1/9/2013

Agenda TRB Joint Subcommittee Meeting AND10(2)

“International Human Factors Guideline for Road Systems Design”

for HFG

Co-chairs: Richard van der Horst and Sam Tignor

Time: January15, 2013:3:45 to 5:30 pm

Location: Marriott, Park Tower Suite 8216

1. Opening (5min) Sam Tignor

2. Self Introductions All present

3. TRB Announcements Richard Pain, TRB Transportation Safety Coordinator

4. Session Introduction (5 min) Sam Tignor

5. Overview of NCHRP Report 600 (10 min) John Campbell, Battelle()

6. Joint use of HSM and HFG (10 min) John Milton, WaDOT ()

7. Outreach Presentations during past year(10 min) John Campbell

8. Primer Development for Joint use of HSM & HFG(5 min) Mark Bush, NCHRP ()

9. Committee Recommendation for more guidelines (5min each)

AND20 User Information Systems CommitteeDavid Yang()

AND10 Vehicle User Characteristics CommitteeSusan Chrysler ()

AND40 Visibility Committee?ToddBallen for John Bullough ()

ANF10Pedestrian CommitteeTarekSayed for Shawn Turner()

May have to email input.

ANF20 Bicycle Transportation CommitteeRalph Buehler ()

Possibly Jeff Springer ( or Theo Ap ()

Possible Bicycle Chapter in HFGTom Hicks ()

ANB25 Highway Safety Performance CommitteeJohn Milton ()

AFB10 Geometric DesignEric Donnell ()

Conflict with AFB10 Comm meeting

AHD55Signing and Marking Materials?Gordon Thompson()

AHB40 Highway Capacity Lily Elefteriadou()

and Quality of Service

AHB55Work Zone Traffic Control CommitteeGerald Ullman()

ABJ95 Visualization CommitteeMark Taylor()

forPatricia Hu()

NCUTCD - Research Committee Paul Carlson ()

Will send representative..

Europe Fred Wegman()

David Shinar()

Transport Canada?PaulBoase()

10. NCHRP 17-47 Follow-on Plans (5 min)John Campbell

11. New Research Needed(15 min)All and email suggestions.

12. Ongoing FHWA Activities (5 min) Rosemarie Anderson()

13. Closure

Ideas and Format for Additional Guidelines

The following is provided for suggesting additional guidelines to the HFG in the next update. Updates are not planned for the immediate future, but we need to keep an inventory of what other HFG guidelines would be useful. It is envisioned that the HFG is a living document where guidelines will be developed as new human factors research is developed for highway systems and as requested by highway designers, traffic engineers, and other users. The format is intended to aid the JSC, TRB, NCHRP and others in identifying future updates and revisions to the 2012 HFG.

First item: Short title for proposed guideline.(Show in parenthesis a person or committee name)

Second item: Discussion of the problem requiring a guideline.

Third item: Identification of existing research or operational study related to the problem.

Fourth item: Where the information in item three can be obtained.

Examples

  1. Title: Shared Use of Roadway by Motor Vehicles and Bicycles (Hicks)

Discussion: Some rights-of-way (road widths) are limited and it is neither possible nor practicable to have separate dedicated lanes for both motor vehicles and bicycles. In those cases, highway signs are placed (e.g., W11-1, R4-11, W11-16) to remind road users that additional caution is required by all users of the road. The practice of sharing lanes introduces safety for bicycle users and road capacity problems for motor vehicles. So, what are appropriate human factor shared-road-use guidelines from the perspective of the bicyclists and motorists? When should such signs be used and not used in terms of road width, geometrics, traffic volume, and shoulder/bicycle lane presence?

Available research: No human factor studies are available.

Source of research: Some states have crash studies, i.e., Iowa.

  1. Title: Marking at Tapered Freeway Gore (Tignor)

Discussion:Above is the NC tapered onramp pavement marking standard (1205.3). There are two sets of short markings in the last half of the gore area. Drivers can cross both sets of dashed lines to find and enter an available gap in the right lane.The human factors problem is a merging driver may not see vehicles in the right lane especially if they are only using their mirror (something they should not do). Sincethere is no acceleration lane (only a merge area) to find a free gap,drivers cut across the two sets of short dots to enter a gap. The purpose of an acceleration lane is to find a gap, adjust speed to the gap, and then enter the right lane. The merge areais half of the difference from the physical gore to the painted gore.A guideline for marking tapered acceleration lanes is not in the current HFG but one is needed.

Available Research: NCHRP Project on AccelerationLanes

Source of Research: Search NCHRP for studies

  1. Title: Users Information Needs at Large, Multi-lane Intersections (Pline)

Discussion:Large intersections with multi-lane approaches typically have many signs and signals all of which can be overwhelmingto approaching vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian users. With heavy volumes users can be faced with making critical decisions in a very few seconds. User information must be appropriately located and clear for proper decisions and action to be taken. Research has been conducted on how signal, markings and sign information should be displayed individually. But how they are used together (i.e., in terms of message, location, and timing) especially at complex, multi-lane approaches is lacking.A guideline on how large multi-lane intersections should jointly display and use signs, markings, and signals to maximize users’ safety may help to reduce intersection crashes and also enhance traffic operations.

Available Research: Unknown

Source of Research: Unknown