Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 57-01. Performance-Based Design Practices

Preliminary Scope: Roadway geometric design has traditionally involved the application of tools, methods, dimensions, and criteria. The tools used in the current process have been dimensionally based, and designers typically follow the values in tables and equations from American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or agency policies. The typical purpose of the roadway geometric design process is to provide the necessary three-dimensional features (horizontal alignment, vertical alignment, cross-section) for a roadway to address identified problems/needs and provide the appropriate level of mobility and safety outcomes for all road users. The traditional philosophical approach to design has been to treat minimum or desirable design criteria as adequate to produce acceptable performance. More recently, performance-based design (PBD) for roadways has advanced within the design profession and focuses on using specific, quantifiable (and sometimes qualitative) performance measures to guide design decisions, rather than simply adhering to traditional, dimensionally driven design standards. The objective of this synthesis is to document current state department of transportation (DOT) practices for development and use of performance-based geometric design tools, methods, and approaches, also known as “performance-based practical design” (PBPD). Information to be gathered includes (but is not limited to): (1) State DOTs’ current use of and approaches to PBD/PBPD programs, including priorities and needs (e.g., context alignment, safety improvement, congestion relief, and asset management); (2) How state DOTs consider a project’s context, potential impact, and stakeholder input during the design process (e.g., land use, environmental concerns, community values); (3) Performance measures and analytical tools that evaluate the effectiveness and performance of different design options; and (4) The financial feasibility of different design options. Information will be gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and follow-up interviews with selected DOTs for the development of case examples. Information gaps and suggestions for research to address those gaps will be identified. Information sources (partial): (1) Laustsen, K., et. al. 2024. Quantifiable Application of Performance-Based Design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2678:11. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981241246785. (2) Torbic D. J., et al. 2023. NCHRP Research Report 1064: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Performance Functions. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/27294. (3) Michigan DOT: SPR-1736, Corridor and Systemwide Application of Performance Based Practical Design. 2023. https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/programs/research/research-projects/recently-completed-projects/spr-1736. (4) Ray, B. L., et al. 2022. NCHRP Web-Only Document 320: Aligning Geometric Design with Roadway Context. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/26535. (5) Sanders, R., et al. 2020. NCHRP Research Report 926: Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/25808. (6) Neuman. T. R., et al. 2016. NCHRP Research Report 839: A Performance-Based Highway Geometric Design Process. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/24626. (7) Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian & Bicycle Performance Measures, FHWA. 2016. (8) https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/50784. (9) Ray, B. L., et al. 2014. NCHRP Report 785: Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/22285. (10) AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition. with 2014 Supplement. (11) McGee, H. W., Sr. 2013. NCHRP Synthesis 443: Practical Highway Design Solutions. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/22636. (12) Parker, T. L. 2012. NCHRP Legal Research Digest 57: Tort Liability Defense Practices for Design Flexibility. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/14656. (13) Dorothy, P. L. and Thieken, S. L. 2011. NCHRP Synthesis 422: Trade-Off Considerations in Highway Geometric Design. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. https://doi.org/10.17226/22842.

• Record URL:
  • http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=5978
• Supplemental Notes:
  • A research agency has been selected for the project. The contracting process is underway.

Language

• English

Project

• Status: Proposed
• Funding: $65,000.00
• Contract Numbers:

  Project 20-05, Topic 57-01

• Sponsor Organizations:

  State Departments of Transportation (participating member states of American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO))

  American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
  444 North Capitol Street, NW
  Washington, DC  United States  20001

  Federal Highway Administration

  1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
  Washington, DC  United States  20590
• Managing Organizations:

  National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis

  Transportation Research Board
  500 Fifth Street, NW
  Washington, DC    20001
• Project Managers:

  Hutchins, Mark

• Start Date: 20260803
• Expected Completion Date: 0
• Actual Completion Date: 0

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Geometric design; Highway design; Performance based specifications; Performance measurement; State departments of transportation
• Subject Areas: Design; Highways; Pavements;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 01972946
• Record Type: Research project
• Source Agency: Transportation Research Board
• Contract Numbers: Project 20-05, Topic 57-01
• Files: TRB, RIP
• Created Date: Nov 26 2025 6:14PM