Reports to the FHWA from various agencies using ELRs under the Request-To-Experiment Program
The number of ELRs in each agency is included in parens
Washington DC (5)
San Francisco, CA (1)
Lincoln, MA (1)
Minneapolis, MN (7)
Boulder, CO (1)
Edina, MN (2)
Cambridge, MA (2)
Fort Collins, CO (1) - final report not published but City staff states that the facility performed well and they are keeping it
The number of ELRs in each agency is included in parens
Washington DC (5)
San Francisco, CA (1)
Lincoln, MA (1)
Minneapolis, MN (7)
Boulder, CO (1)
Edina, MN (2)
Cambridge, MA (2)
Fort Collins, CO (1) - final report not published but City staff states that the facility performed well and they are keeping it
What is fhwa experimentation?
Conventional wisdom claims safe use of the American road system is achieved partly through unambiguous direction to drivers and a predictable environment. Standardization of traffic control mechanisms is an important piece of this approach. In this system, one needs a process by which new ideas are tested and their performance evaluated.
For the American road network, this process has been codified and is administered by the FHWA. Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD contains the regulations describing the experimentation process. Broadly speaking, the process requires an application to the FHWA describing the setting, the proposed project and a plan for evaluating the project's effectiveness. After approval is granted the project is constructed. After a trial period of at least one year, the project is evaluated and the findings are forwarded to the FHWA. Twice-yearly reports are submitted to the FHWA during the trial period.
For the American road network, this process has been codified and is administered by the FHWA. Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD contains the regulations describing the experimentation process. Broadly speaking, the process requires an application to the FHWA describing the setting, the proposed project and a plan for evaluating the project's effectiveness. After approval is granted the project is constructed. After a trial period of at least one year, the project is evaluated and the findings are forwarded to the FHWA. Twice-yearly reports are submitted to the FHWA during the trial period.
what are the pros and cons of the Fhwa experimentation process?
While conducting my survey of North American ELRs, I found that approximately 2/3 had chosen to install ELRs without FHWA approval. The reasons for this varied but more than a few jurisdictions purposely avoided the process. Some agencies installed their facilities after being refused permission to experiment by the FHWA.
So, what are the pros and cons of this process that influenced those decisions? Here is my personal list:
PROS
Two advantages to using the FHWA experimentation process are:
CONS
Two disadvantages to using the FHWA experimentation process are:
RECOMMENDATION
New or innovative designs don't tend to be areas where bureaucracies and regulatory agencies perform well. Despite having a published crash modification factor in the FHWA CMF Warehouse showing a strong safety improvement, another arm of the FHWA is still determining if the treatment is safe. Additionally, the industry already uses a one-lane, two-way facility in locations where two-way traffic is expected to use them - they are called two-way-left-turn lanes.
This disappointing performance is a direct contributor to the high number of ELRs being installed without FHWA approval.
A popular course of action is to write a good engineering justification for use of the treatment so vulnerable road users become safe now rather than years from now.
So, what are the pros and cons of this process that influenced those decisions? Here is my personal list:
PROS
Two advantages to using the FHWA experimentation process are:
- First, an agency working within this process may get a yet-to-be-quantified boost to legal protection should an experimental facility be the focus of a legal action. How much this helps depends on many factors such as the facts of the case, strength of the engineering justification documentation, etc.
- Second, experimentation results add to the body of information available to everyone considering use of a treatment.
CONS
Two disadvantages to using the FHWA experimentation process are:
- First, participation in the process requires more time and money. An application process must be navigated successfully and an evaluation study must be completed at the end of a trial period. Reports must be sent to the FHWA during the trial period.
- Second, inserting the federal government into an agency's evaluation/approval process, raises the possibility of denial or untoward design changes (one community was told to widen their road before installing an ELR - narrow roads are exactly where ELRs shine!).
RECOMMENDATION
New or innovative designs don't tend to be areas where bureaucracies and regulatory agencies perform well. Despite having a published crash modification factor in the FHWA CMF Warehouse showing a strong safety improvement, another arm of the FHWA is still determining if the treatment is safe. Additionally, the industry already uses a one-lane, two-way facility in locations where two-way traffic is expected to use them - they are called two-way-left-turn lanes.
This disappointing performance is a direct contributor to the high number of ELRs being installed without FHWA approval.
A popular course of action is to write a good engineering justification for use of the treatment so vulnerable road users become safe now rather than years from now.
Correspondence with FHWA on Experimentation
In late 2021, the FHWA announced they would deny all future requests to experiment (RTEs) with ELRs. Their stated reason for this decision was that they had enough ongoing experiments to satisfy their data collection needs.
On April 19, 2022, a group of industry-leading organizations (NACTO, ITE, APBP, LAB) and practitioners sent a letter to the FHWA explaining why this reasoning and action was mistaken and offered alternative actions to consider. For more information on this issue and the reasons the industry felt the FHWA should reconsider, read the letter at this link.
A summary of the objections in the letter are:
At the Summer, 2022 meeting of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, an FHWA representative spoke to the Bicycle Technical Committee. He told the committee that the reason for denying future RTE applications was because the FHWA wasn't getting enough data from agencies with already-approved RTEs (this differs from the reason stated on their website). This makes it appear that, because some agencies weren't complying with the conditions of their RTE agreements, the FHWA had decided to deny all other agencies the ability to make their streets safer. I am unsure of the logic behind this decision.
Letter Update: On February 28, 2023, the FHWA responded to the industry's 2022 letter. That letter did not respond to any of the problems described in the original letter and did not respond to any of the suggestions for alternative action. It did not comment on the fact that many of its current experiments use designs that are NOT recommended by guidance from countries with decades more experience with ELRs.
In late 2021, the FHWA announced they would deny all future requests to experiment (RTEs) with ELRs. Their stated reason for this decision was that they had enough ongoing experiments to satisfy their data collection needs.
On April 19, 2022, a group of industry-leading organizations (NACTO, ITE, APBP, LAB) and practitioners sent a letter to the FHWA explaining why this reasoning and action was mistaken and offered alternative actions to consider. For more information on this issue and the reasons the industry felt the FHWA should reconsider, read the letter at this link.
A summary of the objections in the letter are:
- This action discourages use of a treatment that benefits all vulnerable road users and has been shown to reduce motor vehicle crashes.
- This action exacerbates an already-widespread practice of agencies installing ELRs without FHWA involvement, reducing our evidence base.
- This action finalizes a database of ELRs that are less safe due to designs that run counter to decades of experience in other countries.
- This action pays little attention to rural ELRs and no attention to those at the upper end of the performance envelope.
- This action does nothing to evaluate the primary use of ELRs as pedestrian facilities, a use that is already occurring.
- This action runs counter to published guidance that describes ELRs as being available with FHWA approval.
At the Summer, 2022 meeting of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, an FHWA representative spoke to the Bicycle Technical Committee. He told the committee that the reason for denying future RTE applications was because the FHWA wasn't getting enough data from agencies with already-approved RTEs (this differs from the reason stated on their website). This makes it appear that, because some agencies weren't complying with the conditions of their RTE agreements, the FHWA had decided to deny all other agencies the ability to make their streets safer. I am unsure of the logic behind this decision.
Letter Update: On February 28, 2023, the FHWA responded to the industry's 2022 letter. That letter did not respond to any of the problems described in the original letter and did not respond to any of the suggestions for alternative action. It did not comment on the fact that many of its current experiments use designs that are NOT recommended by guidance from countries with decades more experience with ELRs.
Photo courtesy of Scott Robinson at City of Bloomington, IN.