Ministry of Transportation RISK MANAGEMENT FOR GEOMETRIC DESIGN AASHTO Sub-Committee Design July 2009 Gary Todd, P. Eng. Manager, Design & Contract Standards Office

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 2 ROAD AUTHORITY CHALLENGES NETWORK ADEQUACY ROAD PROGRAM ALLOCATION/FUNDING LEVELS (CAPITAL VS OPERATING) NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS STAKEHOLDERS’ EXPECTATIONS EXTERNAL AGENCY APPROVALS BALANCING COMPETING OBJECTIVES SETTING AND COMMUNICATING PRIORITIES DELIVERING AN ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 3 DESIGNER CHALLENGES PROVIDE A SOLUTION THAT CORRECTS DEFICIENCIES ACQUIRE ALL CLEARANCES AND APPROVALS RESPOND/MANAGE EXPECTATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES CONTAIN SCOPE CREEP DELIVER ON TIME DELIVER ON BUDGET

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 4 WHAT DO STANDARDS PROVIDE? DEFINED BENCHMARK OF PRACTICE A SIMPLE WAY TO DEFEND AND COMMUNICATE DECISIONS A MEANS TO EXPEDITE THE DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS A MEANS TO SATISFY A PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF SAFETY A BASIS FOR JUDGING SYSTEM ADEQUACY AND DEFICIENCIES A BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING FUNDING NEEDS PROVIDE A COMFORTABLE DESIGN ENVIRONMENT

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 5 LIMITATIONS OF STANDARDS NOT ALL BASED ON SCIENCE SOME ARE BASED ON EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION SOME ARE BASED ON EXPERT PANEL JUDGEMENT COMBINED EFFECTS OF STANDARDS MAY NOT YIELD DESIRED EFFECT MAY NOT SATISFY PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS MAY LEAD TO UNNECESSARY EXPENDITURES MAY NOT KEEP PACE WITH CHANGING VEHICLES AND DRIVERS

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 6 RISK CONSTRUCTING A PROJECT THAT DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS ENVIRONMENT MEASURES FAIL PAVEMENTS AND/OR BRIDGES ARE NOT DURABLE CAPACITY/L.O.S. OBJECTIVES ARE NOT ACHIEVED COST OVERRUNS RESULT CRASH REDUCTION OBJECTIVES NOT MET NOT MAKING THE RIGHT INVESTMENT AT THE RIGHT LOCATION AT THE RIGHT TIME

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 7 WHAT DO DESIGNERS NEED TO MANAGE RISK? A SYSTEMATIC PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTATIONS A MEANS OF RATIONALIZING PROJECT STANDARDS BY USING “CONVENTIONAL” GEOMETRIC STANDARDS AS GUIDELINES AN APPROACH TO MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS OF EACH DOLLAR INVESTED IN THE SYSTEM A CONSISTENT AND ACCEPTED APPLICATION OF THE PROCESS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION

Ministry of Transportation SYSTEM PRINCIPLES

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 9 Guiding Principles - 1 Is there any completely “safe” highway? No. Only a highway on which no collisions or injuries could possibly take place could be described as completely “safe.” However, there are “safer” highways and “less-safe” ones. Principle 1: Highways cannot be classified as safe or unsafe. Highways can only be judged in terms of relative safety.

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 10 Guiding Principles - 2 Motorists can manage highway conditions that they are aware of or can anticipate from the highway. Consistent features create a condition where motorists will not be surprised. By managing driver expectations, what may be considered “out of compliance with standards” is acceptable and safe. Principle 2: Facilitating driver expectations contributes to safer highways.

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 11 Guiding Principles - 3 Is a highway “designed to standard” completely safe? No. The safety of a highway does not change abruptly at the point at which the highway becomes “substandard.” Also, standards are often minimum targets that are intended to be met or exceeded. Moreover, highway standards change over time. Standards are not to be treated as hard-and-fast indicators of highway safety. Principle 3: “Standard” does not equal “safe”; “substandard” does not equal “unsafe”.

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 12 Guiding Principles - 4 The safety of a highway is a continuum. It improves as some dimension of the highway is improved: widening the median, placing obstacles further from the travelled way, increasing pavement friction, increasing radii of curves, etc. Principle 4: Incremental improvements usually result in incremental benefits.

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 13 Guiding Principles - 5 Highway improvements are usually subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns. That is, for every improvement of a fixed amount, the benefit gained from that fixed amount reduces each time. For example, widening a median from 10 m to 20 m will improve safety more than increasing a 50 m median to 60 m. Principle 5: Marginal benefits usually decrease as an improvement is increased.

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 14 Guiding Principles - 6 Eventually, a point is reached at which further improvements cannot be justified because the safety and operational benefits are too small in comparison to the cost of the work. For example, it is not cost-effective to widen a median indefinitely. Principle 6: There is a point at which further improvements are not justified.

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 15 Guiding Principles - 7 A traffic study says an improvement will result in an annual travel time benefit of $29, Do you include this benefit in the benefit/cost analysis? - how much benefit per user per trip? (answer: 11 seconds) - are there other bottlenecks downstream or upstream that will prevent these benefits from being realized? - are the benefits real? Principle 7: It is necessary to determine “real benefits”.

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 16 Guiding Principles - 8 Can every benefit from a highway improvement be quantified in dollars? No. There are not equations for all improvements and many benefits are difficult to quantify in dollars, including: environmental impacts, design consistency, community connectivity, project timing, risk costs, staging considerations, project-specific factors, etc. Principle 8: Formulas alone are not enough. Engineering judgment is required.

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 17 EMERGING APPROACH TO MANAGING RISK ESTABLISH THE LONG TERM FUNCTION FOR CORRIDORS IN THE JURISDICTION (A VISION) ESTABLISH A DESIGN CRITERIA/GEOMETRIC DESIGN APPROACH FOR ALL CORRIDORS WITH THE SAME FUNCTION ENSURE THAT ALL DIVISIONS/REGIONS OF THE JURISDICTION FOLLOW THE OVERALL PLAN SO THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF UNIFORMITY IN THE JURISDICTION CAN BE ACHIEVED DEVELOP ANALYTICAL TOOLS TO PROMOTE CONSISTENCY PEER REVIEWS TO FACILITATE COMMON INTERPRETATION OF CORRIDORS AND USE OF ANALYTICAL TOOLS

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 18 EMERGING TOOLS AT THE MINISTRY CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLANS DOCUMENTED VISION CORRIDOR DESIGN CONCEPT EXPANSION/RECONSTRUCTION/REHABILITATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE ASSET MANAGEMENT AND GEOMETRIC DESIGN RISKS MANAGED TOGETHER HIGHWAY ELEMENT INVESTMENT REVIEW DOCUMENTED PROCESS REFINES/RATIONALIZES PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS ESTABLISHES ACTUAL GEOMETRIC, CROSS-SECTION AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS DONE USING B/C RATIOS BASED ON ACCIDENT REDUCTION, TRAVEL TIME REDUCTIONS AND ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTING THE IMPROVEMENT CROSS REGIONAL PEER REVIEW FUNCTIONAL TEAM REVIEWS SENIOR ENGINEERS REVIEW PERIODIC CONTRACT DOCUMENT REVIEWS

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 19 INDIVIDUAL CORRIDOR

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 20 REGIONAL CORRIDORS

October 29, 2003 Highway Standards Branch Ministry of Transportation 21 PROVINCIAL CORRIDORS