APPENDIX B. REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES

In addition to research that describes findings related to operating speed and factors that potentially influence it, a number of jurisdictions include target speed and related concepts in their guidance. This chapter summarizes findings from a review of current practices.

ITE RECOMMENDED PRACTICE DESIGNING WALKABLE URBAN THOROUGHFARES: A CONTEXT SENSITIVE APPROACH

ITE’s RP, Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach (ITE 2010) states that factors potentially affecting target speed in urban areas include transition from higher- to lower-speed roadways, terrain, intersection spacing, frequency of access to adjacent land, type of roadway median, presence of curb parking, and level of pedestrian activity. Their guidance on target speed for walkable urban thoroughfares advises that it is not set arbitrarily but rather is achieved through a combination of measures that include the following:

• Setting signal timing for moderate progressive speeds from intersection to intersection.
• Using narrower travel lanes that cause motorists to naturally slow their speeds.
• Using physical measures such as curb extensions and medians to narrow the travel way.
• Using design elements such as on-street parking to create side friction.
• Minimal or no horizontal offset between the inside travel lane and median curbs.
• Eliminating superelevation.
• Eliminating shoulders in urban applications, except for bicycle lanes.
• Smaller curb-return radii at intersections and elimination or reconfiguration of high-speed channelized right turns.
• Paving materials with texture (e.g., crosswalks, intersection operating areas) detectable by drivers as a notification of the possible presence of pedestrians.
• Proper use of speed limit, warning, advisory signs and other appropriate devices to gradually transition speeds when approaching and traveling through a walkable area.

Other elements of walkable, mixed-use urban areas that ITE describes as factors widely believed to influence speed include a canopy of street trees, the enclosure of a thoroughfare formed by the proximity of a wall of buildings, the striping of edge lines or bicycle lanes, or parking lanes.

FHWA SPEED LIMIT SETTING HANDBOOK

The FHWA Speed Limit Setting Handbook (Schroeder et al. 2025) provides practitioners with information on how to conduct an engineering study to set a speed limit for a speed zone based on the provisions in the MUTCD. In that handbook, the guidance notes that understanding the expected speed ranges in various contexts and functional classifications can create a starting point for assessing the engineering study outcomes and account for the surrounding community, user needs, and road function. In addition, identifying a target speed for a road can help agencies identify appropriate design and operational features to support a motorist speed choice consistent with the target speed, defined in the handbook as “the highest desired operating speed given

land-use contexts, multimodal activity, and vehicular mobility”. The handbook notes that target speed policies usually consider some or all of the MUTCD’s six speed limit-setting factors as part of the development of target speeds for typical roadway conditions in a given context. In the handbook’s guidance, when a jurisdiction has a target speed policy, it has already set a target speed for a roadway or for its combination of functional and context classification characteristics. The handbook uses NCHRP Report 966 (Fitzpatrick et al. 2021c) as a basis for examples of target speed ranges that can be used in a target speed policy that supports setting speed limits.

The handbook notes that, when evaluating target speeds, it is important to remember that roadway context can change over time. Most commonly, the target speed may need to lower over time as contexts shift from rural or suburban to a more urban context as development occurs and land use changes. In other cases, it may be that the roadway’s target speed is too low given a changing context due to roadway design changes, access management, and separation of users walking and bicycling.

FLORIDA DOT

The 2020 Florida DOT Design Manual (Florida DOT 2020b), in its discussion on speed management and target speed, provides a table of potential speed management strategies for the designer to consider for given combinations of context classification (Florida DOT 2020a) and design speed. Strategies include roundabouts, on-street parking, chicanes, lane narrowing, horizontal deflection, street trees, short blocks, vertical deflection, speed feedback signs, speed limit pavement markings, median islands, curb extensions (i.e., bulbouts), RRFBs and PHBs, and terminated vistas. Table B-1 summarizes the speed management strategies presented in the FDOT manual for lower design speed categories.

Table B-1. Speed management strategies from 2020 Florida DOT Design Manual. (adapted from Table 202.3.1 in Florida DOT 2020b)

The manual says that the designer, in potentially selecting one or more of those speed management strategies, should consider:

• Context classification.
• Desired operating speed.
• Community vision.
• Multimodal needs (safety, operations).
• Design and emergency vehicles.
• Access management.

The FDOT guidance also states that, typically, the strategies provided are most effective when several are used together. It encourages designers to use existing conditions to the greatest extent possible to support speed management. In particular, it states that existing street grids with short blocks and frequent intersections represent excellent speed management opportunities already in place, and such opportunities should be accentuated and used where they exist.

The 2020 FDOT Context Classification Guide (Florida DOT 2020a), in its guidance on designing for a target speed, advises that when the current design speed does not match the target speed, roadway design and operation changes are needed to affect the design speed and posted speed toward the target speed; a concurrent effect is described as helping the road “read” more consistently for road users. When the current posted speed is higher than the target speed, FDOT says that the design team may use this feedback-loop process:

• Set the target speed.
• Using the target speed as the new design speed, make design and operations interventions to achieve target speed. Post the speed limit equal to the target speed. The Project Manager should apply as many strategies as are necessary and can be achieved under the project constraints recognizing that significant speed changes may require more than one project over time.
• Conduct a speed study in accordance with the Speed Zoning Manual to measure the resulting operating speed and determine if the target speed has been achieved.
• If not achieved, go back to step 2.
• b. If achieved, proceed to step 4.
• Continue to monitor the speed over time and return to step 1 if the conditions change or to step 2 if the operating speeds exceed the target speed.

Table B-2 summarizes the FDOT table of transportation characteristics that can be used to select a target speed for the lowest design speed ranges.

Table B-2. Transportation characteristics that support target speeds from Florida DOT. (adapted from Table 8 in Florida DOT 2020a)

Florida DOT updated their Context Classification Guide (Florida DOT 2024) and Design Manual (Florida DOT 2025) in 2024 and 2025, respectively. The 2024 FDOT Context Classification Guide expands on the 2020 discussion of context-based speeds and provides an example process for determining target speed:

• Determine consistency with the Design Manual.
• Identify the starting point for target speed based on the context.
• Identify project needs to refine the target speed.
  • Who are the intended users?
  • What are potential safety challenges?
  • Are there user groups with distinct operational or safety needs (e.g., schools, senior center, transit dependent users)?
  • What is the level of community support?
  • What is the transportation role of the roadway in the network?
• Document target speed.
• Review potential countermeasures and design speed.

The 2025 FDOT Design Manual (Florida DOT 2025) specifies that design speed should be selected early in the design process and should be influenced by target speed, which is determined by the process described in the 2024 Context Classification Guide (Florida DOT 2024). A context-appropriate design speed is selected to attain a desired degree of safety, mobility, and efficiency. Where the recommended target speed is not feasible to attain in a single project, the design speed should be as close to the target speed as can be achieved within the constraints of the project. Target speed is defined in the 2025 FDOT Design Manual (Florida DOT 2025) as “the highest speed at which vehicles should operate on a thoroughfare in a specific context, consistent with the level of multi-modal activity generated by adjacent land uses, to provide both mobility for motor vehicles and a supportive environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users.” An appropriate target speed is determined for all non-limited access projects where a design speed is also required.

WASHINGTON STATE DOT

The 2021 Washington State DOT (WSDOT) Design Manual (Washington State DOT 2021) states that design speed is determined through the use of a target speed. It says that the objective of the target speed approach is to establish the design speed at the desired operating speed. The target speed selection is derived from other design controls, as well as transportation and land use context characteristics. The manual provides suggestions for high, intermediate, and low ranges of target speed for various land use contexts and roadway types, as summarized in Table B-3.

Table B-3. Target speed based on land use context and roadway type from Washington State DOT. (adapted from Exhibit 1103-4 in Washington State DOT 2021)

The WSDOT Design Manual (Washington State DOT 2021) describes the speed ranges shown in Table B-3 as follows:

• Low Speed is 35 mph and below. A low target speed is ideal for roadways with pedestrian and bicycle modal priorities. Locations that include frequent transit stops, intermodal connections, moderate to high intersection density, or moderate to high access densities may also benefit from lower-speed environments. Low-speed facilities in urban areas typically use narrower cross-section elements.
• Intermediate Speeds are 40 mph and 45 mph. An intermediate target speed is ideal for speed transitions between high and low target speed environments. Locations with

• low access densities and few at-grade intersections are also examples of where intermediate speed may be appropriate. In these locations consider a higher degree of separation between motor vehicles and bicycles and pedestrians.
• High Speed is 50 mph and above. A high target speed is ideal for motor vehicle-oriented roadways such as freeways and highways, often serving regional or longer-distance local trips. Rural connector roadways with infrequent farm or residential accesses are also consistent with the use of high target speeds. In high target speed locations consider the highest degree of separation between motor vehicles and bicycles and pedestrians. Highways with high speeds are associated with wider cross-section elements.

In selecting the target speed, the 2021 WSDOT Design Manual advises to engage the public, local agency staff and officials, and transit agencies before making that decision. The selected target speed becomes the design speed for the project, with the goal that it is also ultimately the operating speed on the completed roadway. With that in mind, the designer is advised to consider the following factors:

• The impact of existing or proposed contextual characteristics.
• Modal priorities.
• Access control selection.
• Performance need(s).
• Contributing factors analyses that have been developed for the project.

The 2021 WSDOT Design Manual also provides guidance on coordinating the target speed with the posted speed limit. In particular, if a target speed is selected that exceeds the existing posted speed, the designer is encouraged to either consider speed management treatments to achieve lower vehicle speeds (and thus enable a lower target speed) or consider treatments that reduce conflicts in activities and modal uses (to make the roadway more consistent with the higher target speed). The designer is also cautioned about basing a target speed on contextual characteristics that are proposed to take place after the project opens, because other factors are used with target speed in setting posted speed, and a lack of coordination with the appropriate region traffic engineer may result in a posted speed that is not equal to the design speed at opening.

The 2024 WSDOT Design Manual (Washington State DOT 2024) provides similar information, with minor adjustments to the speed ranges shown in Table B-3. It states that WSDOT uses a target speed approach for determining design speed, and it defines target speed as “the highest speed at which vehicles should operate on a thoroughfare in a specific context, consistent with the level of multimodal activity generated by adjacent land uses, to provide both mobility for motor vehicles and a desirable environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users.”

The 2024 WSDOT Design Manual also provides guidance on lowering and raising target speeds for a given roadway. When selecting a target speed lower than the existing posted speed, or where operating speeds were identified from contributing factors analysis of the baseline performance need, designers are to consider the use of roadway treatments, particularly speed

management treatments, that will help achieve the selected target speed during formulation of alternatives.

When selecting a target speed in excess of the existing posted speed, WSDOT advises that measures such as greater restriction of access control and segregation of modes may be necessary to reduce conflicts in activities and modal uses. Wider cross-sectional elements like lanes and shoulders are often used with higher speed facilities. Careful consideration of other modal needs, any Level of Traffic Stress requirements, and safety impacts for all modal uses should be evaluated before raising target speeds.

OREGON DOT

The Oregon DOT Blueprint for Urban Design (BUD) (Oregon DOT 2020a, Oregon DOT 2020b) provides recommendations for target speeds in each urban context (see Table B-4) and advises that “…the recommended target speed should be used as the starting point. If the target speed is not practical for a specific project, justification should be provided. The urban context, community values, and safety for vulnerable users should be considered when reviewing tradeoffs associated with a different target speed, such as construction cost or vehicle mobility objectives. The multidisciplinary project team introduced in the Blueprint for Urban Design should make the final decision in the target speed determination.”

In practice, the BUD advises, the target speed and design speed should be the same, and a roadway should encourage an actual operating speed at the target speed. When the target speed is below the current design or operating speed, speed management treatments (such as those shown in Table B-4) should be used to help achieve the selected target speed. The target speed is also intended to be used as the posted speed limit; however, per the MUTCD, posted speeds should be established based on statutory limits unless an engineering study has been performed in accordance with established traffic engineering practices. ODOT typically uses the 85th percentile operating speed to set the posted speed within the limits of existing state statutes. The BUD states that when the target speed is lower than the current operating speed, ODOT should consider the following steps under existing statutes to obtain acceptance of a lower posted speed based on the speed reduction potential of the design treatments being implemented.

• Select target speed based on land use context.
• Select a design speed as close as possible to the target speed. The design speed should not be higher than the “inferred design speed” of the current roadway design (if there is an existing road). Designs developed to address safety but meeting a higher design speed than the inferred design speed may not reflect the desired intended outcome of the project.
• Select design elements to achieve the target speed.
• Set the posted speed as close to target speed as possible within current statutes.
• Monitor speeds following the project. Consider stronger speed controls if speeds have not decreased as intended.
• As operating speeds decrease in response to design, adjust posted speed to reflect the current guidance – up to 10 mph below 85th percentile.

Table B-4. Recommended Oregon DOT target speed and design treatments for urban contexts. (Oregon DOT 2020a, Oregon DOT 2020b)

The 2025 edition of the ODOT Highway Design Manual (Oregon DOT 2025) in Section 207.10.3 includes much of the information from the BUD. It also defines target speed as “the appropriate speed at which drivers should be operating a vehicle on a section of roadway based on context, classification and overall operations.” It reproduces Table B-4 as a summary of recommended target speed and design treatments, with the addition of entry treatments as options for Suburban Fringe and Rural Community contexts and revision of the Residential Arterial context to be labeled Residential Corridor. The table in the Highway Design Manual also notes that speed tables and chicanes may not be appropriate on most state roadways but may be considered in special cases.

MASSACHUSETTS DOT

As early as 2006, Massachusetts DOT (MassDOT) included target speed in their Project Development & Design Guide (PDDG) (Massachusetts Highway Department 2006). In the PDDG, target speed has not only a definition (“the desired operating speed along a roadway”) but also related guidance on how it should be used in the project development process, stating that it is determined early in that process and that an appropriate target speed should consider:

• The context of the roadway, including area type, roadway type, and access control;
• The volume, mix, and safety of facility users; and
• The anticipated driver characteristics and familiarity with the route.

The 2023 PDDG (Massachusetts DOT 2023) provides additional guidance in Section 3.6 on speed concepts in the design process. The PDDG has an updated definition of target speed as “a selected speed used to identify the highest operating speed at which vehicles should operate in a particular context to provide safer environments for all roadway users. Used to identify speed management measures and select design speed.” The guidance in the PDDG states that the objective of selecting a target speed is to inform the selection of a design speed and design treatments that aim to achieve operating speeds that are appropriate for the context and mix of roadway users. It adds that although target speed informs and influences various design elements, it does not directly control the design geometry. Instead, target speed informs:

• The need for, selection of, and frequency of speed management measures.
• The type of facilities for people walking and biking.
• The use of landscaping elements to create a sense of enclosure or terminated vista.

Conversely, the PDDG says, design speed controls the following elements, which include, but are not limited to:

• Minimum curve radii.
• Maximum grade.
• Superelevation rate.
• Stopping sight distance.
• Taper for lateral shifts.
• Roadside design criteria.
• Yellow and all-red clearance intervals at traffic signals.
• Separation for bicycle facilities.

The target speed and design speed should be identified in the early stages of the project development process through collaboration with a multi-disciplinary team that is responsible for developing the project scope. The PDDG provides a table (reproduced here as Table B-5) that summarizes the process for identifying target and design speeds throughout the project development process.

Table B-5. Recommended MassDOT process, documentation, and reviews for identifying target and design speed. (Table 3-6 in Massachusetts DOT 2023)

The PDDG also provides a range of target and design speeds based on the area type and roadway type. The range of target and design speeds recognizes the diversity of roadway types, area types, and topographies and provides flexibility to the designer. The target and design speed ranges are based on two factors, Area Type (the surrounding existing or future built and natural environment) and Roadway Type (the role the roadway plays in terms of providing regional connectivity and local access), both of which have a defined set of categories within the PDDG. The range of target and design speeds is summarized in Table B-6.

Table B-6. Recommended MassDOT target and design speed ranges by area type and roadway type. (Table 3-7 in Massachusetts DOT 2023)

The PDDG says the designer should use engineering judgment to select an appropriate target speed by assessing eight factors described below.

• Community input - Whether community members have expressed concerns about speed, safety, comfort, or the appropriateness of the facility for users of all ages and abilities. Input may have been received from various forums including public meetings, Road Safety Audits, and activities during a project’s planning / needs assessment phase.
• Safety risk - Risk for future crashes where speed could be a contributing factor. See MassDOT’s Systemic/Risk-based screening results within the “Speeding” Emphasis Area.
• Crash history - History of past crashes where speed may have been a contributing factor. See MassDOT and/or local crash data. Note that crash history may be incomplete, as not all crashes are reported, and crashes involving people walking and biking tend to be underreported.
• Activity level - How active a project area currently is or is expected to be, as indicated by density and mixes of adjacent land uses, presence of active public spaces, curbside demand, walking demand, biking demand, and transit demand.
• Crossing density - Density of crossing points based on signalized and unsignalized intersections, driveways, or other crossing points. Refer to NACTO’s “Crossing Point Density” guidance for details.
• Existing motor vehicle operating speed - Appropriateness of measured operating speeds, based on 50th percentile speed, 85th percentile speed, and percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit.

• Existing or planned bicycle facilities (if applicable) - Level of separation for existing or planned bicycle facilities (consider influence of speed on need for separation).
• Target speed achievability or appropriateness - This factor requires iterative consideration of existing operating speeds, the design speed that current roadway elements meet, and the likely feasibility of implementing speed management, especially vertical and horizontal deflection countermeasures.

The first seven factors are assessed based on general context and need, to identify whether target speed should be at the low or high end of the target and design speed range based on the general context and needs. This assessment is summarized in the Draft DJW. The eighth factor is based on project achievability or appropriateness, to select the target speed for the project.

The PDDG says target speed may vary along the overall length of the project based on changing context, and a single project corridor may have segments with different target speeds. Examples include:

• Different area types along a corridor.
• Transition zones, typically from higher speed, free-flow segments outside a community to a residential or business district with lower existing or desired operating speeds.
• Approaches to intersections.

Relating the target speed to the design speed, the PDDG advises that, in general, target speed and design speed should be the same. If the design speed is higher than the target speed, the roadway geometry will allow for and may encourage speeding. The roadway design should encourage an operating speed that matches the target speed, consistent with FHWA’s self-enforcing roadways concept (Donnell et al. 2018). Alignment among target, design, and operating speed is expected for new construction and reconstruction projects that can change the roadway’s alignment.

TEXAS DOT

The 2024 Texas DOT Roadway Design Manual (RDM) (Texas DOT 2024) includes guidance on posted speed relative to design speed and other speed concepts for project development. It states in Section 4.2.4 that the working definition for target speed is “the operating speed that the designer intends for drivers to use”. In mixed-use urban areas, the RDM says that target speed is the highest speed at which vehicles should operate on a low-speed thoroughfare in a specific context, consistent with the level of multimodal activity generated by adjacent land uses, to provide both mobility for motor vehicles and a desirable environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users. In general, the RDM advises that the target speed for rural roadways should be at the higher end of the design speed range. Subsequent tables in the RDM provide target design values for design elements for various roadway and context classifications; each table provides values for design speeds with a note that the selected design speed should meet the anticipated target speed of the facility during non-peak hours.

CITY OF AUSTIN

The Draft Street Design Guide for the city of Austin, Texas (Austin Transportation Department 2017) provides guidance for multimodal considerations in street design that includes target speed based on context, street level (a descriptor related to functional classification, ranging from Level 1 residential local streets to Level 5 controlled-access expressways and freeways), and traffic volumes. The information in the document says that traffic volumes should help guide the decision regarding number of lanes and target speed. Some overlap in volume ranges is provided to allow for flexibility in choice of lanes and design speed. Table B-7 provides a summary of 25-45 mph categories in the Multimodal Design Table from the Austin guide, which is intended to be an overview of the various characteristics of possible cross-sections described elsewhere in the guide. The description of the table says that the table should be referenced for decision-making when there is not enough space to accommodate the recommended bicycle, transit, or parking facilities and clarifies what elements to use for those facilities. The four- and six-lane cross-sections are specified in the table as divided with a median. Images of example cross-sections are provided in the guide for designers’ reference.

Table B-7. Multimodal design table from Austin, Texas. (adapted from Austin Transportation Department 2017)

CITY OF CHARLOTTE

The Urban Street Design Guide for the city of Charlotte, North Carolina (Charlotte DOT 2007) focuses on street types (akin to functional classification) that are selected based on a six-step design process. The design process, which is intended to primarily be applied to planning and designing “non-local” street types, was developed to better incorporate planning, design, and stakeholder input and participation in the decision-making process, to increase the likelihood that the resulting streets are appropriately based on the existing and proposed land use and transportation contexts. The six steps in the design process are as follows:

• Define the existing and future land use and urban design context.
• Define the existing and future transportation context.
• Identify deficiencies.
• Describe future objectives.
• Recommend street classification and test initial cross-section.
• Describe tradeoffs and select cross-section.

The six steps can be applied either to a single street or to a collection of streets in an area (such as when an area plan is being developed). In either case, the first four steps should take an area-wide approach to gathering and assessing the information required for each step, since even individual street segments do not exist or function in isolation from the surrounding street network and land uses. Steps 1 and 2 lead to Step 3, which leads to Step 4, which leads to Step 5. The design process may end with Step 6 or with an iterative development of Steps 5 and 6 together. The result of the design process is selection of a street type. The street type is defined primarily based on context, cross-section, and block spacing, though speed thresholds are included in those definitions. A summary of street types in Charlotte’s guide is provided in Table B-8. The guide also provides sketches that illustrate example cross-sections for each street type.

Table B-8. Street types and associated characteristics from Charlotte, North Carolina. (adapted from Charlotte DOT 2007)

CITY OF CHICAGO

The city of Chicago, Illinois also provides a street typology as part of its Complete Streets Design Guidelines (Chicago DOT 2013). Similar to that found in Charlotte, the Chicago guidelines describe a six-stage project delivery process, intended to allow opportunities for public input, stakeholder and interagency outreach, and iterative design. A series of worksheets and resources is provided for project managers to complete the project delivery process of Selection, Scoping, Design, Construction, Measurement, and Maintenance.

Within the Design stage, the Chicago guidelines describe six types of roadway form and function related to the physical layout of the roadway; those six types, listed below, are generally equated to functional classification as follows:

• Thoroughfare: primary or secondary arterial.
• Connector: primary or secondary arterial or collector.
• Main Street: secondary arterial or collector or local street.
• Neighborhood Street: local street.
• Service Way: local street.
• Pedestrian Way: local street.

The Chicago guidelines state that they will use target speed rather than design speed. To that end, the target speed of each street is equal to or less than the speed limit, based on roadway type. Table B-9 provides a summary of those target speeds, as well as associated design vehicles and lane widths. Target speeds higher than 30 mph, lanes wider than 11 ft, and design vehicles greater than WB-50 require approval of the Compliance Committee.

Table B-9. Design elements for street types in Chicago, Illinois. (adapted from Chicago DOT 2013)

The guidelines add that Chicago’s prima facie speed limit is 30 mph, and the document advises that the use of target speeds may require lowering the speed limit or posting speed advisory signs. The guidelines advise that target speed should account for specific geometric elements such as curves and traffic calming devices. In addition, the Chicago Pedestrian Plan proposes a 20-mph target speed for residential streets (generally applicable to Main Streets and Neighborhood Streets).

In its discussion on speed, the Chicago guidelines document adds that speed control elements are often necessary to achieve target speeds, rather than relying solely on the posted speed limit. Examples of geometric and operational elements to control speed are provided as:

• Signals synchronized to target speed.
• Narrower lanes, especially on Main Streets, Neighborhood Streets and Service Ways.
• Roadway physically narrowed through bicycle facilities, on-street parking, raised medians/islands, or curb extensions.
• Traffic calming devices - speed humps, mini-roundabouts, chicanes.
• Limited sight distance such as buildings on the corner.
• Terminating vistas, such as at a T-intersection or at a traffic circle.
• Rhythms created with trees, poles, landscaping, and crosswalks.