Design Speed

Article

Design speed is the rate of travel for which the physical characteristics of a roadway are designed. The design speed for a given roadway plays a large role in determining the scale and design of roadway characteristics. For example, if a design speed of 35 mph is chosen for a given roadway, all aspects of its design, such as roadway curvature, lane width and intersection elements will safely accommodate vehicles traveling at 35 mph. Roadside design elements vary greatly with design speed, as fixed objects along the streets present a greater substantive safety risk at higher speeds.

Before discussing design speed, it may be useful to introduce and explain a few related topics:

• Operating Speed: a measure of the speed at which most drivers actually travel on a given arterial section under free flow conditions (often equated to the 85^th percentile speed of traffic observed under free flow conditions). On urban and suburban arterial streets, operating speed is heavily influenced by the presence, spacing, and timing of traffic signals.
• Target Speed: the speed at which drivers should travel on a given arterial section. Ideally, a facility's target speed and posted speed should be the same.
• Posted Speed: the upper speed limit for a given arterial section; often commensurate with target speed. The posted speed often represents the desired target speed.

Designers and engineers often choose a design speed that is higher than the posted/target speed, which encourages vehicles to travel at speeds higher than the target speed, especially along lower speed corridors. A facility's design speed and target speed should be equal, to keep vehicular speeds at or below the desired target speed. All elements of the streetscape should be designed to support the target speed for the corridor.

In a multi-modal environment with significant pedestrian presence, it is essential to provide adequate vehicular stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance. It is good practice to use a relatively low design speed (e.g. 30 mph) but provide the equivalent of 40 mph of sight distance.

Functional Classification is traditionally used to determine the target speed for a given arterial street. Although roadway planners and designers should consider functional class when selecting the facility's posted speed, the characteristics of each individual place should be the primary consideration used in choosing a target speed. A keen awareness of an area's unique characteristics will prevent the misapplication of broad standards that may be inappropriate for the place.

Design Speed for Office Employment Thoroughfares

Characteristics that influence the choice of design speed in these place types:

• Design speed, target speed, and posted speed are the same;
• There is a significant pedestrian, bicycle, and transit presence; and
• Vehicles usually must reduce travel speeds before approaching office employment areas

Select the lowest practical target speed. As speed increases, so does the safety risk for pedestrians and bicyclists. Studies on this subject have correlated higher speeds with higher fatality rates for pedestrians when struck by vehicles. For place types such as these that have higher pedestrian and bicycle activity levels, reducing speeds is an effective way to improve safety. Selecting the lowest practical target speed creates the safest environment for pedestrians, provides easier access to/from abutting land uses, and eases the transition between modes of travel. Ideally, an office employment area would have a target speed of 25 mph, especially if bicycle commuting is to be an attractive choice for employees. The maximum target speed for this thoroughfare is 30 mph. "Group A" cyclists may be comfortable alongside higher speed traffic, but lower speeds are essential in order to encourage the broader population to participate in bicycle commuting.

Lower speeds also make it easier for drivers to perceive conflicts on the road ahead and react accordingly. Drivers require less time and shorter distances to stop or slow down to avoid conflicts in low-speed environments. Conflicts on the street are numerous along office employment thoroughfares due to vehicles entering or exiting the street from adjacent access points; pedestrians unexpectedly entering the traveled way; vehicles stopping to park or pulling out of parking stalls; buses pulling over at a stop or pulling out from a stop; and other vehicles unexpectedly changing lanes in congested conditions. 

There is often a misperception that slow speeds result in slower travel times along a given arterial street. The travel time along arterials, however, can only be as fast as the intersections (particularly the signalized intersections) allow.  High posted speed limits will do nothing to improve arterial travel time if there is significant delay experienced at the intersections. In fact, slower speeds along an arterial can contribute to improved overall travel times by allowing more time for better progression and coordination between signals. Given the propensity of many commuters to drive as fast as they can on their daily commutes, it is imperative that coordinated signal timing be consistent with the target speed. Commuters are usually intimately familiar with their travel routes, and they will often drive faster than they should if they know that by doing so it will allow them to pass through the next light. Signal coordination that encourages speeding between signals to "hit the green" before it goes red should absolutely be avoided.

For vehicles attempting to gain access from adjacent land uses and crossroads onto the respective thoroughfare (or vice versa), identifying an opening in the traffic stream to safely enter, exit, or cross (commonly referred to as gap selection) is of paramount importance. Drivers must be able to accurately assess whether an opening is acceptable in order to safely navigate to and from the arterial. As speed increases, the number of acceptable gaps decreases and it becomes increasingly difficult for drivers to identify safe gaps. Selecting the lowest practical design speed for a corridor will maximize the ability of drivers to effectively assess gap acceptability, and as a result, safely enter and exit the arterial traffic stream.

Consider Rush Hour Speed Reductions. Most office employment places experience "rush hour" or "peak hour" pedestrian and bicycle congestion at the beginning and end of the day when employees are arriving or departing. Lunch time can also present peak pedestrian levels if the office employment area has restaurants and commercial services within walking distance. These spikes in pedestrian activity increase the conflicts along the thoroughfare. Low speed vehicular traffic is imperative during these times to provide the safest possible environment for all users. Special speed limits for these time periods should be considered as a method of further prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. Clear and visible signing is vitally important when choosing to reduce speeds in this manner.

Support speed transitions with design elements. It is important to consider and plan for any speed transitions that may exist beyond a given area. Appropriate signing, traffic calming measures, and enforcement are essential to ensure safe speed transitions. This is particularly important in office employment areas where the posted speed increases significantly beyond the place. 

Enforcement is an effective measure, but long-term efforts can be costly. Studies have shown that when enforcement measures are removed, vehicles typically resume higher travel speeds. One measure that has proven effective in Minnesota is the use of speed limit signs in conjunction with radar speed measurement displays (see Driver Speed Awareness PDF). Although they are not appropriate in all locations, speed measurement displays are particularly beneficial in areas that are plagued by speeding motorists.

Design for the target speed. Once the target speed is set (and consequently the design speed and posted speed), controlling roadway elements must be carefully designed to support travel at the desired speed. The target speed limit will become meaningless if lane widths, horizontal clearance, median type and width, and other features are inconsistent with the posted speed limit. ITE's Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities identifies the following design elements that should be considered when lower speeds are desired:

• Select narrow lane widths. Selecting narrower lanes helps to reduce travel speeds, and conversely, lanes that are excessively wide contribute to higher speeds. There is a growing body of research regarding the correlation between lane width, speed, and substantive safety. The latest research suggests that for travel speeds equal to or less than 35 mph, there is no difference in substantive safety performance between lane widths of 10', 11', and 12'. In other words, lane width has little effect on substantive safety in low-speed environments, such as office employment places. Site-specific characteristics will influence the decision between 10', 11', and 12' lanes. Additionally, narrower lanes also leave more right-of-way available for the areas "beyond the pavement", such as sidewalks, tree plantings, building frontages, etc. Converting a 4-lane section with 12-foot-wide lanes to 10-foot-wide lanes will provide a net gain of 8' in additional right-of-way for other uses.
• Eliminate superelevation in horizontal curves. If horizontal curves are present along the thoroughfare, superelevation, or banking of the roadway through the turn, is not recommended as it can encourage higher speeds.
• Eliminate shoulders. Here again, the narrower travel way can have a traffic calming effect, which should provide a safe environment for bicycles to share the travel lane with vehicles. Right-of-way in office employment areas, beyond the travel lanes, is best used for improved facilities for pedestrians, transit and bicycles.
• Include on-street parking. The presence of on-street parking has traffic calming effects, contributing to the desired lower-speed environment. Parking movements tend to calm traffic and the presence of parking cars, once again, has a narrowing effect on the travel way, ultimately contributing to slower speeds. On-street parking also provides a buffer between vehicular traffic and the pedestrian realm.
• Use curb extensions when appropriate. Particularly at pedestrian crossings and intersections, curb extensions as shown at right, can also contribute to narrower streets and slower speeds. Curb extensions also increase visibility between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Coordination with emergency services is important to ensure that curb extension design accommodates larger vehicles such as fire trucks.

• Minimize intersection curb return radii. The size of the radii for the curb returns at intersections has a direct impact on vehicular travel speed in these areas.

  Smaller radii encourage slower speeds. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that school buses and transit buses are accommodated at key locations.

  When channelized right turns are chosen, care should be taken to ensure that the geometry of the right turn does not encourage higher speeds.

• Increase awareness of bicycles and pedestrians. Pavement treatments that delineate and highlight sidewalks, crosswalks and bicycle lanes, increase driver awareness of their presence. Textured materials and pavers, colored concrete or asphalt, and pronounced striping can effectively highlight pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities and consequently discourage higher travel speeds. This is vitally important if bicycling is to be viewed as an attractive commuting choice.  
• Post clear signage. Clear and concise signs along the street are vital in communicating the speed limit to vehicular drivers.  See the signing section of this manual for more information.

Resources

PDFs:

• AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (See Chapters 2 and 7)
• Design Speed, Operating Speed, and Posted Speed Practices
• ITE Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities (See Chapter 7)
• Missouri Practical Design Guide

Links:

• FHWA Flexibility in Highway Design, Chapter 4 Design Controls
• Massachusetts Design Guide, Chapter 3 Design Controls

Other References:

• AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, Chapter 3
• ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook