5th International Symposium on Highway

Geometric Design

Vancouver, Canada, 2015

Country Report: Israel

Shy Bassan 1(corresponding author)

Ran Zilbershtein 2
Benny Frischer 3

1
Dr. Shy Bassan, Amy Metom Engineers & Consultants, Ltd., 55A Yigal Alon St., Tel
Aviv 67891, Israel. (Tel: 972-3-6363587; fax: 972-3-6363501)
Email: shy-b@amymetom-ta.co.il ; bassans@ netvision.net.il)

2
Ing. Ran Zilbershtein, Amy Metom Engineers & Consultants, Ltd. Email:
ran@amymetom.co.il

3
Dr. Benny Frischer, Email: frischer@bezeqint.net

Revised: April 27, 2015.

1
ABSTRACT:
Highlights of the geometric design standards for rural (interurban) highways and urban
freeways, published by Israel’s Ministry of Transportation and the National Highways
Company in 2012, are outlined. The preparation of these geometric design standards was
accompanied and approved by a National Highways Company steering committee
composed of highway design, highway safety, and traffic engineering experts from the
MOT, the National Highways Company, the police traffic engineering department, and
highway engineering consulting firms. The major objective of these design standards was
to establish uniform rules and determine design values that would function as guidelines
but not as mandatory regulations. The standards did not intend to limit the engineering view
of thinking, but they do provide a desirable frame in which to present design options and
enable the highway engineer to cope with non-conventional situations during the design
process.

The paper first documents the objectives, structure, and major sections of the standards. A
specific section introduces Israel data and statistics of population, roadway length,
motorization, kilometers traveled, and traffic accidents (with casualties) information. The
second part gives an overview of recent developments in design policy, highway cross
section, stopping sight distance, and horizontal alignment. Finally, it presents topics for
discussion related to sight-distance restrictions in horizontal curve design and left-shoulder
principles on divided highways.

2
INTRODUCTION
The design of interurban transportation infrastructure is important for the economy and for
the fast growth rate of car ownership. The main requisites that highway-design guidelines
should maintain are the following: mobility and accessibility needs, safety of road users,
efficient traffic operations, landscape harmonization, and minimum environmental
deterioration.

The major objective of highway geometric design standards is to establish uniform rules
and determine design values that function as guidelines but not as mandatory regulations.
The standards do not intend to limit the engineering view of thinking, but do provide a
desirable frame in which present design options and enable the highway engineer to cope
with non-conventional situations during the design process.

The 2012 Israeli highway design guidelines are based on a literature overview of recent
international guidelines (AASHTO 2004, 2011; TAC ATC 1999, 2009; New Zealand
TRANSIT 2003; Austroads 2009; DMRB 1999; and German guidelines RAA 2008). The
main innovations of these guidelines relate to the topics of design speed and level of service
policy; sight distance and equivalent deceleration (or equivalent friction) criteria, which
directly affect the outcome of vertical and horizontal alignment; divided highway cross
section, which is related to recent developments in safety-barrier concepts and
technologies; and a new model for correlating horizontal radii and superelevation.

The structure concept of the guidelines is that they should be easily implemented by the
users. Each section includes a brief background, definitions of terms and basic issues, major
considerations and assumptions in determining the recommended design values, warrants if
needed, recommendations of design values, and tables, illustrations, relevant drawings, and
schematic sketches for clarifications.

The design process requires the integration of guidelines from the different topics into one
pack in order to propose an appropriate design solution for a specific project. The
guidelines principally refer to new highway projects but also to upgrading existing
roadways. Exceptional design values that are due to unusual situations and constraints (e.g.,
topography, right of way [ROW], environmental issues) are possible if given approval by
the design authorities after considering a specific problem. The guidelines usually present
minimum or maximum desirable and/or absolute values. The highway engineer should

3
strive not to follow directly these design values in an extreme manner but to implement a
balanced design that incorporates suitable values after considering the topography,
environment, and construction cost, on the one hand, and highway safety and traffic
operations, on the other hand. The guidelines structure enables periodic updating according
to practical experience, safety impacts, and the design policy of Israel’s Ministry of
Transportation.

The guidelines volume depicted in this report is Volume I: Geometric Design of Interurban
Highways: Road Sections. Additional volumes include Volume II: Intersections; Volume
III: Interchanges and Junctions; and Volume IV: Compact Grade Junctions. Volume III and
Volume IV will be updated as one unified volume and are still in practice. This ongoing
work is accompanied by the same steering committee previously described.

An additional volume refers to Road Tunnels and has a specific and expanded geometric
design chapter. It was first published in November 2012 by the Ministry of Transportation
and the National Highways Company. Its authors represent several disciplines (in addition
to highway design and traffic engineering), such as construction, structural engineering,
geo-mechanics, ventilation, fire safety, electric lighting and communication systems, and
environment.

ISRAEL TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC STATISTICS

Population and roadway length:
Israeli population for the second quarter of the year 2015 is approximately 8.32 million.
This estimation does not include foreign workers. The total roadway length in Israel
roadway network estimated for 2013 is: 18,825 kilometers from which 6608 kilometers are
interurban roadways, 10,586 kilometers are urban roads and 1,631 kilometers are access
roads.

Motor vehicles and kilometers traveled:

The number of motor vehicles estimated for 2014 is 2,966,000, from which 2,457,000 are
private vehicles, 328,000 trucks, 124,000 motorcycles, 20,000 taxis, 32,000 buses (and
minibuses), and 4600 special service vehicles.

The total million kilometers travel (MKT) estimated for the year 2013 includes 51,207
[106·veh·km per year] from which: 37,848 private cars, 9099 trucks, 1666 buses (and

4
minibuses), 1640 taxis, 872 motorcycles. 31,157 (out of 51,207) is the annual MKT for
interurban roadways estimated for 2013.
The average kilometers traveled per vehicle is: 18,100 km/vehicle. This number is the
equivalent average for several vehicle types: 16400 km/private cars, 26800 km/trucks,
50500 km/minibus, 58800 km/bus, 78200 km/taxi, and 7200 km/motorcycle.

The rate of motorization estimated for the year 2014 is 358 vehicles per 1000 inhabitants,
from which 292 vehicles per 1000 inhabitants (82%) are private cars.

Road accidents with casualties

The number of road accidents with casualties estimated for the year 2013 is 13,048 (9720 in
urban roads and 3328 in interurban roadways). This number includes: 252 fatal accidents
(from which 86 accidents with pedestrian involved and 119 collisions with moving
vehicles), 1413 serious accidents, and 11,383 slight accidents.
The distribution of road accidents by accident type is presented in Table 1:

Table 1: Annual distribution of road accidents with casualties by accident type,

accident severity and road type; Israel 2013

Accident type and severity Total Fatal Serious Slight

Collision with moving vehicle 8057 119 560 8057
Collision with parked (or 136 5 18 136
stopped) vehicle
Collision with a fixed object 664 19 87 664
Hitting a pedestrian 2867 86 538 2867
Injury to passenger on vehicle 50 - 21 50
Overturning 321 16 75 321
Running of road 102 2 26 102
skidding 575 5 53 575
other 276 - 35 276
Total (year 2013) 13048 252 1413 11383
Urban roads 9,720 120 992 8608
Interurban roadways 3,328 132 421 2775

5
The relevant number of casualties estimated for the year 2013 is 24,294 from which 277
killed, 1624 seriously injured, and 22,393 slightly injured.
15574 (out of 24294) casualties occurred in urban roads and 8720 (out of 24294) casualties
occurred on interurban roadways.
131 (out of 277) people were killed in urban roads accidents and 146 (out of 277) people
were killed in interurban roads accidents.

The annual accident rate per population [accidents per 100000 inhabitants] is 162. The
annual accident rate per kilometers traveled [accidents per 106·veh·km per year] is 0.255.
Both rates are calculated for the year 2013. The annual accident rate per kilometers traveled
[accidents per 106•veh•km per year] for interurban roadways is 0.11.

Appendix A presents several charts plotting the country statistics information over the years
and comparing the results between Israel and several countries (Greece, Italy, France, UK,
Germany, Canada, U.S.A.). The country statistics traffic and transportation data presented,
is based on Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) database.

VOLUME I: LIST OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Introduction

Section 2: Basic Design Policy

Highway categories and hierarchy and the basic characteristics of each category;
determination of target speed, design speed, and implementation criteria; design definitions
for divided-highway final construction phase after its initial stage of construction as a two-
lane highway (one-way roadway).

Section 3: Highway Cross Section

The highway cross-section components according to highway categories; pavement width,
including lane, shoulder and median widths; side slopes; forgiving road design and
infrastructure; intermediate specific cross sections (1+1, including separation devices,
passing lanes, and climbing lanes).

Section 4: Sight Distance

Typical sight distance categories for the design of the highway alignment: stopping sight
distance, decision sight distance, passing sight distance, and constrained passing sight
distance.

6
Section 5: Horizontal Alignment
Design criteria and details of the design components of the horizontal alignment: horizontal
radii, superelevation, widening, superelevation transition (superelevation runoff, tangent
runout), spiral curves, hairpin curves, design controls, and sight-distance relevance.

Section 6: Vertical Alignment

Design criteria and details of the design components of the vertical alignment: longitudinal
grades and critical length, vertical curve design, grade impact on heavy vehicle
performance (deceleration, acceleration), design control, initial recommendations for
escape ramps.

Section 7: Combinations of Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

Rules for combinations of the design components covered in previous sections for a
complete spatial and aesthetic design; qualitative and visual description of a desirable and
an undesirable design.

Section 8: Highway Capacity and Level of Service (LOS)

Definitions of terms (e.g., flow rate, traffic volume, traffic density, PHF, FFS, PTSF).
Criteria and methodology for computing traffic-flow measures for determining the
highway’s LOS (freeway, urban freeway, multilane divided highway, two-lane undivided
highway), capacity estimation, typical LOS design measures, and other traffic
characteristics. The section refers to HCM 2000 guidelines.

Section 9: Integration of Bicycle Traffic on the Interurban Highway Network

Basic design values, arrangements and warrants for bicycle paths or bicycle lanes in the
highway cross section, typical geometric design components for bicycle traffic.

Section 10: Integration of Public Transport on Interurban Highways

Overview of public transport solutions (bus lane, bus way), integration of public transport
traffic in the cross section, treatment of bus stops and their geometric design elements on
interurban highways.

Section 11: Urban Freeways

Definitions and characteristics, typical design values, geometric design characteristics for
highway sections and interchanges, and urban aspects.

7
Section 12: Integration of Rest Areas on Interurban Highways
Rest area categories, geometric design specifications, warrants, spacing between rest areas,
parking space determination, distance from intersections.

Section 13: Access to Infrastructure Facilities on Interurban Highways

Implementation policy, geometric design specifications for access from existing
intersection and road sections, distance from intersection.

DEVELOPMENTS AND HIGHLIGHTS

Basic Design Policy and Cross Section Elements

Design speed and target speed
The target speed is the desirable travel speed in the defined highway category. The goal is
for most vehicles in the traffic stream to be able to travel at such a speed during free-flow
conditions. It is desirable that the maximum speed limit be similar and actually identical to
the target speed.

The design speed is the safest speed that is determined for the highway geometric design
and its geometric components, which influence vehicle operation. Israeli policy indicates
that in order to provide a reasonable safety margin (similarly to other civil engineering
disciplines and in accordance to international guidelines and literature overview), the value
of the design speed is in practice 10 km/hour faster than the value of the target speed on the
interurban network.

Highway classification and functional characteristics

Interurban highways are classified as follows in the Israeli guidelines:

Freeway:

The freeway is supposed to transfer high traffic volumes at high speed conditions or,
preferably, free-flow speed (FFS). The road is characterized by optimal mobility and no
direct access to any adjacent land use. A freeway has at least two separated roadways with
two lanes or more for each direction of travel. The connection between the freeway and
other highways is made only by system interchanges. The recommended design speed
range for a freeway is 100-120 km/hour. A freeway sign has a blue rectangular perimeter
and the freeway number has usually one blue digit.

8
Urban freeway:

The urban freeway has almost the same geometric characteristics as a freeway. These urban
highways generally cross metropolitan regions, and therefore their interchange/junction
density is higher than that of freeways. The minor road of these interchanges could be an
urban arterial, so that the traffic pattern and daily distribution are different from those on
freeway interchanges in non-urban regions; i.e., there is a higher level of traffic congestion.
The recommended design speed range for urban freeways is 90-110 km/hour. An urban
freeway sign has a blue rectangular perimeter and its number has usually two or three blue
digits.

Major highway:

Major highways transfer high traffic volumes between different regions of the interurban
network at considerably high vehicle speeds. They have a high mobility level for long trips
and limited access to adjacent land use. These highways are usually divided into two
separated roadways, one for each direction of travel; but in certain occasions, they can be
designed as two-lane highways for the first stage of construction. The main difference
between major highways and freeways is the possibility of the major highways’ connecting
to crossing highways at signalized intersections. The divided major highways' design speed
range is 80-110 km/hr or 80-100 km/hour if they include signalized intersections. The two-
lane major highways' (with intersections only) design speed range is 60-80 km/hr. A major
highway sign has a red rectangular perimeter and its number has usually two red digits.

Minor (regional) highway:

The regional highway serves moderate trip lengths and functions as a feeder roadway to the
major highways. The regional highway has a certain level of mobility but serves enclosed
land uses, as well. Regional highways can be designed as divided highways or two-lane

9
highways. The divided minor highway design speed range is identical to that of major
highways. A regional highway sign has a green rectangular perimeter and its number has
usually three green digits.

Local and access roads (low-volume roads):

The principal role of local roads is the provision of access to enclosed land uses. They serve
short-length trips and are usually designed as two-lane, undivided roads. Their design speed
range is 60-80 km/hour. Low-volume roads are categorized as local roads but could have
some reductions in certain design criteria. The sign of local or access road has a black
rectangular perimeter and its number has usually four black digits.

Table 2 summarizes design policies and major cross-section design characteristics of

highways by categories.

10
 Table 2: Highway design speed, LOS, and cross-section summary of Israeli
interurban highway design guidelines
Highway category
Subject Local
Minor (regional)
Freeway Urban freeway Major highway (access)
highway
road
Design speed Divided: 80-110 (1) Divided: 80-100 (1)
100-120 90-110 60-80
(km/hour) Two lane: 60-80 Two lane: 60-80
D (level or rolling
C (level terrain) terrain)
Level of service D D E
D (other) E (mountainous
terrain)

11
Number of ways 2 (usually) 1 (usually)
2 (at least) 2 (at least) 1
(road) 1 (occasionally) 2 (occasionally)
3.6 (80 km/hr) 3.0-3.5
3.6 or 3.7
Lane width (m) 3.6 3.6 3.5 (70 km/hr) (60-80
(120 km/hour)
3.3 (60 km/hr) km/hr) (2)
Right shoulder width 3.0 (80 km/hour)
3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0
(m) 2.0/2.5 (60/70 km/hr)
1.2 (2 lanes per 1.2 (2 or 3 lanes per 1.2 (2 lanes per 1.2 (2 lanes per
Left shoulder width
direction) direction) direction) direction)
(m): divided highway -
3.0 (3 or more lanes 3.0 (4 or more lanes 3.0 (3 or more lanes 3.0 (3 or more lanes
only
per direction) per direction) per direction) per direction
(1) For highways with interchanges: 80-110 km/hour. For highways with intersections: 80-100 km/hour.
(2) Lane width of 3.0 m for low-volume roads.
Stopping sight distance and sight-distance design policy
A major purpose in highway geometric design is to ensure that the driver is able to see any
possible road hazard in sufficient time to take action and avoid an accident. Stopping sight
distance (SSD) is the most important of the sight-distance considerations since sufficient
SSD is required at any point along the roadway. SSD is the distance that the driver must be
able to see ahead along the roadway while traveling at or near the design speed and to
safely stop before reaching an object whether stationary or not. SSD can be limited by both
vertical and horizontal curves. The fact that it impacts the design radius of both curves
makes SSD so fundamental in the geometric design process.

The stopping sight distance has two components: (1) the distance traveled during the
driver’s reaction time; (2) the distance traveled during braking. This distance can be
determined by the following formula:
2
t Vd
SSD = R ⋅ Vd + (1)
3. 6 2 ⋅ 3.6 2 ⋅ d
where:
SSD – Minimum stopping sight distance (m)
Vd – Design speed (km/hr)
d – Deceleration of passenger cars (m/s2), equivalent to the longitudinal
= friction coefficient (f) multiplied by the acceleration of gravity (g)
tR – Perception reaction time (s), usually 2.5 seconds
The formula assumes level terrain. Ascending grade decreases the SSD, and descending
grade increases the SSD.

The recommended equivalent deceleration rate (d) is based on an SSD model developed by
Lamm et al. (1999) and by research conducted in the U.S. (Fambro et al. 1997, AASHTO
2011). This weighted deceleration takes into account modern braking systems; the quality
of tires, which strongly affects the skidding longitudinal friction coefficient between a wet
pavement and the tires; and the quality of the pavement (e.g. SMA asphalt concrete). The
equivalent friction coefficient and weighted deceleration are presented in Table 3. The
stopping sight distance (SSD) values are presented in Table 3, based on the weighted
deceleration recommended values and Equation 1.

12
 Table 4: Equivalent Deceleration, Friction, and SSD Values
Recommended for Design Speed

Design speed (km/hr)

Recommended
values
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

feq: Israel 1994 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.27

d (m/s2) : Israel
3.53 3.34 3.14 3.04 2.94 2.85 2.75 2.65
1994

feq: recommended 0.427 0.427 0.404 0.383 0.364 0.347 0.343 0.343
d (m/s2) :
recommended 4.189 4.189 3.962 3.755 3.570 3.405 3.363 3.363
(Israel 2012)
SSD (m)
58 75 97 122 151 183 216 249
Israel 2012
Design SSD (m),
rounded for
60 75 100 125 155 185 220 250
design
(Israel 2012)

Table 3 presents the recommended SSD values and the design values for different
countries: Australia (Austroads 2003, 2009), New Zealand (Transit 2003), Canada (TAC
1999), U.S.A. (AASHTO 2011), Germany (RAS 1995), Lamm et al. 1999, and Ireland
(NRA 2007).

13
 Table 4: Minimum Stopping Sight Distance Design Values (m) for Several Countries

tR Design Speed (km/hr)

Country
(sec)
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Israel (2012) 2.5 58 75 97 122 151 183 216 249

Australia (2003) 2.5 54 71 91 114 140 170 205 245

New Zealand (2002) 2.5 55 75 95 115 140 170 210 250

Ireland (2007) 2.0 70 90 120 133 178 215 255 295

Canada (1999) 2.5 65 85 110 140 170 210 250 –

USA (2011) 2.5 65 85 105 130 160 185 220 250

Germany (1995) 2.0 – 65 85 110 140 170 210 255

Lamm et al. (1999) 2.0 50 65 85 110 140 170 205 245

Israel (1994) 2.5 65 85 110 140 170 200 250 300

tR – Perception-reaction time (seconds).

A graphical relationship between the recommended SSD values and the design speed
values according to the geometric design guidelines of different countries (Table 3) is
presented in Figure 1.
The Canadian SSD design values are identical to Israel (1994) SSD design values for the
design speed range of 50-90 km/hour. Therefore, their lines are unified in the chart and we
can see the Canadian purple line only. The Israeli recommended SSD values (Israel 2012)
are smaller than the Israel (1994) values due to the higher (and improved) equivalent
deceleration rates as presented in Table 3.

14
 Fig. 1: Comparison of Minimum Stopping Sight Distance in Several Countries
and Recommended Values – Level Terrain

The Israeli recommended SSD values are around the average at the design speed range of
50-80 km/hr. As the design speed rises, the SSD values approach the lower values
(Australia 2003, 2009; Lamm et al. 1999).

The recommended sight distance design (SD) values for decision sight distance, passing
sight distances (PSD), and constrained passing sight distance (CPSD) are presented in
Table 5.

The constrained passing sight distance (CPSD) is the threshold sight distance below which
overtaking is prohibited for all vehicle types. It means that the even fast vehicles should
prevent making passing maneuver under these circumstances. Any two lane highways'
segment which does not satisfy the CPSD should be marked with double solid continuous
line in its centerline. Such signing (in Israel highways and typically internationally) informs
the driver that a passing maneuver is prohibited. Most passenger car drivers practically
need a distance shorter than the conventional (and somehow conservative) passing sight

15
distance (PSD). For example the passing maneuver becomes shorter than PSD when the
vehicle being passed is a slow vehicle and its traffic speed is much lower than the speed
limit; therefore the passing maneuver can be conducted with almost no delay and the driver
of the passing vehicle does not have to accelerate. Such example emphasizes a possible
implementation of the CPSD. Further detail of the elements of passing sight distance (d1,
d2, d3, d4) can be found in NCHRP 605 (2008). Figure 2 introduces these passing
maneuver elements in two lane highways. The Israeli constrained passing sight distance
(CPSD) implementation assumes lower values of these elements.

d1, d2, d3, d4 interpretation:

d1: perception and reaction; d2: passing maneuver; d3: safety margin; d4: distance traveled
by the oncoming vehicle

Fig. 2: Elements of passing sight distance (based on NCHRP 605, 2008).

16
 Table 5: Decision SD, passing SD, and Constrained Passing SD Design Values (Israel)

Sight distance Design Speed (km/hr)

(m)
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Decision SD 135 160 190 220 255 290 325 360

Passing SD 335 395 455 510 565 625 * *

Constrained
190 220 260 290 320 350 * *
passing SD
* Speeds applicable only to divided highways in Israel

Implementation of sight distance design values:

The sight distance (SD) design values are implemented on the basis of highway category as
presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Implementation of SD Design Criteria

Highway Category
Sight Distance 2-Lane
(SD)Type Freeway / 2-Way Divided: 2-Lane
Undivided Local
Urban Major highway / Undivided:
Minor (regional) (access) road
freeway Minor highway Major highway
highway

Stopping SD – Always Always Always Always

Prior to Prior to
interchange or interchange or
Basic for lane reduction or
Decision SD intersection (lane intersection (lane –
design* increase
reduction or reduction or
increase) increase)
Each Each
Passing SD (km) – – –
0.05·Vd(km/hr) 0.05·Vd(km/hr)
For SD < CPSD: For SD < CPSD:
Constrained passing prohibited passing prohibited Enable
Passing SD – – (100%) by (100%) by CPSD every
(CPSD) appropriate appropriate 3 km at least.
marking marking
* On freeways and long trips on highly trafficked highways with considerably high operating/target speeds,
without traffic flow interference (such as intersections and access to proximate land uses), the design policy
requires drivers’ SD to be longer than Stopping SD (i.e. Decision SD) in order to make the driving calm and
comfortable.

17
 Table 7: Object Height and Driver Eye Height on SD Edges

Sight Distance (SD) Driver Eye Height Object Height

Type (m) [passenger car] (m)

Undivided highway: 0.15

Stopping SD 1.05 Two-way (divided) highway: 0.60*
Prior to intersection or interchange: 0.15

0.60* (road sections generally higher-speed

Decision SD 1.05
highways)

1.05* ("the portion of the vehicle height that

Passing SD and
1.05 needs to be visible for another driver
Constrained Passing SD
to recognize a vehicle")
* Concepts based on AASHTO 2011, Fambro et al. (NCHRP 400) 1997.

If the highway is designed as a divided two-way highway, only one way is opened for
traffic in the first stage (i.e. a two-lane highway), then implementation of the SD policy
(specifically for the design of vertical curves) would be based on two-lane highway design
requisites.

Horizontal curve design

A proper design of highway horizontal curves should strive for the maximum curvature or
the minimum radius just under the most critical conditions. It is therefore necessary to
establish an appropriate relationship among the design speed, the horizontal curve radius,
and the superelevation. The minimum radius or the maximum curvature has a limiting
value for a given design speed as determined according to the maximum rate of
superelevation (emax) and the maximum side-friction coefficient (fRmax):
2 2
Vd Vd
R min = =
3.6 ⋅ ( g ⋅ e max + g ⋅ fR max ) 127 ⋅ ( e max + fR max )
2
(2)
where:
Rmin – minimum radius of horizontal curve (m)
Vd – design speed (km/hr)
g·emax = ae – superelevation acceleration
g·fRmax = afr – friction lateral acceleration
ac = ae+afr – centrifugal acceleration
127 – conversion factor, taking acceleration of gravity as g=9.81 m/s2

18
The use of a smaller radius (sharper curvature) than the minimum radius for the prevailing
design speed might necessitate a non-practical superelevation or side-friction coefficient
beyond the safety limits. Table 8 presents the design values of the basic parameters in
horizontal curve design.

Table 8: Design Values of Basic Parameters in Horizontal Curve Design

Design Speed (km/hr)

Parameter
60 70 80 90 100 110 120

emax
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
(max superelevation)
fRmax
0.16 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09
max side friction**
fRmin
0.033 0.030 0.028 0.026 0.024 0.022 0.021
min side friction*
Rmin
110 170 220 340 440 565 670
min horizontal radius (m)
γ: e-fR
1.587 1.250 1.275 1.400 1.267 1.133 1.150
distribution coefficient
* Adapted from Lamm et al. (1999).
** fRmax is required for the minimum horizontal curve radius calculation.

Relationship between Radii Larger than Rmin and the Appropriate Superelevation: e-R
Model
The distribution of the amount of side friction (fR) and superelevation (e) is very important
in the design of horizontal curves with radii larger than the minimum. If a radius selected
for the horizontal curve is larger than the minimum radius (Rmin), then the horizontal curve
should be designed to a smaller superelevation than the maximum superelevation (emax).

The superelevation and the side friction assist in balancing the centrifugal force while
driving along a horizontal curve. The ratio (e/(e+f)) depicts the relative contribution to
balancing the centrifugal force: as this ratio increases, the circular motion relies less on the
side friction, the centrifugal deceleration decreases, and driving becomes more comfortable
and safe along the horizontal curve.

The e-R model assumes a linear relationship between fR and e, and two pairs (fRmax, emax;
fRmin, emin) characterize this relationship. If we define γ as the e-fR linear distribution

19
coefficient based on the superelevation design policy (Bassan 2013), the final of
formulation of the "e-R" model is as follows:

1  Vd 
2

e(R ) =  − fR max + emax ⋅ γ  , emin ≤ e ≤ emax (3)

1 + γ  127 ⋅ R 
where:
R – prevailing radius of the horizontal curve (m)
Vd – design speed (km/hr)
e(R) – prevailing superelevation for R>Rmin
fRmax – maximum side-friction coefficient for maximum superelevation (Table 8)
emax – maximum superelevation suitable for a specific design speed (Table 8)
γ = e-fR – distribution coefficient, based on maximum superelevation policy (Table 8).
This coefficient depends on fRmax, fRmin, emax, emin.

Fig. 3: Linear e-fR distribution model results, emax = 0.10 for 60≤Vd≤ 80 km/hr,
and emax = 0.08 for 90≤Vd≤120 km/hr

20
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION

Sight-distance restriction in horizontal curve design

Barriers along open highways and walls on tunnels may restrict the available sight distance
in the design of horizontal curves. The minimum radius that is based on the equilibrium of
the centrifugal force, Rmin = V2/(emax+fRmax), is too small for the requirements of stopping
sight distance when there are obstructions along the road (especially the median barrier on
open roadways) that intrude on the line of sight. The limitation of a stopping sight distance
could arise as follows:

(1) On two-lane highways, the inside barrier could restrict sight distance in the right-
bound curve. The horizontal sight-line offset (HSO) could be no more than 4.8 meters
(3 meters of right shoulder plus 1.8 meters of the distance between the centerline of the
right lane and its right edge).

(2) On four (or six)-lane divided highways, the median barrier could restrict sight
distance in the left-bound curve. The HSO could be no more than 4.8 meters (3 meters
of median/left shoulder width plus 1.8 meters of the distance between the centerline of
the left lane and its left edge).

The HSO could be even smaller (i.e. 3.0 meters) if the median shoulder is reduced to 1.2
meters.

The outside barrier restriction is similar to two-lane highways (HSO=4.8 m); however,
since design speed is usually higher, the stopping sight distance is even more restricted. All
this is even more obvious in tunnels, where continuous walls run along the sides.

Table 9 present examples of SSD restrictions on a horizontal curve, based on AASHTO

(2011). Figures 4 and 5 show the restricted SSD line (AB) for two-lane highways and six-
lane divided highways, assuming HSO = 4.8 m and Rmin = 229 m, Rmin = 501 m (for Vd
= 80 km/hr, and Vd = 110 km/hr) correspondingly.

21
 Table 9: Examples of SSD restrictions on horizontal curves,
based on AASHTO SSD design values

Design speed, Vd (km/hr)

SSD restrictions
60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Stopping sight distance,

85 105 130 160 185 220 250
SSD (m), AASHTO 2011
Calculated radius
188 287 440 667 891 1260 1628
(HSO=4.8m)*
Calculated radius
301 459 704 1067 1426 2017 2604
(HSO=3.0m) *
Minimum radius (Rmin),
113 168 229 304 394 501 667
e(max)=8%, AASHTO 2011
* R = SD2 / (8·HSO)

Fig. 4: Example of a Restricted SSD Line for a Two-Lane Highway (Vd=80 km/hr)

22
Fig. 5: Example of a Restricted SSD Line for a Six-lane Divided Highway (Vd=110 km/hr)

Median (left) shoulder width

The current Israeli design policy recommends a median shoulder width of 1.2 meters for
divided interurban highways with two lanes per direction and of 3.0 meters for divided
interurban highways with three or more lanes per direction. The concept is that 3.0 meters
enables a stalled vehicle in the left-most lane to move aside to the median shoulder instead
of conflicting at least two traffic lanes while trying to make a safe maneuver to the right
shoulder.

On the other hand, a second opinion supports a narrow left shoulder that is suitable for
highway capacity and high target-speed requirements. The assumption is that drivers are
used to moving to the right shoulder when they have to stop for emergency reasons (i.e.
stalled vehicle or strong personal difficulty in continuing to drive, etc.). This opinion,
however, supports widening the right shoulder (to more than 3.0 meters) and possibly
considering wide emergency lay-bys (generally implemented in working zones) on the
right-hand side in order to provide a wider space for the driver to open the vehicle door and
not be put at risk from the ongoing traffic on the left hand side. Still, a narrow left shoulder
results in smaller HSO and, therefore, in more restricted sight distances on horizontal
curves as discussed earlier.

23
 REFERENCES
(1) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
(2011). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition.
Washington D.C.

(2) Bassan S. (2013). Modeling the relationship between the radius and superelevation in
horizontal curve design. Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 92nd
Annual Meeting, Washington DC, January.

(3) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (1999), Vol. 2: Highway Structures
Design, Section 2: Special Structures, Part 9: Design of Road Tunnels, BD 78/99,
HMSO, U.K.

(4) Fambro B., Fitzpatrick K., Koppa R.J. (1997). Determination of Stopping Sight
Distance. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Report 400,
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.

(5) Transportation Association of Canada (1999). Geometric Design Guide for Canadian
Roads.

(6) Guidelines for the Design of Roads (RAS). (1995). Part: Alignment (RAS-L),
Proposals, 1993 and 1995. German Road and Transportation Research Association,
Cologne, Germany.

(7) Guidelines for the Design of Motorways (2011 [2008]). Road and Transportation
Research Association. FGSV. RAA. Germany

(8) Guide to Road Design, Part 3: Geometric Design (2009). AGRD03/09, Austroads,
Sydney, New South Wales.

(9) Harwood D.W., Fambro D.B., Fishburn B., Herman J., Lamm R., Psarianos B. (1995).
International sight distance practices. Proceedings of International Symposium on
Highway/ Geometric Design Practices, pp. 32.1 – 32.23.

(10) ISRAEL Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). Transport and communications.

http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/?MIval=cw_usr_view_SHTML&ID=433

24
(11) Lamm R., Psarianos B, Mailaender T. (1999). Highway Design and Traffic Safety
Engineering Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.

(12) National Roads Authority, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (2007). Volume 6:
Road Link Design. Ireland.

(13) NCHRP 605 (2008). Passing Sight Distance Criteria. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program. Transportation Research Board. Washington D.C. USA.

(14) Austroads (2003). Rural Road Design. A Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural
Roads.

(15) TRANSIT New Zealand (2003). State Highway Geometric Design Manual.

25
APPENDIX A:

ISRAEL TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC STATISTICS INFORMATION:

GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION

Roadway length:

26
Motor vehicles and kilometers traveled:

27
Rate of motorization:

28
Rate of motorization (continued):

29
Road accidents with casualties

30
Road accidents with casualties (continued)

31