R C
ND T
NS
Pennsylvania corridors are an anomaly roadway type. As composites of other roadway types and products of numerous “improvements” to increase their efficiency, older corridors have developed physical, perceptual, and land use inconsistencies and eventually become poor examples of best practices of safety, health, and sustainability. any have become dangerous and local citi ens fear using them. 1 This pro ect has sought to thread the needle with design strategies and recommendations that consider corridors from a different perspective. ts design-centric approach introduced principles of holistic, corridor-wide design initiatives intended to meld safety, efficiency, and aesthetics. t sought to create a level of standardi ation to maintain efficiency and increase safety while providing opportunities for individual municipal expression. t suggests a way for corridor municipalities to partner more effectively with ennD T for corridor planning and ways to actively engage citi ens in setting priorities. These are the major takeaways from this project:
CORRIDOR-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES Corridors re
ifferent
oad ay Type T an
urrently
lassified
Corridors connect many places and destinations over longer distances, weaving in and out of urban and suburban environments as well as interstitial settings. hen a corridor passes through a town or municipality, it may interact with local roads and carry local movement at a much higher rate than design standards for current roadway classifications indicate, yet they share many commonalities across the broader roadway classification range and different contextual settings. Corridors, be they urban arterials or other types, are defined more by their locational context than by a continuous urban setting. n order to implement ne standards ac no led in t at corridors do not fit neatly into t e current ideali ed classifications of i ay or arterial is ey T ese classifications rely on consistent desi n and function ne classification of corridor as a road ay type is recommended to provide a fle i le desi n standard it permitted options to select from as suits the location. Separate
orridor
lassification System s
eeded
lthough standard arterial practices dictate speed limit, roadway width, and other roadway characteristics, these are based upon the assumption that urban arterials are all similar in context, connectivity, and purpose. The case studies highlighted how that is often not the case. The data gathered and community input revealed fre uent and repeated disconnects between standard urban arterial design and the varied urban environments they often pass through. 1
Based on previous and this research, Routes 5 and 65 in the ittsburgh area are good examples.
162