Trade-Off Considerations in Highway Geometric Design (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

90 APPENDIX B Summary of STA Survey Responses Overview Question 1. Do trade-off considerations ever enter into the process for geometric design decisions at your STA? If you answered “no,” please proceed to the final page of the survey and submit your results and thank you for your participation. If you answered “yes,” please continue with the remainder of the survey. 42 Yes 2 No Evaluation of Trade-offs in the Design Selection Process This first set of questions will help us understand what trade-offs your agency considers and how it incorporates this evaluation into the overall design process. 2. Does your STA have a formal or informal process/procedure for evaluating trade-offs in the design selection process? 15 Formal 22 Informal 4 Both Please explain the process/procedure. • A “Design Variance” process is followed if there is a violation of GDOT Standards. This process is almost identical to the design exception process, although it does not require review/approval from FHWA. If a design violates a design recommendation or guidance, the decision will need to be documented in the project’s design data book. • A design exception fact sheet is prepared to document non-standard features. • A design exception would be required for any of the 13 controlling criteria. Any other trade-offs in the design standards would be more informal and are covered by a memo to the project file describing the circumstances, design standards, associated impacts and reasoning as to why the ultimate decision was made. • As a professional engineer, each designer evaluates the trade-offs of this proposed design or alternative and discusses it with the design area Director. • Both formal and informal. Our formal project development process utilizes a multi-disciplinary scoping team that evaluates candidate projects to determine the most appropriate design solution. The multi-disciplinary scoping team coordinates infor- mally throughout the project’s development to create a final design that has incorporated input from shareholders. • Case by case evaluation • Certain items such as environmental impacts, as costs are required to be evaluated for each alternative, and the comparison is required to be shown in the design approval document. • Currently, unless specifically designated as a “livable community,” the process is informal. Design criteria for livable communi- ties are contained in Chapter 21 of our Plans Preparation Manual (PM). If the project is not in such a community, deviations from AASHTO minimum criteria (for the 13 controlling elements) are documented as Exceptions and deviations to state criteria are documented as “Variations.” The latter do not require the same level of documentation as the former. We are currently investi- gating incorporating the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual into the decision making process. • Decide at the local district level as long as within design parameters. • Depends on the trade off. It may involve a simple cost comparison or it may involve other analyses such as traffic analysis, alternate design, Right-of-Way constraints, etc. • Depends on the trade off. It may involve a simple cost comparison or it may involve other analyses such as traffic analysis, alternative design, etc. • Designers are encouraged to provide flexibly in roadway design and to identify situations where ‘typical’ design guidelines/ standards cannot be met. The AASHTO Green Book and VDOT Road Design Manual provide guidance on evaluating design criteria and providing background as to how the design values were established. It is then the responsibility of the designer to study the issue, provide alternatives based upon project needs/concerns and to make sound engineering decisions. Decisions must be documented in the project file.

91 • Deviations are handled at the regional level requiring only the Region Preconstruction Engineer’s signature. Both design excep- tions and waivers require the design exception form be filled out completely with supporting information as needed. The form is signed by region personnel and submitted to Statewide Traffic and Preconstruction Engineers for review and approval. • During the Planning Phase of our major capital projects SHA follows the NEPA process to address environmental, socio- economic, historical, public opinion, and many other factors that were used for design selection. • Each situation is evaluated with available objective information and supplemented with subjective information. • In most cases, the issues are resolved with all the stakeholders at our initial reconnaissance inspection. With more complex issues, a special study, life cycle cost analysis, etc. might be done before the final scope of work can be determined. On projects with much public impact, one or more public meetings are held to collect public input before finalizing the scope. The District Engineers have the most influence on the final scope of work. • Indiana department of transportation has established processes to evaluate and approve exceptions to designs which do not conform to the minimum criteria as set forth in the Indiana Design Manuals, Standards, Policies and Standard Specifications. Please refer to the attached PDF for further details on these procedures. • MoDOT handles trade-offs a bit differently than most STAs. Since adopting the business philosophy of Practical Design some five years ago, trade-offs have become the everyday way of doing business. The design standards reflect this practice as well. The formal process enters in when even the new standards cannot be met or when there is an opportunity to add additional value to the project. At that point, a design exception is sought according to the following process. When the need for a design exception has been identified, the appropriate person (listed below) is responsible for completing the standard Design Exception Information Form. Use of this form is more effective official documentation than a casual notation. The form must include a detailed description of the rationale for the change. After completion of the form, the order of approval by the transportation officials, for each project category, is given below. A copy of every design exception is provided to the Design Division for the permanent project file. A copy of the form is also kept in the district file. Full FHWA Oversight Projects 1. district project manager 2. district engineer 3. State Design and/or State Bridge Engineer. FHWA Exempt Roadway Projects 1. district project manager 2. district engineer 3. State Bridge Engineer. Consultant Designed or Cost Share Projects 1. consultant or local public agency 2. appropriate project-specific path show above. • Options are reviewed during the scoping and design process on a case by case basis with cost, environmental, social, utility, and safety reviewed and analyzed. • Oregon uses Project Delivery Teams (PDT). The PDT’s are multi-disciplined with some members added from stakeholder groups. • Please refer to the attached Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Vision for CDOT.pdf for policy guidelines for evaluating trade- offs at the Colorado Department of Transportation. Formal process/procedure for evaluating trade-offs in Design Decisions and Design Variances includes some form of Benefit/Cost analysis that would explicitly consider environmental and safety impacts. CDOT closely adhere to the Environmental Stewardship Guide which applies fundamental National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, policy and principles to guide procedures and the decision-making process. Informal process/procedures for evaluating trade-offs includes the involvement of all Stakeholders and following the guidelines defined in Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Vision for CDOT.pdf then exercising engineering judgment in balancing trade-offs. CDOT holds Open Houses, Public Meetings, Scoping Meetings, Field Inspection Review Meetings and Final Office Review Meetings to solicit comments and recommendations for trade-offs. Informal processes for environmental issues. Generally environmental issues do not elicit change in the design process of a project unless for regulatory requirements. Some high profile (large, mountain corridors, etc.) are the exception. • Project Manager and Project Development Team decide project specifics. Details are captured in official meeting minutes. Design exceptions are documented and approved by Central Office. • Teams scope projects to determine design criteria based on specific circumstances of each project. Design criteria are context- based in accordance with PennDOT’s Smart Transportation Guidebook. • The designer is responsible for considering all of the trade-offs and then reviewing this with management for consistency and appropriateness. The sections 1C-1 and 1C-8 of our Design Manual work together to describe the process. They are available here: http://www.iowadot.gov/design/manual/manual.html?reload • The formal process is the formal design exception process for the 13 critical design elements. Otherwise, informal evaluation and documentation processes are used for informal design exceptions (general design elements) and all other tradeoffs in the design process. • The process would depend on the element under scrutiny. For example, some the traffic type decisions the engineering process could include HCM operational analyses or just engineering judgment based on experience. For more complex multidisciplinary decisions planning reports are typically prepared and circulated for review and comment. • The State has a standard process outlined within the design manual for project developments. The project developments process incorporates documentation for the design decisions made on a project. The design manual can be found at the following web link -- http://itd.idaho.gov/manuals/Online_Manuals/Design/Design_Manual.htm • The steps are formal, but the evaluation method may change from project to project.

92 • There is no such process. Tradeoffs, as they are called in this study, are done as part of the normal design of each project -- as they have been done for decades. • This is a difficult question to answer as we have a design exception process for formal deviations from our state standards, however, we have an informal process for evaluation within the standard ranges. • Trade-offs are based on an analysis of crashes related to geometric elements at site specific locations and what safety improve- ments can be attained to address crashes within a realistic budget. • Trade-offs are considered on a project by project basis. • Type of work is established as part of the planning and design process. Decisions are made based on policy, budget and envi- ronmental commitments. • Typically design tradeoffs are documented by design exceptions. For design issues not involving the 13 controlling criteria, the decisions may be documented in the project file or environmental documentation. • We do have a formal design exception process. However, most trade-offs in the design process are done on an informal basis. The informal process closely follows the formal process as far as the evaluation of design features, driver safety, environmental and right-of-way impacts and project costs. • We follow the design exceptions procedure. • We have both a formal and informal process depending on the tradeoff. In deviations there is a formal evaluation done to opti- mize the tradeoffs being considered. We use the informal process continuously through the design phase of a project. • We look at the design and controls and determine if there needs to be a trade-off from the recommended values in the Green Book. 3. Please indicate on the discrete scale below where in the project development process trade-offs in the design selection process are typically evaluated. If trade-offs are evaluated at two distinctly different stages of your agency’s project development process, please indicate both of these locations on the scale. 7 0% -- Project Initiation 34 20% -- Preliminary Engineering 20 40 to 60% -- Environmental Clearance 12 80% -- Final Design 4 100% -- Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Please provide comments. • Although we would prefer for all these things to be worked out during the concepting, it is usually left for our design engineers to take care of. The Design Manual sections I sent are targeted toward the design engineers. • As described in 1, we usually resolve the scope of work in the reconnaissance phase, which is preceded by a Programming Study Report. • As project progresses issues may arise that require trade-offs • Can be done anytime through the projects but typically up to the Environmental Clearance stage. • CDOT’s philosophy is to address these trade-offs as early as possible. However, most of the comments and recommendations that CDOT designers have to respond to occur during the environmental clearance and final Design process. • Consideration of design issues and tradeoffs is encouraged at every stage of the design process. • Design criteria is evaluated the scoping at a field view which occurs at the beginning of Preliminary Engineering. • Design decisions for complex, typically urban, projects may take place more towards the Preliminary Engineering phase. Otherwise, they typically happen later prior to Stage 1 plans, including submission of design exceptions. • Design issues are typically encountered during the initial project development; however it is also common to identify issues later on in the development of the project. • Ideally, this is covered in the Preliminary engineering phase, but it may be addressed in other phases as well if necessary. • Mainly this kind of detail would be worked out early; however, we have had projects revised in later stages. • Most of our design deviations are identified in our preliminary design phase which includes consideration of environmental impacts. • Project Initiation or “Scoping Phase” attempts to address trade-offs in order to target any needed safety improvements when establishing the project budget. • The first evaluation occurs early in the design process. It involves an assessment of the terrain -- construction costs, potential utility and right-of-way impacts and their associated costs within the context of a project’s scope. The second evaluation is done when we have accurate information on the environmental resources that could be impacted by the project. Certain resources command a much higher degree of compromise.

93 • The goal is to add value to the projects during all phases of the project development. Design decisions are preferably handled in the earlier stages of project development, but can be incorporated in the later stages as well. • The trade-off are usually considered at the Preliminary Engineering and at the Preliminary Field check when the project is between 20% to 60% complete and a general consensus from all the participants involved with the development of the project define such a need and or alternative in order to accommodate for a particular trade-off. Also, in respect to a project pay item unit price fluctuations from time to time, the variance in the total cost can mandate such trade-offs for adjustments to the total project cost. • There is a formal Design Acceptance Package (DAP) milestone that contains all of the trade-offs. • This applies only to formal design exceptions. Practical Design occurs throughout all paths of the project’s life. • This happens primarily in preliminary design, which included the environmental clearance process. • This is when it SHOULD occur, but oftentimes we do not see Exceptions until 80-100% • Tradeoff analysis can and is completed at all milestones of a project. • Tradeoffs can be evaluated throughout the process as issues arise. • We have 2 stages of the design process where we evaluate tradeoffs. During the planning/design transition, office of planning reviews design package prior to transferring to design to ensure trade-offs have been considered. During the design/construc- tion transition, design ensures that trade-offs have been considered. • We usually get a written Conceptual Approval from FHWA just around our 30% to make sure that they are okay with what we will continue through the NEPA process with. Then after the 60% closer to final design we will get the Final Approval. • We would ideally like to evaluate trade-offs in the Preliminary Engineering stage, but our DOT does not have a pre-design unit so much of the decisions on design values are conducted during the Design phase. • When the municipalities propose a highway project there is a selection committee in charge of evaluating highway and trans- portation needs and they decide if the petition is design worthy then, as the design of the highway project develops, trade-offs are analyzed to reduce cost and reach the project goals. 4. For consultant design projects, who is responsible for performing the analysis of the trade-offs in the design selection process? 25 Consultant Staff 10 Agency Staff 7 Both 5. Once the supporting analyses and documentation regarding trade-offs in the design selection process is complete, is the approval authority for the trade-off within the STA centralized or decentralized (e.g., district office or region)? 22 Centralized 14 Decentralized 6 Both 6. In your STA, does the same unit responsible for approving a trade-off in the design selection process (e.g., Regional Design) also approve design exceptions or does a different unit (e.g., Chief Engineer) approve them? 14 Same 22 Different 5 Both 7. Please identify the role and responsibilities that each of the identified positions has in your STA. Chief Engineer • Approval authority for exceptions • Approves a Design Exception • Approves all final plans prior to being advertised. • Approves Scope Statement and any Amended Scope Statements • Approves the Standard Drawings by his signature and over sights the general activities in the agency. • Chief Engineer--Final design exception approval

94 • Deputy Chief Engineer grants some design approvals, and approves design exceptions for those same projects. • Design exception approval • Design Exception approval • Design exception approval has delegated to District Engineers • Design exception approval. May have to approve other trade-offs. • Design Exception approval. Trade-offs are included as mitigation • Design Exceptions at any time in the design process. This includes any design exceptions that fall outside the normal 13 ele- ments, such as ADA, Plantmix Dikes, etc. • Director of Preconstruction approves final design exception. Regional Production Engineer (underneath Director of Preconstruction) recommends design exceptions and serves as the Engineer-of-Record for the project. • Engineering policy approval. • Executive Director for Infrastructure -- Final Design • Final Approval • Final Approval • Final approval of design exceptions. • Final Design Exception Approval • Final design exception approval, evaluates risks • Final design exception approval. • Final design exception approval. • Final Design Exception approval. • Final Design, and Design Exception Approval • N/A • N/A--Delegated approval of design exceptions to Director of Office of Design • No, done by committee. • Non FHWA Facility design exception approval and politically sensitive trade-offs approval. • none • None • None • Only for exceptions for design speed on our Strategic Intermodal System. • Policy Approval • Policy maker/Owner of the design standards • Recommends Design exception approval. • Referral and final decision of unresolved design issues (rare). • Review and Approval • State Design Engineer -- Establish and approve policy and standards for WSDOT • Statewide Preconstruction Engineer -- Final Design Exception Approval • The Chief Engineer is only involved if an issue cannot be resolved at a lower level. This most commonly occurs when other agencies or local or tribal governments are involved. • The Maryland State Highway Administration currently has two Chief Engineers. The Deputy Administrator/Chief Engineer for Operations (DACEO) oversees Maintenance, Materials, Traffic and Safety, and Construction. The Deputy Administrator/Chief Engineer for Planning, Engineering, Real Estate and Environment (DACEPE) has oversight of the planning and design offices as mentioned in the title. The DACEPE has the final approval for Design Exceptions, however, for projects that are not subject to full federal oversight by FHWA, the Director of the Office of Highway Development can be the approver. Counsel • Agreement and contract review/approval • Assistant State Design Engineer -- Approval of design exceptions. • Coordinate and assess potential legal exposure • Counsel is only involved in the design trade-off process if requested by project development staff. • Design Director--Design evaluation, design exception approval, evaluate risk. • Division Engineer or State Roadway Design Engineer (submittal to Chief Egr for approval) • Documentation and Legal opinion on major or high risk trade-offs • Evaluates risk • Evaluates tort issues • Generally none on specific projects. Counsel does perform reviews on new/revised polity • Legal. Typically not involved in design. • Legal. Typically not involved in design.

95 • Legal. Typically not involved in design. • N/A • N/A • N/A • N/A • no direct role in the design process • No, unless specifically requested. • non involved in design • none • None • None • None • None • None • None unless asked their legal opinion • None. • None. • Not involved. • Not typically involved in design exceptions • occasionally consulted for risk assessment • Policy issues are developed through coordination with counsel. • Provides legal advice and assistance to the divisions and districts within the agency, investigating the legality of agency actions and validity of public complaints, drafting proposed legislation and administrative rules, researching and interpreting the law, preparing legal opinions, attending and testifying at legislative committee hearings and performing related duties. • Provides legal advice for issues that they are approached with. • Review of the document • Reviews and Makes Recommendations for approval • Statewide Traffic Engineer -- Checks exception documentation and evaluates risk determination. • The closest position for this role would be the Design Chief’s for the Highway Design and Community Design Divisions in the Office of Highway Development. However, in some cases this position may reside at the Senior Manager Level in the Office requesting the Design Exception. In the cases of a Design Exception that are requested through a local District Office, the Office of Highway Development is usually included in the review of the Design Exception. • Typically not involved in design • Typically not. Design PM • Analysis, documentation, recommendation of any design exception to district engineer and/or state design engineer • Assembles and submits justification and support for design exception request • Design Chief--Highway Design Office Design evaluation, evaluates risk and design exception documentation. • Design PM -- Documentation, analysis, recommendations • Determines risk analysis • Develops design exceptions and memo to file documentation, documenting design decisions, signs design exceptions. • Documentation • Documentation • Documentation • Documentation and coordination. • Documentation, values risk. • Documentation, values risk. • Documentation. • Documents and assesses risk. • Evaluate alternative provided by the designer -- concur with the selection and get ‘Buy in’ from upper management/decision makers. • Evaluates and documents tradeoffs • Final design exception recommendation. • Initiates exception process • Involved in identifying the need for trade-off, analysis, documentation and design exception recommendation for approval by FHWA or Chief Engineer.

96 • Is involved in the design exception approval • Makes sure that plans and documents are complete, Project scope will be met and that specifications are followed, attends field checks, makes sure that the project activities are on schedule for each milestone, updates the project schedule with respect to its progress and the rate of plan development if necessary. • Manage design of projects • oversees project development and production, documentation and leads public involvement process • PM--Sign off on designer’s form • Prepares the Design Exception for the Design Chief’s approval. We actually have Principal Engineers that put together the final document with the input from our Project Coordinators (In House Design Project Managers) • Program Manager serves as point of contact for public/political input. Coordinates with shareholders to receive project input. Coordinates multi-disciplinary scoping team meetings and facilitates the design selection. • Project Engineer -- Manage the design project. • Project Managers (PM) generally coordinates necessary staff and insure proper documentation for design decisions. • Proposes solution, documentation • Provides consultant guidance, coordinates internal reviews • Responsible for design and application of design criteria and standards. • Responsible for project development process • Responsible for project development. • Responsible for project development. May perform special engineering studies. Documentation. • Responsible for project/design development • Review and Recommendation • Reviews and presents to the Design Exception Committee • Reviews exception, evaluates risk. • Technical leader for the PDT • The Design Project Manager (PM) is responsible for requesting and compiling the documentation supporting any Design Exception. They are also responsible to draft the Design Exception for approval by the Director of the Office of Highway Development or the DACEPE. • The PM normally reviews design documentation, participates in the discussions concerning trade-off evaluations. They assem- ble multidisciplinary teams as needed to perform evaluations. • Yes, provide documentation for exceptions. Engineering and Planning Specialists • Assistance with analysis and documentation • Consulted during the analysis and provides input to the Design PM. • Design Engineer develops alternatives and cost comparisons, review potential impacts and safety data. • Design Team -- Manage the design project • Designers and Design Technicians -- Develop and evaluate trade-offs during design. • Designs plans and prepares special provision, attends field checks, checks design elements of in-house projects, prepares engi- neering studies and recommends alternatives for design, coordinates projects with other divisions, agencies and public, com- putes quantities and prepares draft cost estimate for the project at different stages with respect to the project status. • Develop and evaluate trade-offs and risk during preliminary design and environmental review stages. • Develop and evaluate trade-offs and risk during preliminary design and environmental review stages. • Develop and evaluate trade-offs and risk during preliminary design and environmental review stages. • Develop and evaluate trade-offs and risk during preliminary design and environmental review stages. • Develop and evaluate trade-offs and risk during preliminary design, environmental review, and final design (engineers) stages • Develops and evaluates trade-offs • Develops and evaluates tradeoffs. • Develops design trade-offs • Engineer design--Project Manager, develops highway design plans for construction and evaluates trade-offs and risks during preliminary design. • Engineering design staff evaluates and finalizes designs by incorporating input from the multi-disciplinary scoping team and other shareholders. They work with Program Management to ensure that the purpose and need for the project has been satisfied. • Engineers typically design the projects • Establish purpose and need and design parameters. Develops/reviews design exceptions • Evaluate Risk • Evaluate Trade-Offs • Evaluate trade-offs during design and environmental review stages.

97 • Identification and initial assessment of trade-offs • Interactive support of design activities. • none • Not involved with design • Not involved with design. • On call for evaluation for such areas as traffic engineering or traffic modeling • PDT members/develop and evaluate trade-offs • Project Managers (PM) in the Project Management Division (formerly the Project Planning Division) are responsible for com- piling a list of trade-offs. Although they are the PM for the project throughout the Planning stage, they have Environmental Project Managers that are assigned to the project throughout the life of the project (panning, design, and construction) to ensure that environmental trade-offs are documented and that the NEPA process is properly followed. • Proposes solution, documentation • Provide alternatives/supporting documentation/engineering data/evaluating alternatives. • Provides data and recommendations for specific components of the project, including life cycle cost analysis. • Review and Evaluate • Review and Recommendation • Specialists are used as requested. • Subject Matter Experts -- Design support and recommendations. • Study the trade-offs and makes recommendations • These are our Designer and they provide all the information for the tradeoffs and risks. It’s more of a team process. • Uses best engineering practices • Yes, under oversight of PM. • Yes. • Yes. Develops and evaluates Public Information Officer • As required on project by project basis. Typically not involved in project development or design. • As required on project by project basis. Where public involvement is more extensive, this person (based at the District) coordi- nates all public involvement. • As required on projects by project basis. Typically not involved in project development. • Communicates trade-offs • Coordinates communication with public and press • Coordinates in the Public Involvement process. • Defines public involvement as two-way communication aimed at providing information to the public and incorporating the views, concerns, and issues of the public in the transportation decision-making process. In addition, the office of public hearing is responsible for ensuring all applicable federal and state laws/regulations are adhered to regarding public involvement and participation activities for federal and state funded projects. • During the NEPA process and the public meetings, our NDOT Public Information Officer sets up all our meetings, but they are really not involved in the Design Exception process beyond that. The Squads and our Multi Media group produce any displays that Design Squad is unable to create. • Evaluates community values • Evaluates what was shown or provided to the public vs. what is going to be built. • Helps PM gather stakeholder input • Identifies community requirements for trade-offs, organizes communication of risk and trade-offs. • Identifies community requirements for trade-offs, organizes communication of risk and trade-offs. • Informs, communicates and articulates the need for a major or politically sensitive trade-off to the public as needed. • Link to external stakeholder and community groups • N/A • N/A • N/A • N/A • N/A • No involvement. • none • none • None • None

98 • None • None • None. • Not involved • Not involved in design or project development. • organizes some communication of risk and tradeoff for controversial projects • Performed by PM • PIO -- Assists the Project Engineer with communication outreach efforts. • Present information to the public/answer questions that the public may come up with. • Public Information Officer -- Shares information and project status, seeks support • Role is limited to facilitating the public involvement process. The PM typically participates in the public involvement process. • The Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering does have a Public Outreach group that is responsible for coordinating public meetings, developing newsletters, developing displays for the public, and providing mass mailing services for public notices and newsletters. This group provides services to PMs for projects that are in both the Planning and Design phase. • Typically not involved in design • Typically, this role is handled by the Program Manager for the project. The functions would be those expressed in the Program Manager description above. • Yes. 8. When developing project Purpose and Need goals, does your agency typically consider the listed trade-offs as project goals? For each listed trade-off, please select if the trade-off is always, sometimes, or never utilized as a Purpose and Need goal. Also, please select if the measurement of that goal is typically quantitative, qualitative or both. As a P&N Goal Measurement Always Sometimes Never Quantitative Qualitative Both Access Management 6 31 4 8 11 20 Cost 21 18 2 25 2 13 Environmental Issue 21 17 3 2 10 27 Historic Impact 16 22 3 4 14 22 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 14 21 6 2 19 16 Operational Efficiency 20 21 0 13 5 23 Right-of-Way Availability 16 21 4 14 3 21 Safety 32 7 2 1 5 35 Schedule 12 24 5 20 4 12 Social Concerns 13 26 1 1 25 14 Tort Liability Exposure 9 19 12 2 10 19

99 9. What type of trade-off is most typically used as a justification for a design decision? Please rank the top 3 by indicating which trade-off is used most often as 1, second as 2, and third as 3. Trade-Off Most Often Used Access Management 0 Cost 7 Environmental Issue 4 Historic Impact 1 Human Factor/Driver Expectancy 1 Operational Efficiency 1 Right-of-Way Availability 2 Safety 22 Schedule 2 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Trade-Off Second Most Often Used Access Management 1 Cost 13 Environmental Issue 9 Historic Impact 3 Human Factor/Driver Expectancy 2 Operational Efficiency 4 Right-of-Way Availability 1 Safety 5 Schedule 2 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 2 Trade-Off Third Most Often Used Access Management 1 Cost 9 Environmental Issue 11 Historic Impact 1 Human Factor/Driver Expectancy 1 Operational Efficiency 7 Right-of-Way Availability 7 Safety 1 Schedule 2 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 2

100 All Responses Access Management 2 Cost 29 Environmental Issue 24 Historic Impact 5 Human Factor/Driver Expectancy 4 Operational Efficiency 12 Right-of-Way Availability 10 Safety 28 Schedule 6 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 4 10. Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 10 how likely your agency is to consider a listed trade-off as a reason for accepting a design decision, with 10 being very likely and 1 being not likely? Access Management – Average 5.8 1 Not Likely 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 7 5 4 6 11 7 6 8 2 9 1 10 Very Likely Cost – Average 7.8 0 Not Likely 1 1 2 3 3 0 4 2 5 1 6 5 7 13 8 7 9 9 10 Very Likely

101 Environmental Issue – Average 8.1 0 Not Likely 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 0 5 3 6 5 7 12 8 12 9 6 10 Very Likely Historic Impact – Average 7.7 1 Not Likely 1 0 2 2 3 0 4 1 5 2 6 6 7 14 8 8 9 6 10 Very Likely Human Factors/Driver Expectancy – Average 6.5 0 Not Likely 1 1 2 2 3 5 4 8 5 2 6 9 7 6 8 6 9 2 10 Very Likely

102 Operational Efficiency – Average 7.3 1 Not Likely 1 0 2 3 3 1 4 2 5 3 6 10 7 9 8 8 9 4 10 Very Likely Right-of-Way Availability – Average 6.8 0 Not Likely 1 0 2 4 3 2 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 7 9 4 10 Very Likely Safety – Average 8.1 3 Not Likely 1 1 2 0 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 5 7 2 8 7 9 19 10 Very Likely

103 Schedule – Average 5.7 0 Not Likely 1 7 2 4 3 6 4 1 5 7 6 3 7 4 8 3 9 6 10 Very Likely Social Concerns – Average 5.9 0 Not Likely 1 0 2 7 3 8 4 4 5 3 6 10 7 3 8 2 9 4 10 Very Likely Tort Liability Concerns – Average 5.3 5 Not Likely 1 3 2 3 3 5 4 8 5 2 6 3 7 5 8 4 9 3 10 Very Likely 11. What methodology, if any, is typically utilized to measure each of the listed trade-offs? For example, methodologies might include expert opinion, state regulation, IHSDM, benefit/cost analysis, etc. Access Management • Any additional costs it might add. Operational effects of the roadway, safety • Benefit cost, context sensitivity. • Benefit/Cost analysis while taking into account user and community needs as identified in the attached Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Vision for CDOT.pdf. Environmental, property and business impacts are all considered. • Benefit/Cost Ratio • Business unit’s decisions • Engineering judgment • Engineering judgment

104 • Evaluating the existing access regulations against existing conditions and usage. • Evaluation of operational efficiency, review of type and number of crashes. • expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert Opinion • expert opinion -- operational improvement, benefit/cost • Expert opinion, B/C Analysis, Traffic Analysis, State Regulation. • expert opinion, SCDOT and Federal policies/procedures/guidelines, shareholder input • Expert opinion, State and Federal policy, laws • Expert opinion, state regulation • Expert opinion. • None • Opinion as to cost, effect on businesses/residences • Our Principal and Project Coordinators Expertise, FHWA Interstate Access Information Guide and NDOTs Access Management System and Standards July 1999 • Policies, directives, and guidelines issued by state and local agencies having permit authority on development and roadway infrastructure improvements as follow: – Regulations, codes, and guidelines that are enforceable. – Acquisition of access rights by states and local jurisdictions that serve to protect transportation interests and enable suf- ficient infrastructure is built. – Land development regulations by state and local jurisdictions that address property access and related issues. – Development review and impact assessments by state and local jurisdictions. – Good geometric design of transportation facilities – Understanding of access implications by businesses and property owners. • Policy • Safety & Level of Service • Stakeholder input. • State Highway Access Management Manual • State law, legal precedent, traditional practice, written access management guidelines • state regulation • State regulation • State regulation • State regulation • State regulation • State regulation • State regulations • Traffic and Safety expert opinion • Traffic delay before and after • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception Cost • B/C, IHSDM • Benefit cost analysis • Benefit cost analysis • Benefit cost. • benefit/cost analysis • Benefit/cost analysis • Benefit/cost analysis • Benefit/cost analysis • Benefit/cost analysis • Benefit/Cost analysis • Benefit/cost calc, cost cap (scope, budget) • Benefit/Cost Ratio • Budget Management • Business unit’s decisions • Calculated values

105 • Comparison with cost of meeting standards, construction costs compared to environmental mitigation costs, right-of-way and utility costs. • Cost analysis • Cost Analysis, general based on expertise and detailed analysis where needed, based on the judgment of the engineers. • Cost based on bid history of similar projects • Cost comparison • Cost comparison, B/C Anal. • Cost comparison. • Cost comparison. • Cost estimate • Cost/Benefit • direct measure • Engineering judgment • Estimate of the alternatives • Expert Opinion • expert opinion, SCDOT and Federal policies/procedures/guidelines, shareholder input • Expert opinion, state regulation • Historic unit prices, B/C • Internal budget analysis • Opinion • One of the principal reasons INDOT as a governmental agency invests in better highways is to improve safety. Safer roads reduce the likelihood of personal injuries, property damage and even loss of life to accidents. To determine whether safety and other benefits would be great enough to at least equal the costs of highway investment, INDOT often conducts benefit-cost analyses. The amounts by which these investments reduce transportation costs are the transportation cost saving or the “benefits”. Benefits result from reduction in: – travel time, – vehicle operating costs(fuel and wear and tear), – air pollution and other environmental costs and – accident risk. INDOT values these benefits in order to determine whether a project’s benefits its costs. Due to the economic downturn, ongoing structural deficit in the nation, and uncertainty regarding the federal transportation funding, it has already become necessary for INDOT to adopt priority-setting criteria and priorities for the remaining funding now available to implement projects in the near term of the long range transportation plan. • Risk Analysis (CEVP and CRA), B/C, VE • Standard estimate form • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception • Value Engineering Study -- State Code • Whether or not it will add a significant cost to the overall project cost. Environmental Issue • 1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process. 2. State Regulation (health department) 3. Environmental Stewardship Guide and project Engineer opinion • Applicable laws and regulations, mitigation opportunities • Based on Federal Regulations • Business unit’s decisions • Consideration of value of the resources based on expert opinion and available data, state and federal regulations (obtaining required permits), costs of avoidance and mitigation. • Consultation with permitting agencies • Cost of mitigation. Whether the issue could stop the project. • Engineering judgment • Environmental Document review • Environmental evaluation • Environmental studies/documentation • Environmental survey

106 • Evaluation of impacts • Expert opinion • Expert Opinion • expert opinion, SCDOT and Federal policies/procedures/guidelines, shareholder input • Expert opinion, state regulation • Federal & State Regulations • Federal Regulation • Federal regulations, Expert Opinion • Federal regulations. • Federal/state regulations • In most cases we don’t have a formal system for making those evaluations. The only one that is formal would be our design standards for low-volume roads. That allows different design standards for bridges where there’s less traffic, and it makes it more likely we will be able to preserve historic bridges that wouldn’t meet current design standards. For other types of impacts we have to make a reasonable effort to avoid resources like wetlands, historic properties, etc. as long as it won’t force us into designing a road that won’t function well. Those decisions are made in NEPA and in permitting. Almost all trade-offs are coming from State or Federal regulation or State or Federal Regulatory Agency opinion on a project by project basis. Any guidance OES provides to designers is usually based on our expert opinion or perception of what the regulatory agency or regulations are going to require in order to acquire our permit. At the end of the day, the law and those that enforce it determine whether we have a project that is permit-able, and if not, further trade-offs or costs are typically needed. For cultural resources, working within federal register, tradeoffs most typically occur as mitigation items. For example, if a design includes destruction of a significant archaeological site we will first attempt to avoid it through redesign. The eligibility of the property/site for the National Register of Historic Places determines whether a site is significant enough that mitigation should occur. If avoidance is not possible, we would recover as much data from the site as is reasonable. In rare cases we cannot mitigate out and cancel the project. Any mitigation would be passed by consulting parties consisting of state and federal regulators, preservationists, members of the public. • Law/Regulation • Mitigation • NEPA requirements and public opinion. • Resource Agency coordination, context sensitivity • state & federal regulations, ability to mitigate, ability to get the action permitted • State and Federal policy, laws • State and federal regulation with community input • State and Federal regulations • State or Federal regulation, cost analysis. • state regulation • State regulation • State regulation • State regulations, benefit/cost analysis, expert opinions. • State regulations, historic mitigation costs, We MUST satisfy permit requirements. • State/Fed Regulations • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception Historic Impact • 1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process 2. Expert Opinion • Applicable laws and regulations, mitigation opportunities • Based on Federal Regulations • Business unit’s decisions • Community value • Consideration of value of the resources based on expert opinion and available data, state and federal regulations (obtaining required permits), costs of avoidance and mitigation. • Consultation with SHPO • During the era of Interstate construction from the 1950’s to the 1980’s, a number of instances of new highway construction had a devastating impact on communities and areas of environmental sensitivity. It is readily acknowledged that there will be some degree of physical impact on the surroundings associated with the construction of any new location highway or major recon-

107 struction or widening of an existing highway facility. However, from the perspective of horizontal and vertical alignment, much of this impact can and should be alleviated. Impact on the surrounding environment can be minimized by careful attention to detail during the route location and preliminary design phases and a willingness of all concerned parties to work together toward a common goal. In an effort to highlight Flexibility in Highway Design and in order for minimizing and or, totally avoiding historic impact to the U.S. Land marks and the environment, INDOT applies a series of Context Sensitive Solutions which includes an Overview of the Highway Planning and Development Process such as the following design guidelines: Highway Design Standards, Functional Classification, Design Controls, Horizontal and Vertical Alignment, Cross-Section Elements, Bridges and Other Major Structures, Intersections as well as the use of nonstandard design when such use best satisfies the concerns of a given situation through an exception process. • Engineering judgment • Environmental Document review • Environmental evaluation, State Historic Preservation Office • Environmental studies/documentation • Evaluation of impacts • Expert opinion • Expert Opinion • expert opinion, SCDOT and Federal policies/procedures/guidelines, shareholder input • Expert opinion, state regulation • Federal & State Regulations • Federal & State Regulations; Level of public and political input. • Federal regs, expert opinion, State regs. • Federal regs. • federal regulation • Federal Regulation • Federal/state regulations • If the issue could stop the project. • Law/Regulation • NEPA requirements, federal law and public opinion. • state & federal regulations, ability to mitigate, ability to get the action approved • State and Federal policy, laws • State and federal regulation with community input • State and Federal regulations • State or Federal regulation, cost analysis. • State regulation • State regulation • State Regulation • State regulations • State/Fed Agency coordination. • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception Human Factors/Driver Expectancy • AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and input from our Traffic Safety Engineers. • B/C, Expert opinion • Benefit/Cost analysis when safety is considered explicitly. • Business unit’s decisions • Drivers safety • Engineering design review • Engineering judgment • Engineering judgment • Engineering judgment, research findings, IHSDM • Evaluation of the design • expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion

108 • Expert opinion • Expert Opinion • Expert Opinion • Expert Opinion • expert opinion, SCDOT and Federal policies/procedures/guidelines • Expert opinion, state regulation • Expert opinion, Traffic anal., B/C anal. IHSDM • Expert opinion, traffic analysis, highway capacity manual. • Expert opinion, traffic modeling, State and Federal policy • Expert opinion. • Expert opinion. • Expert opinions • Functional classification • Human Factors/Driver Expectancy do not adequately address trade-offs between conflicting demands that are related to impor- tant road user characteristics. Amongst some of these factors are: Age, Alcohol, Experience, Familiarity, Memory, Vision, Weather, Distraction (phone- use/texting), Stopping Sight Distance, Decision Sight Distance…etc. Drivers also make trade-offs between speed versus control when executing maneuvers. The AASHTO deceleration value of 3.4 m/s² represents an estimate of a “comfortable deceleration” with which almost all drivers can maintain good vehicle control. To aid highway designers and traffic engineers in making trade-offs, expert judgment and design convention with little or no empirical data are used to develop guidelines. Other guideline based equally on expert judgment and experimental data were also developed in order to aid highway designers and traffic engineers in making trade-offs. • MUTCD • MUTCD, AASHTO Green Book, other • None. • older drivers • Standard/expert opinion • The road design is consistent in design along the corridor. • This is tied to safety evaluations. A review of standards and guidelines, as well as the crash history, is performed to determine if we are adequately addressing drivers’ safety. Benefit-cost ratios and expert opinion are used in making the final decisions. • Traffic and Safety expert opinion • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception Operational Efficiency • Based on input from our Traffic Information Division and our Operations Traffic Analysis Section. • Benefit cost, expert opinion. • Benefit/Cost analysis supported by some form of traffic modeling. This is generally defined by congestion and measured by the Level of Service. • Business unit’s decisions • Current geometric design guidelines for highways and streets do not adequately accommodate the needs of all potential users. Pedestrians and bicycles are common users of the urban and rural transportation network, especially at intersections. A possible approach for addressing this issue is the tradeoff between design elements for vehicles and other users. Capacity expansion is still the primary means the region looks to satisfy growing mobility needs, and there is not comparable screening applied to examine trade-offs between a management strategy and a capacity improvement. Research is needed to provide guidance to highway designers on trade-offs of shoulder and lane width selection in freeway, US route and the State route corridors. Highway designers need guidance on the operational and safety impacts for cross section design trade-offs while trying to balance corridor capacity, project costs, public involvement and environmental impacts. The trade-offs between operational benefits and safety need to be quantified. At INDOT expert highway engineers as well as operational and safety guidelines provide such guidance to all the practitioners throughout the State. Shoulders are often used as the separation between special use lanes and the general purpose lanes. The impacts of providing or not providing barrier separation need to be determined. Further, when barriers are used, what shoulder widths are necessary adjustments to the barrier and what safety impacts result from these shoulder widths is a concern. It directly reflects the continuous nature of the relationship between service, cost and safety, and changes the value of design dimensions. It reinforces the need to consider the impacts of trade-offs throughout the domain and not just when a “standard” threshold is crossed.

109 • Engineering judgment • Engineering operational analysis/capacity analysis • Evaluation of the design • expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert Opinion • Expert Opinion • Expert opinion and calculated LOS • expert opinion, modeling • expert opinion, SCDOT and Federal policies/procedures/guidelines • Expert opinion, state regulation • HCM • HCM and expert opinion • Highway Capacity Manual • Highway Capacity Manual, other • Level of Service • Modeling of the operational characteristics is done to determine capacity needs and congestion issues. Anticipated future growth is also considered. • None. • Operational analysis, traffic studies, site inspections • Simulation modeling, traditional capacity calcs (HCM), UK Empirical method (roundabouts), Green Book/MnDOT design criteria for freeway ramp length, engineering judgment • State Growth Management Regulations, Highway capacity analysis • State Regs • Traffic analysis • Traffic analysis using traffic modeling software • Traffic analysis, expert opinion • Traffic analysis, IHSDM • Traffic analysis. • Traffic modeling, State and Federal policy and laws • Traffic studies and capacity analysis. • Traffic Studies/traffic simulation • V/C Ratio • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception • Whether the design meets efficiency goal Right-of-Way Availability • ability to obtain necessary ROW w/in job timeframe, cost, economic or community impact • Applicable laws and precedents, department policy & practice • Appraisals • B/C, State and Federal policy and laws • Benefit cost. • Benefit/Cost • Benefit/Cost analysis while taking into account the ‘Purpose and Need’ statement for the project. • Benefit/Cost Ratio • Budget Management • Business unit’s decisions • Cost and acquisition impacts • Cost comparison and need for condemnation. • Cost comparison, B/C anal. • Cost comparison. • Cost/benefit analysis. • Cross-sections • Engineering judgment • Engineering judgment and cost • Estimate of ROW impacts

110 • expert opinion • Expert opinion • expert opinion, SCDOT and Federal policies/procedures/guidelines, shareholder input • Expert opinion, state regulation • INDOT project Manager or project engineer will make enquiry and communicate with the right-of-way cost estimator in order to provide input on probable design scenarios that will impact the right-of-way requirements and cost, and the potential trade-offs between right-of-way and design may be discussed. The estimator’s experience and knowledge of the area are very important in establishing a preliminary right-of-way cost. Options that directly affect the right-of-way function occur when implementing the real property acquisition and management required by the current and future transportation network. Agencies have choices in the following areas: – the “ human factor” can be defined as the uncertainty and unpredictability related to dealing with property owners when an agency is attempting to acquire their property; – trade-offs between utility relocation expense and acquisition of additional right-of-way; – access management provisions ( capacity versus operation); – property management practices (maintenance). • Measured/observed values • Only applies to low cost safety projects or capital projects. • Preliminary design reports • Quantitative • Relocation costs • ROW docs and estimates • Site inspection, appraisal reports, benefit/cost analysis • State regulation • State Regulations, Maps, historic costs • The Chief ROW Agents expertise on ROW availability/cost and project schedules. • This is strictly a cost-based evaluation. Will acquiring the necessary right-of-way cost more than the construction cost neces- sary to avoid acquisition. • Using Tax Maps minimal/Metes & Bounds survey and Plats for more detailed impacts • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception • VDOT policy/federal & state regulations Safety • Accident analysis. • Accident data and analysis, Safety Management Systems • Accident Data combined with the new Highway Safety Manual. We have just started to become familiar with the Highway Safety Manual and it’s use for predicting accidents to justify accident reductions. • Benefit/cost • Benefit/Cost • Business unit’s decisions • Collision analysis, Highway safety issues group, State and Federal policy and laws • Crash analysis • crash analysis, expert opinion, design criteria • Crash histories and construction costs are evaluated to determine cost effective treatments. All other impacts associated with the proposed design must also be evaluated. The design features are compared with state and national guidelines to determine the final design (expert opinion). • Crash history, applicable research, engineering judgment, Highway Safety Manual, IHSDM, Green Book/MnDOT design criteria • Crash history/expert opinion • Engineering judgment • Engineering judgment • Evaluation of the design • expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert Opinion • Expert opinion, design criteria • Expert opinion, design criteria

111 • Expert opinion, design criteria, Traffic anal. State and Fed. Regs. • expert opinion, safety data, benefit/cost • expert opinion, SCDOT and Federal policies/procedures/guidelines, shareholder input • Expert opinion, state regulation • Expert opinions • History at location being considered for improvement. Analyze existing geometry and look for deficiencies as they relate to AASHTO • IHSDM • Never compromised. • Qualitative and Quantitative • Roadway designers intent to provide a safe facility addressing mobility concerns, accommodating the physical and social envi- ronment and within financial constraints. Sometimes, tradeoffs among these may be needed to deliver the desired project and designers need tools to estimate the safety implications from such decisions. INDOT designers make sure that all the minimum safety regulations and requirements set forth by the Federal Government Agencies, local agencies, as well as, its own minimum safety requirements are applied and that there will be no compromise rendered with any safety related issue. In an effort to highlight Flexibility in Highway Design and in order to reduce the total number of crashes, INDOT applies a series of Context Sensitive Solutions which includes an Overview of the Highway Planning and Development Process. An understanding of the safety consequences for both the total number and level of severity is of interest in evaluating trade- offs of design elements. The changes in the total number of crashes will provide an understanding of the overall safety risks of the trade-offs applied. It is possible that trade-offs for a design element may not show significant impacts on roadway safety expressed in total crashes but there may be an effort on the severity of the crashes. • RSAP, (Highway Safety Manual in future too), historic crash data, benefit/cost analysis. • Safety analysis • Standard/expert opinion • State regulations, crash data and analysis • Tort issues • Traffic and Safety expert opinion • Unlikely design would be compromised to improve safety • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception • We address safety explicitly using SPFs (Colorado specific Safety Performance Functions) and Diagnostic Tools (Pattern Recognition Analysis) in concert with risk analysis and Benefit/Cost analysis Schedule • Actual dates • Benefit cost. • Benefit/Cost analysis and expert opinion. • Business unit’s decisions • Construction Expert • Construction Program • CPM schedules (rough draft) based on history • Engineering judgment • expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion • expert opinion, approval by the appropriate SCDOT and FHWA staff, shareholder input • Expert opinion, Cost, Environ. Concerns (e.g. nesting, migration patterns, etc..) • Expert opinion, state regulation • Historic/Similar projects. • Impact on the Program and additional cost caused by delaying a letting • Letting schedule • Loss of funding • N/A • Needs to meet the schedule to get the funds set aside for the project. • None • None.

112 • On occasion projects have critical Advertising dates to meet funding years. ROW/Utilities can be difficult to acquire in a short time frame, so design exceptions are chosen to ensure that projects meet advertising deadlines. Environmental may also affect the schedules. • Primavera • Primavera • Quantitative • Risk Analysis (CEVP and CRA), PM tools • Scheduling software i.e. Primavera • State regulations, traffic management plan • The two key questions being asked by the decision-makers are: – “how can we do it cheaper?” – “how can we do it faster?” One way to answer these two questions the executives always ask goes like this: “Yes we can do it faster and cheaper”, followed by a summary of the principal trade-offs for the executive-consideration. To be able to present choices like those above, we need to develop project schedules the way the pros do. First, we need to think of our projects as cream-filled Twinkies. When we squeeze one corner of the Twinkie the filling oozes out the others. That’s an elegant example of a project trade-off. Projects are delicate. Just about everybody understands that when we take away resources, the duration is going to increase. When we want to increase the certainty of finishing a project by a specific date, the cost will increase as we “buy” risk insurance. These are the trade-offs that decision-makers should be able to assess. Some more common trade-offs that always challenge a project’s schedule are; modifications to a project’s Scope, budget and or risk. In an effort to highlight Flexibility in Highway Design and in order to measure and or, counter measure the values and the consequences for the above trade-offs the, INDOT applies a series of Context Sensitive Solutions which includes an Overview of the Highway Planning and Development Process. • Typical planning, project management and flowcharting methods • urgency of the action • urgency, future projects • User costs analyses are performed to determine if accelerating construction schedules are needed. These typically don’t result in design deviations/compromises. Rather, specific construction methods may be required to reduce construction time and associated user cost. • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception • VDOT policy Social Concerns • Applicable laws & precedents, judgment • Business unit’s decisions • Community acceptance • CSS • During NEPA public information meetings input from the public for any number of reasons, may affect the geometric design of a project. Nevada requires a resolution of support from the local entity that the project falls within to proceed with the project for any new construction roadways. • Engineering judgment • Engineering judgment • Environmental evaluation • Evaluation of Impacts and comments at public meetings • expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert Opinion • expert opinion, approval by the appropriate SCDOT and FHWA staff, shareholder input • Expert opinion, state regulation • Highway safety continues to be a major social issue. More than 39,000 motor vehicle fatalities occurred in the United States in 1992 and more than 300,000 severe injuries were caused by motor vehicle accidents. Safety is a key issue in the selection and development of highway-widening projects. Mitigation of safety problems begins by examining accident records to identify dangerous section of highway and causative factors.

113 The Indiana State Department of Transportation (INDOT) defines the Context Sensitive Design approach to project development as the way it does business for all highway projects. This is based on the understanding that an effective transportation system provides safe, efficient, dependable and environmentally responsible transportation services to all of its users. Context Sensitive Design (CSD), Context Sensitive Solution (CSS), Flexibility in Highway Design…Whatever name is chosen to define these principles, the philosophy remains the same. CSD provides a project that meets the purpose and needs as defined by the highway users, local community and the State. It ensures projects are developed to maintain the safety and efficiency of the facility for its users and the community. INDOT projects add to the livability of the community because they preserve environmental, scenic, historic, aesthetic and natural resources values of the area, as memorialized in the INDOT Context Sensitive Solution. • Impact Matrix • Impact Matrix, Public input • Impact Matrix. • NEPA process. • Opinion • property acquisition, tax base and development impacts • public controversy, perceived potential for economic development, cost • Public Information Officer • Public input • Public involvement through the environmental/preliminary design process • Public Opinion/Federal Regulation • Public outreach • Public outreach process used to ensure public input. Use newsletters, websites, storefronts, public meetings... • Refer to the attached Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Vision for CDOT.pdf. Expectations from Stakeholders and community goals may be used to determine trade-offs. • Site inspections and interviews • Social concerns are addressed through the public involvement process. The biggest issues tend to be in urban/suburban areas (such as they are in Montana). We try to distinguish between loud noise and real societal concerns. The proposed design com- promise is assessed against potential safety effects and costs. • Stakeholder comments • Stakeholder input • Stakeholder input. • State and federal regulation with community input • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception Tort Liability Exposure • AG opinion or Legal Counsel opinion when needed • Business unit’s decisions • Design standards • During the NEPA process there are occasions when letters are received from attorneys representing both public and private interests have threatened tort claims during the preliminary design phases that have influenced the design of projects. • Engineering judgment • Enterprise Risk Management Matrix • expert opinion • expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert opinion • Expert Opinion • Expert Opinion • expert opinion, SCDOT and Federal policies/procedures/guidelines • Expert opinion, state regulation • Expert opinion. • Expert opinion. • Expert opinions and legal advice • Legal counsel

114 • Legal counsel • Legal counsel, State and Fed. Regs., Expert opinion • Legal counsel. • N/A • Never compromised, Regional Safety Review committees review all projects. • None • Not a big concern. We believe if we have done an accurate evaluation, the design features will be defensible. The tort claims are both diverse in nature and locations, so attempting to incorporate tort-specific design features would be ineffective. • State law governing immunity • State/Fed regulation • The system of streets and highways in the United States covers many thousands of miles of road surface constructed of various kinds of materials and designed for a variety of vehicle types and operations. The extensive use of the streets and highways inevitably results in a large number of motor vehicle accidents that annually cause thousands of deaths and personal injuries and extensive amounts of property damage. In the legal actions that follow, it is not surprising that the design and construction of the roadways on which such accidents take place should be brought into a case as possible bases for a finding of liability. Legal actions dealing with highway design and construction may involve issues related to deficiencies in the configuration, structure, and materials of a highway itself, appurtenant structures such as guardrails and light poles, or the types of signs and other warning devices employed along a roadway. Governmental units involved in such actions may argue that their conduct in the planning and design aspects of a highway construction project involves uniquely governmental functions calling for the exercise of discretion and the making of policy decisions, and they may thus assert that they should be immune from suit in such cases. Tort liability of governmental entities is often dealt with by statutes referred to as tort claims acts, which may specify the types of governmental actions that may be made the subject of lawsuits. Contractors involved in such a legal action may argue in their defense that they should be relieved of liability because their operations were conducted in accordance with the requirements and specifications of a government contract and that their operations were properly carried out under those requirements and specifications. Tort law, the branch of the law that deals with the recovery of damages for private injuries or wrongs not arising out of contractual relationships, has developed in the United States under the separate legal systems of the individual states, supplemented by a body of decisional law established in federal courts throughout the country, rather than out of a single unified body of federal law. As a result, the legal standards governing cases in which issues related to highway design and construction are raised will vary from state to state. The Indiana State Department of Transportation (INDOT) defines the Context Sensitive Design approach to project development as the way it does business for all highway projects. This is based on the understanding that an effective transportation system provides safe, efficient, dependable and environmentally responsible transportation services to all of its users. These principles are applied to all of INDOT projects. Whence, Indiana Department of Transportation does not accommodate trade-offs when and where matters of public safety is a concern. • Traffic and Safety expert opinion • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception • VDOT policy 12. How does your agency document design decisions (beyond design exceptions)? • 1. Safety Assessment reports 2. NEPA documentations. 3. Design Decision letters to the file 4. Meeting minutes (e.g. scoping, FIR and FOR, meeting minutes) 5. PS&E construction packages 6. Stamped PS&E record sets submitted to Central files at Headquarters (archive set) • Anything that does not meet our design standards is either approved or denied during our Preliminary Design Field Reviews for our projects. Our Road Design Guide, Standard Plans for Road and Bridge Construction, etc usually have notes that request written approval from the Chief Road Design Engineer for any exceptions. • Correspondence mainly by e-mail • Correspondence. • Correspondence/Project file • Decisions leading up to trade-off in design is documented in project folder. • Design approval documents (reports) require that certain project elements be reviewed, analyzed and documented, then com- pared across the range of alternatives. Decisions made post-design approval either require a reevaluation of the design approval (a process we have documented), others require only a note to the project file (along with individuals with responsibility/interest in the decision), depending on the scope and potential impact of the decision. • Design Communication Report to document any design changes considered significant. • Design criteria are listed on a standard form for each project. • Design decisions are documented in preliminary engineering report.

115 • Design decisions are documented through Scoping Reports as well as the use of project files. Informally the design decisions are documented through emails. • Design Documentation Package • Designer Logs; Emails, Review Meeting Minutes • Environmental documents (FONSI, CE, FEIS, EA), re-evaluations, Environmental Checklists • Formal design exception committee where DE are recorded and tracked • Formal Design variance request which is similar to the design exception process. For guidance, documentation in a Design Data Book. • Formal documentation and approval process outlined on design manuals. • Functional design report, environmental documents • In a project file • In project files • In the project file in the environmental documentation through the project selection process • In writing. • INDOT utilizes various means of systems for documenting and or, record keeping of its projects- activity -logs as well as the final status of a project which has been awarded a contract and the construction is complete. The list below with individual descriptions represents few of the systems which INDOT utilizes for each project activities records: Contract Information Book (a legal document containing contract information, construction plans, special provisions, contract No. and a letting date certified by the project engineer). INDOT Project Commitment Database (IPCD), is an Intranet-Site help file. Projects contained within these files involve commitments which are to be carried out in respect to a project’s particular need and or a requirement. Scheduling Project Management Listing (SPMS)/INDOT FULL PROJECT LISTING. Is a project management tool that provides a highly productive environment for managing project data resources, scheduling, estimating, and funding. SPMS reports summarize data from various perspectives, including current project activity schedule baseline versus actual dates project cost versus budget cost. Electronic Records Management System (ERMS) is INDOT’S repository of official documents. ERMS store the documents with an indexing database that is analogous to the catalogue in a library. The electronic document types being stored in ERMS at this time include, but are not limited to, Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, Adobe PDF, Powerpoint presentations and images (.TIF, JPG, etc.) ERMS can store more than hundred electronic file formats. There is an FTP application for external users to upload files into ERMS. Finally there is a web portal INDOT (IWP) – that serves as the main gateway to ERMS and directs users to different areas within ERMS. INDOT Management Information Portal (MIP) draws most data from the Data Warehouse (DW), which is updated before the start of business every day. MIP is a web based file and can be accessed through, http://intranet.indot.state.in.us/bits/ helpdeskin.htm. • It varies by district. The PD&E report contains trade-offs made early in the development process. The Preliminary Engineering Report documents decisions before final design phase. • Letters to project files. • Meeting minutes of the Project Development Team • Memos, letters and design decisions in the permanent history files • Official environmental documentation, Design Memorandum, informal documentation in project design file • plan reviews and reports • Project documents • Project Managers maintain project files with calculations and supporting documentation. These files are subject to the state document retention policy and have a defined retention period. No additional documentation beyond design exception is gener- ally performed. • Project related memorandums, emails, and other correspondence is maintained by the Program Manager and Design staff as part of the project files. • Reports, letters or emails • Review with the Chief Engineer and document in a report • Scope document, design documentation • See section 1C-8 of Design Manual, but note that this is relatively new. Previously a less formal process of noting decisions in the file. • The design decisions are generally documented in milestone reports. Separate reports may be necessary when design com- promises occur outside of the timeline of these reports. We have general guidelines as to what information the documentation

116 should contain. The final plan checking process reviews the design decisions to ensure proper documentation and to ensure that the design elements have been included in the plans. • The project manager during the design stage is responsible for documentation of his/her own project. • Through PDT meeting minutes. • Typically trade-offs in the design process and covered by a memo to the project file describing the circumstances, design stan- dards, associated impacts and reasoning as to why the ultimate decision was made. • Value Engineer, Environmental Process, Accident History, Design Approval Process, or Design Exception • Written documentation placed in the project file. Design Exceptions and Design Waivers have their own VDOT forms which are placed in the project file and their own database. 13. In instances where a range of values may be acceptable for design purposes, how does your agency determine what value will be utilized for design purposes? • Assuming that right-of-way and environmental impacts are acceptable for the entire range of treatments, we compare costs for the minimum treatment with the desirable treatment. We then try to determine if spending additional money will result in a worthwhile benefit. Safety is a key consideration and is assessed through a review of crash history. • B/C, traffic, environmental, ROW, utility, etc... • Based on available budget as well as safety. • Based on safety history, project area context and engineering judgment. Cost is a Factor. • Case by case basis depending on highway classification, traffic volumes, and adjacent highway segments, location, project type, and project purpose and need. • Consideration of issues identified in question 11 • Designer determines best design with input from multi-disciplinary project management team • Designer determines the value with ultimate approval by Roadway Design Engineer • Designer determines the value. • Engineering discretion is utilized by the Engineer-of-Record to determine the most appropriate design solution. If practical, we avoid using minimum design criteria. • Engineering judgment. • Engineering judgment. • Engineering Judgment. • Expert opinion of Design Staff • Expert opinions considering the values under consideration and the quantitative values available. • Generally the lowest value is selected. • Guidance is provided in governing state design criteria; decisions and judgments are made by project designers and/or central office staff depending on degree of delegation • If possible, the most conservative number is usually used. • In our Road Design Guide we have major tables that have the 13 critical elements of design and more. We show a desirable standard and a minimum standard and we try to meet the desirable. We capture what we will be using for that particular project in the design report. If we don’t meet the minimum, we require a written exception for the project files. • location by location based on specific circumstances • Lower cost. • Minimum value unless otherwise necessary • Minimum values are used for design purposes (to control cost and impacts) unless there is a reason to use a different value. • Our PPM states the value to be used. Deviations from these are documented as Variations. • Project Manager determines the value in combination with geometric staff review • Project managers decision based on context and whether project is new construction rehabilitation. • Project Team makes the determination collectively, though the District has the greatest influence. • Safety remains the same or is improved and public needs are being met on the project. On more complicated projects this could involve a value engineering study where a weighted design matrix is created to document the decision. Sometimes benefit/cost matrix are created through applications, such as IHSDM, RSAP or travel capacity applications to balance public needs with perceived risks. Lesser decisions are done through engineering judgment and documented accordingly. • Safety would be considered as the most important factor • Start with highest value and work down (if necessary) based on safety, rights of way and cost. • State specific design guide outlining allowable as the norm. Desirable only used in rare occasions. • The Agency initially specifies the minimum design value that meets the requirements for the facility type, budget and the ‘Purpose and Need’ statement for the project. Then using the guidelines in the attached Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Vision for CDOT.pdf all stakeholders are given the opportunity to comment on the selected value throughout the design process. This is a collaborative process between the agency and all stakeholders.

117 • The Department’s intent is that all design criteria described in the State and federal regulations, manuals and guidelines be satisfied. If practical, the proposed design should exceed the minimum or lower criteria. If a range of values is provided, a design which is near the upper value should be provided. This is intended to ensure that the Department will provide a highway system which satisfies the transportation needs of the State and provides a reasonable level of safety, comfort and convenience for the travelling public. However, recognizing that this will not always be practical, the Department has established a process to evalu- ate and approve exceptions to geometric design criteria. • The least impact. • Try to get the higher value, but go with a lower value if controls warrant it. • Typically, it is left up to the designer and/or project manager’s decision. We avoid the lowest value in the range when possible. • Use Engineering judgment of the Engineer of record within the range of accepted values. • Using engineering judgment balancing costs and impacts to benefits • Values within ranges are intended to more closely tailor the design elements of a project to its surroundings. For instance, lane width is given as 10-12 ft. The 10 ft. value is appropriate for low-volume local roads while the 12 is used for principal arterial expressways and freeways. Indecently, this is what MoDOT believes to be true context sensitive design. Generally, the lowest value that will provide the purpose and need in a safe, effective manner, is the chosen value. • VDOT encourages the use of the safest design values possible for the design of a project. Minimum values provided in the AASHTO Green Book are not encouraged; however they represent the minimum value that can be utilized in project design without a design exception. • We typically specify discrete values, not ranges, for design criteria. • within the range of acceptable values, expert opinion is used 14. Does public involvement play a role in the approval process for a trade-off in the design selection process? 31 Yes 11 No If yes, please explain how PI impacts the process. • 1. Public involvement impacts the decisions made at the Environmental Impact and Environmental Assessment Studies. 2. Preliminary design values are presented or made available to the public which include all stakeholders and facility users for comments. Their goals and comments guide the agency to seek transportation solutions that fit the projects context. • Community acceptance during the public hearing process • During the NEPA public information process we answer all inquiries and document our answers. We also meet with neigh- borhood groups, Citizens advisory committees, etc and address their concerns. Many times if it’s very sensitive on our large projects we form working committees that come up with the solutions. These working groups also allow NDOT to present our standards, funding issues, construction problems, etc that are affecting the project. The final decisions fall on NDOT, but the input from the committees helps make the decision. • Especially on larger projects, stakeholder input is considered for items that will not adversely affect safety. • Feedback from Public Officials and general public is considered for suggestions, buy-in, and Resolution of Support. • If the public involvement process indicates that the affected landowners, business people and road users are willing to accept the downside of the trade-off, it is more likely to be approved. • If there is an acceptable range of values, we defer to PI within the range. • Local and regional input is mandatory during the design exception process. Otherwise, local input is obtained and used in the evaluation. • Local knowledge of traffic/pedestrian/bicycle/safety issues. Public input is used in conjunction with measurables/background information gathered for planning. • Maine has a very extensive public process • Not usually, but could. • Note: Public involvement plays a role in the trade-off process but not the final approvement. • Only for environmental/historical tradeoffs. • Only if the trade off was requested by the public. • Public input is one of many factors that go into the design process. Information and sentiment is gathered and weighed along with competing and complementary factors. • Public involvement is key to alternative selection; however, they are generally not involved in risk analysis comparisons. • Public involvement plays an important role as public input is solicited during all phases of project development, in particular during the environmental impact assessment and design phases. During design, public and community stakeholder involvement

118 is paramount because it is at this point we (INDOT) can present a greater level of detail rather than just concepts and illustrate visually the proposal at hand, garnering tangible feedback from the public, in addition to describing impacts. • public meetings • Public opinion & expectation of project elements • Public opinion and human impacts are part of the trade-off analysis. • Rarely • Shareholder input is received by the Program Manager and utilized to evaluate the design for a project. • Some projects have members of the public on the PDT. Other times there are public meetings held to evaluate different proposals. • Sometimes. If the PI leads to a decision where the trade-off is used. • Stakeholder input is considered when making design decisions. • structure & shoulder width shared with non-motorized, signalization, laneage in coordination with commercial/residential development • The design can have a community impact, so those have to be balanced in some cases • The public involvement process begins during project scoping and continues throughout the project process. Information obtained as part of the PI process informs the decisions made during scoping and design. If there is controversy regarding a planned design decision, that decision may be reviewed and even reconsidered in light of public opinion/information, and a different design outcome may result. • Understanding project area context is developed through public involvement. • Use of public meetings and project design open houses. • VDOT will hold a Citizens Information Meeting to present an issue(s) to the public for their review. Comments are received by VDOT and included in the assessment of the design issue. • We seek their input and attempt to get public buy in and acceptance to the maximum extent possible. • Work with the public to incorporate their comments on options • Yes from the standpoint that public opinion may cause us to revise certain features. The public doesn’t get to “vote” on design compromises. 15. How do you communicate the results of design decisions that have been made based on trade-offs in the design selection process to the general public? • 1. Press releases. 2. NEPA documentations. 3.Public Meetings and Open Houses 4. Stakeholder meetings (Local govern- ments, utility groups, etc) 5. Project Scoping Meetings 6. Field Inspection Review, FIR, Meetings 7. Final Office Review, FOR, Meetings 8. Community outreach programs such as mailings, emails 9. CDOT Website 10. Local governments and utility groups are invited to all project scoping, FIR and FOR meetings • All aspects of the project are open to the general public and decisions that directly impact them are publicized. In recent years, community relations staffers have become critical players both in the Central Office and the Districts. • At community meetings. • By means of a Citizen Information Meeting and/or updated information on the internet. • Don’t • During the development of projects, many of the public involvement activities take place during the development of the environ- mental impact assessment and design phases. Formal NEPA public involvement activities take place at this time which allows those activities (public hearings, public notices soliciting comment, project newsletters, websites, etc) to be fully documented within the environmental document for any given project. At the completion and approval of the environmental document, INDOT’s Public Hearings Office will notify the public and community stakeholders via public notice, project correspondence via U.S. mail and/or electronically disseminated, announcements posted onto INDOT’s webpage and list serve, in order to alert those concerned that their comments have been evaluated, addressed, and are available for review at those repositories listed within the notice and/or project correspondence. • During the NEPA process the decisions and reasons are included in the document. We also have a Final Design Hearing to show what’s included on the project. With the neighborhood advisory groups, etc. written minutes are included sent to all attendees and a copies are kept in the project files. • Hearings, environmental reports, and public information centers to present project. • If it is an issue of high public interest, the decisions are typically communicated through the environmental public involvement process or public meetings. Sometimes letters are sent to concerned citizens if the people affected are a smaller group and the effect is localized. • If we do at all, it might be at a subsequent public meeting or by a press release. • In the environmental document (EA or EIS) • Included in the public meeting(s) for the project. • Information is available if requested by it is not published to the general public. • It would be explained to the public at the Public Workshop held during the design process, typically after Preliminary Plans.

119 • N/A • Newsletters, websites and other published project information • Press releases, public meetings, letters • Primarily documented through hearings, public meetings and the environmental process. • Public hearings, public meetings, project newsletters • Public information meetings • Public Information meetings. • public meetings • Public Meetings • Public meetings either during design or during Early Prelim Engr (EPE) phase for major impact projects. • Public meetings or website announcements. • Public meetings without a lot of focus places on “trade-offs” • Public meetings, individual landowner meetings, press release, etc. • Public meetings, internet, newsletters, storefronts. • Public meetings, websites. • Reader friendly environmental documentation, webpages and project information • Some projects utilize a public involvement process which allows the general public to review and comment on proposed designs. The Program Manager is made available on all projects to discuss the design selection process. • Sometimes all the communication between the agency and community is through the city major or a public hearing. If there is a specific issue with lands or propriety, the communication is through the row staff. • These decisions are communicated to the public through our Public Affairs office and/or via follow-up public meetings. • This varies; public meetings, meetings with municipal/public officials, work with Public Advisory Committees (if project war- rants), revised reports, press releases... • Through open house community meetings, informational flyers sent to land owners, or through press releases. • Through public information officers and websites. • Typically not outside of the usual project documentation, unless there is a specific community impact or interest involving the issue. • Usually don’t • Usually part of the design presentation showing avoidance and minimization techniques • We would discuss in a public informational meeting when presenting the recommended concept • When it’s judged that communication of a particular issue or outcome is appropriate, it’s typically done through the ongoing public involvement process. If it’s a particularly consequential or large issue, general public affairs communication -- perhaps through the media -- can be necessary. 16. Are there any gaps, problems, or missing components in your STA’s procedures and tools associated with the design selection process relative to evaluating trade-offs? 21 Yes 21 No Please Explain • Although there are some guidelines provided to the design engineers, the evaluation of trade-offs usually relies on the engineer- ing judgment of the designer. • Design criteria are currently being evaluated to improve the guidance designers have available. An improved design exception process with better early involvement has been brainstormed and is in the process of implementation. Better coordination and collaboration is needed to ensure that interests of both internal and external stakeholders are equitably balanced. Better inte- gration of IHSDM and HSM in the process will occur over time. Enhanced tools, support and procedures for assessing risk are continually being developed and deployed. • Evaluating trade-offs has become a group decision and sometimes the identification of exception can be missed and trade-offs are never discussed. • I’m sure our process could be improved, but if I knew how, I would be trying to implement them. Political involvement and politically-based design decisions are always a potential problem. • In some cases, aggressive project schedules require a project to move forward prior to extensively evaluating all trade-offs. • It has worked well for decades. • Lack of experienced staff to evaluate alternatives and trade-offs, lack of sufficient funding to make the best choices, and lack of sufficient or standardized documentation. • Measures of effectiveness for project needs and objectives are currently being incorporated into our Procedures Design Manuals.

120 • Need to establish more detailed protocol and set up better documentation process. Currently, designers are encouraged to follow a process; however there is no process that is required to be followed unless the issue requires a design exception. • No formal process exists and there is no central authority to make decisions and maintain documentation leading up to those decisions. • no set procedures • Not every tradeoff can be evaluated qualitative, but this is why we have knowledgeable engineers. • Often environmental impacts are difficult to bring to the same common denominator as capacity and safety • Our local FHWA reps recently got guidance from Washington that all “should’s” in AASHTO basically equal “shall’s” for design exception purposes. This would put us (and many other states) out of compliance on some of our standard cross sections. Also, our FHWA office requires design exceptions on every criteria mentioned in the 2005 Design Standards Interstate System, not just the 13 controlling criteria. Is this consistent for other states? • Quantitative Tort Liability Exposure could be better defined • Since it is informal, it tends to be inconsistent. • Standard process is good, but for complex or controversial projects, procedures require adjustments of special components. • The HSM is going to provide assistance with safety impacts of some decisions, but it isn’t yet all-encompassing. Urban street safety is still sketchy, although AASHTO is providing some direction in the upcoming Roadside Design Guide. • The methods in place seem to be working well. MoDOT enjoys a customer confidence rating of about 95%. • There is no formal analysis of trade-offs that fall outside of NEPA process...i.e. political commitments/public commitment made after design • There are no significant gaps, problems or missing components in the Department’s procedures and tools associated with the design selection process relative to evaluating trade-offs that could utilize additional tools or programs. The Department’s intent is clear, however, each and every project’s design criteria and or, commitment’s are evaluated on a case by case process. • We are always looking for better fact driven information to help us make solid decisions • We are looking into a more formal use of the safety tradeoffs using the Highway Safety Manual • We do not have PI involvement. There may be others at times as well that our process does not force coordination with. • We’re trying to get our local FHWA involved in the interstate projects earlier to avoid confusion and delays later in the design process. • When process in policies are followed, gaps are minimal 17. What strengths or weaknesses exist in your STA’s current design selection process relative to evaluating trade-offs? Strengths: • 1. The Context Sensitive Solution approach is all inclusive, collaborative design and decision making process. All stakeholders and users have the opportunity to influence design decisions. 2. Explicit safety consideration. 3. Project level designers are actively involved in making recommendations for trade-offs for approval. • Above-average design criteria/guidance; good general awareness and understanding of the concept of tradeoffs; reasonable tort liability/immunity statute; written access management guidelines; good proficiency with traffic analytical tools. • Centralized design resources allow efficient coordination with multiple disciplines. The Program Manager serves as the central point of contact for a project and can evaluate information from multiple sources to determine the most appropriate solution. • Clearly documented process, design criteria based on context of project area. Safety review committees review all projects. • Complete documentation in the project history files • Design selections for more significant/expensive projects are reviewed by Central Office staff and design approval is granted by the Deputy Chief Engineer or the FHWA; standardized report shells provide an efficient way to ‘coach’ design staff regarding what needs to be evaluated, as well as to standardize the documentation provided; public input is sought as a routine courses of business; cost/benefit can be a strong tool. • Designers are empowered and have a great deal of autonomy in decision making. Flexible standards are in place allowing leaner designs without a formal exception. Management is open to design exception approval. • detailed crash analysis, itemized impacts, associated to meet criteria, geometric staff review and proposed mitigation measures documented • Exception (to AASHTO 13 critical elements) documentation. NEPA Process for major projects. • Flexible--hard to write a policy to cover all, or most, situations. • Flexible. • Have a core set of standards the Designers need to follow. The rest leaves flexibility to the Designer. • In the end we can get environmental permits for the project and we can get the project built. • It has worked well for decades. • Knowledgeable professionals in all areas.

121 • More than one engineer is involved in the trade-offs evaluations • Multiple reviews by many divisions and agencies provide adequate checks and balances. • New attention has been focused in this area and approval by Office of Design Director encourages consistency. • New Project Development and Design Guide • ODOT has a strong environmental evaluation process with good documentation. Capable reviewers are available to assist and direct decisions. • One of our strengths is the final approvals are confined to a small experienced group, which provides consistency for the depart- ment in the design selection process. • Our Vermont State Standards provide a lot of flexibility in the decision making associated with design values. • Process is in place to follow • Public involvement, commitment to safety, consideration of design and construction process...openness to innovative design and construction techniques. • Quantitative and Qualitative analysis by multiple stakeholders • Takes full use of multidisciplinary teams we use • The decision is transparent and documented • The Department provides context sensitivity training and design flexibility training for their designers and design managers. • The DOT, the design offices in particular, is relatively small so decisions can be made quickly during face to face meetings. • The highest level of the Department’s strength and success are mainly achieved by the strong efforts and inputs generated from our most expert employees, as well as, the INDOT’S executive branch leadership for making the best possible choices for the design selection process relative to evaluating trade-offs. • In 2009, the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) Office of Traffic Safety staff developed the Local Highway Safety Improvement Program Project Selection Guidance to support the goals of the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) for improving safety on local roads. The guide outlines procedures for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and local pub- lic agencies (LPAs) to identify high quality safety improvement projects for the use of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds, including: – Monitoring network performance relative to traffic safety; – Screening locations for safety issues; – Identifying feasible crash countermeasures; – Analyzing cost effectiveness of alternative investment choices; and – Prioritizing needs among candidate projects. To enhance the guide, INDOT consulted the Indiana MPO Council. Initial feedback indicated that additional information was needed in the document to provide assistance for developing successful HSIP project submissions, particularly for those organizations with limited staff and resources. The issues that needed to be addressed to ensure a successful program included: – Quality of crash data and restrictions on its accessibility; – Training for road safety audits; – Information on analysis tools; and – Additional technical support for local agencies outside of an MPO area. As part of its overall strategy to improve local road safety, INDOT and the Indiana MPO Council coordinated with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety to organize a peer exchange. The peer exchange would bring together Indiana safety stakeholders to discuss opportunities for MPOs and LPAs to work collaboratively with INDOT to improve safety. As part of the peer-to-peer process, the organizers of the exchange met over several weeks to identify peers that could assist the State with improving local participation in its HSIP program. All the peer agencies that participated in this peer event had experienced some level of success with local HSIP project implementation approaches and techniques. The selected peers included: Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC), Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). These peers were selected in order to engage Indiana’s MPOs in their HSIP process. The objectives of the peer exchange were to: – Discuss highway safety issues and current programs in Indiana; – Explain the value and purpose of the HSIP process to stakeholders; – Provide MPOs and LPAs guidance on how to have more input and control over how Indiana’s HSIP funds are spent; – Learn about the noteworthy experiences of peer MPOs with HSIP implementation; – Create an ongoing dialogue to improve Indiana’a HSIP stakeholders; and – Identify next steps to improve the HSIP process for local agencies and reduce traffic fatalities. More than 40 professionals representing 11 MPOs, the Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), and four INDOT district offices participated in the event.

122 • The project team process involves most or all of the stakeholders. • We have well defined processes for design exceptions, waivers and deviations. • We try to utilize national guidelines (AASHTO), as well as, state criteria to provide safe, cost-effective designs. We encourage multi-disciplinary involvement and discussions to determine the best solutions. We interact extensively with our FHWA office to review guidelines and revise them when appropriate. • We use priority programming and a systematic statewide approach to addressing safety within the state. • Well documented • When it works, the documentation level is appropriate to the need. The risks have been discussed and there is a general consen- sus that the right decision is being made. • Works well. Weaknesses: • 1. There isn’t always unanimity among the stakeholders. In certain cases it is difficult to reach a consensus on trade-offs. 2. Environmental trade-offs are not as well quantified and sometimes expose CDOT to regulatory consequences. • Analysis is sometimes too late in the process • Does not address that a combination of decisions that meet design standards could still create a poor design. • Flexibility exists, however, that flexibility is occasionally difficult to apply consistently within our organization. • Inconsistency. • Inconsistent from District to District. • It can be time consuming and a minority opinion can feel unheard. • It is very challenging to maintain an aggressive project schedule while attempting to coordinate effectively across multiple areas inside and outside of our Agency. • Lack of assurance that Variation (to state design criteria) documentation is consistent across districts. Documentation for Exceptions to local road standards. Incorporating human factors/driver expectancy into the design for our demographics. • Lack of communication between offices • Lack of consistent/predictable funding. • Lack of experienced staff to develop/evaluate trade-offs; reluctance of Regional staff to accept opinions/expertise of others outside their Region; Current needs far outstrip available resources, so cost makes the decision much of the time; Some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify accurately; the ‘vocal public’ does not necessarily represent the general public on any given issue, but can evaluate elements of a trade-off until what should be a technical decision becomes a decision influenced by politics. • lack of training for designers • Low utilization of IHSDM so far; occasional lapses in early involvement and collaboration with internal stakeholders and approving parties; schedule issues sometimes inhibit constructive processes; social, environmental and modal concerns some- times under emphasized in decision making; highway safety factors sometimes not well understood. • More flexible, context-based criteria has been incorporated into our Design Manual. However, we still need to drive the selec- tion of the most flexible, safe, and cost effective criteria by our designers. This is an ongoing culture shift driven by our Central Office. • No clear cut procedure. • No follow-up on performance of an expectation. • No formal decision making and documentation process exists. • No formal process to recognize and evaluate “all” trade-offs. • No well established process that is required to be followed (except for design exceptions/design waivers) • none that are evident • None. • None. • Often decisions are made by persons with little experience without consulting the experts in the field. Project Managers in ODOT have a range of extensive to virtually no experience, and the effects of that can be seen in project results. • People are creative and seeking the end result with the least effort (they may miss the big picture or the importance of documen- tation),. Newer tools are good if they add value and don’t create a situation where you feed the beast with no perceived benefit to the project. • Politics can still override any decision making process, no matter how technically sound it may be. Some employees are still uncomfortable with the amount of design freedom they’re given and its inherent responsibility. • Right-of-way issues seem to be the greatest hindrance to effective design. A single landowner can delay projects indefinitely and, if they are politically well placed, they can force undesirable compromises which could result in weakened tort defense. • Still working out details of what minimums are before a formal design exception to FHWA is required. Some discrepancy with FHWA.

123 • The Department’s hardest weaknesses in respect to the design selection process relative to evaluating trade-offs can be found in: – Engineering economic analysis is the classical means for assessing trade-offs in a highway-project. Comparison of road-user benefits against project costs, incorporating money’s time value, is the essence of engineering economic analysis. The pro- cess historically has been the most widely used project evaluation approach. Subjective influence imparted by the decision maker is restricted. The potential weakness of this traditional form of benefit-cost analysis is that it recognizes only tangible attributes. Non-monetary, external impacts (e.g., social and environmental consequences) receive no direct consideration. However, engineering economic analysis applies well where non-user impact are absent, minimal or identical for all alterna- tives, and user impacts have a market value. – Project strengths and weaknesses are clearly identified by using profiles of the project ratings for each criterion. Thus, strong projects are fully funded, weak projects are not funded and intermediate projects are funded to resolve weakness. – Due to the economic downturn, ongoing structural deficit in the nation, and uncertainty regarding the federal transportation funding, it has already become necessary for INDOT to adopt priority-setting criteria and priorities for the remaining fund- ing now available to implement projects in the near term of the long range transportation plan. INDOT’s hardest weakness is the inability to address all of its customer’s needs or concerns for the reasons in which described above. • There is no defined process to evaluate trade-offs • There may be additional areas that we need to cover with our processes. • Timely process • Too cumbersome • Vocal minorities, or vendors may bring pressure to decide outside acceptable ranges • When we get newer Project Coordinators and Designers it takes some time to get them trained in the process. Some errors and misses have occurred in the past leading to confusion with our FHWA. Risk 18. Please define acceptable risk with regards to the use of trade-offs in the design selection process for a typical project. • Accepting risks may be the most common “default” response in risk management. Mn/DOT eventually needs to determine reporting levels for acceptance to determine who needs to be informed of risks accepted based on the risk event impact and likelihood. Also, if active acceptance is determined to be the strategy of choice, the contingency plans that are put into place need to be captured in such a fashion that the record can be pulled up and applied if the risk event comes to pass. Concerns often surrounded how the Acceptance supports better management decisions. If a high-risk exists within a design choice, and resources are not available to administer an effective design change, the Acceptance response and documentation should sup- port management decisions to focus resources on higher level risks. In the future, the hope is that utilizing an acceptance risk response strategy for a design should depend on a sense of project history and may be subject to the evaluations of leadership, peers and investigating agencies. Because project risks are dynamic, consistency defining a common risk tolerance scale will be a difficult task and dependent on the defining corporate risk tolerance levels. • Acceptable risk includes a combination of all factors--safety, cost, tort liability, etc. Would no do exception if high risk. • Acceptable risk is not outlined in a matrix, safety is key and addressed by review of the statewide traffic engineer and resources to determine if risk is acceptable. • Acceptable risk is where public safety is not jeopardize • Acceptable risk might be defined as the acceptance of the responsibility of an unexpected event and its consequences because the probability. • Acceptable risk would be defined as little to no chance the trade-off would cause an increase in the number or severity of accidents. • An acceptable risk is one that does not compromise safety and meets the needs of the project. • B/C, IHSDM & projected crash rates associated with exception • case by case • Depends on trade-off. I can’t define acceptable risk. • Expert opinion is utilized to evaluate risk. The involved experts determine acceptable risk on a case-by-case basis by seeking input and evaluating data to determine the safety and operational effects to the project. • For many years, the customary approach to highway project development had been for engineers to gather information, make independent decisions, and then announce and justify their design plans to the public. “Such an approach is no longer feasible in today’s professional climate.” The public will no longer unquestionably accept project proposals, regardless of how well thought out they are. Rather, it is crucial to involve the public early in the process, and keep them involved, to reach a consensus that is acceptable to everyone.

124 With the expanding role of public involvement and the push to address concerns beyond engineering in highway projects come added responsibilities and considerations. Today, highway designers face many complex tradeoffs. A quality design requires thoughtful consideration of the needs of a variety of users, and it has to balance cost, safety, and mobility with historical, cultural, and environmental impacts. A quality design is more than simply assembling elements using standard plans or charts from a design manual. Highway engineers and designers need to understand the complex relationships between their design choices and the related risks. In the past recent years, through conferences, training, and new partnerships, INDOT and its partners have been working to bridge knowledge gaps and enable transportation planners and engineers to design with flexibility and employ context sensitive approaches with greater confidence and regularity. Understanding this evolving landscape of flexible and context sensitive highway design and how to thrive in it will enable INDOT to build and refine roads and other transportation facilities that not only meet safety and mobility requirements but also help create more livable communities. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) built on this philosophy in the 1973 edition of its publication A Policy on Design of Urban Highways and Arterial Streets (also known as the “Red Book”). In the preface, AASHTO encouraged a tailored approach: “Good design will not necessarily result from direct use of the policy values. To form a segment of highway that will be truly efficient and safe in operation, be well fitted to the terrain and other site controls, and be acceptably amenable to the community environment, it must be a carefully tailor-made design for the unique set of conditions along the segment.” Improving or maintaining safety, mobility, and infrastructure conditions.”CSS represents a departure from previous project development processes because it broadens the scope of considerations that factor into project decisions, going beyond just engineering principles and practices. As described by FHWA and AASHTO, CSS “is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders in providing a transportation facility that fits its setting. It is an approach that leads to preserving and enhancing scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and environmental resources, while transportation engineers and designers are trained to use accepted design criteria throughout project development. Striving to meet those criteria is the primary means by which high-quality roadways are produced. A highway or roadway that reflects full compliance with accepted design criteria decreases the probability that safety or traffic operational problems will develop. Therefore, using design values that lie within typical ranges provides a degree of quality control and a level of risk that transportation agencies consider acceptable. According to the Project Management Institute, risk is defined as an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on a project’s objectives. In other words, risk is a probability, not a certainty, and the level of consequences, positive or negative, are unknown. Risks can sometimes yield rewards. That is, a risk could bring about a benefit that would be unachievable without taking that risk. Or a risk might be more tolerable when it is low relative to the potential benefit of the action incurring the risk. The key is to understand and evaluate potential risks associated with a project and weigh the pros and cons to make the best decisions possible. In an ideal world, agencies would reduce or mitigate all potential risks associated with a project. But in the real world, limited budgets coupled with increased demands on agency staffs necessitate prioritizing where resources will be concentrated. Risk management is the process of identifying, evaluating, prioritizing, and mitigating risks, which guides a coordinated approach to minimize, monitor, and control those risks and their impacts. Part of this process is assessing the probability with which certain risks might occur. To the extent possible, risks should be quantified, both on the basis of their probability and their potential consequences. Risk management starts early in the project design with identification of the range of potential risks and then selecting the most critical ones to mitigate or plan for. The process continues throughout the project design and requires knowledge of the project- specific risk factors and the exercise of sound professional judgment. Identifying risks involves analysis of all pertinent issues. Knowledge of a project’s geographic, environmental, safety, and traffic conditions and the assumptions underlying the design standards is essential to understanding the risks associated with selecting and applying those standards. Knowledge of human factors--how drivers interact with their vehicles and the road--can help identify potential flaws in the design that might not be readily apparent in the engineering drawings. In many cases, the risks associated with a decision can be mitigated with inclusion or enhancement of other features that could offset the risk. • For sag vertical curves and narrow shoulders. Using engineering judgment and experience the changes of an accident occur- ring is very unlikely. We’ve done this before and provided lighting for the sag curves and emergency services for broken down vehicles in the narrow shoulder areas and haven’t experienced any major accidents caused by these tradeoffs. • History, accident data, are there current problems that need to be mitigated • I agree with the example above. Also, it should meet prevailing design criteria. • Matrix • Mn/DOT started a formal “journey” with Risk Management almost 2 years ago. Mn/DOT believes that Risk Management practices, processes and skills are valuable for creating transparency and stimulating innovation through helping to make more

125 informed decisions about projects and design choices. Mn/DOT believes that Risk Management is not only a tool and process, but a language and academic field that can drive productive conflict, progress, and management of risks at multiple levels of gov- ernment. While the vision is to successfully integrate risk management throughout Mn/DOT, implementation has been mindful of both need and demand for the service. Implementation of Risk Management practices throughout Mn/DOT will continue to be a journey. At first, the implementation has focused around program delivery decisions and has branched out as new areas of complex decision-making are recognized. The use of risk-based approaches has already proven to be a rewarding partner- ing effort at various levels that includes evaluating alternatives for designs for a few major project decisions. Accepting risks may be the most common “default” response in risk management. Mn/DOT eventually needs to determine reporting levels for acceptance to determine who needs to be informed of risks accepted based on the risk event impact and likelihood. Also, if active acceptance is determined to be the strategy of choice, the contingency plans that are put into place need to be captured in such a fashion that the record can be pulled up and applied if the risk event comes to pass. Concerns often surrounded how the Acceptance supports better management decisions. If a high-risk exists within a design choice, and resources are not available to administer an effective design change, the Acceptance response and documentation should support management decisions to focus resources on higher level risks. In the future, the hope is that utilizing an acceptance risk response strategy for a design should depend on a sense of project history and may be subject to the evaluations of leadership, peers and investigating agencies. Because project risks are dynamic, consistency defining a common risk tolerance scale will be a difficult task and dependent on the defining corporate risk tolerance levels. • Most is Engineering Judgment, or based on guidance material. • Most risks are based on the crash history of the area and not reducing criteria if no crash history exists. • N/A • No real definition of acceptable risk. We normally do the best that we can within the constraints. • No specific risk thresholds have been established for the agency. Quantitative risk analysis is sometimes used to compare alter- native design decisions based on cost. Environmental: Risk is seen as the likelihood that CDOT will incur regulatory fines and other financial harm such as that when partnerships with regulatory agencies are damaged. • No such formal procedures are typically used. • Not defined by VDOT. Evaluating risks looks at all factors involved with the design issue. • Our risk evaluation is informal. Risks associated with safety are our primary concern. This is evaluated through extensive review of crash histories. • Quantitative and qualitative depending on the issue. • risk analysis not undertaken, trade-off determined by the maximum safety and facility benefit with reasonable and available budget • Risk associated with loss of life is evaluated qualitatively • Risk is assessed subjectively on a project by project basis. A risk is considered acceptable where the impact to safety is minimal. • Risk is defined by our standards and the Design Committee’s review of any exceptions. We do not have a formal risk system. • Risk is evaluated by evaluating the number and type of crashes at the location attributed to the deficiency or by similar condi- tions elsewhere for new facilities. That is also combined with professional judgment to reach a conclusion. • Risk is usually only considered informally so we don’t have a definition. • There are no tools used to help define the acceptable risk. Do not feel comfortable to document an “acceptable” risk on a project. • Trade-off decisions are often made base on past practice and comparison to similar projects where such trade-offs can be dem- onstrated to not have had a safety impact. • Use of qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis and expert opinion to determine the likelihood of an event occurring. • We are beginning to consciously incorporate risk analysis into our process. In general, acceptable risk is probably the condition you describe: likelihood improbably and severity of consequences minimal. • We do not measure risk • We track crashes with a Safety Investment Program (SIP) Category. On category 1-2 projects more risk is accepted because the conditions have not increased in the number of crashes. • We use risk matrices and evaluate risk on all projects on a case by case basis. 19. Please define unacceptable risk with regards to the use of trade-offs in the design selection process for a typical project. • A risk would be considered unacceptable if there is a significant impact to safety considerations. • An unacceptable risk is one that does create a higher risk or perceived risk uncertainty with minimal perceived benefit. • case by case • Depends on trade-off. I can’t define acceptable risk. • Expert opinion is utilized to evaluate risk. Similar to number 18, the involved experts determine unacceptable risk on a case-by- case basis by utilizing all available input and data to determine the safety and operational effects to the project.

126 • For vertical clearance. Using engineering judgment and experience the chances of an accident occurring is unlikely, if there is an accident there are great risks involved. The interstate can be shut down for a long time, which can in itself cause rear end collisions to occur. The possibility of fatalities can increase dramatically. • Gross negligence is unacceptable. All design decisions are to be based on sound engineering judgment. Decisions are to be documented. • I agree with the example stated above, especially with regard to safety and operations and durability/sustainability of the project. • If a crash history exists, this project area must be corrected with appropriate Design Criteria. • In the future, we hope that after completing a design risk analysis and identifying strategies to minimize those risks, the residual risk can be compared to the corporate risk tolerance (for example safety risk). If that level of residual risk cannot be tolerated, additional resources and design strategies will be necessary. After Mn/DOT becomes more and more sophisticated with risk management, the designer can explore reducing resources from design activities that manage low risks, and engage in a process to focus on high risk levels before taking design action to manage risks to a tolerable level. In the future, we hope to see each ongoing design strategy requiring attention in order to ensure that risk levels remain acceptable. All threatening risk events can never be eliminated. While perfection is certainly a desirable goal, no risks or perfection may not be worth the cost or effort to achieve and maintain (akin to the “law of diminishing returns.”). However, there is a risk level that a designer should identify as unacceptable. Management’s challenge is to define a risk threshold levels throughout Mn/DOT that is important to maintain. • It is the responsibility of project managers to determine whether arguments for or against flexibility in establishing acceptable or unacceptable risk levels are sufficiently compelling for use in their jurisdiction. If calculated risk exceeds a numerical limit then project managers must determine if this exceeding represents unacceptable risk. Another important aspect is the different interest of each stakeholder may prone to be conflicted with the interest of each other. What may be perceived as unacceptable risk by one individual and or, group of stakeholders may be acceptable in the view of the others. In practice, the numerical results of systematic, rigorous, and transparent risk analyses are used as inputs into a risk management process that does not have the same performance attributes of the risk assessment process. The risk management process often transforms the definition of acceptable or unacceptable risk in a non-transparent manner resulting in inefficient multi-criteria decision-making and public confusion as to what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable risk. If the cost of possible mitigations and or, recovery process cost required for a typical project which can result in failure surpass its benefits, then it would be fair to say that “the risk taken for this project is of an unacceptable risk.” • Matrix • Most is Engineering Judgment, or based on guidance material. • Most unacceptable risks are related to situations that lead to budget creep and schedule delays based on design decisions. • N/A • No real matrix analysis. More of an agreement of several knowledgeable representatives on the PMT. • No specific risk thresholds have been established for the agency. We are focused on comparing design alternatives within con- strains of the available budgets. • No such formal definition exists • Purpose and Need • Quantitative and qualitative depending on the issue. • Reducing safety to deliver a project within the programmed cost is unacceptable • Reduction in safety and the likelihood of increase of crashes would be unacceptable regardless of schedule or budget creep. Mitigative measures would control those factors. • risk analysis not undertaken, trade-off determined by the maximum safety and facility benefit with reasonable and available budget • Risk deemed as unacceptable during the safety review mentioned above as well any time that there is a high likelihood of any item that would threaten the scope, schedule or budget of the project. • Risk is usually only considered informally so we don’t have a definition. • SIP category 3-5 projects have an increase number of crashes and thus reduced standards could increase already high number of crashes. • The opposite of above. • There is no value placed on lives/safety. Budget and schedule are not nearly as important as safety and would not be considered unreasonable to change. • Unacceptable risk could be defined as the consequences of trade-off decisions being unsafe and non-durable projects. • Unacceptable risk for this agency generally involves reducing safety of a facility (perceived or data-driven), or making choices that would delay a project out of a fiscal year, or would increase costs to more than 110% of budget. • Unacceptable risk might be defined as the event that has been rejected or ausided to occur because its consequences are consid- ered a hazard to human life or threat to reach a desired goal and project success

127 • Unacceptable risk would be any trade-off that resulted in an anticipated hazardous condition on the roadway. We have not utilized risk analysis to assess schedule and budget creep. We have not addressed this well to date. Consequently, we have not defined acceptable/unacceptable risk for these areas. • Unacceptable risk would be defined as a trade-off that would cause an increase in the number or severity of accidents. • Unacceptable risk would be one of two outcomes in the previous response. • We use risk matrices and evaluate risk on all projects on a case by case basis. 20. Does your STA have risk prediction tools or techniques to assist in balancing competing interests as part of the design process? 12 Yes 30 No If yes, please describe the tool/technique and how it fits into the project development process. • CRA/CEVP/self-modeling for cost and schedule Roadside safety analysis procedures • Draft Highway Safety Manual, Roadside Safety Analysis Program. • IHSDM, Roadside Safety Analysis Program (not currently in use) • IHSDM, RSAP, Value Engineering, Accident History • INDOT is currently using Accident Reduction Factors developed by the State of Missouri. These factors are shown in the Indiana Design Manual Section 50-2.03(05); see figure 50-2G. The ARFs are applied to the total number of accidents, regard- less of the number of people or vehicles involved, when calculating accident reduction factors and hence limiting amount of risk that may be apparent and or predicted. INDOT also collects work zone crash data, queue and delay measurements and evaluates general work zone conditions. The crash data is obtained from the statewide Automated Reporting Information Exchange System (ARIES). The data is collected for the construction period and compared to a non-construction period at the location of the work. A comparison of the two sets of data is used to formulate conclusions about work zone safety and needs for improvement to policy and standards and is used to identify potential risks for incidents, travel delays or increased congestion. Projects that have the greatest impact to travelers will involve the Public Safety Operations (PSO) Division of the Traffic Management Business Unit to provide assistance in identifying innovative methods of risk avoidance and consider methods to reduce or avoid traffic incidents during construction. • Most of the risk assessment has been built into the standards. • On projects larger than $100 million we require a risk analysis process be performed on it. These are usually completed by con- sultants, since there is no one available with expertise currently. We are currently looking at where and what we should be using. • Safety analysis and accident rate comparisons. • To deal with uncertainty we use Quantitative Risk Analysis decision trees in concert with sensitivity analysis of cost/benefits. Environmental: Unacceptable risk would be non-compliance with the Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act, the later has already seen Notice of Violations and Consent Orders at CDOT. Additional violations will affect not only the project in question, but the repercussions affect CDOT as a whole. • Value Analysis Study • We do not have a quantitative risk matrix but risk is discussed at each milestone with expert opinions from key individuals and risk management also looks at each project. • We require that all non-standard features (i.e. proposed critical design elements that do not meet design criteria standards) be justified in a standardized format that includes an accident, benefit/cost comparison, anticipated effects and proposed mitiga- tion. This process is required prior to and approved at the time of design approval. • While the vision is to successfully integrate risk management throughout Mn/DOT, implementation has been mindful of both need and demand for the service. Steps are currently ongoing to implement Risk Management processes throughout project delivery. Are initial goal is to start developing living risk registers throughout the state for major projects and continue to deliver training for folks involved in project level risk management. Major steps in a Risk Management Process include: 1. Gather Information (Performance Measures, data, etc.); 2. Create Vision or Context or project objective statement; 3. Brainstorm Risk and create specific risk statements; 4. Forecast probability of risk statement occurring; 5. Judge Impact, assuming the event occurs. Based on Project purpose and need or Vision of Success; 6. Prioritize Risk Statements by the product of likelihood and impact; 7. Develop Risk Response Strategies for High Level Risks (Designs); 8. Judge Effectiveness of Strategies, upon how strategy mitigates impact or probability; 9. Assign Accountability; 10. Assign Rough Cost; 11. Monitoring and Lessons Learned; 12. After new information or change, updating the risk register at Step 1 again.

128 21. If your STA does have risk prediction tools or techniques, are they 1 Quantitative 3 Qualitative 11 Both 25 None Tools and Training 22. Does your STA have any specific tools to assist designers in evaluating trade-offs in the design selection process? 21 Yes 21 No If yes, please describe the tools available. • Guidance on design exception justification in Road Design Manual Chapter 2; 2. Strategic risk management tools and resources, including: a risk management process expert and facilitator; Risk Management classes; facilitation techniques video clips; an E-learning class in Risk Management basics; templates for Risk Registers; some guidance. • Crash analysis in relation to geometric elements at site specific locations • Design Policy manual addresses typical tradeoffs. There is also a formalized design process. Internal Designs have a formal QA/QC process. • do not have anything sophisticated such as the Australian Quantum software • Draft Highway Safety Manual, Roadside Safety Analysis Program. • Highway Safety Manual • IHSDM, RSAP, Value Engineering, Accident History • INDOT applies the Roadway Safety Analysis Program (RSAP) in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of a design in respect to the following modules: – Encroachment Module, – Crash Prediction Module (this software implements Part C of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM)), – Severity Prediction Module, and – Benefit/Cost Analysis Module. • Life cycle cost and value engineering. • Mentorship and training courses • Minimum Design Standards, AASHTO Policy (Green Book), Roadside Design Guide, etc. • NEPA Guidelines • Our design exception process provides guidance for evaluating design decisions which fall outside of documented guidelines. • Our manual of instruction does address this issue as well as other resources dealing with strategies to properly mitigate excep- tions to the STA standards. • Qualitative and quantitative depending on the issue. • Research, NCHRP, IHSDM, etc... • Safety Assessment Process deals with safety explicitly and is institutionalized at CDOT. • There is flexibility built into our design criteria which is based on project context, beyond traditional functional classification. • Value Analysis Study • VDOT utilizes a Context Sensitive Design Handbook and the FHWA publication ‘Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions.’ • We have a design manual which discusses conditions under which tradeoffs should not be made and references the AASHTO A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design, 2004 document, a justification of NS features form that provides guidance on the areas to consider when proposing to incorporate a NS element. • WSDOT Design Manual 23. Does your STA have any training to assist designers in evaluating trade-offs in the design selection process? 18 Yes 23 No If yes, please describe the training available.

129 • 3 day geometric/design exception class • But we are developing some especially when it comes to Exceptions. • CDOT has the Transportation Engineering Training Academy program. It is part of the Project Development training program. • Context Sensitivity training -- 2 day workshop providing case studies and evaluation tools to be utilized by the designer. Context Sensitive Handbook. • Design courses available on different issues such as safety, environmental issues, cost estimate development, etc... • Design Standards Training, Mentoring, etc. • Design training is offered on a regular basis to enhance the ability for design staff to make an appropriate decision. By offering a diverse cross section of engineering training, we expose our design staff to information and practices which can be used and to create and evaluate design decisions. • Designers are required to participate in training in Geometric Design, Roadside Design, Context Sensitive Design, etc., all of which builds their knowledge of appropriate design standards and how to balance standards when necessary. • Have had Context Sensitive Solutions training courses • Mentorship and training courses • More training is always helpful. Budget and staff in constraints have made this challenging. Distributed low cost training, such as webinars, are becoming more popular. • NEPA Training for all Planning Staff • Not specific training but the basic training in all technical specialties gives the designers the ability to make judgment about the relative merits of making trade-offs • Ongoing training is not provided although it is addressed with some ad hoc training during conferences or quarterly meetings. • Risk Analysis training and Value Analysis training • Risk management classes (mentioned above under Question 22) and advanced design flexibility curriculum wherein tradeoffs are discussed • Roadside Design, Geometric Design, Conference, PM training. • The list described below represents some of the training courses and or webinars available, for which the in-house design- ers and or, engineers were required to attend in 2010: Design Flexibility Webinar, Highway Safety Manual (HSM), Culvert Rehabilitation Techniques, Urban and Suburban Intersection (HSM), LRFD Foundation Review, AASHTO Section 12.12 LRFD, Designing Streets for Pedestrian Safety, Context Sensitive Design…etc. • Training available through FHWA Courses if necessary and informal training by other staff. • Training has been provided on Safety Reviews as well as the application of context based design criteria through our Smart Transportation Guidebook. • training is available in the area of context-sensitive design, and roadside safety. Self-training in electronic format is available for geometric design. • WSDOT project development training and University training courses. Your Experience 24. Has your agency developed any specific performance goals regarding the evaluation of trade-offs in the design selection process? 5 Yes 37 No If yes, please provide the goals developed. • Between FY 2008 and FY 2010, INDOT reduced its operating expenses by $61.5 million (14.9%). This performance is especially impressive when considering that transportation investments-both new construction and preservation initiatives-are achieving record levels, in part due to the Major Moves program and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Specifically, during FY 2009 and FY 2010, INDOT committed nearly $3 billion in fund to improve the State’s Transportation infrastructure. This, on average, is 39% greater than the prior period investment. – In 2006, Indiana partnered with the Indiana Toll Road Concession Company to lease the toll road for a period of 75 years in exchange for $3.8 billion. The proceeds from this collaboration help fund the Major Moves highway improvement program (and saves INDOT the approximately $35 million a year it was spending to maintain the toll road). INDOT committed $488.1 million of the toll road lease proceeds in FY 2010. This partnership has also become a model for other States. – INDOT actively participates in the continuing, comprehensive and collaborative planning process with 14 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) throughout the State. Represented by MPOs, each of these 14 areas have populations over 200.000 (Group I) or 50,000 (Group II). MPOs assist in making the community planning process in urbanized areas a collaborative and coordinated effort among the many local government agencies within their planning areas. With approxi-

130 mately $200 million in federal-aid funding available every year, the MPOs play a large part in Indiana’s metropolitan transportation picture. – As part of the department’s efforts to increase knowledge about the Local Public Agency (LPA) Process and to better equip local agencies to complete a federal-aid project, the department has developed a local Guidance Document (LGD). The LGD provides information and resources on the necessary steps to complete a federal-aid project in accordance with all federal regulations. – INDOT is making the best use of its funding by cutting costs and increasing productivity. Despite a more severe winter in FY 2010, person hours devoted to weather were decreased by 23%, and overtime hours decreased by 21%, resulting in a total decreased weather hour cost of 13%. • Crash reduction goals and right-sizing cost savings goals • E.g., for bridges, rehabilitation work must provide a certain life at an acceptable condition rating to justify the cost of rehab. • Make our transportation network “safer,” make our infrastructure “last longer”, make our organization a place that “works well”, make our organization a “great place” to work • Target Zero under safety 25. Can you provide an example(s) of successful implementation of trade-offs in the design selection process. • 1. The US 285 EA project received an award for CSS. The design implemented some variations to a design based entirely on safety and mobility. This was documented in a paper presented to TRB as part of an NCHRP study currently being con- ducted. 2. US 36 -- Responded to public input relative to managed lane separation and shoulder design to reduce the projects footprint and impacts. 3. 6th and Wadsworth -- Trade off on superelevation on a loop ramp to reduce ROW impacts. 4. Parker/225 -- Replaced flyovers with left turn lanes. • Downtown Chaska (Trunk Highway 41, still in planning/design): Tradeoffs were explored between competing cross sectional width elements to arrive at an efficient and safe cross section and equitable balance. This included design exceptions for lane width and shoulder width. Included in the consideration was the need for a wide raised median for traffic calming and pedes- trian refuge. Additionally, non-warranted traffic signals are included in the proposal to aid in safe pedestrian crossings. This was negotiated with the local city, who agreed to make every other cross street a right-in/right-out condition in exchange for the non-warranted signals. This project is an example of tradeoffs in competing design elements as well as functional, operational and safety elements. Although non-warranted signals are typically considered dubious from the standpoint of safety, overall expected safety is improved due to the ped safety improvement and the leveraged access restriction. • I-235 project had areas of tight ROW in an urban setting. There was not enough room in one area to provide required shoulder width without purchasing massive ROW or building complex retaining walls. Interstate standards would have required a 12’ median side shoulder in this area and there was only room for 6’. The shoulders were built at 8’ and the lanes were reduced to 11’. It was considered safer to have space for a car to get off so the shoulder was built at 8’ and the lanes were narrowed to 11’. • In general, eliminate parabolic cross-section in a horizontal curve to provide straight line superelevation, particularly on high side with 3R project, but possibly not to full design criteria while avoiding ROW acquisition and addressing crash concerns • INDOT pavement preservation initiative was implemented that adds life to existing lanes and decreases construction costs. The life of equipment and other assets has been extended through repairs and refurbishment, and contracts have been secured to purchase 71 pieces of heavy machinery for $1.2 million below cost estimates. • In FY 2008, INDOT added a new chapter to its design manual as a guide. This guide regarding the design of Non-motorized- Vehicle-Use Facility provides a source of guidance to implement the Indiana Trails, Greenways, and Bikeway plan. A safe, convenient, and well-designed facility is essential to encourage public use. This Section (51-7.0) provides information on the development of facilities to enhance and encourage safe non-motorized-vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle travel. A shared-use path facility is required to comply with the American with Disability Act of 1990 (ADA) so that it is functional for all users, both with and without disabilities. A non-motorized-vehicle-use facility provides a much safer pathway for the non-motorized multiple users comparing to other motorized pathways. • MD5 Leonourdtown--Heavy movement of horse and buggy on mainline of state highway. Revised typical section of roadway to accommodate horse and buggy safely with cars. • MoDOT has undertaken an enormous bridge replacement program on a greatly reduced budget. Some of the trade-offs involved reasonable roadside hardware considerations such as delineation only option for bridge ends on very low-volume roads. There were hydraulic trade-offs such as small increases in upstream rise where appropriate. Deck widths were decreased, employing narrower shoulders on minor road structures. Due to these and numerous other considerations, 800 bridges will be replaced or undergo major rehabilitation within three years at a fraction of the cost of replacing the same number, within the same timespan, by conventional methods. • n/a • Narrow median through a wetland to reduce the R/W footprint • No • No

131 • No specific projects. • No. • No. • No. • On the US 95 widening project in Las Vegas from I-15 to Summerline we needed to add additional travel lanes, but the roadway was located in massive cut section. We couldn’t achieve the shoulder on the median or outside of the travel lanes, so no shoul- ders were included on the project. This was allowed because it was considered an interim project until the massive project was advertised 5 years down the road. We provided a 24 hour emergency resource van for the five years to remove broken down vehicles quickly and to assist on accidents. We continue to have the 24 hour emergency resource van because of the positive feedback from the public. • Our design criteria for 3R work on non-NHS arterials, collectors, and local roads use of existing elements with design speeds less than the posted speed. We call these “tolerable controls.” • Point Marion Bridge Project, Bridge type selected based on environmental factors. • Public involvement frequently affects our design development. There have been a number of projects where the public has weighed in to say they’d prefer a “lesser” alternative with fewer impacts, than one meeting all the standards. Not being involved with the specific projects, it’s hard to discuss the specifics in detail. • Shoulder width on freeways • Yes, many potential “trade-offs” have been implemented in the area of lane/shoulder width, etc... Not sure that any of the proj- ects would be appropriate for a case study but would be willing to attempt. • Yes. We are in the midst of studying our state design criteria. During the initial review we analyzed two projects in the Tampa are where trade-offs were necessary to expand 2 lane rural roads into six lane suburban roads with minimal ROW acquisition. Would you be willing to allow this project to be used as a potential case study for the synthesis, which would require identifying your agency affiliation with the case study results only? 8 Yes 22 No Design Exception Process 26. How many design exceptions does your agency process in a typical year? Annual number of design exceptions Range 1 to 700 with a mean of 74

132 27. How many of these design exceptions are approved in a typical year? Number of approved design exceptions Range 1 to 600 with a mean of 65 28. Has the advent of context-sensitive design, context-sensitive solutions, or design flexibility increased the number of design exceptions processed by your agency in a typical year? 7 Increased 4 Decreased 28 No Change Please explain. • Although it is appropriate to have flexibility in some design standards our commitment as highway designers is to comply with full or at least minimum required standards. • Although the term Context Sensitive Design has been discussed with much more frequency in the last several years, the concept has been around for some time. The principles of CSD have been applied for number of years, therefore we have not seen an increase in design exceptions from it. • Although we have a new Project Development and Design Guide which embraces the CSS and design flexibility principles, we basically were always doing projects in a context sensitive way. • CDOT’s design criteria is the same as AASHTO’s which allows for Design Flexibility and CDOT generally select design values that are at least the minimum value per AASHTO publications. • Context sensitive solutions have been successfully implemented within our Agency and the resulting design decisions do not always translate into design exceptions. We are generally able to implement shareholder input without varying from our accepted guidelines and practices. • CSD has tended to raise awareness among design staff of opportunities for design flexibility and the need to balance design factors versus each other and versus social and environmental factors. The increased awareness has led designers toward sub- standard but appropriate solutions and reduced inhibitions about seeking design exception approval. • CSS considered but not with compromise to geometric design criteria • Designers are encouraged to look outside the box and look for solutions that better reflects the stakeholders’ interests. • FHWA rarely considers CSD as adequate standalone justification for design exceptions. CSD is frequently used for the SHA on an informal process. • Increased design flexibility is being implemented. • More flexible design criteria have reduced the number of features that require Design Exceptions. • Our VT State Standards were implemented in 1997, there were many more exceptions then that there are today. This is due mostly to a higher comfort level with implementing the flexibility in those standards • The advent of CSD/S, flexibility in design has raised awareness that the best project may involve some combinations of features that do not all meet standard design criteria, but which allow a project to be incorporated into the surrounding community in a way that preserves or creates a facility that is both safe and meets the needs of the users. • The Department’s CSS policy and procedures are still being formulated, so CSS has not yet had a great impact on our process. • The philosophy of picking appropriate standards and designing to those standards has been prevalent at the Department. This philosophy is in concert with context sensitive designs. If the standards are appropriate, the need for a design exception is less.

133 • To date we haven’t had an increase in exceptions for true context sensitive issues -- we have had an increase in design exceptions to reduce right-of-way impacts, but the context is almost exclusively cost based. • We have incorporated these into our process years ago. • We have practiced the principles of CSS for a long time and meet prevailing criteria • With more flexibility built into the standards, the need to seek exception has greatly reduced. 29. For which type of design exceptions do you typically receive the most requests? Please rank the top 3 by indicating the greatest number of requests as 1, second as 2, and third as 3. Greatest Number of Requests Design Speed 1 Lane Width 2 Shoulder Width 18 Bridge Width 1 Structural Capacity 0 Horizontal Alignment 5 Vertical Alignment 4 Grade 1 Stopping Sight Distance 3 Cross Slope 1 Superelevation 1 Vertical Clearance 0 Horizontal Clearance 1 Second Greatest Number of Requests Design Speed 2 Lane Width 5 Shoulder Width 8 Bridge Width 2 Structural Capacity 0 Horizontal Alignment 7 Vertical Alignment 3 Grade 3 Stopping Sight Distance 0 Cross Slope 2 Superelevation 2 Vertical Clearance 3 Horizontal Clearance 1

134 Third Greatest Number of Requests Design Speed 2 Lane Width 3 Shoulder Width 8 Bridge Width 1 Structural Capacity 0 Horizontal Alignment 4 Vertical Alignment 8 Grade 4 Stopping Sight Distance 1 Cross Slope 0 Superelevation 2 Vertical Clearance 3 Horizontal Clearance 2 All Responses Design Speed 5 Lane Width 10 Shoulder Width 34 Bridge Width 4 Structural Capacity 0 Horizontal Alignment 16 Vertical Alignment 15 Grade 8 Stopping Sight Distance 4 Cross Slope 3 Superelevation 5 Vertical Clearance 6 Horizontal Clearance 4 30. Please indicate on a scale of 1 to 10 how willing your agency typically is to consider a design exception for a particular controlling criteria, with 10 being very likely to consider a design exception for the listed criteria and 1 being not likely to consider a design exception for the listed criteria. Design Speed – Average 3.9 10 Not Likely 1 5 2 8 3 1 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 4 8 1 9 1 10 Very Likely

135 Lane Width – Average 6.2 0 Not Likely 1 2 2 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 6 4 7 13 8 2 9 1 10 Very Likely Shoulder Width – Average 7.7 0 Not Likely 1 0 2 1 3 1 4 4 5 2 6 9 7 4 8 12 9 6 10 Very Likely Bridge Width – Average 5.5 1 Not Likely 1 4 2 5 3 4 4 6 5 3 6 6 7 6 8 2 9 2 10 Very Likely Structural Capacity – Average 2.0 24 Not Likely 1 5 2 5 3 1 4 2 5 0 6 2 7 0 8 0 9 0 10 Very Likely

136 Horizontal Alignment – Average 5.7 1 Not Likely 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 4 5 10 6 8 7 3 8 3 9 1 10 Very Likely Vertical Alignment – Average 6.4 2 Not Likely 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 7 9 2 10 Very Likely Grade – Average 6.1 0 Not Likely 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 9 6 6 7 4 8 4 9 2 10 Very Likely Stopping Sight Distance – Average 4.5 3 Not Likely 1 4 2 11 3 3 4 6 5 2 6 6 7 3 8 0 9 1 10 Very Likely

137 Cross Slope – Average 5.4 1 Not Likely 1 5 2 2 3 5 4 4 5 8 6 7 7 5 8 2 9 0 10 Very Likely Superelevation – Average 5.5 1 Not Likely 1 4 2 2 3 3 4 7 5 7 6 8 7 7 8 0 9 0 10 Very Likely Vertical Clearance – Average 4.5 6 Not Likely 1 5 2 5 3 4 4 5 5 1 6 8 7 3 8 1 9 1 10 Very Likely Horizontal Clearance – Average 5.2 3 Not Likely 1 4 2 3 3 4 4 6 5 4 6 8 7 6 8 1 9 0 10 Very Likely

138 31. For each of the controlling criteria listed, is your STA’s criteria for new construction and reconstruction higher than AASHTO’s (check one for each)? STA Criteria Greater Than AASHTO STA Criteria The Same as AASHTO STA Criteria Lower Than AASHTO Design Speed 6 32 1 Lane Width 6 33 1 Shoulder Width 5 33 1 Bridge Width 2 35 1 Structural Capacity 2 36 0 Horizontal Alignment 1 38 0 Vertical Alignment 2 38 0 Grade 2 38 0 Stopping Sight Distance 4 36 0 Cross Slope 5 35 0 Superelevation 3 37 0 Vertical Clearance 11 29 0 Horizontal Clearance 5 35 0 32. Please select the most common and next most common trade-offs associated with a design exception for the corresponding criteria: Design Speed Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 1 Cost 3 Environmental Issue 2 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 0 Operational Efficiency 3 Right-of-Way Availability 7 Safety 10 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 1 Cost 8 Environmental Issue 4 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 6 Operational Efficiency 3 Right-of-Way Availability 2 Safety 1 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 0

139 All Responses Access Management 2 Cost 11 Environmental Issue 6 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 6 Operational Efficiency 6 Right-of-Way Availability 9 Safety 11 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 4 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Lane Width Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 7 Environmental Issue 3 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 1 Operational Efficiency 2 Right-of-Way Availability 16 Safety 5 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 1 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 1 Cost 9 Environmental Issue 5 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 6 Operational Efficiency 2 Right-of-Way Availability 10 Safety 2 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 0

140 All Responses Access Management 1 Cost 16 Environmental Issue 8 Historic Impact 3 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 7 Operational Efficiency 4 Right-of-Way Availability 26 Safety 7 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 1 Shoulder Width Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 10 Environmental Issue 4 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 2 Operational Efficiency 0 Right-of-Way Availability 16 Safety 5 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 8 Environmental Issue 7 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 2 Operational Efficiency 1 Right-of-Way Availability 11 Safety 6 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 0

141 All Responses Access Management 0 Cost 18 Environmental Issue 11 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 4 Operational Efficiency 1 Right-of-Way Availability 27 Safety 11 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Bridge Width Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 24 Environmental Issue 2 Historic Impact 3 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 0 Operational Efficiency 0 Right-of-Way Availability 1 Safety 7 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 8 Environmental Issue 8 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 2 Operational Efficiency 3 Right-of-Way Availability 6 Safety 6 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 0

142 All Responses Access Management 0 Cost 32 Environmental Issue 10 Historic Impact 4 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 2 Operational Efficiency 3 Right-of-Way Availability 7 Safety 13 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Structural Capacity Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 1 Cost 10 Environmental Issue 2 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 0 Operational Efficiency 0 Right-of-Way Availability 1 Safety 10 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 8 Environmental Issue 3 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 0 Operational Efficiency 4 Right-of-Way Availability 1 Safety 2 Schedule 2 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 3

143 All Responses Access Management 1 Cost 18 Environmental Issue 5 Historic Impact 3 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 0 Operational Efficiency 4 Right-of-Way Availability 2 Safety 12 Schedule 3 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 3 Horizontal Alignment Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 10 Environmental Issue 4 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 0 Operational Efficiency 2 Right-of-Way Availability 14 Safety 5 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 6 Environmental Issue 4 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 4 Operational Efficiency 0 Right-of-Way Availability 7 Safety 11 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 1

144 All Responses Access Management 0 Cost 16 Environmental Issue 8 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 4 Operational Efficiency 2 Right-of-Way Availability 21 Safety 16 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 3 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Vertical Alignment Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 14 Environmental Issue 3 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 0 Operational Efficiency 2 Right-of-Way Availability 8 Safety 8 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 5 Environmental Issue 6 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 8 Operational Efficiency 0 Right-of-Way Availability 4 Safety 10 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 0

145 All Responses Access Management 0 Cost 19 Environmental Issue 9 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 8 Operational Efficiency 2 Right-of-Way Availability 12 Safety 18 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Grade Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 16 Environmental Issue 3 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 2 Operational Efficiency 4 Right-of-Way Availability 4 Safety 6 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 7 Environmental Issue 5 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 4 Operational Efficiency 3 Right-of-Way Availability 8 Safety 7 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 0

146 All Responses Access Management 0 Cost 23 Environmental Issue 8 Historic Impact 3 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 6 Operational Efficiency 7 Right-of-Way Availability 12 Safety 13 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Stopping Sight Distance Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 7 Environmental Issue 1 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 1 Operational Efficiency 1 Right-of-Way Availability 4 Safety 22 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 7 Environmental Issue 3 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 7 Operational Efficiency 4 Right-of-Way Availability 7 Safety 2 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 4

147 All Responses Access Management 0 Cost 14 Environmental Issue 4 Historic Impact 4 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 8 Operational Efficiency 5 Right-of-Way Availability 11 Safety 24 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 4 Cross Slope Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 10 Environmental Issue 3 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 3 Operational Efficiency 3 Right-of-Way Availability 3 Safety 14 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 1 Cost 9 Environmental Issue 3 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 2 Operational Efficiency 4 Right-of-Way Availability 3 Safety 7 Schedule 2 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 3

148 All Responses Access Management 1 Cost 19 Environmental Issue 6 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 5 Operational Efficiency 7 Right-of-Way Availability 6 Safety 21 Schedule 2 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 3 Superelevation Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 9 Environmental Issue 2 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 4 Operational Efficiency 2 Right-of-Way Availability 3 Safety 16 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 1 Cost 7 Environmental Issue 4 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 5 Operational Efficiency 4 Right-of-Way Availability 4 Safety 6 Schedule 2 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 3

149 All Responses Access Management 1 Cost 16 Environmental Issue 6 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 9 Operational Efficiency 6 Right-of-Way Availability 6 Safety 22 Schedule 2 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 3 Vertical Clearance Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 23 Environmental Issue 1 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 1 Operational Efficiency 0 Right-of-Way Availability 1 Safety 8 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 1 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 6 Environmental Issue 3 Historic Impact 2 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 2 Operational Efficiency 10 Right-of-Way Availability 4 Safety 3 Schedule 1 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 2

150 All Responses Access Management 0 Cost 29 Environmental Issue 4 Historic Impact 3 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 3 Operational Efficiency 10 Right-of-Way Availability 5 Safety 11 Schedule 2 Social Concerns 3 Tort Liability Exposure 2 Horizontal Clearance Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 13 Environmental Issue 3 Historic Impact 0 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 1 Operational Efficiency 0 Right-of-Way Availability 6 Safety 10 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 0 Next Most Common Trade-Off Access Management 0 Cost 10 Environmental Issue 3 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 2 Operational Efficiency 2 Right-of-Way Availability 7 Safety 7 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 0 Tort Liability Exposure 2

151 All Responses Access Management 0 Cost 23 Environmental Issue 6 Historic Impact 1 Human Factors/Driver Expectancy 3 Operational Efficiency 2 Right-of-Way Availability 13 Safety 17 Schedule 0 Social Concerns 2 Tort Liability Exposure 2 33. Please list the most common mitigation measures utilized for design exceptions of the corresponding criteria. Does the listed mitigation measure make it more likely, equally likely, or less likely that a design exception would be accepted? Design Speed Most Common Mitigation Measure • Active Traffic Mgmt • Advanced Warning Signs, Reduced Speed Limit Signs • Advisory posting for reduced speed • An evaluation of actual running speeds. However, we typically don’t grant design exceptions for this. • Design exceptions not allowed for design speed • Haven’t done • Increased Stopping Sight Distance • Lower posted speed • N/A • N/A. Design speed is never excepted. • NA • none acceptable • Other design elements fashioned to support and be consistent with the selected design speed. • Post curve warning sign • Properly signing • Rarely used, but signing could be used • Reduce posted speed limit • Reduce posted speed limit • Reduce Speed Limit • Reduce travelway width/use curb & gutter section • reduced design speed • Reduced posted speed • Reduction of posted speed • Right-of-way • Roadside safety improvements • Safety • Signage • Signage • Signage • Signage • Signing • Signing, reduced posted speed, VMS messaging and advanced warnings • Use of urban typical section, medians, landscaping, narrower lanes

152 Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 15 More Likely 10 Equally Likely 3 Less Likely Lane Width Most Common Mitigation Measure • Adequate shoulder width to pull a vehicle off, milled shoulder rumble strips • Adjusting speed limit, signing • An assessment of traffic volume and characteristics -- low volumes and low percentage of trucks may enhance the possibility of a design exception. • Better wearing surface, better delineation. • Delineation • enhanced pavement markings, RPM’s • Improved Alignment • lack of accident history; other traffic calming measures in appropriate situations • Lighting • none • None • Optimize shoulder width and condition • Pavement marking improvements, raised pavement markings • Rarely used, pavement markings • Reduce Speed • Reduce speed limit • Reduce speed limit • Reduce speed limit • reduced lane width • Reduction of design speed and/or posted speed • Right-of-way • Safety • shoulders/horizontal clearance, wider thru lane than turn lane, low truck volume • Signage; audible/vibratory pavement marking • Signage/lane restriction • Signing • Signing • Signing, wide load restrictions at specified times, reduced posted speeds • Speed reduction and advisory signing • Striping, illumination, reduce speed • Striping/pavement markers • Traffic volumes • Typically so other criteria can be met -- may have some visible delineation Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 13 More Likely 18 Equally Likely 0 Less Likely Shoulder Width Most Common Mitigation Measure • Adjusting speed limit, striping • Driver expectancy • Flatten surface tapers and in-slopes • General improvement

153 • Guardrail • Guardrail • guardrail, horizontal clearance • have used some signing and markings to indicate reduced shoulder • In low-speed urban environments, other design elements fashioned to support lower-speed operation. • Increased Clear Recovery • lack of accident history; low demand for use by bikes or peds • Lighting • Milled shoulder rumble strips, narrow lanes slightly to get adequate width for stalled car, paved shoulder • none • None needed • Object markers, signing • paved shoulders, rumble strips • Provide wider shoulder in some areas • Pull off areas • reduced shoulder width • Reduction of design speed and/or posted speed • Right-of-way • Roadside safety improvements/pavement marking improvements • Rumble strips • Rumble strips, occasional pullouts and guardrails • Signage • Signing • Signing • Signing, reduce speed • Stabilization of shoulder • Stable shoulder, better delineation. • Transverse Pavement Marking in Paved Shoulder; audible/vibratory pavement marking • visible delineation or rumble strips Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 18 More Likely 14 Equally Likely 1 Less Likely Bridge Width Most Common Mitigation Measure • Advanced signing of narrow bridge • Advanced signing of narrow bridge pavement marking improvements • Advanced Warning Signs • An assessment of traffic volumes and characteristics. • Delineators • delineators, reflectors • Guardrail on bridge ends • Increased Sight Distance • Lighting/signage • Long bridge • Low traffic volume and speed • N/A • Narrow bridge signs, upgraded approaches. • narrower crash tested railing • non • none • none • None

154 • Not available. • Object markers • Rarely applicable--almost always on 3R situations • Reduce shoulder width • reduced bridge width • Reduction of design speed and/or posted speed • remaining consistent with adjacent highway section • Right-of-way • Safety • Signage; delineator on concrete railings/parapets; upgraded railings • Signing • Signing • Signing • Signing • Signing • Signing, wide load and heavy truck restrictions Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 11 More Likely 15 Equally Likely 2 Less Likely Structural Capacity Most Common Mitigation Measure • Advanced warning for weight limit enforcement • Advanced Warning Signs • Haven’t done • n/a • N/A • N/A • N/A • N/A. Structural capacity is never excepted. • None • None. • not allowed • Not applicable--only in 3R situations. • Not available. • Not considered • Not used • Post bridge • Post weight limits • posted load limit • Posted weight limit • Posting limits • Rarely seen but would probably be signing limiting load weight • Reduced Weight Limits • Right-of-way • Safety • Signing • Signing • signing for load limits • Signing, wide load and heavy truck restrictions

155 Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 4 More Likely 10 Equally Likely 4 Less Likely Horizontal Alignment Most Common Mitigation Measure • Advance sign warnings, chevron sign in curves, adjust lane within travelway • Advanced warning per MUTCD • Advanced Warning Signs • advanced warning with signing or pavement markings • Advisory Signing • Advisory speed signing • Advisory speed signing • Chevrons, advisory speed signs • Delineators, reflectors, signing, chevrons • Driver expectancy • Enhanced signing and delineation • Flattening side slopes through the curve, guardrail installation. • improve sight distance, signing, speed reduction • Increase Signage • Post curve warning sign • Reduce posted/regulated speeds • Reduce speed limit • Reduce speed limit • reduced speed advisory signing • reduced speed warning signs • Reduction of design speed and/or posted speed • Reflectors on barrier • Right-of-way • Signage • Signage/lower posted speed • signing • Signing • Signing • Signing, milled shoulder rumble strips, partial width paved shoulders • Signing, VMS messaging and advance warnings • signing; widening on curves (not common, but used) • Speed reduction and advisory signing • Speed rider • tighter radius • Widen shoulders Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 20 More Likely 13 Equally Likely 1 Less Likely Vertical Alignment Most Common Mitigation Measure • adequate comfort for sag VC, hidden drive/limited sight distance advisory signing • Advanced warning signs and improve visibility • Advanced Warning Signs, Street Lighting

156 • Driver expectancy • illumination, signing, speed reduction • Improve lighting • lighting • Lighting • Lighting sag vertical curve • Lighting/lower posted speed • Marking no-passing zones • N/A • None • None. • Reduce speed limit • Reduce speed limit • Reduce speed limit • reduced speed warning signs, lighting • Reduction of design speed and/or posted speed • Right-of-way • sharper vertical curve • Signage • Signage for crest curves and lighting for sag curves • signing • Signing • Signing • Signing, lighting in some cases • Signing, VMS messaging and advance warnings • Speed reduction • Street lighting of substandard sag vertical curves. • typically would relate to grade or SSD • Warning signs, advisory speed signs Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 15 More Likely 14 Equally Likely 2 Less Likely Grade Most Common Mitigation Measure • Advisory signing • Advisory signing, paved shoulders, shoulder rumble strips • Improve ability to recover if driver leaves the lane/crash cushions • Improve Sight Distance • Installation of truck climbing lanes where warranted. • longer accel or decel lanes, passing lanes, signing • None • Passing lanes • Provide advance warning sign • Provide flatter/longer landings • Reduction of design speed and/or posted speed • Right-of-way • Safety • Signage • Signage • Signage (for steepness & passing zone locations) • signing • Signing

157 • Signing • Signing • Signing • Signing • Signing • Signing • signing or climbing lane • Signing, escape ramps, passing opportunities • Signing, VMS messaging, advance warnings, climbing lanes, passing lanes and truck escape ramps • Speed reduction • steep grade advisory signing • steeper grade • Truck climbing lane • warning signs • Warning signs, advisory speed signs Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 18 More Likely 15 Equally Likely 1 Less Likely Stopping Sight Distance Most Common Mitigation Measure • Adjust horizontal/vertical curve alignments • Entrance/Intersecting Road relocation • Evaluation of features associated with the site. • Improve signage • Improve signing, advanced warning and reduce posted speeds • Lighting sag vertical curve • lighting, lower posted speed; signage • Lower posted speed/signage • Marking no-passing zones • none • none • not considered • Reduce Speed • Reduce speed limit • Reduce speed limit • Reduce speed limit • reduced speed advisory signing • Reduction of design speed and/or posted speed • Right-of-way • Safety • Signage advance warning • signing • Signing • Signing • Signing and reduced posted speeds • Signing and/or lighting • Signing, advisory signing • signing, illumination • SSD is rarely excepted but could be mitigated with speed reductions or signing • Use a low barrier when median barrier is a sight obstruction. • Widen Shoulder

158 Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 16 More Likely 12 Equally Likely 1 Less Likely Cross Slope Most Common Mitigation Measure • Additional drainage features • Closely spaced drainage inlets or other drainage facilities • Consider lower posted speed (urban areas). • Drainage improvements • high-friction asphalt; signing • improve drainage • Improve signage • Improve surface friction • improved drainage • improved drainage where flatter than criteria, low speed urban where higher than design criteria • N/A • none • none • none • none • None • None • None • None. • Place crown points at edge lines • reduced % of cross slope • Reduction of design speed and/or posted speed, increased drainage features • Right-of-way • Safety • signage (slippery when wet); open graded friction course • Signing • Signing • Unknown • Use of OGFC, PEM, grooving • Wearing surface friction Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 11 More Likely 11 Equally Likely 2 Less Likely Superelevation Most Common Mitigation Measure • Advanced Warning Signs • advanced warning with signing or pavement markings • Corrected or advanced signing per MUTCD • Flattening the side slopes through the curve, guardrail installation. • high-friction asphalt, signing • Improve drainage • Improve surface friction • Lower posted speed

159 • lower posted speed, improve skid resistance • None • None • None. • Pavement markings, rumble strips • Post curve warning sign • Reduce Speed • Reduce speed limit • Reduce speed limit • reduced speed advisory signing • reduced speed warning signs • reduced superelevation • Reduction of design speed and/or posted speed • Reflectors on barrier • Right-of-way • Roadside safety improvements • Safety • Signage • Signage • signing • Signing • Signing and reduced posted speeds • Speed reduction and advisory signing • Wearing surface friction, advisory signs Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 13 More Likely 14 Equally Likely 3 Less Likely Vertical Clearance Most Common Mitigation Measure • Advance signing, truck restriction • Advance warning for motorists • Advance warning signs • Advanced warning signs • Advanced Warning Signs • Advisory signing • Another route with adequate clearance • Improve signage • Not used. Signing • Provide alternative truck routes • reduced vertical clearance • Right-of-way • Safety • Sign and redirect oversize vehicles to another route • sign and redirect oversize vehicles to another route • Sign and redirect oversize vehicles to another route • Sign and redirect oversize vehicles to another route • Signage • Signage • Signage • Signage for vertical clear • signing • Signing

160 • Signing • Signing • Signing • Signing • Signing • Signing, load height restrictions, and advance warnings • signing, public outreach, detours • Signing. • Truck restrictions • warning signs Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 18 More Likely 13 Equally Likely 2 Less Likely Horizontal Clearance Most Common Mitigation Measure • barrier • Barrier • Barrier to shield object • Delineate objects • Delineation • delineation of roadside obstacles • Delineation, shielding • delineation, shielding, reduce pole conflicts with joint use requirements. • Guardrail • Guardrail • Guardrail • Guardrail, cable rails and crash barriers • Improve signage • installation of barrier • Lane width, parking width • Lighting improvements • Lower posted speed/guardrail • narrower crash tested bridge barrier, remove brush blocks, max lane width • none • none • None • Placement of object(s) to minimize operational interference. • reduced horizontal clearance • Reduction of design speed and/or posted speed • Right-of-way • Safety • Shielding • Signing • Signing • Signing/lighting. • Warning signage Mitigation Measure Impact on Acceptance of Design Exception 14 More Likely 13 Equally Likely 1 Less Likely

161 Future 34. Are there any plans to reevaluate how your agency evaluates trade-offs in the design selection process in the next 6 to 12 months? 10 Yes 29 No Please explain what potential changes may be considered or why no change is planned. • Adequate process in place. • all aspects of design are already considered for each project with current procedure • CDOT is developing policies and recommendations for the Practical Design concept for implementation in the near future. • continue to update policy and improve safety analysis tools • Criteria recently updated. • Currently, no changes are planned as there have not been any problems with current policy. • Further development of AMFs for SSD would be helpful in evaluating tradeoff, currently utilizing HSM for safety tradeoff, its use will be expanded. • In our agency there should be on how to evaluate trade-offs in the design select process. • No discussion of changes at this time. • No overarching change planned. The current method of comparing effects and costs with benefits is intended to provide a bal- anced outcome. We are looking at livable/sustainable community aspects and how to best incorporate into current standards and practices. Resources constraints also affect our ability to develop and implement new procedures. • No plans because the issue has not become “hot” within the Department • Our Project Development Process is being re-evaluated by Department staff. The evaluation of the design is part of this process. • Planning to implement monitoring of performance in locations where design exceptions have been approved. • Schedule periodic review • The guidance is relatively new for us and was difficult to get approved, so we will be looking at ways to improve it now that it is in place. • There is an overall policy initiative towards a flexible design policy and practice, which includes the continued emphasis of context sensitive design as our overarching goal as well as emulation of Missouri DOT’s Practical Design in some form. As part of this initiative, we are re-examining our standard design criteria, starting with the 13 critical elements, with special emphasis on elements where Mn/DOT policy exceeds AASHTO Green Book policy. • This does not seem to be a problem for our agency at this time. • Through practical design efforts over the past 5 years, MoDOT manages tradeoffs as a routine part of doing business. • Using the Highway Safety Manual to evaluate on a project-specific basis various tradeoffs in roadway cross-section options to stay within existing right-of-way. • We are always willing to consider changes to our process. However, we do not have a formal review scenario for this. • We have planning training dealing cost benefit analysis during the design process which should create additional documentation to be used as a resource. • We’re satisfied with our current process 35. Are there any plans to reevaluate how your agency evaluates design exceptions in the next 6 to 12 months? 5 Yes 34 No Please explain what potential changes may be considered or why no change is planned. • Adequate process in place. • continue to update policy and improve safety analysis tools • Currently, no changes are planned as there have not been any problems with current policy. • Currently, no changes are planned as there have not been any problems with current policy. • Heightened awareness to proper documentation was begun years ago and is improving. Training modules have been developed so that we can have few re-submittals in the future. • MoDOT recently reevaluated its design exception policy and arrived at a solution that’s mutually acceptable to the Central Office, the Districts and the FHWA. • No discussion of changes at this time. • Our procedure is constantly evolving and may be revised as the need occurs

162 • Planning to place more emphasis on risk and cost related to design exceptions. • Recently updated. • Schedule periodic review • The current tool is effective if properly used. • The design exception process will be evaluated as part of an on-going annual review of our State design manuals. • The guidance is relatively new for us and was difficult to get approved, so we will be looking at ways to improve it now that it is in place. Some of the criteria that we could not get agreement with FHWA hasn’t been approved yet. Also, we will be writing an new 3R agreement soon. • This does not seem to be a problem for our agency at this time. • Very few Design Exceptions processed by our Division. • We have an successful design exception process • We have planning training dealing with mitigation strategies for design exceptions but we do not have any plans to change the evaluation process. • We have recently received a seminar about how to prepare design exceptions and the documentation for liability issues • We recently went through a continuous-improvement evaluation of our design exception process, which is currently in the process of implementation. • We’re satisfied with our current process Summary 36. We are interested in any further comments that you may have with regards to how your agency deals with risk in the design selection process when evaluating trade-off considerations in highway geometric design. • As mentioned previously, PennDOT’s Smart Transportation approach is focused on applying criteria that is aligned with the surrounding project area. • For new alignments, we generally want to meet all standards. For projects on existing alignments that have substandard condi- tions, we will evaluate accident data. Depending on what the data reveals, the substandard elements will either be considered acceptable, or will be mitigated fully or partially. • I would like to comment on a couple of areas: Design Exceptions: Although SHA does follow a process for design exceptions, we do not frequently apply for them. Most cases that we have applied for recently are existing conditions which we are improving but not correcting to 100% AASHTO compliant. However, that decision is based off of the existing safety issues that the existing condition may or may not have. If there are no existing safety issues with the deficient design, we are less likely to make it 100% compliant if funding is an issue or if there are significant impacts. If the existing condition does present a safety issue, SHAwill make every effort to address deficient design with less emphasis on costs or impacts. Basically, safety will always be the main deciding factor on whether or not a design exception will be allowed or considered. Risk Assessment: Once again safety is typi- cally the deciding factor when it comes to assessing what risks SHA will take when modifying or deciding on design features. There is no formula or tool used to help bring SHA to a final decision, rather engineering judgment along with historical data and trade-offs are all considered when making a final decision. • Interested in how other states determine when design exceptions are necessary. Our FHWA office considers anything that the AASHTO Greenbook says “should be considered” to be a requirement. Also, how others handle criteria that is not from the AASHTO Greenbook. For example, LRFD or Design Standards Interstate System. We are required to do design exceptions for anything in these documents, not just the 13 controlling criteria. • It would be nice to have some low cost/high impact improvement guidelines in order to achieve a good design without sacrific- ing safety. • Much of the information regarding Design Exceptions was left blank as our agency does so few throughout the year that there are no mitigation measures that would be considered common or more likely to be used than another. • none • None • None. • Our evaluation of risk is primarily a decision by knowledgeable design professionals considering documented facts and input from stakeholders. • Risk analysis, per se, is not undertaken. It’s mainly a matter of geometric and operational safety vs cost to upgrade. • Too worn out after the last 34 questions to offer any additional feedback. • VDOT has used risk matrices on a number of Public Private roadway projects where the scope of work is still somewhat vague due to the fact that 30% plans are used to negotiate contracts. Roadway designers utilize the information in the FHWA publica- tion “Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions” and numerous NCHRP reports to make sound engineering judgment related to design trade-offs. Any new guidance related to risk management and/or design criteria evaluation from AASHTO will be greatly appreciated.

163 • We are shifting to a Matrix type of organization at this time and part of the process is to look at more risk analysis on projects. Currently we have consultants perform risk analysis on projects over $100 million and are looking at doing a reduced risk analy- sis on projects above $20 million. The problems we are facing at the moment are a very small staff in our cost estimating group and because of the economy the possibility of expanding that group isn’t looking promising at the moment. • We are using a “Complete Streets” approach and consider the needs of all users (motorist, bicyclist, pedestrian) as we look at trade-offs and risk. We consider all projects on a case by case basis considering the context, and balance lane widths, shoulder widths and sidewalks for accommodations of all users. • We would like to increase our evaluation of risk during the design selection process. • While many of the pieces of this survey are beneficial, the term trade-off is a difficult one to define in my mind. Highway proj- ects are a balance of so many factors, while we may use the flexibility within our standards to navigate the host of issues, I would not necessarily consider that a “trade-off.”

NEED SPINE WIDTH TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Vice Chair: Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. BARRY BARKER, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA WILLIAM A.V. CLARK, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles EUGENE A. CONTI, JR., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh JAMES M. CRITES, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, TX PAULA J. HAMMOND, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia MICHAEL W. HANCOCK, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley MICHAEL P. LEWIS, Director, Rhode Island DOT, Providence SUSAN MARTINOVICH, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington TRACY L. ROSSER, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA STEVEN T. SCALZO, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO BEVERLY A. SCOTT, General Manager and CEO, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA DAVID SELTZER, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA LAWRENCE A. SELZER, President and CEO, The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA KUMARES C. SINHA, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN THOMAS K. SOREL, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT, St. Paul DANIEL SPERLING, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis KIRK T. STEUDLE, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing DOUGLAS W. STOTLAR, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PETER H. APPEL, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA ANNE S. FERRO, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LEROY GISHI, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.DOT JOHN T. GRAY, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC DAVID T. MATSUDA, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT VICTOR M. MENDEZ, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC TARA O’TOOLE, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC ROBERT J. PAPP (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT PETER M. ROGOFF, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT DAVID L. STRICKLAND, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT JOSEPH C. SZABO, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT POLLY TROTTENBERG, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA *Membership as of June 2011. Abbreviations used without definition in TRB Publications: AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA Air Transport Association ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETY-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

92+ pages; Perfect Bind with SPINE COPY = 14 pts Trade-Off Considerations in Highway Geometric Design NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 422 N CH R P SYN TH ESIS 422 Trade-Off Considerations in Highw ay Geom etric Design NEED SPINE WIDTH Job No. XXXX Pantone 202 C TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 500 F ifth S treet, N .W . W ashing to n, D .C . 20001 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED TRB A Synthesis of Highway Practice