i

TABLEOFCONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary
1.

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1

2.

BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................................2

2.1

Relevantdocumentation...........................................................................................................2

2.2

Currentapproachtodetermineroadreserverequirements....................................................3

3.

LITERATUREREVIEW................................................................................................................4

3.1

Currentdepartmentalstandards...............................................................................................4
3.1.1

Designspeed.................................................................................................................4

3.1.2

KvaluesandGradients.................................................................................................4

3.1.3

Servicestrips.................................................................................................................5

3.1.4

Lanewidths...................................................................................................................5

3.1.5

Sidedrainandearthworks............................................................................................5

3.1.6

Singlecarriagewayroads,gravelroadsandDroads.................................................7

3.1.7

Class3RoadStandards.................................................................................................7

3.1.8

Otheraspects................................................................................................................8

3.2

ReportBL108RoadCrossSectionalElementsandRoadReserveWidths.............................8

3.3

ReportBB3:CrossSectionStandardsandRoadReserveWidthsforKroutesinExceptional
Circumstances..........................................................................................................................13

3.4

ReportBB10:WalkingandCyclingonRoadsandStreetsinGauteng.....................................14

3.5

DraftNationalGuidelinesforRoadAccessManagementinSouthAfrica:October2005.......15

3.6

SANRALG2Manual:GeometricDesignGuidelines,2004.......................................................15
3.6.1

Designapproach.........................................................................................................15

3.6.2

Designspeed,stoppingsightdistanceandKvalues..................................................16

3.6.3

Gradients.....................................................................................................................17

3.7

TCCReportWG301/2004:PublicTransportintheRoadCrossSection:February2004........17

3.7.1

Dedicatedpublictransportfacilities..........................................................................16

3.7.2

Publictransportinmixedtraffic................................................................................20

3.8

SouthernAfricanRoadTrafficSignsManual(SARTSM)..........................................................22

3.9

MiscellaneousConsiderations.................................................................................................23
3.9.1

Emergencyuseofroadshoulders...............................................................................23

ii

3.9.2

Crossingorturningintoroadsfromastopsign.........................................................23

3.9.3

ShoulderSightDistance(IntersectionSightDistance)andDecisionSightDistance..24

4.

DELIBERATION........................................................................................................................25

4.1

DesignApproach......................................................................................................................25

4.2

Designspeedandspeedlimits.................................................................................................25

4.3

TopographyandEnvironment.................................................................................................25

4.4

Trafficsignals,postedspeedanddesignspeed.......................................................................26

4.5

Drainage...................................................................................................................................26

4.6

Numberoflanes......................................................................................................................27

4.7

Laneandshoulderwidths........................................................................................................28

4.8

Medianwidth...........................................................................................................................28

4.9

Aestheticsandearthworks......................................................................................................28

4.10

Bus(orrail)RapidTransit(BRT)...............................................................................................29

4.11

Roadlighting............................................................................................................................29

4.12

Alreadycompletedroaddesignsanddeterminedroadreservewidths.................................28

5.

PIARCSeminaronVulnerableRoadUsers........................................................................30

6.

RECOMMENDATION.............................................................................................................31

6.1

Approach..................................................................................................................................31

6.2

Roadreservewidths................................................................................................................29
6.2.1

Class2roads...............................................................................................................29

6.2.2

Class3roads...............................................................................................................30

6.2.3

Freeways.....................................................................................................................30

6.2.4

Specialcases...............................................................................................................31

6.2.5

Retrofitting..................................................................................................................31

6.2.6

Summarytable...........................................................................................................31

6.3

DevelopinganewGeometricDesignManual..........................................................................31

iii

TABLES:
Table3.1:Currentdepartmentalstandards
Table 3.2: Range of road cross section standards for Freeways and Kroads envisaged in
ReportBL108
Table3.9:Sightdistances(AASHTO2004)
Table6.2:EnvisagedBenchmarkValuesforRoadElementsandRoadReserveWidths
FIGURES:
Figure3.3

BB3CrossSection

Figure3.7.1 :

TypicalCrossSectionwithPublicTransportLanesinMedian

Figure3.7.2 :

62mClass2RoadwithPublicTransportinMedian

Figure3.7.3 :

48,4mClass2RoadwithPublicTransportinMedian

Figure3.7.4 :

48,4mClass2RoadwithPublicTransportinMixedTraffic

iv
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
a)

TERMSOFREFERENCE
ThisreviewofthecurrentgeometricroaddesignstandardsoftheGautengDepartmentof
RoadsandTransporthasbeenundertakenbytheGSTNJointVentureaspartoftheGauteng
StrategicRoadNetworkreview.

b)

SCOPE
Thedocumentdiscussesthecurrentstandardsandpreviousinvestigationsinthisregardand
assesses this work in view of the latest development in this field of civil engineering. It
identifies at a strategic level aspects of standards that require reconsideration but stops
shortofmakingspecificrecommendations.However,inviewofanapparenturgencyinthis
regard,recommendationsaremadewithregardtonominalroadreservewidths.

c)

ISSUES
Theaspectsthathavebeenidentifiedforreconsiderationarelistedbelowwithanindication
oftheissuesinvolvedandarecommendationwhereappropriate.
i)

Humanfactors,ContextSensitiveDesignandconceptoftheDesignDomain:
Theseconsiderationsshouldbeincorporatedinthenewdesignmanual.

ii)

Kvaluesandgradients:
Pay more attention to balancing the road reserve requirements of steeper gradients
with climbing lanes versus easier gradients without climbing lanes, also in the case of
multilaneroads.

iii) Servicesstrip:

Obtaininputfromthenationalinvestigation.
iv) Interchangeelements:

ConsiderchangingtoSANRALrequirementsforthedesignofinterchangeelements.
v)

Lanewidths:
Obtainnationalagreementon3,5mor3,6masnewstandardforClass2roadsand3,4
m or 3,5m for Class 3 roads, bearing in mind the possible effect of vehicle tracking
associatedwithnarrowerlanes,onroadpavementdesign.

vi) Othercrosssectionalelements:

BenchmarkvaluesrecommendedareasperTable3.2.
vii) Sightdistanceandobjectheight:

AdoptSANRAL/AASHTOphilosophy.
viii) Doorways of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vehicles to be operated on dedicated median
facilities:
A narrower crosssection than the current widths required for dedicated median
facilities would result, should only special vehicles with right hand side doors be
consideredforoperationalpurposes.
ix) Number of normal traffic lanes to be operated in conjunction with BRT/dedicated
publictransportlanes:

Adecisioninprincipalisrequiredwhethertocontinuewith6normallanes,ortoreduce
thenumberofnormallanesto4.
x)

Provisionofroadshouldersinurbanareas:
A decision in principal is required whether shoulders are to be provided or not. It is
recommended that shoulders be provided in the two and four lane stages, but not in
thesixlanestage,providedthatmountableorsemimountablekerbingisused,inorder
forvehiclesexperiencingdifficultiestofindarefugeontheverge.

xi) Shouldersightdistance:

Itshouldbecarefullyconsideredwhetherornottoreducethecurrentnominal300m
shouldersightdistancerequirementinconjunctionwiththedesignspeedsadopted.
xii) Designspeed:

Carefully consider speeds to be designed for. Design speeds should match driver
expectations.Generallyinurbanconditionsthedesignspeedshouldexceedthespeed
limitbytheorderof10km/h,butcouldbeequalinruralconditions.

On the adoption of SANRAL/AASHTO sight distance and object height criteria, the
benchmark design speed for Class 2 roads should be 100 km/h. For a Class 3 road it
shouldbe80km/h.However,wheretrafficsignalswillbeincorporatedfrominception
intheconstructionofaroad,therelevantbenchmarkdesignspeedscouldbereduced

vi

by10km/h.RoutesidentifiedforBRTandotherformsofpublictransportshouldalso
besubjecttotheserequirements.
xiii) Designparametersandtopography:

Designparametersgenerallyshouldmatchthetopographicalenvironment.
xiv) Roadlighting:

Class2andClass3roadsshouldbelitwhereroadshouldersarenotprovided.
xv) Landuse:

Sensitive land uses such as schools, crches and other pedestrianintensive

developmentshouldnotbepermittedadjacenttomobilityroads.Wheretheyalready
exist,physicalmeasuresshouldbeimplementedtoseparatevulnerableroadusersfrom
motorisedtraffic.
xvi) Crosssectionalvalues

Benchmarkvaluesenvisagedforthewidthsofcrosssectionalroadelementsappearin
Table6.2.
xvii) Roadreservewidths:

The future benchmark values of various roads are envisaged as set out below. The
proposals referring to public transport routes are based on the use of conventional
vehiclesandnotspecialvehicleswithrighthandsidedoors.

Freewayswithdedicatedpublictransport:80m

Otherfreeways:70m

Conventional dual carriageway roads (Class 2) with dedicated public transport: 62m,
unless it is decided to reduce the number of normal traffic lanes from six to four, in
whichcasethenominalcrosssectioncanbereducedto55m.
OtherConventionaldualcarriagewayroads(Class2):48,4m.

Although design standards for Class 3 roads have not been developed as part of the
review process, the following guideline widths for Class 3 road reserves have been
discerned:

Urbanwithpublictransportinmixedtraffic:40m.

vii

Urbannotservingpublictransport:35m.

Rural:30mto40mdependingonthetrafficvolumes.
Road reserves of roads already determined are to remain unchanged for practical
administrativereasons.

d)

ANEWGEOMETRICDESIGNMANUAL
Itisrecommended that the Departmentdevelops anewGeometricDesign Manual,taking
cognisanceofthedeliberationandrecommendationsofthisreviewdocument.
Itisimportanttonotethoughthatanyrevisedstandardsthatcomeaboutasaresultofthis
recommendationwouldonlybeapplicabletonewdesigns,andshouldnotbeconstruedas
indicativeofaneedoralicencetorevisitdesignsalreadycompletedorroadreservewidths
alreadydeterminedinconjunctionwiththecurrentstandards.

REVIEWOFROADSTANDARDS
1.

INTRODUCTION
In the second half of 2008, the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport (Gautrans)
embarkedonareviewoftheGautengStrategicRoadNetworkandhasawardedacontractin
thisregardtotheGSTNJointVenturetoassistthem.
Amongstthedeliverablesofthecontractisareviewofthecurrentdepartmentalstandards
applicable to various classes of routes forming part of the strategic road network, and an
indicationofhowdedicatedandsharedpublictransportfacilitiesshouldbeaccommodated
ineachinstance.
Duringthecourseoftheprojectmeetingswiththedepartmentitwasestablishedthatthe
mainmotivationsforareviewofstandardsare:

Thecostoflandinvolvedinprocuringroadreservesmeetingcurrentstandards.

A new South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) Geometric Design
Guidelines (G2 Manual) appeared in 2004. This inter alia incorporated new
approachesfollowedbyAASHTOintheirGreenBooksof2001and2004.

The fact thatGauteng is moving in the direction of acityregion, whereas someof

thestandardsinusehavebeendevelopedforruralconditions.

Thestrategicroadsaregenerallyconstructedinresponsetodevelopmentandtraffic
demand,i.e.oncetownshipdevelopmenthasalreadytakenplaceoristakingplace.
Newroadsareseldomifeverconstructedunderruralconditions.

Urbanroadsgenerallyarelit.

Under congested conditions there is a tendency for road shoulders to be used as

additional lanes by motorists, negating their original purpose and creating unsafe
drivingconditions.

The municipalities do not provide for road shoulders in their standards, but for
kerbed verges. This is also related tothe philosophy pertaining to the handling of
stormwater.Kerbinggenerallyisofthemountableorsemimountabletypetopermit
motoristsexperiencingdifficultiestogetoutofthetravelledlanes.

Difficulties have been experienced with regard to road drainage designs

incorporatingopensidedrainsinareasthathavesincebecomebuiltup,yetinother
instances an open side drain in support of a kerbed cross section has been
incorporatedsuccessfullyinanurbanroaddesign.

Incertaincases,theapplicationofcurrentdepartmentalroadstandardsresultedina
perceptionofmoneywastedonunnecessarilyhighfillsand/ordeepcuttings.Italso
seemed to create an impression with motorists that they can drive as if on a
freeway,resultingininappropriatelyhighoperatingspeeds.

BusRapidTransit(BRT)facilitieswerebeingimplementedbymunicipalitiesinrather
narrowroadsandstreetswithcrosssectionsdifferentfromthatofthedepartment.

It also has to be mentioned that standards pertaining to intersection and interchange

spacingareoftenquestioned.
Thisbriefdocumentconsiderstheinformationathandandindicatesthewayforwardforthe
developmentofnewdesignstandards,includingcrosssectionalproposalsforClass1,Class2
andClass3routes,withparticularreferencetoaspectsthatinfluenceroadreservewidth.
2.

BACKGROUND

2.1

Relevantdocumentation
The current road design standards of the department are contained in the Gautrans Road
Design Manual Volume 1: Geometrics (BB1), dated December 2001 and its accompanying
bookofTypicalPlansforRoadDesign:PlanGTP1/1.
Inrecentyears,theGautengDepartmentofRoadsandTransporthashadvariousaspectsof
thestandardsapplicabletoprovincialroadsinvestigatedonanumberofoccasions.These
investigationsalsocoveredtheClass2KroadsforwhichtheDepartmentactsascustodian
withrespecttotheprotectionoftheroutesandroadreserves.Theseinvestigationsresulted
amongstothersinthefollowingreports:
(i)

BB3:CrossSectionalStandardsandRoadReserveWidthsforKRoadsinExceptional
Circumstances(December1994).

(ii)

TCCWG301/2004:PublicTransportintheRoadCrossSection(March2004).

(iii)

BB10:WalkingandCyclingonRoadsinGauteng.(August2006)

(iv)

BL108:RoadCrossSectionandRoadReserveWidth.(May2006)

TheabovementioneddocumentsdealpredominantlywithClass1andClass2roads.Other
documentationpertinenttothisdiscussionarethedraftNationalGuidelinesforRoadAccess

ManagementinSouthAfrica(April2005),whichcoverallclassesofroadsandtheSANRAL
GeometricDesignGuidelines,mentionedearlier.
For the purposes of the current review, these documents were perused together with
municipal documents such as the City of Tshwanes Standard Construction Details and
Design Standards for Roads and Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure. A number of other
Gautransreportsanddocumentshavealsobeenconsultedonspecificissuesasmentioned
inthefollowingdiscussions.Inadditionaworkshopongeometricstandardswasconducted
withpersonnelofthedepartmenton24 July 2009.Cognisancehasalsobeen takenofthe
proceedings of the PIARC International Symposium promoting road safety for Vulnerable
RoadUsers(VRUs)heldinCapeTownduringthe25thto27thofOctober2009.
2.2

Currentapproachtodetermineroadreserverequirements
It is current departmental practice to finalise road reserve coordinates during preliminary
design, based on the ultimate road facility envisaged for a particular route. For a Class 1
roadtheultimatecrosssectionenvisagedcomprisesaneightlanedualcarriagewayfreeway.
TheultimatecrosssectionofaClass2roadcomprisesanominalsixlanedualcarriageway
road.OnClass1andClass2roadsformingpartoftheGautengStrategicPublicTransport
Network,dedicatedspaceintheroadmedianisalsosetasideforpublictransportlanes.
Stormwaterdrainagedesignisbasedonanopensidedrainapproach.Detaildesign,inmost
cases,followsmuchlaterandgenerallyrepresentsaphasedimplementationofthefacility,
e.g. initially one carriageway acting as an undivided two lane road, followed by the
construction of a second carriageway bringing the road to the fourlane stage and finally
addingadditionallanesforthesixlanestage.
It has to be noted further that preliminary designs have been completed for the vast
majorityofClass1andClass2roadsfallingwithinthecurrenturbanedgeandareprotected
undertheGautengTransportInfrastructureAct(GTIA).
Preliminary designs are commissioned long in advance of road construction, mainly to
provideguidancetolandusedevelopersastotheexactroadreserverequirementsthathave
to be taken into account. It is considered impractical to revisit completed preliminary
designs,shoulddesignstandardschangeandinparticularundesirabletoconsiderreducing
roadreservewidthsalreadyestablishedasitwouldinvolvethedepartmentinaquagmireof
legalissues.Obviouslythemostcurrentdesignstandardsareappliedateverydesignstage.

Thecurrentapproachrelatingtotheearlydeterminationofroadreserverequirementsand
reservationthereofisconsideredgoodpracticeandshouldbecontinued.
3.

LITERATUREREVIEW

3.1

Currentdepartmentalstandards
The current departmental standards of particular interest to the study i.e. standards that
have a major impact on road reserve widths, are summarised in Table 3.1 and discussed
below. The current standards are related to type of road rather than Class of road, but
generallyFreewaysrelatetoClass1roadsandConventionaldualcarriagewayrelateto
Class2roads.Ithastobestressed,however,thatitisnotpredicatedthatClass1andClass2
roadswouldbefreewaysandconventionaldualcarriagewayroadsrespectively.
3.1.1

Designspeed

Itisofsignificancetonotethatdesignspeed,i.e.thetoolusedingeometricdesignto
ensure uniformity in design, only determines one element in Table 3.1 that may have a
direct influence on road reserve widths, namely Minimum K Values. K values that are
stipulated to ensure that adequate stopping sight distances are achieved over vertical
curves.Kvaluesmayinfluencethedepthofcutorheightoffillatchangesinverticalgrades,
shoulditbenecessarytocutorfilltomeettherequiredvalues.
It has to be noted also that should there be an intersection on a road, the shoulder sight
distancerequirements(see3.9.3) alsocomesintoconsiderationandgenerallyexceedsthe
stoppingsightdistancerequirements.
The other majoraspectdetermined by thedesign speed,namely, the minimum horizontal
radius,generallyplaysnoroleindeterminingtheroadreservewidth.Anexceptionwouldbe
acombinationofshortradiuscurvesanddeepcuttings,whereitmaybenecessarytowiden
theroadreservetoaccommodatethesightlineinsidetheroadreserve,butsuchconditions
seldomoccurinGauteng.
3.1.2

KvaluesandGradients

ThetopographyofGautengcangenerallybedescribedasslightlytomediumrolling.Under
thesecircumstancescertaindesignstandardssuchasKvaluesdonotplayasignificantrole
indeterminingroadreservewidths. Themaximumpermissiblevertical gradienthasmuch
more significance in this regard. However, increasing the permissible gradient to reduce
depths of cut and heights of fill in order to reduce the road reserve width, will have a
detrimental effect on the Level of Service and in particular negatively influence operating

speeds of public transport vehicles. This in turn might require the provision of climbing
lanes,whichwouldincreasetheroadreserverequirements.
It nevertheless appears necessary to pay more attention to balancing these conflicting
demandsinpreliminarydesign.
3.1.3

Servicestrips

Thepurpose ofthetwo3,0mwideservicestripsformingpartofthecurrentroadcross
sectionhavelongbeenapointofdebate.Theoneandcurrentlypredominantviewheldby
thedepartmentseesthisasspaceforservice(maintenance)equipmentonly,allowingitto
operateofftheroadshoulderandsidedrainandhenceawayfromcreatingarisktopassing
traffic.Theotherviewpointisthatthisspacealsomakesprovisionforutilities(services)in
theroadreserve.
Intheargumentagainstallowingutilitiesintheroadreserveitissaidthatalthoughaccessto
these utilities would not affect the road pavement structure, it may well result in utility
maintenance vehicles, stopping on the road shoulder, in contravention of road markings,
withassociatedriskstopassingtraffic.
Thisissue,apparently,hasalsobecomethesubjectofanationalinvestigation.
3.1.4

Lanewidths

The3,7mlanewidthwasadoptedasaSouthAfricanstandardatthetimeofmetrication,
roundingupthemetricequivalentofthethenstandard12ftlanewidth.Roundingdownto
3,6m as was done by the USA much later in their efforts at metrication, would also be
possible. The standard lane width adopted by SANRAL for the Gauteng Freeway
ImprovementProject(GFIP)is3,5m.
3.1.5

Sidedrainandearthworks

Only a nominal allowance is made in the 48,4 m urban cross section for a side drain and
earthworks.Incontrast,arelativelygenerousprovisionforearthworksismadeinthe62m
ruralKroadcrosssection,aswellasinthefreewaycrosssections,interaliaowingtowider
recoveryareasforoutofcontrolvehiclesbeingprovided.

6
Table3.1:Currentdepartmentalstandards
Road
Type

Environment

Min
Reserve

Max
Gradient

Width

(%)

(m)

Freeway
Conven
tional
dual
carriage
wayroads

MinKValues

Crest

Sag

No
lanes

(m)

Median
width
(including
inner
shoulders)
(m)

Lane
Width

Width
outer
shoulders

Sidedrain
and
earthworks

Service
Strips

Design
Speed*

Urbanwithdedicated
publictransportlanes

80

4,0

81

44

3,7

20,0

2x3,0

2x11,7

2x3,0

120

Rural

80

4,0

105

50

3,7

20,0

2x3,0

2x11,7

2x3,0

120

48,4

6,0

62

37

3,7

9,2

2x3,0

2x2,0

2x3,0

100

Urbanwithdedicated
publictransportlanes

62

6,0

62

37

3,7

18,0

2x3,0

2x7,4

2x3,0

100

Rural

62

7,0

62

37

3,7

9,2

2x3,0

2x8,8

2x3,0

100

40

7,0

62

37

3,7

N/A

2x2,7

N/A

2x3,0

100

30

7,0

62

37

3,7

N/A

2x2,7

N/A

2x3,0

100

Urban

Single
HighStd
carriage
LowStd
wayroads

* IntermsofthecurrentGautransdesignphilosophyasreflectedinthistable,thecorresponding85thpercentilevaluesofthedesignspeedsshownareusedto
determinedesignparameters,e.g.stoppingsightdistancesandKvalues.

7
3.1.6

Singlecarriagewayroads,gravelroads,DandProads

ThesinglecarriagewayroadsreferredtoinTable3.1inessencecomprisethesurfacedtwo
lane roads under provincial jurisdiction, of which quite a number exist in the province. In
general, these roads currently function as Class 2 or Class 3 roads, but can generally be
expectedtofunctionasClass3roadsinfuturewherenotindicatedtobeupgradedtoKroad
status.
Provincialgravelroadsgenerallyhavearoadreservewidthof25m.Thestandardsforgravel
roads are not quoted in Table 3.1, as these roads would in all probability have become
surfaced roads by the time they have to function as Class 3 roads, with an appropriate
adjustmentinroadreservewidth.
It may also be noted that the provincial district or D road indicator, only indicates
ownership and does not indicate whether a road is surfaced or not. It is nevertheless
envisagedthatallDroadswouldeventuallyformpartoftheClass3roadcategoryandbe
surfaced. In the rural environment they would probably remain single carriageway roads,
butinanurbanenvironmentwouldprobablyeventuallybedoubled.
Proadsgenerallyaresurfaced,withroadreservewidthsof40m, althoughanumberof
older P roads only have 30 m reserves. Similarly to the D roads, P roads not
incorporatedintheKRoadnetworkcanbeexpectedeventuallytofunctionasClass3roads
in an urban environment. The road reserves of P roads in a 30 m reserve should be
upgradedwhenincorporatedinurbandevelopment.
3.1.7

Class3RoadStandards

CurrentlyGautranshasnostandardsforClass 3 urbanroads,otherthanthe standards for

singlecarriagewayroadswhichshouldsufficefortheruralsituation.
The document BB3, referred to earlier, mentions a 30,0 m road reserve used by
JohannesburgCityCouncilforurbanarterials,predicatedona4lanefacility.ThethenCity
CouncilofPretoriauseda40,0mroadreserve,incorporatingsix(6)x3,3mlanes,a5,3m
medianandtwo7,6mwideverges.
ItisclearthatcrosssectionalstandardsforClass3urbanroadsareverymuchdetermined
bylocalcircumstancesandhenceitisnotconsiderednecessary(oradvisable)forGautrans
todevelopdesignstandardsforClass3roads,astheseroadsarewithintheMunicipalambit.
IngeneraldesirableClass3roadreservewidthsappeartobeoftheorderof30mto40m,
dependingonwhethertheroadinquestionoccursinaruralorurbanenvironmentaswellas
thevolumeoftrafficintheformercaseandwhethertheroadservespublictransportinthe
lattercase.

3.1.8

Otheraspects

Not reflected in the table are factors pertaining to intersection spacing as well as
interchange spacing and design, e.g. minimum radii of loop ramps. The current Gautrans
minimumlooprampradiusrequirementof75m,standsopposedtoaSANRALrequirement
of45m.
Theminimuminterchangespacingisdetermined bythetypeofinterchangesinvolvedand
for planning purposes is nominally set at 2,4 km between access interchanges and 3,6 km
betweenanaccessandsystemsinterchange.Fordesignpurposesreferencecanbemadeto
ReportBB6whichdealswiththismatteringreaterdetail.
Intersectionspacingonconventionalroadsisstipulatedataminimumof600mwhichcan
bereducedto550minexceptionalcircumstances.
The current Gautrans standards make no provision for nonmotorised, i.e. bicycle or
pedestrianmovementsinthedirectionoftravel.However,standardshavebeendeveloped
inReportBB7forbusstopsandranks.
3.2

ReportBL108RoadCrossSectionalElementsandRoadReserveWidths
Report BL108 goes into fine detail on elements contributing directly to the nominal road
reservewidthscurrentlyinuse.
The report advocates a flexible and pragmatic design approach to road crosssectional
designwithinfirmsafetyandcostlimits,builtaroundaseriesofbenchmarkvalues.These
areshowninTable3.2.
ItacceptsthecurrentdesignspeedsapplicabletofreewaysandKroads,andindicatesthat
theminimumvaluesshouldonlybeadoptedunderexceptionalcircumstances.
It isnot clear from the reportwhatthe influence of lowerdesignspeedswouldbe on the
crosssectional parameters discussed. The fact that there is very little, if any, difference
between the dimensions given for 120 km/h freeway elements and the corresponding
dimensionsofelementsfor100km/hKroads,seemstoindicatethatthisaspectisoflittle
consequence for mobility roads. This is in line with the AASHTO approach that the speed
selected for design purposes should correlate directly with pertinent features such as
horizontalandverticalcurvature,sightandstoppingsightdistancesandsuperelevation,and
only to a lesser extent with pavement (lane) and shoulder widths and clearances. The
HighwayCapacityManual2000,alsomentionsonlynominalreductionsof1km/hto2km/h
infreeflowspeedsforlanewidthsreducingfrom3,6mto3,5mto3,4m.However,when

lanewidthsarereducedto3,2mor3,0m,thefreeflowspeedsdropbyasmuchas5,6km/h
to10,5km/h.
Report BL 108, being mainly concerned with the widths of the various individual road
elements,doesnotconsiderthenumberoflanesrequiredandinthecrosssectionalfigures
followthenumberoflanescurrentlyallowedforintheGautengRoadDesignManual.

10
Table 3.2 Range of road cross section standards for Freeways and Kroads envisaged in
ReportBL108
Roadcrosssection
elements

Mini
mum
value
(m)
Freeways:110/120km/h
Lanewidth
3,5
Auxiliarylane
3,4

Bench
mark
value
(m)

Maxi
mum
value
(m)

Comments

3,6
3,5

3,7
3,7

Passing, HOV and public transport

lanes,butexcludingpublictransport
lanesinthemedian.
Excluding shoulder rounding (0,5 m)
andprovisionforguardrails(0,3m)
Surfacedportioncouldbe0,6m
Including width of inside shoulder,
but excluding provision for public
transport.
Stability,economic,maintenance&
environmentalconsiderations.
Dependontypeofdrainage.
Include provision for rounding (top
of cut or bottom of fill) and cutoff
drains.

Outsideshoulder
width
Insideshoulderwidth
Medianwidth

2,6

2,8

3,0

2,6
6,2

2,6
11,0

3,0
14,0

Sideformslope:fill
Sideformslope:cut
Provisionfordrainage
Verge

1:2
1:2
1,0
1,5

1:1,5
1:1,5
2,75
3,0

1:1,5
1:1,5
3,0
3,0

Kroads:100km/h
Lanewidth
Auxiliarylane

3,5
3,3

3,6
3,5

3,7
3,6

Passing, HOV and public transport

lanes,butexcludingpublictransport
or righthand turn lanes in the
median.
Outsideshoulder
2,6
2,8
3,0
Excluding shoulder rounding (0,5 m)
width
andprovisionforguardrails(0,3m).
Insideshoulderwidth
2,6
2,6
3,0
Surfacedportioncouldbe0,3m.
Medianwidth
8,8*
9,2
9,8
Including width of inside shoulder,
but excluding provision for public
transport.
Sideformslope:fill
1:2
1:1,5
1:1,5 Stability, economic, maintenance &
Sideformslope:cut
1:2
1:1,5
1:1,5 environmentalconsiderations.
Provisionfordrainage
1,0
2,75
3,0
Dependontypeofdrainage.
Verge
1,5
3,0
3,0
Include provision for rounding (top
of cut or bottom of fill) and cutoff
drains.
* Withonerightturninglane,themedianwidthcanbereducedto5,5m,butthisisnot
recommended.
Withregardtosideformslopesmentionedinthetable,itmaybenotedthatslopesof1:3
havebeenrequestedinspecificcasesinTshwaneinrecenttimes,owingtoenvironmental
considerations.
In considering the proposals of this table, without allowance for a recovery area (see first
bullet below), the resultant road reserve widths for the benchmark case are 62,1 m for
freewaysand47,6mforKroads.

11

Other points of relevance touched upon in the report are listed below and where
appropriateremarkedon:

Fromaroadsafetypointofviewa9,0mclearrecoveryareashouldexistbetween
theedgeofthetravelledwayandanyobstacleonmajorarterialswithoperational
speedsoftheorderof100km/hto120km/h.
Analysing this requirement, based on a quadratic relationship between the
operationalspeedandthelateraldistancerequiredtobringanoutofcontrolvehicle
toasafestop/undercontrol,thefollowinglateraldistancerequirementstranspire:

OperationalSpeed

Lateraldistance

100km/h

9,0m

90km/h

7,3m

80km/h

5,8m

70km/h

4,4m

Acceptingthattheoutsideshoulder andsidedrainformpartoftherecoveryarea,
theroadreservewidthsmentionedaboveforthebenchmarkcaseincreaseto69,4
mforfreewaysand60,3mforKroadsoperatingat100km/h.ForaKroadwithan
operatingspeedof90km/h,thereservewidthreducesto56,9m.

Where intersections are relatively infrequent, e.g. 1,0 km or more apart, the
medianwidthcouldbevariedbyusinganarrowerwidthbetweenintersectionsand
thengraduallywideningthemedianattheintersectionstoaccommodaterightturn
lanes.

ThereportcontinuestonotethatThissolutionisrarelypracticable,however,and
shouldnotbeusedwhereintersectionsarerelativelycloselyspaced.

Thisremarkissupported,astheresultingcurvedorzigzaggingalignmentassociated
with a varying median or road reserve, is confusing to drivers, particularly at night
andespeciallyinwetconditions.Narrowingtheroadreservebetweenintersections
andwideningitatintersectionsmaysavesomeland,butalsocreatedifficultiesfor
developersasitcomplicatestownplanning.Itcanalsoaddtothecostsofservices
such as sewers, which generally are linked by a standard offset to the property
boundary,requiringadditionalmanholesateachchangeindirection.

Theremustbeadequatespaceforroadsignplacement.Thepreferredminimum
distancefromtheedgeofthetravelledwaytotheedgeofthesignshouldbe4,0m,
withanabsoluteminimumof2,5m.

12

The minimum island width at intersections should be 2,2 m and generally not less
than2,0m,inordertoaccommodatedoubleheadedtrafficsignalsandroadtraffic
signs.

Theacquisitionoflandtowidentheroadreserveatintersectionsoncedevelopment
has taken place is both costly and disruptive in builtup areas. This statement
could be expanded to read or practically impossible. Enforced widening of the
roadway often results in aesthetically unacceptable encroachments on the
sidewalks,whichalsohaveanegativeeffectonpedestrianmovementandsafety.

With regard to K Roads, Report BL108 has it that Distinction between rural and
urban roads in Gauteng appears unnecessary. This statement appears to refer to
the sixlane stage of K Roads, it being considered most unlikely that it would be
necessarytoupgradearuralroadtoasixlanefacility.

In this regard it nevertheless has to be cautioned that although Gauteng is often

seen as an urban complex, approximately 60% of the provincial roads are outside
proclaimedtownships.TheeffortsoftheGautengSpatialDevelopmentFramework
to contain development within an urban edge, also implies that Gauteng will have
rural roads for some time to come. Hence it appears necessary to allow for an
urban/rural distinction when it comes to road design standards and to have
recommendationsforroadsinsideandoutsidetheurbanedge.

Withrunningspeedsof3070km/h,thepertinentdesignspeedofarterialstreets
wouldbeoftheorderof50100km/h,accordingtoAASHTO2004.

It may be noted, however, that AASHTO 2004 also states that the design speed
selected for an urban arterial should depend largely on the spacing of signalized
intersections, the median cross section, the presence of kerbs and gutters and the
typeofaccesstothestreet.

The design speed should be of the order of 8 km/h to 16 km/h higher than the
postedorlegalspeedlimitaccordingtotheFloridaDoT1986.

It is probable that this requirement quoted in BL108 was influenced by the then
position of using the 85th percentile speed as design speed in determining design
parameters.

13

3.3

ReportBB3:CrossSectionStandardsandRoadReserveWidthsforKroutesinExceptional
Circumstances
The study that culminated in the abovementioned document was conducted in 1993 and
revisited in 1994. The study established crosssectional standards for road reserves
elements in existing highdensity builtup areas and recommended that a 40,0 m reserve
widthbeusedinexceptionalcircumstances.Theexceptionalcircumstances,apparently
are often conveniently ignored, with the result that the cross section proposed seems to
havebecomeanormforproponentsofanarrowerroadreserve.
ThecrosssectionincaseisshowninFigure3.3andcomprisedakerbedroadway,consisting
of6x3,5mlanes;asinglededicatedrightturnlaneof3,4matintersections;amedianof
6,2mconsistingofakerbedislandof5,0mand2x0,6minnershoulders;2x0,6mouter
shoulders; 2 x5,8 m verge strips,eachconsisting of a 1,5 m buffer,a 1,5 m sidewalk, and
allowing2,8mforearthworksandmaintenance/servicesactivities.Itmaybenotedthatin
thisconfigurationitwouldnotbepossibletoprovideforabuslayby.

Itwasalsorecommendedthatadesignspeedof80km/hshouldbeapplicabletodesigns,
incorporatingthiscrosssection.Thepremisewasthatwherespacewasatapremiumand
existingdevelopmentdensitiesandcircumstancesinanycasepredicatedrunningspeedsof

14

65km/hto70km/h(i.e.designspeedof80km/h),itwouldnotbeinappropriatetoapplya
40mcrosssectioninlieuofthestandard48,4mone.
The BB3 report further argues that this (40 m) cross section is applicable to socalled KB
roads, bordering on being minor arterials with a lesser mobility function and a
commensuratecloserspacingofintersections.Noindicationofintersectionspacingisgiven,
however.
Animportantconsiderationindealingwiththeissueofnarrowerlanewidthsistheoneof
driver fatigue, which is also related to the length over which the narrow lane widths are
applicable.Additionalstressisplacedonmotoristswhenhavingtosteertoaveryaccurate
path between the two lane lines. In the case of the customary 3,7 m or 3,6 m lanes, less
concentrationisrequired.Theincreasedconcentrationrequiredtosteerdownnarrowlanes
ismanageableovershortdistances,suchasinaCBDenvironment,butisnottolerableover
thelongerlengthsoftheClass2roadnetworkinGauteng.
Thereisalsothequestionofincreasedruttingoftenassociatedwithnarrowlanewidths.
3.4

ReportBB10:WalkingandCyclingonRoadsandStreetsinGauteng
This report dated August 2005 was based on a study undertaken in conjunction with the
municipalauthoritiesinGauteng.Thereportformulatespolicyguidelinespertainingtothe
typeofpedestrianandbicyclefacilitiestobeprovidedalongthevariousclassesofurbanand
ruralroads andstreets in Gauteng. ThereportbuildsontheSouthAfricanDepartmentof
Transport Manual Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Guidelines: Engineering Manual to Plan
andDesignSafePedestrianandBicycleFacilities.
The report finds that walking and recreational cycling are neighbourhood activities to be
accommodated on local streets and collector roads. Walking and cycling as a way of
commutingcouldhappen overrelativelyshorttomediumdistancesonClass 3andClass2
roads.Deficienciesintheurbanenvironmentandtopographicalfeaturesmaydictatethatin
somecasesthereisnoalternativebuttoprovideforsuchmovementsonClass2roads,but
thisshouldbetheexception.
Thereportfurtherstatesthattheminimumsidewalkwidthistobe1,5m,withpreference
giventoawidthof1,8m.Italsostatesthatitisadvisabletoseparatecycleandpedestrian
movementsalongClass3andClass2roads;thatpedestrianwalkwaysratherthansidewalks
shouldbeprovidedonmobilityroutes,butthatsidewalksshouldalwaysbeseparatedfrom
theroadedgebyabufferof1,5mminimumwidth.WhererequiredonClass3andClass2

15

roads, clearly marked cycle lanes could be provided on the road surface. The minimum
widthofaonewaycyclelaneis1,2m.
Anotherpertinentrecommendationofthereportisthatpedestriansshouldnotbeexpected
to cross more than 5 traffic lanes before finding a shelter such as a kerbed island. This
equatestoatrafficableroadwaywidthofapproximately18mto20mbetweenkerbs.Ata
walkingspeedof1,2m/s,thisdistancewouldtakeapproximately15to17secondstocover.
Thereportfurthercautionsthatadequateroadreservemustbeavailableforbusstops.
ReportBB7dealingwithbusandtaxifacilitiesindicatesthatstopsofupto24,0minlength
andawidthof3,5m,plusa1,0mseparation,wouldberequiredforapublictransportstop.
Normally a further width of 1,5 m to 2,5 m is required for a shelter and setback. The
sidewalkshouldalsocontinuebehindtheshelter.Thefootprintofabusstopthusamounts
toawidthof7,5mto8,5m,fromtheroadedge.
3.5

DraftNationalGuidelinesforRoadAccessManagementinSouthAfrica:October2005
This COTO document is predominantly focussed on access spacing, based on functional
classificationoftheroadsystem,andrecognisesClass1freewayroadreservesofbetween
60mand80m;sixlaneClass2roadreservesofbetween40mand60minwidth;andfour
lane Class 3 road reserves of between 25 m and 40 m in width. Corresponding travelling
speedsreferredtoare110km/h120km/h;80km/h90km/h;and70km/h80km/h.
Intersectionspacingsoftheorderof800m10%forClass2and600m20%forClass3
roadsarerecommended.
Thesespacingsarepremisedonintegratedtrafficsignalspermittinguninterruptedtravelling
speeds of 80 km/h and 60 km/h respectively. Such conditions are seldom achieved in a
closely knit road and street network such as in Gauteng, where the integration of traffic
signalsarealsomadeproblematicbytheneedforthreeorevenfourphasesatsomesignals.
PreferenceisthusgiventotheresultsofthemodellingstudycontainedinReportBL01/01/1,
indicatingminimumsystemsdelaybeingexperiencedwithanintersectionspacingof600m.

3.6

SANRALG2Manual:GeometricDesignGuidelines,2004
3.6.1

Designapproach

The SANRAL document contains a wealth of information and departs from the more
prescriptivestancesoftraditionaldesignmanuals.TheGuidelinesintroducetheprincipleof
a Design Domain and mentions Human Factors and Context Sensitive Design as
paradigmshiftsofnoteinthedesignprocess.Unfortunatelythesephilosophieswerestill

16

in their infancy when the G2 Manual was drafted and it does not deal with them in any
depth. However much progress has been made over the last 5 years in this regard, and it
should be possible to incorporate these developments in any future revision of the G2
Manual,orforthatmatteranyotherdesignguideline.
Theprincipleofcontextsensitivedesignrequiresthedesignertoselectappropriatedesign
parameters for the road or road section in question and includes issues of public
participation,cultural,environmentalandaestheticvaluesheldbyboththeroaduseraswell
asthesurroundingcommunity.Itpromotesamultidisciplinaryapproachtodesignincluding
systemsanalysis,problemdefinitionandvalueengineering.
DesigndomainderivesfromtheCanadianandAustralianpracticeandmakesprovision for
the application of Design Exceptions, which allow for relaxations of standards, should
circumstances so dictate, as opposed to the previous prescriptive approach. The countries
mentioned and most States of the USA have set up formal processes whereby conscious
decisionsaretakenandrecordedondesignexceptionsbytheroadauthorityinconsultation
with the designer. Design exceptions are, however, limited to the range between driver
expectations, i.e. human factors, and vehicle capabilities which constitute the outer
boundariesofdesignparameters.
3.6.2

Designspeed,stoppingsightdistanceandKvalues

TheG2Manualalsomovesawayfromusingthe85thpercentileofthenominaldesignspeed
as input in calculating sight distances. It follows the current AASHTO (2001 2004)
approachofusingthenominaldesignspeeddirectlyastheinputfigureintheequationfor
calculatingsightdistances.Inanotherdeparturefrompreviousdesignapproachesitrequires
the designer to select the object height to be used for determining the stopping sight
distancefromaseriesofvaluesinfluencedbytheroadsideenvironment.Unlessthereare
risks of fallen trees or rocks on the road, an object height of 0,6 m is recommended. In
termsofcurrentGautransdesignmanualtheobjectheightis0,15m.
IntermsofthecurrentGautransRoadDesignManual,thestoppingsightdistanceonaClass
2roadwithadesignspeedof100km/hisbasedonthe85thpercentilespeed,i.e.85km/h,
requiringastoppingsightdistanceof153m(155mrounded).Foranobjectheightof0,15
m,thecorrespondingverticalcurvecrestKvalueis62(60rounded)..
IntermsoftheSANRALandcurrentAASHTOapproach,adesignspeedof100km/hrequires
acrestKvalueof60foranobjectheightof0,6m.(Anobjectheightof0,15mwouldrequire
aKvalueof100whichwouldbedifficulttoachieveinpractice).ThecombinationofSANRAL

17

and current AASHTO design speed and 0,6 m object height thus seems to replicate the
existingstandard,whichincidentallyhasbeenperceivedasgenerous.
Inthisregard,itmaybenotedthataSANRALandcurrentAASHTOdesignspeedof90km/h
wouldrequireaKvalueof45foranobjectheightof0,6m,foracrestverticalcurve.AK
valueof45foranobjectheightof0,15mrelatestoadesignspeedintermsofthecurrent
SANRALandAASHTOapproachofjustbelow80km/h.
Similarconsiderationsapplytosagverticalcurves.
3.6.3

Gradients

The standards relating to vertical gradients are not directly related to design speed. The
normindeterminingverticalgradientistheempiricalrulelinkingthelengthofthegradeto
a maximum reduction in truck speeds of 15 km/h, and cost considerations of accepting a
steepergradientcoupledtoaclimbinglane.This is aprimeinstancefortheapplicationof
value engineering, which, in essence, is aimed at achieving similar outcomes at minimum
cost.Itisofparticularimportancetostressthatthisholdstrueformultilaneroadsaswellas
singlecarriagewayroads.
3.7

TCCReportWG301/2004:PublicTransportintheRoadCrossSection:February2004
The Gauteng Transport Coordinating Committee (TCC) report only focused on facilities for
public transport in the road cross section and did not consider issues relating to the cross
sectionwithoutpublictransport.
3.7.1 Dedicatedpublictransportfacilities

The drafting of the mentioned TCC report preceded the advent of BRT systems, such as
being rolled out currently in Johannesburg by a number of years. It was predominantly
focussed on a green fields situation, rather than retrofitting as in the case of
Johannesburg. The goal of the study was to develop guidelines for road reserve
requirements,whichwouldcomplementtheaimsoftheGautengStrategicPublicTransport
Network. The report recognised the value of dedicated public transport lanes that would
increasethereliabilityandaveragetravelspeedofpublictransportbyreducingtheeffectof
othertraffic.Italsorecognisedthatthepublictransportvehiclecouldbeeitherbusorlight
rail. The classesofroad considered includedClass 1(freeways)andClass 2 (Kroads). No
attemptwasmadetodevelopacrosssectionforClass3(municipal)arterials.

The study found in favour of an ultimate 80 m cross section for freeways incorporating
dedicatedpublictransportfacilitiesandanultimate62mcrosssectionforKroads(Class2
roads),withsuchfacilities.

18

It is of interest to note that the TCC report differs appreciably from the current Gauteng
RoadsDesignManualinasfarasthenumberof lanestobeprovidedfordedicatedpublic
transportonfreeways.TheTCCproposalisfortwolanesperdirectionforpublictransport
use,withafulllefthandsideshoulder,anominalrighthandsideoneandallowancefora
medianbarrier.TheTCCproposalforpublictransportfacilitiesinafreewaycrosssectionis
showninFigure3.7.1.

The TCC proposals could possibly be questioned should BRT vehicles with right hand side
doorsonly,bepermittedinthemedian.Itappearsthatthecrosssectionput forwardwas
premisedonnormalbusandpossiblyalsominibustaxioperations.

ThecrosssectionfromtheTCCreportforClass2roadsisshowninFigure3.7.2andisbased
ontheprinciplesofprovidingtwox4,0mwidededicatedpublictransportlanesintheroad
median,separatedfromnormaltrafficbytwox6,5mwideislands;sixx3,7mwidenormal
trafficlanesandtwoinnerandtwooutershouldersof2,7minwidth,leavingtwox3,0m
widestripsfordrainageandearthworks,andtwox1,0mwidestripsforservices,resulting
in a 62 m road reserve. In this layout there are two public transport stops, one for each
direction,situateddownstreamoftheintersectionandadjacenttoit.Apublictransportlay
by is provided of 3,5 m width. In order to provide for two right turning lanes at the

19

intersection,theinnershouldersarereducedinwidthto0,9m,uptoapointjustpastthe
publictransportstop.

Animportantpointofdepartureinthedevelopmentofthiscrosssectionwasthatthepublic
transportfacilitywouldbeusedbynormalbusesandthelike,withentranceandexitdoors
on the left hand side. The Johannesburg BRT uses specially procured vehicles with right
handsidedoorsandasingleislandinthemiddletoaccommodatetherapidaccesstransit
halts.Provisionisnotalwaysmadeforpassingeither.

A decision in principle with regard to the operational use of the public transport facility
provided in the road cross section thus would have to be taken a long time prior to
implementation, should it be desired to reduce the cross section described above during
preliminarydesignbyadoptingasingleislandapproachasusedfortheJohannesburgBRT.

TheproposalsoftheTCCreportregardingretrofittingadedicatedpublictransportfacilityto
a 48,4 m reserve, are also enlightening for the purposes of this review study. These
proposals are shown in Figure 3.7.3. In this instance the two 4,0 m wide public transport
lanes are retained, but the two islands separating public transport from normal traffic are
only5,0mwide.Thiswidthisjustsufficienttoaccommodatea3,0mwidetransitstopand
a2,0mwideislandforthestopshelterandsetback.Thesixnormaltrafficlanesare3,5m

20

wideeach.Thetwoinnershouldersare0,6mwideeach,asarethetwooutershoulders.
Two x 2,5 m wide sidewalks and two x 1,0 m services strips make up the 48,4 m nominal
roadreserve.Thecrosssectionmakesprovisionforonerightturninglaneonly.Thereisno
provision for earthworks and local widening would be necessary at intersections to
accommodate a left turning slip road or a second right turning lane and the associated
decelerationlanes.

Althoughthereportitselfdoesnotcovernarrowernominalroadreserves,itisclearfroma
consideration ofthe elementsdescribed abovethat itwouldrequiresacrificing twoof the
normaltrafficlanes,reducingthetwodedicatedlanesto3,7meachandreducingthefour
0,6mnominalshouldersto0,4meach,tofittheconfigurationintoa40,0mnominalroad
reserve.Thisleadstothequestionwhetherthecurrentpolicyofprovidingsixnormaltraffic
lanes in addition to the dedicated public transport lanes, should not be discontinued in
favourofprovidingfournormallanesonly.

UsingaJohannesburgBRTapproachwithasinglecentralislandandspecialpublictransport
vehicleswithrighthandsidedoors,afurther5,0mreductioninthenominalroadreserve
wouldbepossible.

Such drastic reductions in road reserve width would obviously reduce options and
operational flexibility in future and do not appear warranted, especially in greenfields
situations.

21

Fromaroadcapacityandtrafficengineeringpointofviewitisfurtherconsideredessential
to provide for two right turning lanes at intersections on roads incorporating dedicated
publictransportlanes.Shouldanarrowerroadreservewidthbeadopted,itwouldrequire
localwideningoftheroadreserveatintersections,inexcessofthesplaysnormallyprovided.
Asmentionedearlierinthisreport,localwideninggenerallyincurssafetyrisksformotorist
andisnotfavouredbydevelopers.

3.7.2 Publictransportinmixedtraffic

TheTCCReportalsoconsideredfacilitiesforpublictransportinmixedtrafficina48,4mroad
reserve,withfourandsixtrafficlanes.Inthesixlaneinstance(seeFigure3.7.4),thenormal
3,7 m lanes are retained, but the inner shoulder is reduced to a width of 0,9 m at the
intersection.Thenormaloutershoulderof2,7miswidenedatthetransitstoptoprovidea
1,0 m separation from normal passing traffic and a 3,5 m wide bay. A further 3,0 m is
allowed forashelterstructure and setback,aswell as a 1,5 m width atan easy cross fall
behindtheshelterplus1,0mforservices.Thetotalwidthrequiredexceedsthatavailable
inthenormalcrosssectionbyapproximately4mintotal.Thiswouldrequirelocalwidening
atintersectionsandmaybedifficulttoimplement.

22

Whatisofinteresttothecurrentstudyisthespaceallowedforthestop,whichamountsto
some9,0mlessthewidthoftheoutsideshoulder.Inthecaseofanominaloutsideshoulder
of 0,6 m this space would amount to a width of 8,4 m. Even with a narrower shelter,
requiring less space, a verge width requirement of the order of 7.5 m to 8,0 m seems
indicatedtoaccommodatepublictransitstops.
3.8

SouthernAfricanRoadTrafficSignsManual(SARTSM)
A factor often raised during discussions of geometric design, is the statement in SARTSM
Volume3.Subsection2.2.2(a)thatthespeedlimitonanyapproachtoasignalisedjunction,
or pedestrian or pedal cyclist crossing shall not exceed 80 km/h. No approach distance is
specified over which the speed limit should apply, hence it is generally accepted that the
speedlimitappliestothefulllengthofroadsection.However,thisisnotstrictlynecessaryor
true.
There are many instances where there are either no traffic signals and/or the operating
speeds on Kroads and other Class 2 roads exceed 80 km/h. To employ a general design
speed of 80 km/h under these circumstances, could result in artificially tight horizontal
curvesandrestrictedsightdistanceswhenleastexpectedbythemotorist.Assuchitwould

23

negatetheprincipleofmaintaining(defacto)consistencyofdesignandsimplycomedown
toconstructingafacilitylesssafethanconsidereddesirable.
3.9

MiscellaneousConsiderations
When considering cross sectional elements and their widths, a number of miscellaneous
considerationsnotnecessarilydiscussedabovehavetobeconsidered.
3.9.1

Emergencyuseofroadshoulders

Oneofthebenefitsofaroadshoulderistoprovideforemergencyvehicles.Theprovision
ofroadshouldersforthispurposeisparticularlyrelevantinthetwoandfourlanestagesof
roadimplementation.
Inthesixlanestage,theneedforaroadshouldertoaccommodateemergencyvehicles is
less pronounced and to a degree compensated for by having three lanes that emergency
vehicles can use for manoeuvring. Other vehicles could also pull over onto the verge to
allow emergency vehicles to pass. A further alleviating factor for not providing a road
shoulder in the sixlane stage is that emergency evacuations in urban conditions could be
effectedbyhelicopter,althoughthiscanonlyhappenifitissafeforthehelicoptertoland.
Electricity power lines, street lighting and telephone lines are particular obstacles, but
fortunatelyarenotgenerallyassociatedwithClass2roads.
Withregardtotheissueofabrokendownvehicleblockingalane,itisacceptedpracticein
urbanconditionsforsuchavehicletofindrefugeontheverge.Itcouldalsobearguedthata
brokendownvehiclestrandedinoneofthelanesofathreelanecarriageway,wouldhave
lessofadetrimentaleffectontheroadcapacitythaninthecaseofafourlaneroadwithno
shouldersandhencetheriskmaybeacceptableinviewofthesavingsinroadreservewidth.
Breakdown services are also fairly prolific in urban areas and hence vehicles involved in
crashes are generally removed fairly rapidly. Unfortunately broken down trucks are less
readily dealt with, and it appears necessary for road authorities to effect legislation to
enable them to deal with this very vexing problem. This appears to be a more pragmatic
responsetotheproblemthantheverycostlyallowanceforroadshouldersintheultimate
stageofroadcrosssectiondevelopment.
3.9.2

Crossingorturningintoroadsfromastopsign

ItisconsideredappropriatetoallowforvehiclestocrossaClass2road,ortoexecutearight
turn, from a stop controlled side street in two stages by stopping in the median. This
requiresasufficientwidthofmedian.ThelengthofaSUdesignvehicleis9,15m.

24

It is not considered feasible to provide for a larger design vehicle, such as SU+T, as the
numberofsuchvehiclesusingstopcontrolledsidestreetswouldbeverysmallandthewidth
implicationexorbitant.
3.9.3

ShoulderSightDistance(IntersectionSightDistance)andDecisionSightDistance

Although Intersection Sight Distance has become the generally accepted phrase, for the
purposesofthisdocumentthetermshouldersightdistanceisusedasthisisthetermused
inthecurrentGautransGeometricDesignManual.
For a stopcontrolled intersection, shoulder sight distance is defined as the distance
measuredfromapoint5mbackfromtheedgeofthetravelledwayofthemainroutetothe
centreoftheoutsideapproachinglanemeasuredfromanobservationheightof1,05mtoan
objectheightof1,3m.TheManualstatesthatitispreferredthatthisdistanceshouldbeat
least300mandstipulatesthatthereshallbenoobstructioninsidethesighttriangle.This
distance has been set to enable a motorist approaching an intersection and observing a
vehiclepullingintothetrafficstreaminfrontofhimadequateopportunitytotakeevasive
actionwithoutdiscomfort.
WithreferencetoTable3.9,itcanbeseenthatthe300mshouldersightdistanceequates
more or less to the decision sight distance required on suburban roads for an actual
operating speed of 85 km/h (Design speed of 100 km/h in terms of the current Gautrans
Manual). Yieldsign controlled intersections require greater sight triangles, but for the
purposes of this review it is accepted that all intersections on Class 2 roads will be stop
controlledontheminorroad,ifnotcontrolledbytrafficsignals.
Theminimumhorizontalradiusof1500maswellastheKvaluesofcrestverticalcurveson
whichintersectionscanbeprovided,asprescribedintheManual,arealsoinfluencedbythe
shoulder sightdistance requirement. The provision of a kerbed vergewith sidewalkwould
nothaveadetrimentaleffectonthisrequirement.
Decision sight distances for different true speeds are given in Table 3.9 below, together
withthecorrespondingstoppingsightdistancesandshouldersightdistancesforcrossing.
Table3.9:Sightdistances(AASHTO2004)
Speed

DecisionSight
Distanceona
suburbanroad

DecisionSight
Distanceon
anurbanroad

StoppingSight
Distance

Intersection
SightDistanceto
cross

60km/h

205m

235m

85m

110m

70km/h

235m

275m

105m

130m

80km/h

270m

315m

130m

145m

25

90km/h

315m

360m

160m

165m

100km/h

355m

400m

185m

185m

4.

DELIBERATION

4.1

DesignApproach
From the foregoing overview of aspects pertaining to standards, it is clear that
developmentsinthefieldofgeometricdesignofroadshaveovertakenthecurrentGautrans
approach,particularlyasfarastheissueofdeterminingdesignspeedandtheassociated
sight distances are concerned. Both AASHTO and SANRAL have adopted a new approach
anditisconsidereddesirablethatGautransfollowssuit.

4.2

Designspeedandspeedlimits
The next question to be answered is whether the speed limit should be used as design
speed.Inthisregarditistobeemphasisedthatroadsurfaces,tyreconditions,vehiclesand
drivers differ and the input parameters used in the equations in use are based on the
expectation that the friction available and the capabilities of most vehicle systems can
provide the assumed values. Hence it would not be amiss to make some allowance for a
safetyfactorasdiscussedinSection4.4below.AdoptionofaHumanFactorsapproachto
designwouldpermitsuchanapproach.

4.3

TopographyandEnvironment
WithafewexceptionstheGautengtopography,withitsgentlerollingterrain,easygrades,
and good sight distances, lends itself to relatively high operating speeds on roads. The
instanceswherethedesignspeedinrealitycontrolstheoperatingspeed,aretheexception
rather than the rule. As such the selection of a design speed must match the driver
expectationsanditwouldbecounterproductivetoprescribeartificiallowdesignspeeds.
Thedesignparametersmustfurthermatchthetopographyinordertogiveexpressiontothe
philosophy of blending the road into its environment. In those parts of Gauteng where
heavy rolling and even mountainous topography occur, all the design parameters and not
onlythedesignspeedshouldbeadjustedtosuit,eventhoughitmayrequiretheprovisionof
aclimbinglanetobalanceasteepermaximumgradientinordertoreduceearthworks.
TheSANRALgeometricdesignguidelinesplacemuchmoreonusonthedesignengineerto
select appropriate design parameters and a similar approach by Gautrans is proposed. In
reportBL108amoreflexibleandpragmaticdesignapproachisalsoadvocated,allowingthe

26

designengineertomotivateareductionoranincreaseincrosssectionalbenchmarkvalues
onmerittosuitprevailingandforecastedconditions.Thisapproachshouldbeextendedto
coveralldesignparameters,withinaformalframeworkofDesignExceptions.
4.4

Trafficsignals,postedspeedanddesignspeed
Traffic signals and the associated speed limits are part and parcel of urban arterials.
However, their advent generally follows later in the life of a road, when the major design
parameters have long been established, to wit, sight distances and curvature. Hence it is
believed that the benchmark design speed for a Class 2 road in rural and even periurban
areasshouldremainat100km/h,butincorporatingthenewAASHTO/SANRALobjectheight
criteria.SimilarlyonaClass3roaditshouldbe80km/h.Inurbanconditions,whenthereis
certaintythattrafficsignalswillbeincorporatedaspartoftheconstructionoftheroad,the
relevantdesignspeedscouldbereducedby10km/h,to90km/hand70km/hrespectively.
Asindicatedearlierinthisdocumentdesignspeedhasaminimalfootprintimplicationand
hence there is little merit in reducing it in the hope of achieving savings in road reserve
width.
Afurtherfactoragainstloweringdesignspeedtothelevelofapostedspeed,isthehigher
workloadonadriverinurbanconditions.Thusinurbanareas(withpostedspeedlimits)a
difference of the order of 10 km/h is indicated between posted and design speeds, whilst
thetwomaybeequalinruralconditions.

4.5

Drainage
Itisobviousthatthetraditionalruralroaddesignapproachofsimplygettingthewateroff
theroadsurfaceasquicklyaspossible,providingcrossdrainageandgradingtheroadhigh
enoughabovegroundleveltopermitdischargingofstormwateratgroundlevelwithinthe
roadreserve,willnotbepracticableinthelongruninanurbanenvironment.Intheurban
environmentitisstillimportanttogetthewaterofftheroadsurfaceasquicklyaspossible,
but the road/street becomes an integral part of the drainage system of the entire area
served by the road in question and hence is generally graded at or below ground level.
However,thisconsiderationismainlyapplicabletodetaildesign.Forpreliminarydesign,i.e.
todeterminetheroadreserverequirements,itcouldwellsufficetogradetheroadasclose
aspossibletogroundlevel,usingacrosssectionincorporatingopensidedrains.Thespace
takenupbyundergroundandopensurfacedrainagesystemsdoesnotdiffersignificantly.

27

Inthisregardacriticalassessmentshowsthatakerbedvergewithundergrounddrainageas
detailed in the City of Tshwane document occupies 3,45 m as compared to the 3,8 m of
opensidedrainasdetailedintheDepartmentsTypicalPlans.
Ithastobecautioned,however,thatintermsofcontextsensitivedesignandparticularlyin
the case of environmentally sensitive areas, it may be necessary to consider underground
drainagefromtheoutseteveninpreliminarydesign,inordertogetthenecessaryRecord
ofDecisionfromtheenvironmentalauthorities.
Drainage design must be done in consultation with the municipality involved to ensure
compatibilitywiththeoveralldrainageplanoftheareacrossedbytheroadandmayeven
have to make provision for local widening of road reserves to allow for attenuation of
stormwaterrunofffromtheroadandreserve.
It has to be stressed that proper drainage is an important road safety issue. Whatever
drainagemethodisadopted,caremustbetakenthatvolumesofwaterarenotconcentrated
onClass1,Class2andClass3roadsurfaces.Indecidingonthetypeofdrainagesystemtobe
incorporated in the road design the issue of adequate maintenance also needs serious
consideration.
4.6

Numberoflanes
With regard to Class 1 roads, the recommendations of the TCC report discussed above
appear appropriate for freeways with dedicated public transport lanes, namely 8 lanes for
normaltrafficandafurther4dedicatedtopublictransport.ForotherClass1freeways,the
currentstandardof4lanesperdirectionremainsappropriate.
Currently Class 2 roads provide for a maximum of 6 through (normal) lanes, i.e. 3 per
direction. This is considered to be the maximum that should be provided. More lanes,
together with the associated turning lanes, would be difficult to cross for pedestrians and
require traffic signals with long intergreen phases in order for vehicles to clear the
intersection.Thiswouldaffectintersectioncapacitynegativelyandincreasetheriskofred
lightrunning.
Reducing the number of lanes to 2 per direction may in theory require an increase in the
numberofroadstoprovidethesamecapacity,withaccompanyinglessefficientuseofthe
road reserve footprint, as all the other crosssectional elements would remain the same.
However, the question about the number of normal traffic lanes on roads incorporating
dedicatedpublictransportlanesappearstobemoreofapolicyissuethananengineering/
roadgeometricdesign issue.Prudencewould indicateallowingforsixlanes,unless public

28

moneyisdedicatedtotheprovisionof dedicatedpublictransportsystemsontheroadsin
question.
TherearenostandardssetforthenumberoflanesonClass3roads,butthelesserneedfor
mobilityonClass3roadsseemstoindicatethat2lanesperdirectionshouldsuffice,withone
rightturninglaneatintersections.Shouldmorelanesberequired,forexampleininnercity
urbansettings,itwouldbeappropriatetouseundividedroadwaysand/oronewaysystems.
4.7

Laneandshoulderwidths
The benchmark values given in Table 3.2, extracted from report BL 108, appear most
appropriatewithregardtolaneandshoulderwidthswherekerbingisnotprovided.
Anominalshoulderwidthof0,6misusedintheTCCreportreferredtoaboveinconjunction
withkerbedKroads.

4.8

Medianwidth
OnClass2roads,amedianwidthof9,6mwouldprovidefortworightturninglanesof3,4m
each and a space for traffic signals and pedestrian refuge of 2,2 m width, premised on
nominal0,6minnershoulders.ThiswidthwouldalsoaccommodateaSUdesignvehicle.
On Class 3 roads, with only one right turning lane and a turning lane width of 3,3 m the
correspondingmedianwidthwouldbe6,1m.

4.9

Aestheticsandearthworks
Urban design and landscaping require space to create vistas and also need a minimum
amount of space for working in. On Class 2 roads, a 9,6 m median width, based on two
turninglanesof3,4mwidtheach,2,2mtoaccommodatetrafficsignalsand0,6masinside
shoulder, would translate to a working width of 8,4 m between kerbs away from the
intersections. This is considered sufficient for this purpose. In the case of Class 3 roads a
median width of 6,1 m, based on one turning lane of 3,3 m, 2,2 m as pedestrian
refuge/spacefortrafficsignalsanda0,6mshoulder,translatestoanislandwidthbetween
kerbsof4,9mawayfromintersections.Thiswouldstillbeadequateforminorlandscaping
activities.Inbothinstances,however,the2,2mwidthattheintersectionswillhavetobe
pavedasitistoonarrowforlandscaping.
Withregardtovergeareas,itisconsiderednecessaryinurbanandperiurbanareastoset
asideaminimumof3,0mforsidewalks(1,5mwidtheach),aswellasafurther3,0m(1,5m
each),forseparationstripsbetweenpedestriansandtraffic.

29

Ontheassumptionofakerbedcrosssectionwithsix3,6mwidelanes,a9,6mmedianas
described above, outside shoulders of 0,6 m and provision of sidewalks and sidewalk
separationstrips,eachof1,5minwidth,thetworemainderofvergeareaswouldbe5,0m
wide each in a 48,4 m nominal cross section. This should be sufficient for nominal
earthworks,landscapingandtheprovisionofroadsidefurniture.
Premised on the same crosssectional elements and dimensions described above, a 40 m
nominal road reserve would provide only two 0,8 m wide remainderofverge areas for
roadsidefurniture,landscapingandearthworksaftertheprovisionofsidewalksandsidewalk
separationstrips.
Inthecaseofafourlaneroadwith3,5mwidelanesandoneturninglane,a35mnominal
roadreservewouldprovidefortwo3,85mwideremainderofvergeareasforlandscaping
androadsidefurniture,afterprovisionofsidewalksandsidewalkseparationstrips,whilsta
40mroadreservewouldprovidefor6,35mwideremainderofvergeareas.A30mnominal
roadreserveincontrastwouldonlyprovidefor1,35mwideremainderofvergestrips.
4.10

Bus(orrail)RapidTransit(BRT)
The BRT routes recently developed and being developed in Johannesburg and Tshwane,
compriseretrofitting,oftenintoClass3,sometimesevenClass4roads.ABRTroutesection
isonlybeingretrofittedtoaClass1roadinthecaseofPWV9inTshwane.InJohannesburg
someoftheClass2roadsbeingusedasBRTroutesfunctionasClass2roads,butcomprise
narrowroadreserves.
The lane widths used are of the order of 3,5 m. Posted speed limits of 60 km/h apply to
mostoftheseroadsandstreets.FreewayspeedsareexpectedtoapplytotheBRTrouteon
PVW9.
ShouldBRTrouteseventuallybeextendedtofollowaClass2Kroute,theroadsideregime
will dictate the speed to be posted. If the posted speed is lower than the design speed,
thereshouldbegainsintermsofridercomfortandoperationalefficiency.

4.11

Roadlighting
Roadlightingplaysanimportantpartinurbanroadandstreettrafficsafety.Intheabsence
of full width road shoulders and to ensure that stranded vehicles or other obstacles are
observedwellintimeby motoristsat night,road lighting isconsideredimperative.This is
particularlypertinenttothesixlanestageofClass2roads,butalsotourbanClass3roads

30

thatgenerallywouldnothaveshoulders,exceptinatransitionalsinglecarriagewaytwolane
phase.
4.12

Alreadycompletedroaddesignsanddeterminedroadreservewidths.
ItisimportanttonotethatthepreliminarydesignsofmostoftheKRoadswithinthecurrent
urbanedgehavebeencompletedandtheroadreservesdeterminedaccordingly.Itwouldbe
totally impractical and create an impossible administrative situation to revisit these road
reserves incaseswherethisreviewofstandards indicateschangestocurrentones.Afirm
decisioninprinciplenottodosoorpermitotherpartiestoapproachtheDepartmentinthis
regard,thusisconsideredanecessaryprerequisitetoadoptinganysuchchanges.

5.

PIARCSEMINARONVULNERABLEROADUSERS
Therecent,October2009,PIARCSeminar,heldinCapeTown,hasonceagainhighlightedthe
needfordueconsiderationoftrafficsafetyinthedesignandoperationofroads,particularly
thatofvulnerableroadusers(VURs)suchaspedestrians,cyclistsandscooterusers.Aspects
consideredrelevanttothisreviewfromthepaperspresentedare:

theneedforadequatesightdistance;

thevalueofadequateroadreservewidthstoseparateVRUsfromgeneraltraffic;

nottoplan/allowstripdevelopmentoverlonglengthsofroad;

theappropriateplanningandprovisionofdifferentfunctionalroadclasses;

creatingappropriatespeedregimes;

the provision of non road based public transport in order to reduce interfacing
conflicts;and

provisionofadequatenumbersofpedestrianoverpassesonmobilityroutes.

In conjunction with the matters raised above, the long standing requirements that no
schools,crchesorotherpedestrianintensivedevelopmentinitiatives,shouldbepermitted
adjacenttomobilityroads,needsreemphasis.
Inadeparturefrompastdepartmentalthinking,itappearsnecessarytomakeallowancefor
pedestrianmovementsalongsideClass2roads.PedestrianmovementsalongClass3roads
arewellestablished.Insection4.8,mentionhasbeenmadeoftheroadreserveimplications
of providing for such movements. In this section it is advocated that the construction of
sidewalksbecomeanintegralpartofroadconstruction.Itisalsoproposedthatlandscaping
and the separation strip between pedestrian and vehicular movements, be combined in

31

places to create more pleasing roadside aesthetics and reduce the starkness of parallel
sidewalks.
6.

RECOMMENDATION

6.1

Approach
Followingfromtheabovereview,itisrecommendedthatthedepartmentrevisesitscurrent
geometricdesignguidelines,acceptingthelatestAASHTO/SANRALdesignapproachrelated
todesignspeedandsightdistance.ItisalsorecommendedthatthephilosophiesofHuman
Factors and Context Sensitive Design be adopted. Similarly, a more flexible and pragmatic
designapproachregardingtheselectionofdesignparametersshouldbeadopted,asallowed
forbytheDesignDomainconcept.Inthisregarditisenvisagedthatarangeofacceptable
design parameters be established, built around a set of benchmark values. This will also
require the establishment of a formal framework of Design Exceptions. A prerequisite
obviously is a knowledgeable department and a knowledgeable pool of consulting
engineeringexpertise.
Asindicatedearlier,itisnotconsiderednecessaryfortheDepartmenttodevelopstandards
for Class 3urban roads, butguidance couldbeprovided, with particular referencetoroad
reservewidthstobeprotectedforfutureClass3roads.

6.2

Roadreservewidths
DevelopinganewRoadsDesignManualalongthelinesindicatedabovewilltakesometime
tocomplete.Therealsoappearstobesomeurgencytogetclarityontheissueofnominal
road reserve widths. Hence in view of the foregoing review analysis, proposals are made
belowinthisregard.
6.2.1

Class2roads

With regard to nominal conventional road reserve widths, it is considered feasible to

abandon thecurrent62 mClass 2 ruralcategory, as it is most unlikelythat a ruralClass 2
roadwouldbedevelopedtothesixlanestage.
The62mwidthcouldberetainedasbenchmarkvalueforClass2routesformingpartofthe
GautengStrategicPublicTransportNetworkandincorporatingdedicatedlanes,subjecttoa
consciouspolicydecisionwithregardtothenumberofnormaltrafficlanestobeprovided,
i.e.areductionfromsixtofour,ortheretentionofsixasthenorm.
ForClass2roadswithoutdedicatedpublictransportlanesitappearspreferabletoretainthe
nominalroadreservewidthof48,4masbenchmarkvalue.Awidthof40mappearsjusttoo

32

tight, particularly if the installation of roadside furniture in an urban setting is considered,

whilstthereappearstobelittlemeritincreatinganewcrosssectionalstandard,forinstance
of 44 m. The 48,4 m reserve is also more amenable to the accommodation of public
transport laybys and shelters, in cases where public transport is provided in mixed traffic
conditions.
6.2.2

Class3roads

The nominal benchmark road reserve width for fourlane Class 3 roads could be 35 m. A
width of 40 m appears generous and possibly best suited for use where public transport
servicesareenvisagedinmixedtraffic,fortheestablishmentofboulevardsand/orwherefor
particularreasonssixlaneroadsareenvisagedintheClass3category.
Aroadreservewidthof30masfoundonsomeofthecurrentsinglecarriagewayprovincial
Class3roadsshouldbewidenedoncetheseroadsareincorporatedintheurbanfabric.The
30mroadreservewidthshouldsufficeforruralroadsintheClass3category.
Itisknownthatthemunicipalauthoritiesattimesareforcedbycircumstancestouse25m
wide road reserves for Class 3 roads, in which case pruning the widths of each of the
constituentelementsformingtheroadcrosssection/andorlocalwideningatintersections
wouldhavetoberesortedto.Insuchcasesanaccompanyingreductioninoperatingspeedis
indicatedtomatchthespeedsapplicabletocollectorroadsnormallyprovidedin25mwide
roadreserves.
6.2.3

Freeways

With regard to freeway road reserve widths, it appears desirable that the nominal 80 m
widthberetainedwherededicatedtransportlanesareenvisaged.Anominalwidthof70m
couldbeconsideredforfreewaysnotformingpartoftheStrategicPublicTransportNetwork.
However,the current experiences withtheGFIPprocess,themeasuresrequired andcosts
being incurred to accommodate the required infrastructure within existing road reserves
cautionagainstareductionofthecurrentfreewayroadreservewidths.Obviouslyamore
flexibledesignapproachwouldenablereducedwidths.
6.2.4

Specialcases

Theformaladoptionofacontextsensitivedesignapproachandamorepragmaticapproach
totheselectionofdesignparameters,woulddoawaywiththeneedforstandardsforspecial
cases.

33

6.2.5

Retrofitting

Retrofittingistheartofthepossible/affordableandnospecificguidelinesareenvisagedin
thisregard.Italsohastobeemphasizedthatthebenchmarkvaluesgiveninthisdocument
canonlyserveasguidelinesinretrofittingsituations.
6.2.6 Summarytable
The main recommendations with regard to envisaged benchmark values for road reserve
elementsandroadreservewidthsaresummarisedinTable6.2.
6.3

DevelopinganewGeometricDesignManual
It is lastly recommended that the department should embark on drawing up a new
GeometricDesignManual,intermsofthedeliberationsandrecommendationsputforward
above, i.e. thoroughly revising the current geometric design manual, using this review
documentasguideline.
The new manual should distinguish more clearly between preliminary design and detail
design and should also focus wider than only road traffic movements to include all
communitymovementneeds.
The ideal would be to aim towards a national standard, e.g. SANRAL, supported where
necessarybyGautengspecificstandards,basedontheserecommendations.

34

Table6.2:EnvisagedBenchmarkValuesforRoadElementsandRoadReserveWidths
ClassandTypeofRoad/Element

Class1
Freeways.
Nodedicated
Public
Transport
Lanes

Class1
Freeways,with
dedicated
Public
Transport
Lanes

Class2(K)
Roads.
Kerbed.
Nodedicated
Public
Transport
Lanes
6
2
2
2
48,4m
3,6m
3,4m
0,6m
0,6m
9,6m
1,5m
1,5m
5,0m

Class2(K)
Roads.
Kerbed,
withdedicated
Public
Transport
Lanes
6+2PT
2
2
2
62m
3,6m&4,0m
3,4m
0,6m
0,6m
21,0m
1,5m
1,5m
5,5m

Class3Roads
Kerbed.
Urban

Class3Roads.
Rural

Numberoflanes
8
8+4PT
4
2
Numberofturninglanes
N/A
N/A
1
1
Numberofsidewalks
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
Numberofverges
2
2
2
2
Roadreservewidth
70m
80m
35m
30m
Lanewidth
3,6m
3,6m
3,5m
3,5m
Turninglanewidth
N/A
N/A
3,3m
3,5m
Innershoulderwidth
2,8m
2,8m
0,6m
N/A
Outershoulderwidth
2,8m
2,8m
0,6m
2,8m*
Medianwidth(Inclusiveofinnershoulders)
20,0
30,6m
6,1m
N/A
Sidewalkwidth
N/A
N/A
1,5m
N/A
Sidewalkseparationwidth
N/A
N/A
1,5m
N/A
Verge/Remainderofvergewidth
7,8m
7,5m
3,85m
6,95m

* Generallyshouldersaresurfaced,exceptClass3ruralroads,whichwouldnormallybegravelled.

Note: 1. Theabovewidthsmakenoprovisionforcyclelanes.Shoulditbedesirabletoprovidecyclelanes;thecarriagewayshouldbewidenedby1,2m
andtheverge/remaindervergewidthreducedbythisnumber.

2. Theprovisionofpublictransportlaybyswithshelterswillrequireapproximately8,0mofvergewidth(inclusiveofthesidewalk)

ReviewofRoadStandards/DG/ks/5Feb2010