroads
Guides, which are referred to as Extended Design Domain (EDD). EDD values are design values that are
recognised to be lower than the Normal Design Domain (NDD) values; this is discussed in AGRD Part 2
(Austroads 2015b). A departure from NDD to EDD values is described in the AGRD to be a ‘design
exception’ and is stated to be required to be formally approved by the relevant approving engineer/officer
after due consideration and documentation of all constraints, criteria and risks.
It is recognised that all jurisdictions require the departure from NDD and the use of EDD to be approved by
the appropriate authority within their jurisdiction (in Qld, Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland
(RPEQ)). The justification for using EDD values is required to be fully documented, including the values
adopted and the expected impact on the safety of the section of road involved; an essential part of the
justification is the saving in capital costs. In addition, the means of mitigating the adverse effects of the
design have to be described and incorporated in the costs of the design.
TMR (2013) indicates that the design should be assessed to determine the resulting whole-of-life costs, such
as maintenance, safety, environment, and traffic operations. It is also recognised that multiple design options
should be considered and evaluated. There is no reference to value engineering or guidance on how to
evaluate the whole-of-life costs. The brownfield design Guide refers to the TMR Preconstruction Processes
Manual, where indicative information regarding whole-of-life costs is provided, however, this does not guide
a designer through the process in any detail.
TMR (2013) provides examples of how the different design values within normal design parameters can be
used to reduce the likelihood and severity of a crash. An example is providing additional sealed shoulder
width on the outside of right hand curves that are less than 1000 m radius to provide additional recovery
area. This approach could be adopted within the NDD and could also be adopted in combination with other
design parameters. This approach could be used by more designers if there was a greater understanding of
crash risk factors for various crash types amongst the design community; further detail is provided in
Section 2.5.3. To put this into context, the example of the wider sealed shoulder on curves can be used,
where a wider sealed shoulder also provides significant benefits for motorcyclists by providing additional
width to the formation, resulting in vehicles tracking away from the centreline therefore creating a wider
buffer between opposing traffic streams. This lessens the likelihood of a crash occurring, whilst the additional
width also assists recovery should a vehicle lose control.
2.4 International Design Guidance

A number of international road agencies’ road design guides/manuals (Table 2.3) were examined to review
international design processes and to identify differences and possible advanced processes or philosophy
with regard to finding the balance between design, construction and whole-of-life costs during the entire
design process (Phase 1 and Phase 2).
The review found that international practice with regard to technical design guidance, design domain and
context-sensitive design was similar to Australia and New Zealand, which is not surprising as the Austroads
Guides reference many international guides and practices. Similar to the AGRD, in the USA, documents
adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), e.g. the
‘Green Book’, have been supplemented by a range of publications from both AASHTO and the
Transportation Research Board (TRB).

Table 2.3: International road design guides/documents examined
Country/jurisdiction Road design guide/document

United States of America Project Development and Design Manual Chapters 1 (Federal Highway Administration
2012a) & 4 (Federal Highway Administration 2012b)
A policy on geometric design of highways and streets, 5th edn (American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2011)
Various National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) syntheses covering
highway design (National Academy of Sciences n.d.)
England Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 0 Section 2 (Highways England 2012) and
Volume 6 Section 1 (Highways England 2002)
New Zealand State Highway Geometric Design Manual Sections 1 (Transit New Zealand 2000) & 2
(Transit New Zealand 2003)
Canada Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (Transport Association of Canada 2011)
Europe (incl. Sweden, Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (Federal Highway Administration 2001)
Denmark, The
Netherlands, England
and Germany)
Global Sustainable Safe Road Design (DHV Environment and Transportation 2005)
2.4.1 Preliminary Design and Option Development
There is a significant focus on options/alternative development in the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), with a ‘conceptual studies and preliminary
design process’ model laid out in the manual, as shown in Figure 2.5 (FHWA 2012b). The scoping of the
problem, alternatives development and preliminary design stages are designated steps and areas of focus,
with the environmental process spanning the whole duration.
There are also recommendations for what to include in the preliminary design process and suggestions for
criteria to compare each alternative (set out in Section 4.7 of the PDDM). ‘Alternatives may be presented in
an evaluation matrix chart to show the results consistently considered for the purposes of screening the best
option among all of the alternatives’. Reasons must be documented when an alternative is selected for
progression, and this is used in an extensive environmental scoping procedure.
2.4.2 Design Philosophy and Policies
International design philosophies and processes have similarities with the domestic approach, but there are
some differences. The United Kingdom’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) lays out in the
introduction a clear explanation of the design philosophy, which is heavily focused on safety (Highways
England 2012). The main difference to the Austroads Guide is that there are mandatory requirements in the
design elements, identified by highlighted boxes, and ‘no departures from this standard will be accepted’.
Many other guides accept justified deviations on a case-by-case basis. The strict adherence promotes focus
on creating a compliant design that meets technical requirements (note that the ‘no departures’ refers to the
process rather than individual design parameters).
The PDDM published in the USA has high-level guidance in the form of policies that reinforce the design
philosophy and ‘is followed without exception’ (FHWA 2012a). The document includes policies on supporting
the mission objectives set by regulatory bodies, meeting technical scopes, demonstrating risk assessment,
and seeking to implement new technology. The design philosophy also discusses the risk management
process, and rules are in place for ‘Branch Chiefs’ of the regulatory body to ‘oversee and endorse the level of
risk taken’. These risks include operational and long-term performance risks and must be discussed with the
regulatory body.

Figure 2.5: Conceptual studies and preliminary design process model
Source: Project Development and Design Manual (FHWA 2012b).

2.4.3 Other Design Criteria
As a response to the public and political requirement to balance the mobility and safety needs of highway
improvements with a range of social needs, the FHWA partnered with AASHTO and a range of other
authorities to create a publication called Flexibility in Highway Design (FHWA 1997). This Guide works within
the framework of context-sensitive design (CSD) and shows how designers can ‘make highway
improvements while preserving and enhancing the adjacent land and community’. The social considerations
in this publication complement the conservative use of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets by AASHTO, the definitive guide to road design in America (AASHTO 2011).
2.4.4 European Guidelines on Process, Safety and Environmental Considerations
A number of differences to the Austroads and American design guides can be found by examining European
guidelines and highlighting possible implementation strategies. A tour sponsored by FHWA in 2001
documented the road design philosophy and processes of Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, England and
Germany, in a report titled Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (FHWA 2001). The European
design philosophy ‘permeates the project development process, safety improvements, roadway design
concepts, geometric design guidelines, public involvement and environmental commitments’. They found that
whilst adopting the CSD concept, Europeans ‘devote a long period of time to the planning and process and
also place greater emphasis on integrating projects in communities’. Design workshops are conducted ‘in
which all project alternatives are developed with public involvement’.
All the countries were also found to have had very high safety goals, ranging from zero fatalities to reducing
all crashes by 40%. There appeared to be more tolerance of lower speeds and self-enforcing speed
reductions in Europe. A major European focus was on longer sections to ‘allow for a more systematic
overview and definition of needs and deficiencies throughout the entire system’. In consultation with
community groups, the Europeans favour a ‘self-explaining, self-enforcing road’ that encourages lower
speeds for automobiles, and is an example of innovative design.
Several countries ‘copied or adapted the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes and
‘integrated it more efficiently within the project development process’. Europeans ‘are more committed to
addressing environmental issues than their US counterparts’. Environmental impact studies are also
developed by local government agencies as a ‘means of identifying problems and solutions more easily at
the local level’.
2.4.5 Cost Benefit Analysis
In the Sustainable Safe Road Design manual (DHV Environment and Transportation 2005) written for the
World Bank, cost benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are given their own section in
the guide, and the main elements and procedures are laid out for designers. CEA ‘examines the road safety
effects (e.g. casualty saving) and costs. Measures can be ranked, based on the costs necessary to save one
casualty’. CBA compares the project alternative against the null alternative (‘do nothing’) over a long period
(10, 20 or 30 years). It analyses the costs of road safety measures, such as investments and operational
costs (replacement, maintenance and enforcement) and all relevant effects are quantified where possible.
This includes the number of crashes at a location, with the project alternative and the null alternative, and the
likely crash reduction obtained through in-depth research and meta-analyses. The monetised social accident
costs (savings) are put through net present value calculations to find the social return, and implementation is
desirable if the present value is positive. Sensitivity analyses are also conducted.

2.4.6 Value Engineering
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) syntheses provides a good overview of
practice across the USA. From the review, it appears that the formal guidance within the design guides in
terms of finding the balance between design, construction and whole-of-life costs is more developed than in
Australia and New Zealand. In the USA, the value engineering concept is legislated (NHS Designation Act of
1995) to be included within the road design and construction process. This legislation is reflected within
Guidelines for Value Engineering (AASHTO 2009). This Guide outlines that multiple options should be
considered and that each option should present with different benefits and dis-benefits so a true comparison
can be made, enabling design, construction and whole-of-life costs to be evaluated.
Value engineering (VE) is the systematic application of recognised techniques, by an objective,

multi-disciplinary review team, called the VE team. The VE team is normally a separate group of individuals
from the design team. VE studies identify functions of a project (or product or service), establish relative
worth for each function, and generate recommended cost-saving alternatives through the use of creative
thinking that do not compromise functional integrity of the project. VE studies focus on essential functions of
the project in order to accomplish its original purpose, reliably, and at the lowest life-cycle cost without
sacrificing safety, necessary quality, operational capability, or environmental attributes of the project. Often a
positive by-product of value engineering is decreased project construction duration.
A traditional VE study should then be commissioned between preliminary and final design in order to focus
on possible cost-saving measures that will deliver the selected design alternative at the lowest reasonable
initial and life-cycle cost without compromising essential project functions. There may be opportunities to
investigate the value and effectiveness of individual project components during any stage of design
development, so the above description of concept-level VE, and VE at preliminary or mid-design should be
considered as general guidelines to apply on a case-by-case basis as they make sense for individual
projects.
2.5 Research Papers and Technical Reports
2.5.1 Multi-discipline Network-wide Design Approach
The paper ‘Safe System Complementary Thinking’ (Bobbermen 2016) reports on the network-specific design
solution that was achieved on the Bruce Highway in Queensland. The design solution was a success due to
the concerted effort to integrate design, safety, asset management and delivery thinking from the earliest
phase of network-wide planning.
The design approach recognises that with the available funding the same standard of treatment would not be
able to be provided for the entire network, therefore migrating crash rates to other locations, negating the
safety improvements resulting from the new works. The network-wide approach ensures that sites other than
the identified high-risk sites are included in the network strategy and are not left untreated; this results in a
network design solution as opposed to a design solution for isolated sites on a network. A funding profile for
the network can be developed using network-wide and construction ‘Vision Standards’ ensuring that a
realistic program can be implemented for a total network solution in a practical timeframe. This is highly
advantageous when compared to the delivery of individual projects on a network where each project is likely
to be driven by standards as opposed to achieving the intended network-wide objective.
The design approach developed a design domain based on balancing crash risk as opposed to strictly
meeting design domain values. This approach, combined with the network-wide implementation, achieved a
75% reduction in fatal crashes.
The design approach is complementary to the National Road Safety Strategy (2011–2020) which
emphasises ‛the need to find and apply cost-effective and innovative solutions’.

Bobbermen identified five key principles to produce a step change in reducing fatal crashes:
1. Use a network-wide strategy.
2. Set realistic network-wide intervention and construction (vision) standards.
3. Balance crash risk.
4. Prioritise for delivery efficiency.
5. Consider risk compensatory influences.
The combination of these objectives has facilitated accelerated retrofitting of the network with an unexpected
and significant step change in benefits. This has been due to the likely generation of a network-wide strategy
approach, risk compensatory behavioural influence on drivers and the refinement of Safe System
complementary thinking.
A summary of the underlying method behind these key principles, which are also applicable to the
fundamental objectives of road design, are provided below.
Network-wide focus
The findings suggest greater strategic control is exercised through a total road network strategy to maximise
the beneficial outcome and not to leave the safety solution to chance through many decisions on many
projects.
Strategy-driven focus
The network-wide focus is a top down network strategy-driven process to set a realistic network vision (with
vision standards) and not the aggregation of bottom-up driven solutions for problem sites. Any identified
problem sites would automatically be included in the strategy.
Integration of disciplines
Design, Safe System, delivery and asset management disciplines were integrated as part of the network
analysis. These related disciplines were integrated and applied in the following ways:
• Network-wide planning to develop a strategy which brought together the various disciplines when trying to
match the vision standards with a realistic funding profile.
• Application of a new concept of network-wide design where the key technical aspects of design were
applied at a network level rather than at each project.
• Asset management to set the evaluation lifecycle for the strategy development and to accommodate the
impacts of changes in standards for key components such as pavements.
• Program delivery management practices to prioritise projects and achieve cost savings due to the
realisation of free projects through the application of ‘economy of scale’ and ‘economy of location’
principles.
• Integration of road design and road safety practice to balance crash risk for key components which have
a significant influence and sometimes a competing interest on the outcome.
• Network-wide economic analysis to demonstrate the benefits for the best total network option.
Road stereotype
The roads on a network were not identified using traditional functional hierarchy classifications. A unique
road stereotype was derived taking into account local conditions and therefore enabling the setting of vision
standards so that crash risk could be adequately balanced.

Network-wide intervention and construction (vision) standards
Network-wide intervention and construction (vision) standards were developed. Recognising that a total
length of road cannot be upgraded instantaneously to the vision standards. The treatment process was
clarified to ensure a practical and realistic approach was applied by setting the following:
• a network-wide intervention standard (which was the trigger for enhancement work)
• a network-wide construction standard (the completed construction standard for new work).
It is critical to the process that both these standards were identified to bring the road up to a consistent
standard within a desired timeframe and to ensure the intervention and construction standards were
relatively consistent. The ultimate vision was still relevant and can be explained as the standard which
current and subsequent increments will meet. Each increment was both realistic and practical and will be
completed in a timeframe which linked with the asset lifecycle and will avoid asset wastage or rework.
Road consistency
Setting such standards on a network-wide basis will reduce the variability in standards for a link/network,
facilitate quicker implementation, mitigate the nonfeasance legal risk, and provide greater consistency for the
driver. This will also implement treatments in a way where the resulting road will be ’self-explaining’.
Also, for a rapid change to occur, an approach which brings the network up in completed whole-of-network
incremental stages will result in a consistent driver experience over a shorter period and achieve total
network benefits earlier.
Iterative approach
This strategy process is iterative and requires various checks on affordability, design limits, developing safety
treatment options, balancing crash risk, maximising benefits, minimising risk and considering complementary
flooding and efficiency enhancement projects to arrive at the best result for the network-wide stereotype
(Figure 2.6). More on this will be outlined in the following sections.
Figure 2.6: Strategy process
Source: Bobbermen (2016).

Design competency in setting network-wide standards
The intervention and construction standard for each component is considered through a calculated and
informed process relying upon a network-wide design exception or extended design domain to justify the
decisions for the stereotype. It is not about naively accepting a traditional standard as a project treatment.
This analysis process relies on a proficient design engineer, who also considers network and asset
performance, to be involved in and approve the standard. The resulting network-wide analysis will thereby
limit any decision for a standard within a contained project. This concept has historically been referenced as
the project needing to ‘strategically fit’ or align with the network strategy.
As an example, the considerations to support the Bruce Highway decision and gain approval of a lower but
engineered standard are shown in Figure 2.7.
As an example, significant savings from the application of the critically reviewed network-wide standards
were achieved (estimated at more than $8 billion) to complete the Bruce Highway with consistent standards
through:
• reduced lengths of higher cost treatments resulting from the network-wide intervention standard
• reduced cost for new enhancement works through a realistic network-wide construction standard.
Figure 2.7: Considerations to develop network-wide design at a ‘reduced’ standard
Source: Bobbermen (2016).
Balancing crash risk
As a network-specific road stereotype, inclusive of those roads components (e.g. lane weights, shoulder
width, intersection type, etc) being identified, the crash risk on the network could be quantified and the crash
types identified. As the road components and crash risk for each crash type are identified a consistent design
that focuses on reducing the identified crash type, as opposed to being compliant with design domain values,
can be developed at a network level.

Risk compensatory decisions
The reduction in fatalities on the Bruce Highway has been much greater than expected. With only a
proportion of the highway treated to date a 75% crash reduction against a forecast reduction of 16% has
been demonstrated. There are three (driver risk compensatory) areas which have contributed to this:
• provision of regular overtaking opportunities (applied in strategy)
• reduction in narrow lanes (applied in strategy)
• compensatory decisions on untreated 150 mm centreline sections (not originally considered in strategy
development).
2.5.2 Safety in Geometric Design Standards
The paper ‘Safety in Geometric Design Standards’ (Hauer 1999) presents a strong case for the fallibility of
the use of standards as a proxy for safe design thinking. Hauer argues that the ranges of values used in
standards are ‘limit standards’, and do not tell the designer what the safest design is. Roads are neither as
safe as they can be (things could always be improved), nor are they as safe as they should be (appropriate
level of safety does not coincide with what is minimally acceptable). Many road features that affect safety are
not covered in the standards (e.g. choice of road lighting). Much of the standards have been developed on
plausible conjecture rather than empirical fact, and have questionable metrics on which the rest of the advice
depends. For example, the height of the obstacle on a vertical crest curve was originally set to 4”, not
because of a particular obstacle the writers had in mind, but rather to save on the cost of flattening the curve
(Hauer 1999).
Hauer argues that elements of traditional engineering, when it comes to safe road design, present some
major problems. The historical evolution of civil engineering and the mindset for much of the technical advice
that has been written in standards is to:
• assume how failure arises
• use physical sciences and mathematics to represent the failure situation
• postulate ‘design loads’ and choose ‘conservative’ values for parameters
• compute values for design.
Empirical evidence that becomes known is seldom incorporated, nor does it prompt questioning of long-held
beliefs about road safety. Hauer concludes that ‘in no legitimate sense of the word can one maintain the
roads built to standards are safe’.
The Safe System concept has been adopted in road safety strategies around Australia and New Zealand.
However, within road design itself, there is insufficient focus on creating a Safe System through infrastructure
options. A paper titled ‘Safe System Infrastructure: From Theory to Practice’ (Hall 2011) highlights the
roadblocks against achieving a truly ‘Safe System’, which includes:
• The focus remains on incremental improvements in safety, rather than a change of mindset to
significantly improve road safety.
• It is seen as not practical in some cases, either because of cost or reductions in mobility’.
• Some people do not agree on the principles and accept various levels of compliance.
Hall (2011) identifies some major approaches to shift the road network towards being a Safe System, with
two being:
• modifying the standards and incorporating Safe System into the philosophy, recognising that it is not
currently perfectly achievable
• training and educating stakeholders (including road managers, designers and road users).

2.5.3 Safety Risk and Design Parameters
Austroads report Infrastructure Improvements to Reduce Motorcycle Casualties (Austroads 2016b) identifies
that infrastructure is often a factor in motorcycle crashes, this is transferable crashes for other vehicle types.
The report identifies that the condition, presence or location of a road infrastructure element can directly or
indirectly influence the likelihood of a crash occurring or the resulting severity of a crash. A number of road
infrastructure elements that result from selection and combination of design parameters that affect crash risk
and contribute to various crash types are shown in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4: Road infrastructure elements that may be a factor in motorcycle crashes
Crash likelihood Crash severity

Midblock Intersections Midblock and intersection
Road alignment Intersection type Roadside furniture
Sight distance Line of sight Safety barriers
Curve quality Turning provisions Utility services
Overtaking provisions Horizontal geometry Drainage
Skid resistance/surface texture Advance signage Natural environment
Surface hazards Carriageway width Landscaping
Carriageway width Road surface texture, drainage,
Signage and delineation condition and hazards
Surface condition
Roadworks
Note: The road elements contributing to crash likelihood for midblock may also apply to intersections.
Source: Austroads (2016b).
As a number of different road infrastructure elements can contribute towards crash risk, an aggregation of
elements with low design domain values or infrastructure elements that are in poor condition can significantly
increase crash risk. The need to assess design holistically is evident. This can be done to some extent with a
road safety audit, however, an audit is unlikely to quantify the crash risk, or identify and isolate the crash
factors influencing likelihood and severity.
The resulting elements of design (product of design parameter selection) and the resulting crash risk
contribute to various crash types, as shown in Figure 2.8. Understanding design parameters and the
resulting influence on crash likelihood and crash severity at the design stage will identify the resulting crash
risk in the design and also how that risk can be reduced. This will provide a platform to make safety-based
design decisions along with traditional AADT warrant-based design parameter selection.
With the use of safety models such as AusRAP and ANRAM, the number of fatal or serious injury (FSI)
crashes and the resulting costs can be estimated, countermeasure design costs can be produced, and
benefit cost ratios (BCRs) based on those changes in design parameters can be used to forecast whole-of-
life costs.

Figure 2.8: Head-on crash type infrastructure risk and safety risk score
Note: Loss of control (LOC).
Source: AusRAP test bed version 3.02, provided by iRAP (2014).
2.5.4 Philosophies Guiding Trade-off Decisions
Designers must have a way to handle trade-offs that inevitably arise when developing any road design. The
thinking and evaluation process, guided by their internal design philosophy, will have a profound impact on
evaluating trade-offs. NCHRP synthesis 422 Trade-off Considerations in Highway Geometric Design
(Dorothy & Thieken 2011) found that many transport authorities in America, despite having a road design
philosophy, do not have clear, objective processes or tools for evaluating trade-offs in the design process.
Context Sensitive Design (CSD) considers the overall context within which a transportation project fits’, and
this helps the designer identify trade-offs associated with design decisions accurately. Measures of
effectiveness (MOE) are developed in consultation with stakeholders and are then used as evaluation
criteria. Under CSD, designers can consider the context without it having to be a ‘governing factor of design’
(Dorothy & Thieken 2011).
2.5.5 Practical Design
The Transportation Research Board report Practical Highway Design Solutions (McGee 2013) details the
findings from surveying Departments of Transportation in various US states on a concept called ‘Practical
Design’. Practical Design emphasises ‘proper scoping at the planning level to satisfy purpose and need’, with
the goal of ‘cost reduction for individual projects so that the savings can be used on additional projects’. It
focuses on optimisation of the entire system rather than any individual project, with regard to mobility and
safety. The designs produced are likely to be ‘reasonable solutions’.
2.6 Analysis Tools

A number of tools that evaluate safety and the resulting level of safety risk due to a combination of design
parameter values have been identified and evaluated in the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) report
entitled Road Safety Models (TRL 2016). The models originated from Australia, Europe, France, Italy, New
Zealand, United Kingdom and the USA.

Of the models reviewed, only the US FHWA Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) relates the
effects of geometric design decisions to operational costs. The IHSDM uses crash prediction equations from
the FHWA HiSafe tool, which were determined using the values from the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual.
The HiSafe model predicts crash frequency, severity, single or multiple vehicle crashes, and crash type
(Figure 2.9). The IHSDM undertakes the same safety analysis as the HiSafe model but in addition, the
IHSDM allows safety assessment of the current situation and planned changes (physical features that are
being considered during the planning or design phase) for a defined future time period. It is unclear if the
model calculates the estimated reduction in FSIs and the BCR between design options. It is not clear if
IHSDM analyses the design as an alignment or in individual segments.
Figure 2.9: HiSafe model, crash type prediction
Source: AASHTO Highway Safety Manual.
ANRAM also has the ability to conduct a safety assessment between various design options and identify the
changes in safety risk between options. It can also estimate reduction in FSIs and the BCR between design
options. At this point in time, ANRAM does not consider construction costs, only the cost of individual design
parameter changes to a ‘base design option’. ANRAM is capable of assessing an entire alignment, as
opposed to individual segments as carried out in road safety risk manager (RSRM).
From the literature review, it is believed that IHSDM and ANRAM take into consideration the total design,
construction and whole-of-life costs (maintenance, asset management, pavement, future upgrades, etc.).
These models appear to provide the most appropriate basis for undertaking a comprehensive evaluation
process (given that the treatment life costs are accurate).
2.7 Literature Review Summary

The current design guidance in Australia is technically sound and similar to international guidance. The
AGRD recognises and provides guidance on context-sensitive design and the use of design values within
the design domain. It recognises that multiple design options should be developed and assessed during the
concept phase (Phase 1) – including potential construction and whole-of-life costs. Guidance for the
development of the preferred option (from Phase 1) implies, but does not clearly state that the construction
and whole-of-life costs should again be considered during the development of the design (Phase 2).

Austroads Guides advise on producing a context-sensitive design, using design exceptions where
appropriate and consideration of construction, maintenance and safety costs. However, clear guidance on
developing multiple design options (that incorporate technical variances and design domain values), and
evaluating the construction and whole-of-life costs of each option to produce a benefit cost ratio during
Phase 2 is not provided.
The TMR brownfield design guide appears to be the only Australian guide that dictates that during design
development, multiple designs should be produced and the construction and whole-of-life costs of each
option be determined so that a benefit cost ratio can be calculated. This is however tailored to assess and
justify the use of lower design domain values. The brownfield design guide refers to the TMR Preconstruction
Processes Manual, where indicative information regarding whole-of-life costs is provided; this does not guide
a designer through the process in any detail. The brownfield design guide does not appear to be intended to
assess and justify the application of innovative ‘out of the box’ treatments (i.e. non-standard or non-traditional
treatments) to enhance a design that remains within the normal design domain values, but rather to assess
and justify a design that uses lower design domain values.
The TMR Preconstruction Processes Manual is the only Australian guide that was found to reference the
concept of Value Engineering. In the USA, the concept of Value Engineering for road design is legislated and
documented in the Guidelines for Value Engineering (AASHTO 2009), which clearly outlines the process
required to be conducted to determine a suitable road design. In addition to the Guidelines for Value
Engineering, the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) is available and relates the effects of
geometric design decisions to operational costs.
The literature review did not find any references to incorporate Safe System concepts into the design,
particularly design features that will be required to enable/enhance driver assist technologies with ITS
infrastructure requirements, or in-vehicle technologies such as lane departure cameras/sensors which rely
on line-marking placement, reflectivity in all conditions, and ongoing maintenance to provide the required
level of reflectivity.

3. Stakeholder Engagement
A workshop was held on 16 July 2016 in Brisbane between the project team and Road Design Task Force
(RDTF) members, which provided further insight into how the fundamental objectives of road design are not
being met in their relevant jurisdiction and some possible reasons as to why. The literature findings were
discussed and comments were provided by the RDTF. Each of the RDTF members (Appendix A.1)
documented the relevant issues in their jurisdiction and their thoughts on the literature review in a
questionnaire (Appendix A.2). The information provided in the questionnaires was used to identify emergent
issues across Australia and New Zealand, to determine if the issues are a result of design practice, designer
experience/capability, or if guidance and resources relevant to the desired design outcome are provided in
the Austroads design Guides.
3.1 Workshop and Questionnaire

The questionnaire prompted feedback on the potential reasons as to why the fundamental objectives of road
design are not met:
1. How, or is, robust engineering thinking, value engineering, identifying and analysing the resulting whole-
of-life costs on multiple preliminary design options undertaken before selection of the preferred design
solution?
2. Is there a requirement to exercise the above mentioned (1) during the preliminary design process? Is
the requirement to do so specified in the design contract, and if it is specified in the design contract, is
the process successfully completed?
3. Does their jurisdiction have publications, guides, or existing processes to analyse the above mentioned
in points 1 and 2?
The questionnaire prompted feedback on the literature review of Austroads and international design guides,
research reports and papers relevant to the design process:
• Are the gaps in guidance identified within the literature review relevant to the fundamental objectives of
road design that are not being achieved?
• Will that adoption or adaptation of practices (and the associated publications/guidance) within Australia,
New Zealand or international jurisdictions contribute towards achieving the fundamental objectives of
road design?
3.1.1 Summary of Responses

The workshop discussion and questionnaire responses identified that perhaps the fundamental objectives of
road design are not being met due to a combination of the following:
• The current design process and philosophy expected of designers is not covered in undergraduate
technology and engineering courses.
• Designers apply the values in the guides without understanding the first principles behind the values or
the resulting effect of the design.
• Current design guides do not explicitly provide guidance or methods to develop, analyse and prioritise
options based on value engineering and the resulting whole-of-life costs.
• Political pressures for quick project delivery do not provide adequate time to allow for multiple design
option developments and analysis.
• A requirement to design for whole-of-life costs is not included in the tender evaluation process or design
contract, often resulting in construction costs being the dominant factor, resulting in short-term gains only.

The RDTF representatives’ detailed responses are shown in Appendix A.3. A summary of the questions and
responses are as follows:
• What are the primary shortfalls in the design process and final design in your jurisdiction?
– Context-sensitive design principles are not well applied; these do not always consider whole-of-life
costs.
– The causal factors of road performance are not clearly identified and then eliminated or mitigated in
the design.
– A perception remains that using minima design values equates to reduced capital costs; no
consideration is given specifically to whole-of-life costs.
– The design criteria in the AGRD are applied without relating the guidance to first principles and
rationalising the adoption of the design values.
– Designers seldom apply appropriate judgement in the design process, or document decisions made
during the design process.
– It is perceived that it is difficult to quantify safety risk reductions in the design process, particularly for
vulnerable road users.
– Design decisions are at times out of context and used to depart from the guidelines or the standards
specified in a contract.
– The design process and philosophy for modern day road designs is not covered in educational
training session/classes at TAFE or universities or private training capacities to enhance quality and
understanding of road design.
– There is no risk assessment matrix or tool available to evaluate design decisions for design values,
environmental, maintenance, asset management, etc.
• What are the primary whole-of-life cost issues resulting from poor/previous design practice in your
jurisdiction?
– Designers are resistant to evaluate whole-of-life costs for multiple design options.
– Cost ‘savings’ estimates are dubious and it is unclear how they were determined, or if they include
whole-of-life costs.
– There is no process to truly assess options to achieve best/balanced outcomes which include
whole-of-life costs, e.g. wire rope barriers compared to open roadsides.
– An understanding of actual maintenance costs and how the activities are carried out is not available
to designers.
– There is too much focus on construction costs at the expense of the potential whole-of-life cost
savings.
– Poor road safety (fatal and serious injury crashes) can result particularly as a result of traffic
management design.
– Poor designs are leading to high future maintenance costs.
• Are whole-of-life cost considerations a part of design culture in your jurisdiction?
– Whole-of-life costs are discussed; however, the outcome is often side-tracked by a requirement to
keep the design within the budget.
– Risk workshops, constructability workshops and safety in design workshops are held all of which
look at whole-of-life costs.
– It is often perceived that the project schedules do not allow development and analysis of multiple
options.
– Political pressure to start building as soon as possible often results in inadequate reviews of what is
being delivered.

– Whole-of-life costs are not reflected in the tender evaluation process, a demonstration of low
construction costs always take precedence over whole-of-life costs. Generally, the whole-of-life costs
are considered up until the detailed design and construction phases, when short-term gains are used
in preference to longer-term outcomes.
– The types of procurement methods used place pressure on designers to design ‘to the contract’
quickly, and without allowing for the ‘iteration’ that potentially adds value.
– Outsourced designs, particularly design and construct contracts, typically do not consider
whole-of-life costs. This often results in the design and construction being built for profit of the
contractor, not to reduce whole-of-life costs.
• Are publications/guides/processes available to evaluate whole-of-life costs during the design process
within your jurisdiction?
– Each jurisdiction indicated that nothing is available.
– It is recognised that the capability gap is becoming apparent amongst those procuring and
managing, including consultants who provide design services and advice.
– Often the design guides are treated as very black and white, almost as a legal binding contract
document. Therefore, if evaluation of whole-of-life costs is not specified as a requirement it is not
carried out.
• Does your jurisdiction impose a contract requirement to evaluate whole-of-life costs on multiple design
options? If it does not, would there be a benefit in doing so?
– Whole-of-life cost analysis is sometimes included in the brief; however, often loopholes are found
and the process is not carried out effectively. This may be as a result of not being able to reference
the contract requirements to existing guidance or a recognised process.
– It is agreed that specifying this as a contract requirement is highly beneficial, as long as the
information for analysis and guidance is also provided.

4. Design Guidance and Practice Shortfalls

Whilst design guidance in Australia and New Zealand is technically sound and the fundamental objectives
are well stated at the concept stage, as the design process progresses, there needs to be a re-evaluation to
check that the objectives are still being addressed.
The fundamental objectives of road design are discussed and assessed at a high level during the concept
phase, this includes a quantification of the whole-of-life cost benefits at a macro level. This high-level
assessment during the concept phase of the project is not carried through the remaining design phases. The
guidelines do not indicate that a review at each design phase after the concept phase should be undertaken
to ensure that the objectives of road design are being achieved for current or future needs. Additionally;
guidance, information and the tools are not provided to undertake a detailed evaluation to identify if the
fundamental objectives of road design (inclusive of all road disciplines) are being met or if the resulting
whole-of-life costs are acceptable in the resulting design solution.
A number of factors were identified in the literature review and during the workshop that contribute to the
objectives of road design becoming diluted during the design process and perhaps not being met in the final
design solution. These are outlined in Section 4.1 and the resulting challenges for designers are outlined in
Section 4.2.
4.1 Issues and Restrictions

The identified issues and restrictions are as follows, further detail is provided in Appendix B.
4.1.1 Quick Delivery at a Low Cost

• The need for a project is identified by the road agency at a strategic level, however the projects are often
developed and delivered (at times under external contract) as isolated projects, this results in
– isolated project delivery with varying budgets, contract managers and design teams (in-house and
contractors) with different objectives and interpretations of the design principles and how these
should be used to meet the fundamental objectives of road design which was established at the
concept phase
– inconsistency within design practice, and therefore design solutions, resulting in an inconsistent road
network
– higher costs of design development and capital expenditure
- a typical design for a network or link can be developed once as opposed to multiple times
- a typical design will result in similar construction costs and can be delivered within multiple
packages under a single contract.
• There is often pressure for low cost design solutions (design development and capital costs), and quick
project delivery. This does not provide adequate time for multiple design options to be developed and
evaluated. This may result in a situation where a contractual arrangement leads to design decisions being
governed by a constructor.
– Delivery of the design, from development through to detailed design phase is contract and dollar
driven, particularly by construction costs.
– The development of the design is focused on reducing capital expenditure; the consideration of all
whole-of-life costs is excluded or not thoroughly undertaken.

– Construction contractors and construction works may dictate the design, even to the point where
construction works precede completion of the detailed design.
– Shorter time-frames and low budgets reduce the likelihood of effective consultation, collaboration
and evaluation of the design options by all relevant engineering disciplines and stakeholders.
4.1.2 Design Contract

• The requirement to design for whole-of-life costs (WOLC) is not included in the tender evaluation process
or design contract, often resulting in construction costs being the dominant factor, resulting in short-term
gains only.
• Contracts, particularly design and construct, provide opportunity for contractors to profit from fast tracking
design and reducing capital costs.
• A contractor has control of the design, aiming for the lowest level to demonstrate compliance whilst
profiting from reduced capital costs, often to the detriment of WOLC.
– Lower design domain values and Extended Design Domain (EDD) are often used to reduce capital
costs without consideration of WOLC for all engineering disciplines, stakeholder needs or future
requirements.
• WOLC is often not required to be evaluated, if it is included in a contract it is often side-stepped.
4.1.3 Design Guidance, Value Engineering, WOLC and Objectives of Road Design
• Current design guides do not explicitly
– identify the need or requirement to intermittently re-assess if the objectives of road design and the
resulting whole-of-life costs after being met after the concept phase
– identify that a design solution should demonstrate Value Engineering (VE)
– identify that whole-of-life cost should be evaluated for all engineering disciplines and stakeholders in
the consequent design phases (after the high level WOLC evaluation in the planning/concept phase)
or
– provide guidance or methods/tools to develop/evaluate a design solution that demonstrates value
engineering with reasonable whole-of-life costs and achieves the objectives of road design.
• There is no specific training to upskill designers to undertake WOLC evaluations.
4.1.4 Design Competency

• Designers apply the values in the guides without understanding the first principles behind the values or
the resulting effects on the fundamental objectives of road design and the whole-of-life costs. This is most
evident in the preliminary and detailed design phases.
– Designers are not exercising context-sensitive design principles to develop innovative, practicable
design solutions using first principles and design exceptions.
• The objectives of road design are not a focus in training at university or in-house training. The varying
levels of skill affects
– how design principles are applied within the context of the site
– how design exceptions are applied within the context of the site.
• There is a low number of highly skilled designers that are capable of developing specialist or innovative
designs through a robust engineering process using first principles to achieve the objectives of road
design.
• The current design process and philosophy expected of designers is not covered in undergraduate
technology and engineering courses.

4.1.5 Misuse or Misunderstanding of Design Exceptions

• Design exceptions are often
– used as a mechanism to reduce construction and capital costs
- to maximise contract profit
- as there is a perception using lower design domain values reduce costs with minimal effect on
WOLCs. However all aspects of WOLC need to be considered, i.e. all road engineering
disciplines and stakeholder requirements
- lower design domain values may meet the design brief for a current design. However thought
needs to be given to the effects of the future needs of the road/link
– applied to ensure a design fits the project constraints (often budgetary) or to extend the scope of a
project (often at the detriment of WOLC and the objectives of road design)
- a budget at the concept or preliminary phase may not have considered or been able to capture all
considerations. A variation should be sought rather than using design exceptions to manipulate
the design solution to meet the budget.
4.2 Identified Road Design Practice Challenges

The identified challenges are as follows, further detail is provided in Appendix B:
• To identify and quantify the monetary and stakeholder benefits of investing in a design solution that may
result in a higher development and capital investment but provides lower WOLCs and stakeholder
benefits, whilst also meeting the fundamental objectives of road design for all road engineering
disciplines.
• Being able to effectively evaluate the WOLCs during the Concept Phase (macro level) whilst considering
if the fundamental objectives have been achieved.
• Ensuring that design objectives at the Concept Phase are not changed in subsequent phases, thus
altering the final design solution and resulting in an inconsistent network.
• Ensuring design solutions do not adversely affect the WOLCs at the project location or the surrounding
network, inclusive of designing for future needs e.g. autonomous and driverless vehicles, freight tasks,
traffic control, vulnerable road users.
• Applying CSD and EDD to demonstrate construction and capital cost savings without negatively affecting
WOLC. These cost savings should be re-invested to enhance other deficiencies on the network/project as
opposed to becoming a budget saving or contract profit.
• Increase the skill set of designers enabling them to apply their skills to achieve a design solution that
presents VE and has acceptable WOLCs whilst also achieving the road design objectives.

5. Interim Guidance
5.1 Further Adoption of Existing Design Approaches

A number of existing design approaches address some of the challenges. Whilst these do not solve all of the
challenges, they will contribute towards better design solutions, and solutions that achieve an appropriate
balance of the objectives of road design. These concepts also fit within the proposed Definition of Road
Design and Principles of Road Design (Section 5.3). The following design approaches are summarised in
Appendix B.
5.1.1 Network-wide Evaluation

• Network specific solution
– Consider network/link objectives rather than focus on isolated project outcomes.
– Consistency, reducing migration of issues & WOLCs.
– Network-wide VE and WOLC allow for greater balance of use of funding.
– Only one typical design is required to achieve the targeted design objectives for the network, this
results in cost savings on design, and possible grouping of construction contracts.
– Experienced engineers or practitioners across all disciplines are included in the evaluation process
at the Concept Phase (e.g. in Qld – RPEQ).
• Value Engineering at the network level
– Manage risk averse design, reduce a reliance on multiple design teams/contractors, reduce
variances in designs and reduce the number of required highly skilled designers.
- Design decisions evaluated from first principles, design parameters and design domain values
will be established for projects at the network level during the Concept Phase.
- Less variability between design decisions resulting in a consistent network.
– Identifies location specific requirements and identifies treatments to create a balance of achieving
the objectives of road design at the network level, thus minimising migration of issues to other
locations.
5.1.2 Collaborative Concept Designs

• Value Engineering and whole-of-life cost
– Collaboration between network owner, planning teams and experienced professionals from each
discipline (impacting on the road design solution), and stakeholders can more accurately identify if
the objectives of road design will be met
- Identify the challenges and possible VE solutions that balance out WOLC.
- Develop context-sensitive design solutions that are also in line with first principles.
- Clearly set the required balance of design objectives, project and link purpose, and the range of
design domain values to be used in the next design phases.

5.1.3 Effective Use of Lower Design Domain

• Where a design decision based on lower or Extended Design Domain (EDD) values is required, it should
– be used to enable a balanced, yet fit-for-purpose network outcome within a limited budget
– be identified through producing multiple designs for comparative purposes
– demonstrate that a similar result could not be achieved with normal design domain values
– demonstrate VE without a detrimental effect on WOLCs across all engineering disciplines
– provide a benefit and/or not have an adverse impact on the surrounding network.
• Capital cost savings resulting from a design decision to use lower design domain values should be
shared and re-invested to either extend the project scope or further reduce WOLCs.
5.2 Increase Competency, Provide Guidance and Tools

It is recognised that for a change in design practice to be successful, designers, project and contract
managers should be provided with training, guidance and tools.
• Professional training
– Designers and project managers should be provided with training to develop/evaluate a design
solution that demonstrates value engineering with reasonable whole-of-life costs and achieves a
suitable balance of the objectives of road design.
– Tertiary institutions should be encouraged to place more focus on the fundamental objectives of road
design and identify how these can be achieved.
• Guidance
– Provide warrants, dimensional and application guidelines, and evaluation tools to enable designers
to develop and evaluate multiple design options before finalising a suitable design solution.
– Provide further, and more detailed, case studies to demonstrate how the fundamental objectives of
design should be evaluated during the design process to identify if they are achieved.
5.3 Provide a Definition of Road Design and Road Design Principles

The Definition of Road Design and the Road Design Principles have been developed to provide clarification
of what ‘road design’ is and how the process of design should be approached. They can also guide what is
required to be considered and catered for in a road design solution. The Definition of Road Design and Road
Design Principles will provide a foundation for design philosophy, enabling designers to develop a solution
within the project constraints that meets the objectives of road design.
It is expected that the Definition of Road Design and the Principles of Road Design will re-establish an
appropriate design approach whilst also providing designers with a design philosophy that is required to
produce design solutions that provide for today and tomorrow.
The definition and principles should be integrated with existing guidance such as the Austroads Guide to
Road Design. They will be able to be referenced within design tenders, briefs, contracts etc.

5.3.1 Developing a Definition of Road Design
The following design philosophies from the Transportation Agency of Canada’s (TAC) and the QLD
Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) were used as a basis to develop a Definition of Road
Design:
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 selections of elements in isolation from each other is not design. Designers must
also understand the effects of combining design elements under different circumstances.
Because of the nature of this process, the design that emerges from it 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) TAC (2016).
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 (TAC 2011).
All road design is a compromise between the ideal and what is a reasonable outcome (e.g. in
terms of cost, safety, driver expectation, economic drivers, environmental impacts and social
issues).
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 fund 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 the
net safety and consideration of the effects on whole-of-life cost benefit (for all engineering
disciplines and road users) resulting from the proposed improvements. It is therefore important
that the designer makes and documents their decisions based on sound engineering judgment
and rationale to address the problem to be solved without adversely affecting other elements of
the design or existing road or network. These decisions are subject to appropriate
review/governance and should demonstrate value engineering and identify the effects on whole-
of-life cost.
Environmental and social impacts are also major considerations, as may be other factors (that
should be considered within the context of the site) TMR (2005d).
Proposed definition of road design
Road design is a complex task in which judgement and experience play significant roles. Design is the
process of selecting and combining appropriate elements that will develop a fit-for-purpose solution. It is an
iterative process that requires a designer to exercise their judgement and experience whilst also practically
applying accepted technical guidelines and continually evaluating the design to assist in the selection of the
appropriate values for the design elements.
The features of the road, primary design elements and design domain values are selected during the design
process; however, consideration of these in isolation from each other is not design. Designers must
understand the effects of combining features, design elements and the use of different design domain values
in the context of the project and site, and in accordance with the principles of design (Section 5.3.2).
All road design is a compromise between the ideal and what is a reasonable, this is relevant to the objective
of the design, objectives of road design and the context of the site. Due to the nature of the design process
the final design solution cannot generally be considered as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ but rather as more or less
efficient (in terms of moving traffic), safe (in terms of fatal and serious injury crash reduction), or costly (in
terms of construction costs, lifecycle costs and environmental impacts).

The objectives of new and existing road projects should be met, however not detract from all the objectives
of road design, an appropriate balance between all objectives of road design (as outlined in AGRD Part 2,
Section 1) should be achieved. A design should demonstrate value engineering and acceptable whole-of-life
costs to cater for all road-engineering disciplines (geometric design, safety, traffic, drainage, pavements,
asset management etc.), stakeholders (e.g. road users; vulnerable road users, freight, public transport,
emergency services, environmental) and current and future needs. The suitability of a design should also
consider the effects the design may have on adjoining road sections and the surrounding network.
Design requires judgements to be made on the value of improving the standard of a road and the impact this
might have on the ability to fund improvements elsewhere on the road system. It is therefore important that
design decisions are documented and based on sound engineering judgment and rationale to address the
problem to be solved. These decisions are subject to appropriate review/governance and should show how
they demonstrate value engineering and manage whole-of-life costs within the design constraints and
context of the site.
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 to simplify the process and give a reasonably
predictable outcome. This approach is not always appropriate, although it does allow those of limited
experience to achieve an acceptable design in some circumstances. Where more complex combinations of
circumstances occur, designers require considerable skill and experience to develop an optimum solution
that is within the context of the project and balances often competing and contradictory factors.
5.3.2 Principles of Road Design for Australia and New Zealand

The following Design Principles were developed to support acceptable design practice and initiate and
enable changes in design practice where it is required. The principles are intended to guide a designer to
create an optimal design solution whilst also acting as foundation for all parties involved in the design
process and stakeholders. A clear Definition of Road Design and supporting Principles of Road Design are
the first step to improving future design outcomes and ensuring that they meet the objectives of road design
including stakeholder and community expectations.
Proposed principles
A design should be developed with consideration of the Definition of Road Design and in accordance with
the following Principles of Road Design:
1. A design must be undertaken by a qualified road designer under the supervision of a professional
engineer, both with appropriate road design experience in line with the scope of the project.
– Qualifications must be acceptable to Australian and New Zealand agencies.
– Designs are normally undertaken by engineering teams with input provided by various other
professional disciplines.
2. A design should meet the objectives of the project while mindful of the objectives for the road link and
network.
– The design team must understand the scope and intention of the project and its relationship to
development of the road network to be able to meet the project objectives.
3. A design must be fit-for-purpose, whilst trying to achieve the highest possible standard of design,
operational efficiency and safety within the context of the site, the project scope and budget.
– The design team must understand the purpose and function of the road as well as project scope in
order to appropriately apply relevant guidelines and engineering judgement to develop a design
solution that is fit-for-purpose.
4. A design must be context sensitive and consider and incorporate input of all appropriate disciplines and
stakeholders to ensure the objectives of road design and a balance of often competing and
contradictory factors are achieved.
– The design team must consider the context of the site as each site is unique. What has worked at
one site may not be appropriate for another site. The design team must consider the advice and
input of other disciplines and stakeholders.

5. A design should demonstrate cost-effectiveness through value engineering processes, cost benefit
analysis and consideration of whole-of-life costs.
– Funding for road infrastructure is often limited, therefore the design team must be able to
demonstrate value for money by utilising cost-effective treatments, options and solutions.
6. A design cannot be considered fit-for-purpose and/or conforming if it simply adopts design minima,
particularly in combination, for most or all elements of the design.
– Most criteria (range/desirable/absolute) have been researched and/or developed in isolation (there
may be some implicit relationships) and therefore when used in combination with other elements,
while conforming to the published guidelines, may result in a solution that compromises safety and/or
operational efficiency.
7. A design must be considerate of environmental, cultural heritage and social requirements.
– The design team must consider all environmental, cultural heritage and social issues and
requirements and mitigate any adverse impacts in the most appropriate way possible to satisfy
project objectives.
8. A design should consider and cater for the interaction between all road users and the roadway.
– It is important that no road user group should be adversely affected by a proposed design solution,
this is particularly relevant to road safety. A design cannot improve safety for one or more groups
while reducing the safety for another group.
– The interaction between the road user and vehicle type (excluding pedestrians) should be
considered. This has the ability to change, improve or supplement human factors. This includes
consideration to provide infrastructure for cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS) and the
like, either at the time of construction, or provisions for such technologies to be provided in the
future.
9. A design should meet current needs whilst also providing for future needs.
– The design team should ensure that the project accommodates potential future enhancement of the
infrastructure (e.g. allowing for future connections within an interchange) or at least does not
prejudice future enhancement.
10. A design should be developed in accordance with accepted design guidance. Innovative designs may
be developed using the foundations provided in accepted design guidance, however all other road
design principles should be maintained.
– Where accepted design guidance does not provide required warrants and/or dimensional criteria, the
design team is responsible for the development of such guidance through a robust engineering and
peer review process (to seek acceptance/approval).
– Any developed guidance must be evidence-based or developed through appropriate, accepted
theories and be able to withstand scrutiny by qualified professional civil engineer(s) with appropriate
road design experience.
11. A design should maintain or improve the performance of an existing road. The improvement of one or
more elements should not adversely affect the performance of another.
– Most road projects now relate to maintenance and enhancement of an existing asset. It is necessary
to understand what parts of the design guide are relevant and what parts are not appropriate to the
project.
– A final design solution should not result in
- the unintentional migration of operational issues to another part of the network
- safety issues being migrated to another part of the network.

12. Design decisions must be documented including context, basis and rationale. Design solutions and
decisions made should be justified and defendable. This principle is crucial for innovative design
treatments or solutions (when outside accepted guidance), trials of new treatments and design
exceptions.
– Most road agencies/jurisdictions will have systems/processes in place to specify the documentation
of design processes/decisions.
13. A design should be able to demonstrate it meets/balances all of the above principles within the limits of
the project scope, constraints and is complementary to the network.
– Design is about achieving an appropriate balance for the project across all aspects and it is
important to understand that the balance achieved for one project will likely be different for another.
5.4 Using Guidance that is not Published in Austroads or Road

Agency Guides
Road agencies are faced with many problems and challenges in developing and improving their road
network in terms of delivering operational efficiency and safety to all road users while continuing to protect
the environment, including responsible use of resources and reducing the whole-of-life costs of
infrastructure.
To guide and assist road designers in the development of appropriate design solutions, Austroads and road
agencies have published guidelines which contain practices, warrants, methodologies and dimensional
criteria; all based on past research and/or tried-and-true experiences.
However, there will be times and situations where published documentation does not provide the required
guidance needed to develop a design solution. In these situations, a specialist road design engineer should
be consulted to lead the development and evaluation of the solution. The design process and decisions that
justify the design should be thoroughly documented and subjected to appropriate jurisdiction governance.
5.4.1 Innovation and Emerging Treatments
Numerous innovative and emerging treatments are being considered by jurisdictions to improve road safety,
road operational efficiency, environmental sustainability and reduce costs.
Whilst there maybe information in relation to the potential treatments available, the challenge is to provide
the necessary warrants, criteria and dimensional guidance to support all decision making situations,
scenarios and options for designers.
For Australia and New Zealand, these treatments need to be assessed and translated (particularly if from
overseas) to local conditions to ensure an improved outcome for all road users without adversely affecting
any road user group. Assessment and translation requires a full robust engineering process to assess risk,
safety, operational and whole-of-life cost impacts of these treatments. In cases where no supporting
dimensional guidance and quantitative evidence is available, necessary design exception analysis, reporting
and appropriate approval are required before implementation of any trials. Approval generally means
engineering approval of option development and assessment including risk, and management approval to
use the treatment on the network and acceptance of the risks associated with the treatment.
All operational and safety improvements must fall within the overarching objective to deliver a context
sensitive, network-wide treatment to develop a consistent road so that drivers are not impacted by
unexpected changes in road standard or functionality. Planners and designers need to be aware that
changes to any intersection, particularly if operational efficiency is adversely affected, may result in drivers
choosing another route, which could create issues at another location. To achieve a consistent network-wide
treatment, improvements should be planned and implemented over a timeframe matched to the asset life to
minimise rework and wastage of infrastructure treatments and investment.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusion
This project has identified that the design guidance in Australia is technically sound, including on
context-sensitive design and the use of design values within the design domain. The guidance however does
not adequately assist a designer to achieve the objectives of road design whilst balancing competing
objectives or to be cost-effective whilst considering value engineering and whole-of-life costs (of all
engineering disciplines and stakeholders). This includes informing a designer on how to achieve the
objectives of road design and how to evaluate a design.
Through consultation with the Road Design Task Force, it was identified that without adequate design
guidance the objectives of road design are less likely to be achieved. This may be due to less
experienced/educated designers not being aware, or capable, of how to achieve the objectives. It was also
identified that under some contract conditions, that lack of guidance and tools to evaluate if the objectives
are met, are used as justification to not sufficiently evaluate a design solution to determine if it did meet the
objectives.
It was reported that design and construct contracts are often problematic and do not always provide an
optimal design solution. This includes a situation where the project objectives may be met, however the
objectives of road design are not achieved. This is often as a result of a design solution being produced with
a focus on reducing capital costs, resulting in inadequate consideration being given to whether the design is
cost-effective or what the resulting whole-of-life costs will be.
If there is to be an improvement in achieving the objectives of road design in the final design solution,
practitioners should be further educated as to what the objectives of road design are, why it is important to
achieve them, and how to achieve them. Improvements in education are required together with providing
additional guidance for design development and evaluation. Evaluation tools should also be provided,
particularly to encourage the development and evaluation of multiple design solutions.
This project has resulted in the development of a Definition of Road Design and Road Design Principles.
These are intended to provide clarification of what ‘road design’ is and how the process of design should be
approached. They also identify what is required to be considered and catered for in a road design solution.
The Definition of Road Design and Road Design Principles will provide a foundation for design philosophy,
guiding designers to develop a solution within the project constraints, but also meets the objectives of road
design. Should the definition and principles be integrated with an existing recognised national Guideline such
as the Austroads Guide to Road Design, they will be able to be referenced within design tenders, briefs and
contracts. Consideration could also be given to legislating that a design solution is required to demonstrate
that it achieves the objectives of road design, including being cost-effective, providing value engineering and
demonstrating acceptable whol-of-life costs.
To initiate a step change in addressing the identified challenges and contribute towards the development of a
design solution that achieves the objectives of road design the following should be considered:
• Further adoption of existing design approaches such as
– network specific solutions based on network specific objectives
– value engineering at a network level
– collaboration of relevant disciplines throughout the entire design process (starting at the concept
phase)
– effective and appropriate use of lower design domain.

• Increase competency, providing additional guidance and tools

– professional training and guidance at the tertiary and professional level
– provide warrants, dimensional and application guidelines, and evaluation tools to enable designers to
develop and evaluate multiple design options before finalising a suitable design solution.
6.2 Recommendations
It is recommended that designers and practitioners are provided with additional education, design
development guidance and tools to assist in producing design solutions that achieve the objectives of road
design.
This should be achieved by:

• development of road design philosophy training and an encouragement of this to be included in tertiary
education and internal road agency training for all practitioners included in the road design process
• integrating the Definition of Road Design and the Principles of Road Design into the Austroads Guide to
Road Design to enable designers to produce suitable design solutions
• developing guidelines (inclusive of detailed case studies) and tools to evaluate design solutions. These
should be inclusive of all engineering disciplines and stakeholders
• investigating an adaptation of the US legislation that mandates for a design solution to demonstrate to be
cost-effective, provide value engineering and demonstrate acceptable whole-of-life costs.

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2009, Guidelines for value engineering,
AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2011, A policy on geometric design of
highways and streets, AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA.
Austroads 2008, Guide to road design: part 7: geotechnical investigation and design, AGRD07-08,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009a, Guide to project evaluation: part 1: overview, AGPE01-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009b, Guide to road design: part 8: process and documentation, AGRD08-09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010a, Road safety engineering risk assessment: part 1: relationships between crash risk and the
standards of geometric design elements, AP-T146-10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010b, Road safety engineering risk assessment: part 6: crash reduction factors, AP-T151-10,
Austroads 2010c, Road safety engineering risk assessment: part 7: crash rates database, AP-T152-10,
Austroads 2010d, Guide to road design: part 6: roadside design, safety and barriers, 2nd edn, AGRD06-10,
Austroads 2013a, Guide to road design: part 5A: drainage: road surface, networks, basins and subsurface,
AGRD05A-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013b, Guide to road design: part 5B: open channels, culverts and floodways, AGRD05B-13,
Austroads 2013c, Guide to road design: part 5: drainage design: drainage: general and hydrology
considerations, 3rd edn, AGRD05-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015a, Guide to road design: part 1: introduction to road design, AGRD01-15, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2015b, Guide to road design: part 2: design considerations, AGRD02-15, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2015c, Guide to road design: part 4B: roundabouts, AGRD04B-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015d, Guide to road design: part 4C: interchanges, 2nd edn, AGRD04C-15, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2015e, Guide to road design: part 6B: roadside environment, 2nd edn, AGRD06B-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016a, Guide to road design: part 3: geometric design, 3rd edn, AGRD03-16, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.

Austroads 2016b, Infrastructure improvements to reduce motorcycle casualties, AP-R515-16, Austroads,

Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017a, Guide to road design: part 4: intersections and crossings: general, 2nd edn, AGRD04-17,
Austroads 2017b, Guide to road design: part 4A: unsignalised and signalised intersections, 3rd edn,
AGRD04A-17, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017c, Guide to road design: part 6A: paths for walking and cycling, AGRD06A-17, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Bobbermen, D 2016, ‘Safe system complementary thinking: a step change for improved safety’, Australasian
College of Road Safety (ACRS) conference, 2016, Canberra, ACT, Australia, ACRS, Canberra, ACT.
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources 2012, Professional services specification D1: road
design, DIER, Hobart, Tas.
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 2016, Part P20 planning: general, DPTI, Adelaide, SA.
DHV Environment and Transportation 2005, Sustainable safe road design, DHV Environment and
Transportation, Netherlands.
Dorothy, PW & Thieken, SL 2011, Trade-off considerations in highway geometric design, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) synthesis of highway practice, no. 422,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Federal Highway Administration 1997, Flexibility in highway design, FHWA, Washington, DC, USA.
Federal Highway Administration 2001, Geometric design practices for European roads, International
Technology Exchange Program, FHWA, Washington, DC, USA.
Federal Highway Administration 2012a, Project development and design manual: chapter 1: introduction,
FHWA, Washington, DC, USA.
Federal Highway Administration 2012b, Project development and design manual: chapter 4: conceptual
studies and preliminary design, FHWA, Washington, DC, USA.
Hall, K 2011, ‘Safe system infrastructure: from theory to practice’, Australasian College of Road Safety
(ACRS) conference, 2011, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, ACRS, Canberra, ACT, 8 pp.
Hauer, E 1999, Safety in geometric design standards, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Highways England 2002, Design manual for roads and bridges: volume 6: section 1 part 1: highway link
design, Highways England, Guildford, UK.
Highways England 2012, Design manual for roads and bridges: volume 0: section 2 part 3: safety, design
and guidance, Highways England, Guildford, UK.
International Organisation for Standardization 2015, Quality management systems: requirements, ISO 9001:
2015, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
McGee, HW 2013, Practical highway design solutions, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) synthesis of highway practice, no. 443, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2005a, Preconstruction processes manual: chapter 6:
design management, TMR, Brisbane, QLD.

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2005b, Preconstruction processes manual: chapter 4:
design development process, TMR, Brisbane, QLD.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2005c, Preconstruction processes manual: chapter 5:
project scoping, TMR, Brisbane, QLD.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2005d, Road planning and design manual: chapter 2:
design philosophy, TMR, Brisbane, QLD.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2009a, Preconstruction processes manual: chapter 1:
planning and design framework, TMR, Brisbane, QLD.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2009b, Preconstruction processes manual: chapter 2:
pre-project planning, TMR, Brisbane, QLD.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2011, Cost-benefit analysis manual: road projects,
TMR, Brisbane, QLD.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2013, Guidelines for road design on brownfield sites,
TMR, Brisbane, QLD.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2015a, Project cost estimating manual, 6th edn, TMR,
Brisbane, QLD.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2015b, Transport infrastructure project delivery
system: volume 3 (prequalification system), TMR, Brisbane, QLD.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2015c, Road planning and design manual: edition 2:
volume 3, supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 8, TMR, Brisbane, QLD.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2016, ‘Project management practices guideline
(PMPG)’, TMR, Brisbane, QLD.
Roads and Traffic Authority 2007, ‘Brownfields road design guide’, RTA, Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Maritime Services 2014, Beyond the pavement, RMS, Sydney, NSW.
Transit New Zealand 2000, State highway geometric design manual: section 1: introduction, TNZ,
Wellington, NZ.
Transit New Zealand 2003, State highway geometric design manual: section 2: basic design criteria, TNZ,
Wellington, NZ.
Transport Association of Canada 2011, Geometric design guide for Canadian roads, TAC, Canada.
Transport Research Laboratory 2016, Road safety models, TRL, Berkshire, UK.

Appendix A Workshops and Consultations
A.1 Questionnaire Respondents
Table A 1: Questionnaire respondents
Name Jurisdiction Position

Mike Whitehead TMR Queensland A/Director Road Design
Peter Ellis RMS NSW A/Principal Road Design
Richard Fanning VicRoads Principal Advisor Road Design and Traffic
James Hughes NZ Transport Agency National Design Engineer
Tony Napoli ALGA Manager Asset Design
Albert Wong MRWA Senior Road Engineer
A.2 Questionnaire
A.2.1 General Comments on How the Purpose and Scope/Issue is Relevant in Your
Jurisdiction
1. What are the primary shortfalls in the design process and final design in your jurisdiction?
2. What are the primary whole-of-life cost issues resulting from poor/previous design practice in your
jurisdiction?
3. Within your jurisdiction, has there historically been, or in the future will there be, a focus on whole-of-life
cost considerations and evaluating this during the design process, e.g. a requirement to produce
multiple options considering whole-of-life costs from all engineering disciplines in the preliminary design
phase?
4. Are the issues described in the contract note section scope/issues more prevalent in
a. an in-house design or outsourced design?
b. do different contract types affect this? (e.g. alliance, design, design and construct)
5. Do you have any publications/guides/processes that already address these issues?
a. Are these used effectively?
b. Are these specified as condition of contract in the project brief?
c. Does the use of the guides by the design team vary from in house and outsourced projects?
d. Any other general comments?
6. Do you have any procedures/methods to evaluate design decisions and that consider whole-of-life
costs?
a. Yes/no?
b. If yes, are these specified as a contractual requirement?
c. Are the resulting design options contractually required to be further explored and produced as
different preliminary design options demonstrating the whole-of-life costs for each option?
d. If your jurisdiction does have any of the above and doesn’t include it as a contract requirement, do
you think it would be beneficial to do so?

7. Looking back on your previous comments to questions 1–5 are there any specific comments or
examples of
a. where a design has not achieved the fundamentals of design in a specific road engineering discipline
(e.g. geometric design, network operations, safety, maintenance) or had an undesirable effect on
stakeholders (e.g. emergency services, public, schools)? If so, please provide comment on the
issue.
b. Can you name a specific project that could possibly be used as a case study? If so, please provide
details and a brief summary
A.2.2 General Comments on How the Purpose and Scope/Issue is Relevant in Your
Jurisdiction
General discussion to establish if the project was relevant to issues each RDTF member experiences within
their jurisdiction.
A.2.3 Literature Review

1. Can you recommend any additional literature that could be reviewed that would provide a benefit for this
project?
2. Do you agree with the interpretations of the literature that was reviewed?
3. Do you have any comments on the Literature Review conclusion? (provided on the last page of this
document)
A.2.4 Next steps/Project direction
Considering the findings of the Literature Review, what is the preferred direction of year 2?
1. Continue as per the current contract note, identifying the shortfalls in practice and produce a final report
that collates a reflection of the issues from Australia and New Zealand.
2. Revise the contract note and budget to include consultations of other tasks forces (e.g. asset, network
operations, pavements), identifying the shortfalls in practice (whole-of-life – design to operational)
across all disciplines, and produce a final report that collates a reflection of the issues from Australia
and New Zealand.
A.3 Responses to Questionnaire
A.3.1 General Comments on How the Purpose and Scope/issue of this Austroads
Report is Relevant in Your Jurisdiction
Table A 2: General comments on how the purpose and scope/issue of this Austroads report is relevant in your
jurisdiction
What are the primary shortfalls in the design process and final design in your jurisdiction?
Queensland • Not trying to engineer-out design exceptions or EDD.
• Strict application/compliance to what is in a standard or guide.
• Context-sensitive engineering and trying to get the best balanced option.
• Still a mindset that using minima design values (in the design guides) equates to cheaper
project (capital costs).
• When solving problems, need to identify causal factors and determine a way to eliminate
these through design.

New South Wales • Understanding design criteria, blankly reading it from the guide with no thought.
• How non-conformances are signed off? What is considered to be a non-conformance?
• Scope change, mid-project.
• Lack of detailed information (e.g. utilities, survey, geotech, etc.) during the design process.
• Traffic modelling information changes or is provided too late in the design process.
Victoria • Lack of understanding of importance of design development. Many designs progress from
initial concept to detailing without development/testing assumptions, leading to either
conservative designs or inadequate designs.
• Focus on using minimum (design values in the guides) rather than appropriate criteria –
i.e. not thinking about decision-making.
• A designer’s ability to use and document the use of appropriate and balanced judgement
in design process is rare.
New Zealand • Focus on applying a dollar value to all aspects of a project rather than ‘doing the right
thing’.
• This is very difficult to achieve, particularly in the safety and risk reduction space – also the
intangible benefits for vulnerable users.
• We tend to see a lot of designers taking designs ‘out of context’ with the ‘we did it there so
we can do it here’. This approach is used to justify departures and variations to the
‘standard’ specified in the contract documents.
Australian Local • No real world worked examples of road design in the guidelines.
Government • The design process and philosophy for modern day road designs is not covered in
Association educational training session/classes at TAFE or Universities or private training capacities
to enhance quality and understanding of road design.
• Safe design of structures into guide with risk assessment matrix tool to enable a
stakeholder group meeting to identify risks for design, construction, environmental,
maintenance point of view.
Western Australia • Lack of experience. Project Managers are not familiar with, or understand, the design
process.
What are the primary whole-of-life cost issues resulting from poor/previous design practice in your
jurisdiction?
Queensland • Push back from road design areas to implement practice/options that evaluate whole-of-
life costs.
- Some ‘savings’ estimates are dubious and it is unclear how they were determined if
they include whole-of-life costs.
• There is no process to truly assess options to achieve best/balanced outcome which
includes whole-of-life costs, e.g. wire rope barriers compared to open roadsides.
New South Wales • The maintenance costs and activities are not known/easily accessible (e.g. what effort and
costs are required to maintained different road elements)?
• How it is maintained, what activities are required and how can the road design
accommodate this (e.g. close a lane, the road or divert traffic)?
• What maintenance facilities are required (e.g. stopping bays, are acceleration &
deceleration lanes into the bays required?
Victoria • Higher than anticipated maintenance intervention.
• Issues with project handover between Project (deliverer) and Regions (operators).
• Inefficient network operation, i.e. bottle necks created, etc.
New Zealand • Increasing maintenance costs and also very poor outcomes for the agency.
• Far too much focus on construction costs at the expense of whole-of-life costs.
• Poor construction practice also leading to early major intervention to rectify issues.
Australian Local Fatalities, injuries to road users, poor outcomes from a safe and economical perspective,
Government especially with regards to poor traffic management, e.g. traffic congestion.
Association
Western Australia Poor design practice leads to high maintenance costs in the future.

Within your jurisdiction, has there historically been, or in the future will there be, a focus on whole-of-life
cost considerations and evaluating this during the design process, e.g. a requirement to produce
multiple options considering whole-of-life costs from all engineering disciplines in the preliminary
design phase?
Queensland Yes, and should be evaluated into earlier planning phases to ensure design phase is not
compromised by ‘fitting’ to the budget, which can lead to less than desirable options.
New South Wales Yes, currently part of our design process is to have risk workshops, constructability
workshops, and safety in design workshops, all of which look at whole-of-life costs.
These workshops are often separate, sometimes combined with value engineering
workshops and are held several times during the design process, including the preliminary
design phase.
Victoria This is often discussed internally, however, the perception is that the project schedules do not
allow multiple options development and analysis.
Political pressure to start building as soon as possible often results in inadequate reviews of
what is being delivered.
Usually better outcome from jurisdiction produced design process rather than design and
construct.
There appears to be organisation level willingness to consider multiple design options and
evaluate whole-of-life costs, however, in practice this is demonstrated on an ad hoc basis.
New Zealand We have really tried to introduce a focus on whole-of-life, however, this is not reflected in the
tender evaluation process and a focus on low construction costs always take a precedence
over whole-of-life costs.
Generally, the whole-of-life is considered up until the detailed design and construction
phases, when short-term gains are used in preference to longer-term outcomes.
The types of procurement methods used places pressure on designers to design ‘to the
contract’ quickly, and without allowing for the ‘iteration’ that potentially adds value.
Australian Local My council does take into consideration whole-of-life costs, however I believe in most cases,
Government other local government councils in NSW do not.
Association At my council we take in consideration the whole-of-life costs plus the risks that may evolve
by involving all relevant stakeholders. This enables the designers to minimise or eliminate the
risk for inception to renewal of asset stage.
Western Australia No focus on whole-of-life costs at this stage.
Are the issues described in the contract note section scope/issues more prevalent in:
a. An in-house design or outsourced design?
Queensland In-house different to outsourced where cost/profit is a driving factor.
Both experience budget constraints where scope hasn’t been properly considered/standard
clearly out/costed properly.
New South Wales Sound robust engineering is more prevalent in in-house designs.
Victoria Mainly in outsourced designs, and generally in a design and construct contract where the
jurisdictions reference design is effectively at concept stage. Design and construct has turned
into detailing of reference design in many cases to save tendering costs. The design
development phase is therefore often overlooked.
New Zealand We don’t have in-house designers.
Australian Local Could be in both, as experienced practitioners retire or leave, the knowledge is lost. New
Government personnel do not have the level of experience/knowledge.
Association
Western Australia Outsourced design.
b. Do different contract types affect this? (e.g. alliance, design, design and construct)
Queensland Design and construct seems to be a concern as the design is usually controlled by
construction (costs/method) and ‘client’ has little influence.
New South Wales Most definitely:
• Alliances can be influenced and after the results are very good, but expensive.
• Design and construct often claim cost savings and innovation, but this just translates to
cost outing and minimal design.

Victoria Refer to comments above regarding design and construct.

Alliance can be at times be ok, although it depends on the culture.
• Construct only, generally not bad but is becoming increasingly difficult to procure in-house
construction advice.
New Zealand It appears to us that all types of procurement tend to distil down into a design and construct
contract. This ultimately results in a ‘what is best for the constructor’ environment.
Australian Local These contracts still require an in-house person or project manager to review designs at
Government various hold points. There is no difference to an in-house design.
Association
Western Australia No comment provided.
Do you have any publications/guides/processes that already address these issues?
Queensland None especially comes to mind, but there is a concern our application of design guides
(including varying interpretation). Often the guides are treated as very black and white,
almost as a legal contract binding document.
New South Wales Not really, we don’t have any stand-alone documents that cover this aspect. We try very hard
to get all the major issues into the brief or scope of works.
Victoria No, this is a current weakness in jurisdiction. The capability gap is becoming apparent
amongst those procuring and managing design, and in some cases, industry (consultants,
etc.) providing advice/design service.
New Zealand Unfortunately not, although we do try and standardise (as much as possible) the
requirements in the contract documents, as we face the same issues repeatedly.
Australian Local No
Government
Association
a. Are these used effectively?
Queensland N/A
New South Wales Despite best efforts in getting the briefs and scope of work documents correct, there are
always loopholes.
Victoria N/A, refer to above.
New Zealand N/A
Australian Local N/A
Government
Association
Western Australia N/A
b. Are these specified as condition of contract in the project brief?
Queensland TMR is looking to review this, particularly to address legal risk/responsibilities:
• peer review
• guidance from experts to improve.
New South Wales Yes, however they are not always effective.
Victoria Procurement documentation for design needs substantial overhaul.
New Zealand Our only recourse is to try and manage the issues through the contract and procurement
process, e.g. interactive sessions with tenderers.
Australian Local Yes
Government
Association
c. Does the use of the guides by the design team vary from in house and outsourced projects?
Queensland Yes, it can.
New South Wales The use of guides does not vary much, however the interpretation of those guides and the
criteria does.

Victoria Yes:
• Some use guides to inform decision-making, others use as a ‘standard’, others to optimise
profit for the constructor (i.e. lowest level of design for max price).
• In-house, generally more focused on whole-of-life and broader network outcome.
• Not many outsourced design only projects – when these happen, process can be
compromised by lack of capability of procurer.
• Outsourced design and construct is not really effective from a design and innovation
perspective, unless the cost is the only consideration (i.e. innovation in reducing initial
capital cost).
New Zealand N/A
Australian Local No
Government
Association
d. Any other general comments?
Queensland There is a ‘battle’ with application of Safe System. There is a perception that
engineers/designers don’t really consider safety and that we are quick to blame the driver.
This couldn’t be further from the truth. I think that with David Bobbermen at helm of Safety will
help address a number of issues.
New South Wales External designs and independent certifiers see all design criteria as equal and this is not the
case. Although all criteria are important, its application can vary from project to project.
Whole-of-life is generally only considered for pavements. Once the brief is written, then most
decisions on the design process revolves around this.
Victoria None
New Zealand None
Australian Local None
Government
Association
Western Australia None
Do you have any procedures/methods to evaluate design decisions and that also consider whole-of-life
costs throughout the entire design process?
a. Yes/no?
Queensland Yes, but not in my area.
New South Wales No, unfortunately capital cost is often the primary drivers.
Victoria Sort of, but not done particularly well.
New Zealand Yes, in theory.
Australian Local Yes, we have a Quality Management System in my Design Section at Blacktown Council.
Government
Association
Western Australia No
i. If yes, are these specified as a contractual requirement?
Queensland I believe so.
New South Wales Not really.
Victoria Depends on the capability level of procurer.
New Zealand Yes, in theory, although in practice these are difficult to evaluate and give a weighting to.
There, is an area of uncertainty and ambiguity around how such things will be valued as part
of the tender evaluation.
Australian Local Yes
Government
Association

ii. Are the resulting design options contractually required to be further explored and produced as
different preliminary design options demonstrating the whole-of-life costs for each option?
Queensland Problem I see is that there are gaps in data across all elements to get a complete picture.
New South Wales No, generally capital cost is the driver.
Victoria Depends which design stage the project is in when it goes to tender. This can be managed
quite well at planning phase, however it is too late to influence changes at design and
construct.
New Zealand At a ‘specific design’ phase, all alternatives are encouraged to be explored and assessed for
whole-of-life costs and resulting implications analysed. However, these principles weaken
during the construction phase.
Australian Local Yes, to produce the most cost-effective, efficient and safest option to deliver the best
Government outcome for all stakeholders.
Association
iii. If your jurisdiction does have any of the above and doesn’t include it as a contract requirement,
do you think it would be beneficial to do so?
Queensland N/A
New South Wales Absolutely, the challenge however is getting a product that has a lower whole-of-life cost
without increasing the capital cost.
Victoria No comment provided.
New Zealand Absolutely
Australian Local No comment provided.
Government
Association
Western Australia Yes, because it will mean a less future maintenance costs.
Looking back on your previous comments to questions 1–5, are there any specific comments or
examples of:
a. Where a design has not achieved the fundamentals of design in a specific road engineering
discipline (e.g. geometric design, network operations, safety, maintenance) or had an undesirable
effect on stakeholders (e.g. emergency services, public, schools)? If so, please provide comment
on the issue.
Queensland A recent one stands out, but cannot discuss as currently in tender process.
New South Wales There are often projects where all of these are comprised just to get an outcome. The
projects that often don’t meet some of the fundamental requirements are often those that are
politically motivated.
Victoria Yes, the main issue is with unmanaged risk during development and delivery process. This is
a fairly widespread issue. Identification relies on too few individuals, who are then seen as a
problem rather than someone who is trying to assist.
New Zealand Yes, as follows:
• Cutting construction costs (construction issues): paving over grass, not constructing the
median but leaving it as virgin ground, lack of compaction on embankments, poor
installation of guardrail (insufficient footings, posts, fasting).
• Design: transitions between barrier systems, inadequate sight distance on curves to save
construction widths, inadequate guardrail footing designs, inadequate solution accepting
long-term maintenance issues in favour of speed of construction.
Australian Local In greenfield areas where developers and/or new consultants do not abide by appropriate
Government guidelines and the design reviewer (consultant or local government personnel) is not
Association experienced enough to check designs.
b. Can you name a specific project that could possibly be used as a case study? If so, please provide
details and a brief summary
Queensland None suggested.
New South Wales None suggested.
Victoria None suggested.

New Zealand Yes, as follows:

• Mackay’s Crossing to Peka Peka expressway (M2PP) and Ravmatix Straights (R.S).
• M2PP a ‘value engineering’ process made the decision to reduce the median from 6 m to
4 m. On a very curvilinear alignment, they ignored the affect this would have on Stopping
Sight Distance.
• R.S. – A decision was made to not widen the existing pavement which would have allowed
some buttressing to stabilise the existing and reduce the long-term settlement. This
decision was made purely on construction time and the ‘quick and dirty’ solution was used
instead. This means that the new pavement will be just as susceptible to settlement as the
current one.
Australian Local No
Government
Association
Western Australia Gateway WA, A completed major project in WA. Upgrade of Tonkin/Leach Intersection with
system interchange.
A.3.2 Literature Review Feedback
Table A 3: Literature review feedback and comment on conclusion
Can you recommend any additional literature that could be reviewed that would provide a benefit for this
project?
No recommendations from any of the jurisdictions
Do you agree with the interpretations of the literature that was reviewed?
All jurisdictions agree with the interpretations of the literature review.
Do you have any comments on the Literature Review conclusion?
Queensland The conclusion raises a number of gaps in guidance that will need to be discussed nationally
and investigated in further projects. Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) is only part of the decision
process. Given cost appears to be a critical factor in making decisions, the BCA needs to be
improved.
New South Wales No comment provided.
Victoria It would be good to expand on guidance around decision-making around ‘trade of services’
needed to develop the most appropriate solution or an identified context.
New Zealand No comment provided.
Australian Local Generally agree. Some worked examples would be worthwhile as an Appendix to the guide.
Government
Association

Appendix B Issues, Restrictions, Challenges, Proposed Approaches

Figure B 1 summarises the findings outlined in sections Section 4 of this report. The definition and principles of road design are shown in the diagram however, these are provided in Section 5.
Figure B 1: Issues, restrictions, challenges, proposed concepts, Definition of Road Design and Principles of Road Design
Quick Delivery at Low Cost Training & Competency
• There is often a political expectation to deliver a project within the shortest time frame, with low design and construction/capital works costs. • The objectives of road design are not a focus in training at university or in-house training
• Achieving quick delivery at reduced costs is perceived as an achievement, however a review of the project to ensure it meets the fundamental objectives of road design and the resulting Whole of Life • Designers do not understand the underlying design principles/theory
Cost (WOLC) is not identified. Consequent WOLC’s across all road engineering disciplines and possibly reducing those costs is not considered, therefore is not recognised as an achievement. • Designers apply design guides without consideration of objectives or effects on WOLC
• Reduced design budgets and timeframes do not allow for multiple preliminary design options to be developed and the WOLC’s to be evaluated. • Varying levels of skill effects:
Design (at times design and construction) is contracted out to achieve delivery within short time frames and low budgets. This can sometimes occur from the business case phase through to detailed - How design principles are applied within the context of the site
Identified Issues and Restrictions
•
design resulting in reduced governance by a road agency. - How design exceptions are applied within the context of the site
• Projects are delivered in isolation to resolve a an identified issue within a short time frame. • There is a low number of highly skilled designers that are capable of developing specialist innovative designs developed
through a robust engineering process using first principles.
Contract Type Isolated Projects VE and detailed WOLC Evaluations are not completed Miss-use or miss-understanding of Design Exceptions
• Contracts, particularly design and construct, provide • Varying budgets and time frames • VE is not identified as a requirement in current design guidance Design exceptions are often:
opportunity for contractors to profit from fast tracking design • Inconsistent outcomes across a network, increases • WOLC is evaluated at a high level during the concept phase however a detailed • used as a mechanism to reduce construction and capital costs:
and reducing capital costs. likelihood of issues migrating to another location. WOLC evaluation for all engineering disciplines is not completed during consequent - to maximise contract profit
• A contractor has control of the design, aiming for the lowest • Network benefits are difficult to identify, EDD principles design phases. - as there is a perception using lower design domain values reduce costs, however
level to demonstrate compliance whilst profiting from reduced cannot be applied to provide a greater network benefit for • Recommendations to evaluate WOLC is not given in the current guidance, nor is it often
capital costs. This is often at the detriment to WOLC. the funding available. legislated. increases WOLC’s (these values may not meet the future needs of the road/link)
• EDD is often used to reduce the capital costs without • Higher costs for development and delivery of • This does not provide a platform to re-evaluate if the fundamentals, nor if the needs of • applied to ensure a design fits the budget or to extend the scope of a project (often to the
consideration to WOLC’s infrastructure. all disciplines are still being met. detriment of WOLC and the Objectives of Road Design)
• WOLC is often not required to be evaluated, if it is included in • Guidance & tools to undertake a WOLC evaluation are not provided - a budget at the concept or preliminary phase may not have considered or been able to
a contract it is often side-stepped. • There is no specific training to up-skill designers to undertake WOLC evaluations. capture all considerations, a variation should be sought rather then using design
exceptions to manipulate the design solution to meet the budget.
Challenges
To identify and quantify the monetary and stakeholder benefits of Being able to effectively evaluate the Ensuring that design decisions at The Ensuring design solutions do not adversely affect the Applying CSD and EDD to demonstrate construction and Increase the skill set of designers enabling them to apply
investing in a design solution that may result in a higher WOLC’s during the Concept Phase (macro Concept Phase are not changed in WOLC’s at the project location or the surrounding capital cost savings without negatively affecting WOLC. their existing skills to achieve a design solution that
development and capital investment but provides lower WOLC’s level) whilst considering if the Fundamental consequent phases, thus altering the network. Inclusive of designing for future needs e.g. These cost savings should be re-invested to enhance presents VE and has acceptable WOLC’s whilst also
and stakeholder benefits, whilst also meeting the Fundamental Objectives of Road Design for all road final design solution and resulting in autonomous and driverless vehicles, freight tasks, other deficiencies on the network/project as opposed to achieving the Fundamental Objectives of Road Design for
Objectives of Road Design for all road engineering disciplines. engineering disciplines have been achieved. an inconsistent network. traffic control, vulnerable road users. becoming a budget saving or contract profit. all relevant road engineering disciplines
Network Wide Evaluation Collaborative Concept Designs Effective use of lower Design Domain Increase Competency, provide Guidance and Tools
Network specific solution Value Engineering at Network level Value Engineering and WOLC Design decisions Professional Training and Guidance
Proposed Approaches
• Consider network/link objectives rather then • Manages Risk Adverse design and reliance on a high • Collaboration between network owner, planning teams and • A design decision based on lower or Extended Design Domain • Designers and project managers are provided with training in
focus on isolated project outcomes number or highly skilled designers. experienced professionals from each road engineering (EDD) values should: achieving the Fundamental Objectives of Road design whilst
• Consistency, reducing migration of issues & - Design decisions evaluated from first principles, discipline, and stakeholders can more accurately identify if the - Be used to enable a balanced yet fit for purpose (at times, also considering Value Engineering and the resulting WOLC’s.
WOLC’s design parameters and design domain values will objectives of road design will be met: intermittent) network outcome within a limited budget. • Encourage tertiary institutes to place of focus on the
• Network wide VE and WOLC allows for be established for projects at the network level - Identify the challenges and possible VE solutions that - Be identified through producing multiple designs for fundamental objectives of road design and identify how these
greater balance of use of funding during the Concept Phase. balance out WOLC comparative purposes. can be achieved.
• One base design results in cost savings on - Less variability between design decisions resulting - Develop context-sensitive design solutions that is also inline - Demonstrate that a similar result could not be achieved with • Provide guidelines and evaluation tools to enable designers to
design, and possible grouping of construction in a consistent network with first principles. normal design domain values develop and evaluate multiple design options before finalising a
contracts • Identifies location specific requirements and identifies - Clearly set the required balance of design objectives, project - Demonstrate VE without a detrimental effect on WOLC’s suitable design solution.
• Experienced engineers across all disciplines treatments to create a balance of achieving and link purpose, and the range of design domain values to across all engineering disciplines.
are included in the evaluation process at the Fundamental Objectives at Network Level minimising be used in the consequent design phases. - Provide a benefit and/or not effect the surrounding network
Concept Phase (e.g. Qld – RPEQ) migration of issues to other locations. • Capital cost savings should be shared:
- re-invested to either extend the project scope or further
reduce WOLC’s.
Principles of Design
Definition of Road Design and the Principles of Road Design
• A Definition of Road Design and Road Design Principles have been developed to assist a designer to overcome the challenges identified in this diagram, they should also provide as a foundation for designers exercise there expert knowledge and skills to achieve the objectives of road design.
• The proposed concepts fall within the proposed Definition of Road Design and Road Design Principles. An application of Definition of Road Design and Road Design Principles and an the adaptation of the proposed concepts within the design process and the should further assist designers to achieve the objectives of road design,


AP-R548-17 Fundamental Objectives of Road Design 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

AP-R548-17 Fundamental Objectives of Road Design PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Report

Fundamental Objectives of Road Design

David Milling, Les Louis and Michael Luy Austroads Ltd.

Abstract About Austroads

Austroads 2017 | page i

Austroads 2017 | page ii

5. Interim Guidance .................................................................................................................................. 35

Table 2.1: Project planning processes in national guides .......................................................................... 11

Figure 2.1: The design domain concept ........................................................................................................ 7

Austroads 2017 | page iii

Austroads 2017 | page 1

1.3.1 Fundamental Objectives of Road Design

Austroads 2017 | page 2

2.1 Austroads Guides

2.2 Australian and New Zealand Design Guidance

Austroads 2017 | page 3

2.2.1 Design Options and Cost Benefit Analysis, Austroads Guides

2.2.2 Design Considerations, AGRD Part 2

Austroads 2017 | page 4

In AGRD Part 2, the following design objectives are identified:

Austroads 2017 | page 5

Austroads 2017 | page 6

Figure 2.1: The design domain concept

2.2.3 Process and Documentation, Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 8

Austroads 2017 | page 7

Phase 1: establish the preferred solution

Austroads 2017 | page 8

Design review, verification and validation

Road safety and Safe System

2.2.4 Safety through Design, Other Austroads Guides

Austroads Guide to Road Safety

Austroads Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment Reports

Austroads 2017 | page 9

Austroads Guide to Road Design

Evaluating options and identifying safety risk

2.3 Jurisdiction Design Guidance

Austroads 2017 | page 10

Table 2.1: Project planning processes in national guides

State/territory Additional guidance for design process model/outline

Table 2.2: State jurisdiction design guidance summaries

Austroads 2017 | page 11

Austroads 2017 | page 12

Austroads 2017 | page 13

Austroads 2017 | page 14

Stakeholder and Planning Process Typical Key Documented

Austroads 2017 | page 15

2.3.1 Design Exceptions

2.4 International Design Guidance

Austroads 2017 | page 16

Table 2.3: International road design guides/documents examined

Country/jurisdiction Road design guide/document

2.4.1 Preliminary Design and Option Development

There is a significant focus on options/alternative development in the Federal Highway Administration

2.4.2 Design Philosophy and Policies

Austroads 2017 | page 17

Figure 2.5: Conceptual studies and preliminary design process model

Source: Project Development and Design Manual (FHWA 2012b).

Austroads 2017 | page 18

2.4.3 Other Design Criteria

2.4.4 European Guidelines on Process, Safety and Environmental Considerations

2.4.5 Cost Benefit Analysis

Austroads 2017 | page 19

2.4.6 Value Engineering