Developing an Expanded Functional Classification System for More Flexibility in Geometric Design (2018)

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.

29 EXISTING CLASSIFICATION USES As part of this project, a survey was administered to state agencies and practicing professionals who deal with functional classification issues. The main goal of the survey was to establish how agencies practice functional classification and to identify how its implications and potential issues manifest in design. A secondary goal was to identify new efforts that agencies have pursued toward exploring an alternative classification system. The survey was designed to first solicit information on the existing classification systems and then to identify possible new systems that agencies are considering. The survey was distributed to the AASHTO Committees on Design and Planning as well as to various other organizations including National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, Center for New Urbanism (CNU), and ITE. Their responses are summarized in this chapter. PARTICIPANT INFORMATION A total of 267 participants responded to the survey. A plurality of respondents (39%) were employed in a state agency (representing at least 38 states, as shown in Figure 7), followed by consultants (32%) and city agencies (18%). There was an almost even split regarding the primary area of practice between design (50%) and planning (58%), with a smaller percentage (10%) indicating programming as their primary area (note: participants could select more than one entry). A significant number of respondents considered themselves part of upper management (20%), with nearly as large percentages indicating they were division managers (17%) or branch/section managers (16%). A significant portion (23%) also indicated they were project managers. A majority of the respondents (82%) had over 10 years of experience. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IMPACTS The next section of the survey asked about the influence of the FCS on project development activities. Responses were grouped into five areas: programming, planning, design, construction, and maintenance and operations. Each group was analyzed separately to determine whether specific issues arose within each phase. For all phases, many of the participants (close to or over 50%) indicated that federal reporting has an influence (or requirement) on the current system.

30 Figure 7 State DOTs responding to survey Programming Figure 8 shows the responses for the Programming phase. The majority of the respondents indicated that impacts were observable in the project definition or scope (81%). All other areas also exhibited large reported impacts. Additional comments indicated the potential for establishing design standards during this phase, and also noted that possible conflicts between state and local jurisdictions could arise over whether project design standards undermine community goals.

31 Figure 8 Effects of classification on Programming Planning Figure 9 shows the responses for the Planning phase. The majority of the respondents indicated that impacts could be noted in the planning (84%) and development of the purpose and need statement (65%) as well as in corridor definition (62%). Functional classification may also impact project definition (62%) and project prioritization (48%). Public involvement and modal alternative evaluation also garnered a significant number of responses. Design Figure 10 presents the responses for the Design phase. The majority of the respondents answered that impacts could be noted in the selection of the design parameters (90%) and corridor definition (64%). Evaluation of alternative alignments (63%) and public involvement (39%) also ranked highly. Project Definition/Scoping Project Funding Project Prioritization Federal Reporting Other (please specify)

32 Figure 9 Effects of classification on Planning Figure 10 Effects of classification on Design Planning Purpose and Need Project Definition Prioritization Corridor Definition Alternative Evaluation-Analysis Public Involvement Federal Reporting Other (please specify) Project Definition Corridor Definition Federal Reporting Other (please specify) Public Involvement Alternative Evaluation-Analysis

33 Construction Figure 11 presents the responses for the Construction phase. The majority of the respondents observed that impacts could be noted in the selection of the maintenance of traffic options (77%) and federal reporting (40%). Project scheduling (33%) also ranked highly. Figure 11 Effects of classification on Construction Maintenance and Operations Figure 12 presents the responses for the Maintenance and Operations phase. The majority of the respondents indicated that impacts could be noted in the development of signal operations plans (60%) and scheduling of resurfacing (51%). Removal of snow or ice also ranked highly (45%). Figure 12 Effects of classification on Maintenance and Operations Federal Reporting Other (please specify) Project Scheduling Maintenance of Traffic Signal Operations Other (please specify) Federal Reporting Snow/Ice Operations Resurfacing Scheduling

34 Design-Related Issues The next question assessed the effectiveness of the FCS on various aspects of the design process. Participants evaluated its effectiveness on a 5-point scale. A weighted average was computed for each item with scores of 1 for “Not effective” and 5 for “Very effective”. Average scores for all facets of the design process were above 2.5. This demonstrates that the FCS is somewhat (more than moderately) effective in addressing the issue of concern (Table 3). The design processes that scored the lowest were for providing guidance for transit, bikes and/or pedestrians (2.6), and for guidance on design decisions to balance modal benefits (2.6). An array of other issues has been identified with a low score of 1.9 indicating that the FCS does not effectively address them. Included in this category were the lack of distinction for suburban roadways, the lack of better classification for urban areas, no recognition of main streets requiring both mobility and access, the use of typical templates that do not reflect the classification (10 responses), the emphasis on vehicular needs and lack of consideration of other modes (16 responses), the lack of distinction between local and regional travel, issues with funding formulas, and the disconnect between (planned) land use and classification (8 responses). Table 3 Summary of scores for FCS assessment Design Process Aspect Average Score Serving land use/context functions or needs 2.8 Guidance of design decisions involving transit, bikes, and/or pedestrians 2.6 Guidance of design decisions to balance modal benefits 2.6 Appropriate/optimal design elements for particular roadways 3.0 Ability to communicate with public 2.9 Differentiation of roadway classifications 3.5 Accurately describe and define roadway function 3.2 Collaborative planning with local agencies 3.1 Other 1.9 Design Exception Controlling Criteria Another question asked about the potential impact of the FCS on specific design criteria, specifically, the 13 controlling criteria used in design exceptions. Most of the respondents replied that their agency uses functional classification scheme-based criteria for design speed (67%), lane width (67%), and shoulder width (59%). For the remaining criteria, the response rate was approximately 50%, indicating that there is a large number of agencies that do not use criteria

35 based on functional classification. However, only 45% of the respondents answered this question. This could possibly indicate that these issues are so embedded in the culture that alternatives have not been considered. Functional Classification as Impediment The next question asked respondents to identify cases or examples where the FCS impeded the delivery of a context sensitive solution on a project. A total of 82 respondents (of the 187 responding to the question) indicated that the FCS had impeded designs. The comments are summarized in the following categories: 1. Urban designs result from urban designation of the roadway, which do not reflect the land use or development along the corridor. Frequently this necessitates higher design speeds that may conflict with community goals and needs. 2. The FCS requires the use of design exceptions to address roadway context. State and FHWA regional engineers may not see this favorably. 3. Practitioners use the FCS as a shortcut to select design values and this often conflicts with the roadway context. This in turn could result in contextual designs incompatible with community plans and land use goals. 4. Lane widths in urban areas are seen as fairly restrictive (as per the Green Book). This results in issues with local communities, especially where highways traverse built-up areas that have a rural classification but where the community desires a less rural design. 5. There is a lack of modal balance that specifically addresses the need for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. Take for example a high-speed arterial through a main street with on-street parking and significant pedestrian traffic — this eliminates the possibility of bicycle lanes or dedicated transit facilities. 6. Corner radii result in higher turning speeds that affect pedestrian and bicycle safety. 7. Classification prohibits measures aimed at reducing speeds, such as medians with trees or gateway islands where a rural route enters a village. 8. There is a lack of subcategories in the Collector and Local classes. This is problematic, given that these deal with a great variety of contexts and require different roadside treatments. 9. There is no classification for suburban context.

36 10. There is no recognition of the Main Street concept for small rural communities, where, for example, a narrower cross section may be required to accommodate existing buildings and desired street parking, wider sidewalks, landscaping, and seating areas. Of interest here are two responses that have a common theme. The first is from the Oregon DOT, where functional classification is augmented with: 1) the needs of potential users and 2) context before design features are defined. The second is from an anonymous user who promotes the idea of defining the purpose of the road, then balancing various user needs. ALTERNATIVE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION The next section of the survey queried for the presence of alternative classification systems and their effects on design. Twenty-eight respondents noted that their agency uses an alternative system. However, several were from the same agency (or state). As such, the total number of alternative systems is lower. The survey also asked for reasons why the alternative scheme was being developed. Most of the answers indicated the desire to address local needs, to provide for greater flexibility among categories, to better match land use, to address complete street functions and designs, to better define urban context and multimodal options, and to incorporate context sensitive design. A respondent from the Washington DOT indicated that the agency is in the process of developing an alternative classification system, which is anticipated to be in place in 2016. To further explore the reasons underwriting the development of the alternative classification systems, the next question attempted to identify the specific shortcomings to be addressed by the respondent's proposed systems. Most indicated the need to: 1) accommodate other modes, and 2) introduce context definitions for urban and suburban areas. Some also referenced CSS.