Open Access Library Journal

2020, Volume 7, e6095

ISSN Online: 2333-9721
ISSN Print: 2333-9705

Highway Stopping Sight Distance, Decision

Sight Distance, and Passing Sight Distance
Based on AASHTO Models

Azad Abdulhafedh

University of Missouri-Columbia, Missouri, USA

How to cite this paper: Abdulhafedh, A. Abstract

(2020) Highway Stopping Sight Distance,
Decision Sight Distance, and Passing Sight Highway sight distance is a measure of roadway visibility, which is an impor-
Distance Based on AASHTO Models. Open tant factor in the assessment of road safety. Greater visibility can provide
Access Library Journal, 7: e6095. motorists more time to avoid crashes and conflicts, facilitating safe and effi-
[Link]
cient operation. However, poor visibility can reduce the driver’s ability to react
Received: January 21, 2020 to changing conditions and is a significant factor in roadway crashes and near
Accepted: March 20, 2020 collisions. A driver’s ability to view ambient roadway conditions is necessary
Published: March 23, 2020 for safe operation of a vehicle. The roadway must have sufficient sight dis-
tance that drivers have the time to react to and avoid striking unexpected ob-
Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and Open
Access Library Inc. jects in their path. In addition, certain two-lane, two-way highways should
This work is licensed under the Creative also have adequate passing sight distance to enable drivers to use the oppos-
Commons Attribution International ing traffic lane for passing other vehicles without interfering with oncoming
License (CC BY 4.0). vehicles. This paper presents the concept and analysis of three different types
[Link]
of sight distance that are considered in highway geometric design based on
Open Access
AASHTO models: 1) the sight distances needed for stopping, applicable to all
highway travels; 2) the sight distances needed for decisions at hazardous com-
plex locations; and 3) the passing sight distance needed on two lane highways.

Subject Areas
Civil Engineering, Geometry, Operational Research, Topology

Keywords
Stopping Sight Distance, Decision Sight Distance, Passing Sight Distance,
Highway Geometric Design

1. Introduction
According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 Mar. 23, 2020 1 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

Officials (AASHTO), the ability of a driver to see ahead on the roadway is very
important for the efficient operation of a vehicle. In general, sight distance is the
length of roadway ahead that is visible to the driver [1] [2] [3]. Moreover, the
minimum sight distance at any point on the roadway should be long enough to
enable a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a
stationary object in its path. Although greater length is desirable, sight distance
at every point along the highway should be at least that required for a below av-
erage driver or vehicle to stop in this distance. Providing adequate sight distance
on a roadway is one of the central tasks of the highway designer. Adequate sight
distance provides motorists the opportunity to avoid obstacles on the roadway,
to merge smoothly with other traffic, and to traverse intersections safely. Ramp,
interchange, and intersection designs are typically completed in tightly con-
strained spaces with many structural, earthwork, and roadway elements present
that may obstruct sight distance. If consideration to sight distance constraints is
not given early in the design process, roadway design may be compromised and
may reduce the level of safety on the completed roadway. Therefore, sight dis-
tance criteria must be presented in a clear and comprehensive manner to facili-
tate the completion of satisfactory roadway design. Sight distance criteria have
impact on virtually all elements of highway design and many elements of the
traffic operation, and control. The roadway geometric design features, the pres-
ence of obstacles at the roadsides and the pavement surface condition are fixed
by sight distance requirements. The nature of traffic controls, their placement
and their effects on traffic stream conditions, such as traffic queues, must take
account of sight distance requirements. Roadway sight distance can be catego-
rized into four types according to AASHTO Green Book [1] [2] [3]: 1) stopping
sight distance; 2) decision sight distance; 3) passing sight distance; and 4) inter-
section sight distance. Each of these sight distances accounts for the reaction
time of the driver and the subsequent time required to complete the associated
stopping task. This paper presents the concept and analysis of the first three
types of sight distance based on AASHTO models: 1) the sight distances needed
for stopping, applicable to all highway travels; 2) the sight distances needed for
decisions at hazardous complex locations; and 3) the passing sight distance
needed on two lane highways.

2. Stopping Sight Distance

Stopping sight distance (SSD) reflects a distance within which a driver can effec-
tively see an object in the roadway and stop their vehicle before colliding with
the object [1] [2] [3]. The available sight distance on a roadway should be long
enough to enable a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before
reaching a stationary object in its path. Although greater lengths of visible road-
way are desirable, the sight distance at every point along a roadway should be at
least that needed for a below-average driver or vehicle to stop. Recommended
protocols for calculating stopping sight distances account for the basic principles
of physics and the relationships between various design’s parameters. Stopping

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 2 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

sight distance can be determined as the sum of two distances, namely: 1) Reac-
tion distance (the distance a vehicle travels from the moment a driver sees the
object until the driver applies the brakes) and; 2) Braking distance (the distance
a vehicle travels from the moment the brakes are applied until the vehicle comes
to a complete stop). The following equation shows how SSD is typically com-
puted by combining these two distances [1] [2]:
SSD 0.278VT + 0.039V 2 a
= (1)

where:
SSD = stopping sight distance, m;
V = highway design speed, km/h;
T = brake reaction time, seconds;
a = deceleration rate, m/s2.
AASHTO Greenbook (2018 and 2011) recommends a (2.5 seconds) as the
driver’s reaction time, and (3.4 m/s2) as the deceleration rate for stopping sight
distance calculations. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the factors contribut-
ing to the AASHTO recommendations on SSD. Table 1 shows the SSD on level

Table 1. AASHTO Stopping sight distance on level roadways.

Design Speed Reaction Distance Braking Distance

Calculated SSD (m) Design SSD (m)
(km/h) (m) (m)

20 13.9 4.6 18.5 20

30 20.9 10.3 31.2 35
40 27.8 18.4 46.2 50
50 34.8 28.7 63.5 65
60 41.7 41.3 83.0 85
70 48.7 56.2 104.9 105
80 55.6 73.4 129.0 130
90 62.6 92.9 155.5 160
100 69.5 114.7 184.2 185
110 76.5 138.8 215.3 220
120 83.4 165.2 248.6 250
130 90.4 193.8 284.2 285

Figure 1. AASHTO criteria for stopping sight distance.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 3 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

terrains. The recommended height of the driver’s eye above the road surface is
(1.08 m) and the height of an object above the roadway is (0.6 m).

2.1. Driver’s Eye Height for SSD

The driver eye height of 1.08 m that is commonly recommended is based on re-
search that suggests average vehicle heights have decreased to 1.30 m (4.25 ft)
with a comparable decrease in average eye heights to 1.08 m (3.50 ft). For large
trucks, the driver eye height ranges from 1.80 m to 2.40 m (3.50 ft to 7.90 ft).
The recommended height for a truck driver for design is 2.33 m (7.60 ft) above
the road surface.

2.2. Object’s Height for SSD

An object height of a 0.6 m (2.0 ft) is commonly selected based on studies that
have indicated that objects less than 0.60 m in height are less likely to cause
crashes. Therefore, an object height of 0.6 m is considered the smallest object
that could pose risk to drivers. In addition, an object height of 0.60 m is a good
representative of the height of automobile headlights and taillights [1].

2.3. Effect of Grades on SSD

For roads having positive grades, braking distance can be calculated by the fol-
lowing equation [1] [2]:
V2
db = (2)
 a  
254   ± G
 9.81  
where,
db: Braking distance on grade, m;
V: Design Speed, km/h;
a: Deceleration rate, m/s2;
G: Grade, rise/run, m/m.
The stopping distances needed on upgrades are shorter than on level road-
ways; those on downgrades are longer. The AASHTO stopping sight distances
for various downgrades and upgrades are shown in Table 2. Passenger cars can
use grades as steep as 4.0 to 5.0 percent without significant loss in speed below
that normally maintained on level roadways. Operation of passenger cars on a
3.0 percent upgrade has only a slight effect on their speeds compared to opera-
tions on level terrain. On steeper upgrades, speeds decrease gradually with in-
creases in the grade. On downgrades, passenger car speeds generally are slightly
higher than on level terrains. Trucks generally increase speed by up to 5.0 per-
cent on downgrades and decrease speed by 7.0 percent or more on upgrades as
compared to their operation on level terrains [1] [2] [3].

2.4. SSD for Trucks

Trucks are heavier than passenger cars; therefore, they need a longer distance to

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 4 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

Table 2. AASHTO Stopping Sight Distance on grades.

Stopping Sight Distance (m)

Design Speed
Downgrades Upgrades
(km/h)
3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 9%

20 20 20 20 19 18 18

30 32 35 35 31 30 29

40 50 50 53 45 44 43

50 66 70 74 61 59 58

60 87 92 97 80 77 75

70 110 116 124 100 97 93

80 136 144 154 123 118 114

90 164 174 187 148 141 136

100 194 207 223 174 167 160

110 227 243 262 203 194 186

120 263 281 304 234 223 214

130 302 323 350 267 254 243

stop. However, it is believed that adjustment factors for trucks are not necessary
since visibility from a truck is typically better given that the driver is seated at a
higher elevation above the roadway surface. Thus, this increase in the height of
the driver substitutes the need for additional stopping sight distance for trucks
[1] [2] [3] [4].

2.5. Measuring and Recording Sight Distance

In the field, stopping sight distance is measured along the travel path of vehicles
and several methods are typically utilized. The first conventional procedure is
called the walking method [5] [6] that involves at least two individuals, sighting
and a target rods, a measuring wheel, and a chain. The target rod is usually 1.3 m
tall representing the vehicle’s height and is usually painted orange on both the
top portion and bottom 0.6 m of the rod. The bottom 0.6 m portion of the target
rod is the height of object for measuring stopping sight distance. The sighting
rod is 1.08 m tall representing the driver’s eye height recommended by
AASHTO and is usually painted black. From any point location along the road,
the observer should sight from the top of the sighting rod while the assistant
moves away in the direction of travel. The assistant stops when the bottom 0.6 m
portion of the target rod is no longer visible. The distance from the disappearing
point to the observer presents the available stopping sight distance. The analysis
procedure consists of comparing the recommended sight distance from AASHTO
tables to the measured sight distance in the field. Given that this measurement
method requires the observer to be in the travel lane with their back to traffic,
measurements along the shoulder are often substituted since they are safer for

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 5 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

the personnel conducting the measurement. Similar in scope to the conventional

approach, modern technologies have also been utilized to measure sight distance
in the field. For instance, the two-vehicle method employs two vehicles equipped
with sensors that measure their spacing, two-way communication device, and a
paint sprayer [4]. The vehicles calibrate their spacing to a desired sight distance.
As the vehicles traverse a roadway, observers in the trailing vehicle note whether
or not portions of the road meet the specified sight distance. Another similar
method is the one-vehicle method that also has been used by some transporta-
tion agencies [5] [6]. This method requires one employee in a vehicle equipped
with a measuring device, and a paint sprayer. The driver moves slowly through
the road and watches the points at which the view opens up and marks these
points by paint. Another technique that has widely been used is the computer
based method, using the global positioning systems (GPS) data [7]. This method
requires two vehicles, the lead vehicle equipped with modern telemetry, and the
trailing vehicle equipped with logging laptop computer. The visibility of a target
on the lead vehicle, monitored from the trailing vehicle, is recorded to determine
if the available sight distance is sufficient. The field-based measurement ap-
proaches discussed are advantageous in that a diverse range of roadway condi-
tions can be incorporated. That is, since there are observers on the ground, ob-
structions to visibility can be accounted for in a more precise manner. However,
field measurement techniques are extremely time consuming and may require
many years to conduct at a broad regional level. Field measurements can also
lack consistency based on the measurement technique and the characteristics of
the crew conducting the task. Moreover, field measurements require that indi-
viduals work in traffic which presents a significant threat to their safety. As such,
a measurement approach that entails a more remote analysis of sight distance
and permits a broader, regional perspective would certainly be a valuable tool for
providing an initial estimate of sight distance. To address this need, a variety of
approaches have been developed to use other data sources to estimate sight dis-
tance without using equipped vehicles or deploying individuals to the field. In
this sense, Tsai et al. (2010) propose an algorithm to compute roadway geome-
tric data, including roadway length, sight distance, and lane width from images,
using emerging vision technology based on 2D, and 3D image reconstruction
[8]. Also, Shaker et al. (2011) use stereo high resolution satellite imagery for ex-
tracting the highway profiles and constructing 3D highway visualization model
using a polynomial-based generic push broom model and rational function
model to perform the sensor orientation [9]. Methods that use Global Position-
ing Systems (GPS) data to estimate sight distance have also been developed. For
instance, Ben-Arieh et al. (2004) used a GPS data and B-Spline method to model
highway geometric characteristics that utilized B-spline curves and a piecewise
polynomial function [10]. Nehate and Rys (2006) used the geometric model de-
veloped by Ben-Arieh et al. (2004) to calculate the available sight distance on 3D
combined horizontal and vertical alignment [11]. They utilized a piecewise pa-

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 6 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

rametric equation in the form of cubic B-splines to represent the highway sur-
face and sight obstructions, and the available sight distance was found analyti-
cally by examining the intersection between the sight line and the elements
representing the highway surface and sight obstructions. Azimi and Hawkins
(2013) proposed a method that uses vector product to derive the visibility of the
centerline of the roadway from the spatial coordinates of a set of GPS data of the
centerline and defined the clear zone boundaries on both sides of the roadway to
determine the available sight distance at each point of the roadway [12] [13].

2.6. Sight Distance Obstructions

On a crest vertical curve, the road surface at some point could limit the driver’s
stopping sight distance. On horizontal curves, the obstruction that limits the
driver’s sight distance may be some physical feature outside of the traveled way,
such as a longitudinal barrier, a bridge-approach fill slope, a tree, foliage, or the
back slope of a cut section. Thus, it is recommended to check all road construc-
tion plans for other obstructions to sight distance [1] [2] [3] [4].

2.7. SSD on Horizontal Alignments

When a vehicle travels in a circular path, it undergoes a centripetal acceleration
that acts toward the center of curvature. This acceleration is sustained by a
component of the vehicle’s weight related to the roadway super elevation, by the
side friction developed between the vehicle’s tires and the pavement surface, or
by a combination of the two, which is occasionally equals to the centrifugal force
[1] [2] [3] [4]. The design of roadway curves should be based on an appropriate
relationship between design speed and radius of curvature and on their joint re-
lationships with super elevation (roadway banking) and side friction. When a
vehicle travels at constant speed on a curve super elevated so that the friction is
zero, the centripetal acceleration is sustained by a component of the vehicle’s
weight, and no steering force is needed. A vehicle traveling faster or slower than
the balance speed develops tire friction as steering effort is applied to prevent
movement to the outside or to the inside of the curve. From the basic laws of
mechanics, the fundamental equation that governs vehicle operation on a hori-
zontal curve is as follows [1] [2]:
0.01e + f v 2 0.0079V 2 V2
= = = (3)
1 − 0.01ef gR R 127 R

where,
e: rate of roadway super elevation, percent;
f: coefficient of side friction, unitless;
v: vehicle speed, m/s;
V: vehicle speed, km/h;
g: gravitational constant, 9.81 m/s2;
R: radius of the curve measured to the vehicle’s center of gravity, m.
Values for maximum super elevation rate (e) and maximum side friction coef-

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 7 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

ficient (f) can be determined from the AASHTO Green Book for curve design.
Using these values in the curve formula results in determining a minimum curve
radius for various design speeds [1]. The coefficient of friction f is the friction
force divided by the component of the weight perpendicular to the pavement
surface. The value of the product (ef) is always small. As a result, the (1 – 0.01ef)
term is nearly equal to 1.0 and is normally omitted in highway design. Omission
of this term yields the following basic side friction equation, which is widely
used in curve design [1] [2]:
V2
=f − 0.01e (4)
127 R
The minimum radius is a limiting value of curvature for a given design speed
and is determined from the maximum rate of super elevation and the maximum
side friction coefficient. Use of sharper curvature for that design speed would
call for super elevation beyond the limit considered practical or for operation
with tire friction beyond what is considered comfortable by many drivers, or
both. The minimum radius of curvature is based on a threshold of driver com-
fort that is suitable to provide a margin of safety against skidding and vehicle
rollover. The minimum radius of curvature, Rmin can be determined directly
from the following equation [1] [2]:
V2
Rmin = (5)
127 ( 0.01emax + f max )

If there are sight obstructions (such as walls, cut slopes, buildings, and bar-
riers) on the inside of horizontal curves and their removal to increase sight dis-
tance is impractical, a design may need adjustment in the highway alignment.
For general use in design of a horizontal curve, the horizontal sight line is a
chord of the curve, and the stopping sight distance is measured along the center-
line of the inside lane around the curve, as shown in Figure 2. The horizontal
sight line offset (HSO) can be determined from Equation (6). The equation ap-
plies only to circular curves longer than the sight distance for the specified de-
sign speed [1] [2]:

Figure 2. AASHTO SSD criteria on Horizontal alignments.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 8 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

  28.65S  
HSO = R 1 − cos   (6)
  R 
where,
HSO: Horizontal Sightline Offset, m;
S: Stopping Sight Distance, m;
R: Radius of curve, m.
Where adequate stopping sight distance is not available because of a sight ob-
struction, alternative designs must be used, such as increasing the offset to the
obstruction, increasing the radius, or reducing the design speed [1] [2] [3].

2.8. SSD on Crest Vertical Curves

Crest vertical curves should be designed to provide at least the stopping sight
distance that is a major design control. Minimum lengths of crest vertical curves
based on sight distance criteria generally are satisfactory from the standpoint of
safety, comfort, and appearance [1] [2] [3] [4]. The basic equations for length of
a crest vertical curve in terms of algebraic difference in grade and sight distance
criteria are as follows [1] [2]:
when S is less than L:
AS 2
L= (7)
( )
2
100 2h1 + 2h2

when S is greater than L:

( )
2
200 h1 + h2
L 2S −
= (8)
A
where,
L: Length of vertical curve, m;
A: Algebraic difference in grade, percent;
S: Sight distance, m;
h1: Driver’s Eye Height above roadway surface, m;
h2: Object’s Height above roadway surface, m.
When the height of the eye and the height of object are 1.08 and 0.60 m (3.50
ft and 2.0 ft), respectively, as used for stopping sight distance, the equations be-
come:
when S is less than L:
AS 2
L= (9)
658
when S is greater than L:
658
L 2S −
= (10)
A
Rate of vertical curvature, K, is usually used in the design calculation, which is
the length of curve per percent algebraic difference in intersecting grades, (i.e. K
= L/A). Figure 3 shows the AASHTO parameters used in determining the length

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 9 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

Figure 3. SSD parameters used in design of crest vertical curves.

of a crest vertical curve to provide stopping sight distance. For night driving on
highways without lighting, the headlights of the vehicle directly illuminate the
length of visible roadway. Thus, stopping sight distance values exceed road-surface
visibility distances afforded by the low-beam headlights regardless of whether
the roadway profile is level or curving vertically. Since the headlight, mounting
height (typically about 0.60 m) is lower than the driver eye height used for de-
sign (1.08 m), the sight distance to an illuminated object is controlled by the
height of the vehicle headlights rather than by the direct line of sight. In addi-
tion, drivers are aware that visibility at night is less than during the day, regard-
less of road features, and they may therefore be more attentive and alert [1] [2]
[3].

2.9. SSD on Sag Vertical Curves

Design controls for sag vertical curves differ from those for crests, and separate
design values are needed. The headlight sight distance is used to determine the
length of a sag vertical curve, and the values determined for stopping sight dis-
tances are within these limits. As in the case of crest vertical curves, it is conve-
nient to express the design control in terms of the K rate for all values of A.
When a vehicle traverses a sag vertical curve at night, the portion of highway
lighted ahead is dependent on the position of the headlights and the direction of
the light beam. A headlight height of 0.60 m (2.0 ft) and a 1-degree upward di-
vergence of the light beam from the longitudinal axis of the vehicle are assumed
in the design. The following equations are used to determine the length of sag
vertical curves based on sight distance criteria [1] [2]:
when S is less than L:
AS 2 AS 2
=L = (11)
200 0.6 + S ( tan1)  120 + 3.5S

when S is greater than L:

200 0.6 + S ( tan1)  120 + 3.5S
L=
2S − 2S −
= (12)
A A
where,
L: Length of sag vertical curve, m;

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 10 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

A: Algebraic difference in grades, percent;

S: Stopping sight distance (Light beam distance), m.
The light beam distance is approximately the same as the stopping sight dis-
tance, and it is appropriate to use stopping sight distances for different design
speeds as the value of S in the above equations [1] [2]. Figure 4 shows the para-
meters used in the design of a sag vertical curve.

2.10. SSD at Under Crossings

Sag vertical curves under passing a structure should be designed to provide the
minimum recommended stopping sight distance for sag curves [1] [2] [3] [4].
The general equations for sag vertical curve length at under crossings are [1] [2]:
when S is less than L:
AS 2
L= (13)
 h −h 
800 C − 1 2 
 2 
when S is greater than L:
 h −h 
800 C − 1 2 
 2 
L 2S −
= (14)
A
where,
L: Length of Sag Vertical Curve, m;
S: Stopping Sight Distance, m;
C: Vertical Clearance, m;
h1: height of eye, m;
h2: height of object, m;
A: Algebraic difference in grades, percent.
AASHTO uses an eye height of 2.4 m (8.0 ft) for a truck driver and an object
height of 0.6 m (2.0 ft) for the taillights of a vehicle. Substituting these values, the
above equations become [1] [2]:
when S is less than L:
AS 2
L= (15)
800 ( C − 1.5 )

Figure 4. SSD parameters used in design of sag vertical curves.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 11 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

when S is greater than L:

800 ( C − 1.5 )
L 2S −
= (16)
A
Figure 5 shows the AAHSTO parameters used in the design of sag vertical
curves under passing a structure.

3. Decision Sight Distance (DSD)

While stopping sight distances are usually sufficient to allow average drivers to
come to a complete stop under ordinary circumstances, however, greater dis-
tances are preferred where drivers must make instantaneous decisions, where
information is difficult to perceive, or when unexpected or unusual maneuvers
are needed. In these circumstances, decision sight distance provides the greater
visibility distance that drivers need. Decision sight distance is defined as the dis-
tance required for a driver to detect an unexpected source or hazard in a road-
way, recognize the threat potential, select an appropriate speed and path, and
complete the required maneuver safely and efficiently [1] [2] [3] [4]. Most traffic
situations presented on highways require stopping sight distance at a minimum;
however, decision sight distance is also recommended for safer and smoother
operations. For example, long traffic queues, problems of driver expectancy, and
high traffic volumes require more time and distances to accommodate normal
vehicle maneuvers of lane changing, speed changes and path changes.

3.1. Comparison between SSD and DSD

The distinction between stopping sight distance and decision sight distance must
be well understood. Stopping sight distance is applied where only one obstacle
must be seen in the roadway and dealt with. Decision sight distance applies
when traffic conditions are complex, and driver expectancies are different from
normal traffic situation. The difference between stopping in the context of deci-
sion sight distance and stopping sight distance is that the vehicle should stop for
some complex traffic condition, such as a queue of vehicles or hazardous condi-
tions, rather than an object in the roadway. The values of decision sight distance
are greater than the values of stopping sight distance because they provide the
driver an additional margin for error and afford sufficient length to maneuver at

Figure 5. SSD parameters used in design of under passing sag curves.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 12 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

the same or reduced speed rather than to stop. The added complexity in DSD
requires additional perception-reaction time prior to applying the brakes to be-
gin to slow the vehicle to a stop or change the speed or travel path. This allows
the driver additional time to detect and recognize the roadway or traffic situa-
tion, identify alternative maneuvers, and initiate a response on the highway.
AASHTO Greenbook (2018 and 2011) suggest that about 3.0 to 9.0 seconds are
required for detecting and understanding the unexpected traffic situation with
an additional 5.0 to 5.5 seconds required to perform the appropriate maneuver
compared to only 2.5 seconds as perception reaction time in stopping sight dis-
tance calculations. Similar to the stopping sight distance, AASHTO Greenbook
(2018 and 2011) recommends assuming the driver’s eye height at 1.08 m (3.5 ft),
and the object height as 0.60 m (2.0 ft) for decision sight distance calculations.

3.2. Cases of DSD

Decision sight distance is different for urban versus rural conditions and for
stopping versus maneuvering within the traffic stream conditions. Consequently,
there are five different cases for decision sight distance as follows [1] [2] [3]:
• Avoidance Maneuver A: Stop on Rural Road – (t = 3.0 sec),
• Avoidance Maneuver B: Stop on Urban Road – (t = 9.1 sec),
• Avoidance Maneuver C: Speed/Path/Direction Change on Rural Road – (t
between 10.2 and 11.2 sec),
• Avoidance Maneuver D: Speed/Path/Direction Change on Suburban Road –
(t between 12.1 and 12.9 sec),
• Avoidance Maneuver E: Speed/Path/Direction Change on Urban Road – (t
between 14.0 and 14.5 sec).

3.3. DSD Calculations for Stop Maneuvers A and B

The available decision sight distance for the stop avoidance maneuvers A and B
are determined as the sum of two distances, namely: 1) Reaction distance (the
distance a vehicle travels from the moment a driver detects a condition or ha-
zard in the roadway until the driver applies the brakes) and; 2) Braking distance
(the distance a vehicle travels from the moment the brakes are applied until the
vehicle comes to a complete stop). DSD can be computed as a function of these
two distances [1] [2] [3]:
DSD 0.278VT + 0.039V 2 a
= (17)

where:
DSD = decision sight distance, m;
V = design speed, km/h;
T = Maneuver time, seconds;
a = deceleration rate, m/s2.
AASHTO Greenbook (2018 and 2011) recommends a (3.0 seconds) as a driv-
er’s reaction time for rural highways, (6.0 seconds) for sub urban highways, and
a (9.1 seconds) for urban highways. AASHTO uses (3.4 m/s2) as the deceleration

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 13 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

rate for decision sight distance calculations.

3.4. DSD Calculations for Maneuvers C D and E

The available decision sight distances for avoidance maneuvers C, D, and E are
determined as follows [1] [2] [3]:
DSD = 0.278VT (18)
where:
DSD = decision sight distance, m;
V = design speed, km/h;
T = Maneuver time, seconds.
AASHTO Greenbook (2018 and 2011) recommends a (10.2 to 11.2 seconds
for maneuver C on rural roads, a 2.1 to 12.9 seconds for maneuver D on subur-
ban roads, and a 14.0 to 14.5 seconds for maneuver E on urban roads) as the
driver’s reaction time. Figure 6 provides an illustration of the recommended
AASHTO criteria on DSD. The recommended height of the driver’s eye above
the road surface is (1.08 m) and the height of an object above the roadway is (0.6
m). Table 3 shows the AASHTO recommended decision sight distances for var-
ious maneuvers. As can be seen in the table, shorter distances are generally
needed for rural roads and for locations where a stop is the appropriate ma-
neuver. If it is not practical to provide decision sight distance on some highways,

Figure 6. Recommended AASHTO criteria on DSD.

Table 3. AASHTO recommended decision sight distance.

Decision Sight Distance, meters

Design Speed
Avoidance Maneuver
(km/h)
A B C D E

50 70 155 145 170 195

60 95 195 170 205 235

70 115 235 200 235 275

80 140 280 230 270 315

90 170 325 270 315 360

100 200 370 315 355 400

110 235 420 330 380 430

120 265 470 360 415 470

130 305 525 390 450 510

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 14 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

attention should be given to the use of suitable traffic control devices for pro-
viding advance warning of the conditions that are likely to be encountered [1]
[2] [3].

4. Passing Sight Distance (PSD)

Passing sight distance (PSD) is the distance that drivers must be able to see along
the road ahead to safely and efficiently initiate and complete passing maneuvers
of slower vehicles on two-lane, two-way highways using the lane normally re-
served for opposing traffic [1] [2] [3]. PSD is a consideration along two-lane
roads on which drivers may need to assess whether to initiate, continue, and
complete or abort passing maneuvers. In the US, many roads are two-lane,
two-way highways on which faster vehicles frequently overtake slower moving
vehicles. In order to secure a safe passing maneuver, the passing driver should be
able to see a sufficient distance ahead, clear of traffic, to complete the passing
maneuver without cutting off the passed vehicle before meeting an opposing ve-
hicle [1] [2] [3]. Therefore, passing sight distance (PSD) is considered an impor-
tant factor in both the design of two-lane, two-way (TLTW) highways and the
marking of passing zones (PZ) and no-passing zones (NPZ) on two-lane,
two-way highways. The efficiency of traffic operation of many TLTW highways
depends on how often faster drivers are able to pass slower drivers. For example,
where faster drivers encounter a slower driver but are unable to pass, vehicle
platoons are built up, and cause a decrease in the level of service and inversely
affect safety, fuel consumption and emissions. The capacity of a two-lane,
two-way road is increased if a large percentage of the roadway’s length can be
used for passing maneuvers [14] [15] [16].

4.1. PSD on Multilane Highways

There is no need to consider passing sight distance on multilane highways that
have two or more traffic lanes in each direction of travel, because passing ma-
neuvers are expected to occur within the limits of the traveled way for each di-
rection of travel. However, multilane roadways should have continuously ade-
quate stopping sight distance, with greater-than-design sight distances preferred
[1] [2] [3].

4.2. Marking of Passing Zones on Two-Lane Highways

The design of two-lane highway is based on the AASHTO Green book criteria,
however, the marking of passing zones (PZs) and No-passing zones (NPZs) is
based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and High-
ways (MUTCD) criteria. The use of separate PSD criteria for design and mark-
ing is justified based on different needs in design and traffic operation. Since the
current US highway system operates with relatively low level of crashes related
to passing maneuvers and PSD, which indicates that the highway system can be
operated safely with passing and no-passing zones marked with the current

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 15 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

MUTCD criteria, therefore changing the current MUTCD PSD criteria to equal
the AASHTO criteria, or some intermediate value, is not recommended because
it would decrease the frequency and length of passing zones on two-lane,
two-way highways. This would decrease the traffic level of service and might
encourage illegal passes at locations where passing maneuvers are currently legal
[14] [15] [16]. As such, the AASHTO Green Book (2018 and 2011) has adapted
the MUTCD PSD values for the design of TLTW highways.

4.3. Driver’s Eye Height and Object’s Height for PSD

AASHTO Green book (2018 and 2011) uses both the height of the driver’s eye
and the object height as 1.08 m (3.5 ft) above the road surface [1] [2]. This object
height is based on a vehicle height of 1.33 m (4.35 ft), which h represents the
15th percentile of vehicle heights in the current passenger car population, less an
allowance of 0.25 m (0.85 ft), which is a near-maximum value for the portion of
the vehicle height that needs to be seen for another driver to recognize a vehicle.
The choice of an object height equal to the driver eye height makes design of
passing sight distance reciprocal (i.e. when the driver of the passing vehicle can
see the opposing vehicle, the driver of the opposing vehicle can also see the
passing vehicle). Passing sight distances calculated on this basis are also consi-
dered adequate for night conditions because headlight beams of an opposing ve-
hicle generally can be seen from a greater distance than a vehicle can be recog-
nized in the daytime [1] [2] [3].

4.4. PSD Model Assumptions

While there may be occasions, where multiple passing occurs when two or more
vehicles pass a single vehicle, or a single vehicle passes two or more vehicles.
However, it is not practical to assume such conditions in developing minimum
passing sight distance criteria. Instead, PSD is determined for a single vehicle
passing a single vehicle [1] [2] [3]. Longer passing sight distances are recom-
mended in the design and these locations can accommodate for an occasional
multiple passing. AASHTO Greenbook (2018 and 2011) uses two theoretical
models for the sight distance needs of passing drivers based on the assumption
that a passing driver will abort the passing maneuver and return to his or her
normal lane behind the overtaken vehicle if a potentially conflicting vehicle
comes into view before reaching a critical position in the passing maneuver
beyond which the passing driver is committed to complete the maneuver. The
Glennon (1998) model assumes that the critical position occurs where the pass-
ing sight distance to complete the maneuver is equal to the sight distance needed
to abort the maneuver [14]. The Hassan et al. (1996) model assumes that the
critical position occurs where the passing sight distances to complete or abort
the maneuver are equal or where the passing and passed vehicles are abreast,
whichever occurs first [15]. The following assumptions are made regarding the
driver behavior in the passing maneuvers and PSD calculations based on the

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 16 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

Glennon (1998) and Hassan et al. (1996) models [1] [2] [14] [15]:
• The speeds of the passing and opposing vehicles are equal to the design speed.
• The overtaken vehicle travels at uniform speed.
• The Speed differential between the passing and overtaken vehicles is 19 km/h
(12 mph).
• The passing vehicle has sufficient acceleration capability to reach the speci-
fied speed differential relative to the overtaken vehicle by the time it reaches
the critical position, which generally occurs about 40 percent of the way
through the passing maneuver.
• The lengths of the passing and overtaken vehicles are 5.8 m (19.0 ft).
• The passing driver’s perception-reaction time in deciding to abort passing a
vehicle is 1.0 sec.
• If a passing maneuver is aborted, the passing vehicle will use a deceleration
rate of 3.4 m/s2 (11.2 ft/s2), the same deceleration rate used in stopping sight
distance criteria.
• For a completed or aborted pass, the space headway between the passing and
overtaken vehicles is 1.0 sec.
• The minimum time clearance between the passing and opposed vehicles at
the point at which the passing vehicle returns to its normal lane is 1.0 sec.

4.5. PSD Calculations on Two-Lane Highways

AASHTO Green Book of (2018 and 2011) does not provide specific formulae for
calculating the required PSD, however, previous versions of AASHTO Green
Book (2001 and 2004) use the minimum passing sight distance for TLTW high-
ways as the sum of the following four distances:
1) d1 = Distance traversed during perception and reaction time and during the
initial acceleration to the point of encroachment on the opposing lane, and is
calculated as follows:
=d1 0.278ti v − m + ( ati 2 )  (19)

where;
ti = time of initial maneuver, ranges from (3.6 to 4.5) sec,
a = average acceleration, ranges from (2.25 to 2.41) km/h/s,
v = average speed of passing vehicle (km/h),
m = difference in speed of overtaken vehicle and passing vehicle (km/h).
2) d2 = Distance traveled while the passing vehicle occupies the left lane, and is
determined as follows:
d 2 = 0.278vt2 (20)

where;
t2 = time passing vehicle occupies the left lane, ranges from (9.3 to 11.3) sec,
v = average speed of passing vehicle (km/h).
3) d3 = Distance between the passing vehicle at the end of its maneuver and
the opposing vehicle (the clearance length), ranges from (30.0 to 90.0) m.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 17 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

4) d4 = Distance traversed by an opposing vehicle for two-thirds of the time

the passing vehicle occupies the left lane, or 2/3 of d2 above, and ranges from
(97.0 to 209.0) m. Figure 7 shows the AASHTO 2004 model for calculating PSD.
Table 4 shows the minimum values of PSD required for the design of
two-lane highways based on AASHTO 2018 and 2011 Green Books. These val-
ues assume that a passing driver will abort the passing maneuver and return to
his or her normal lane behind the overtaken vehicle if a potentially conflicting
vehicle comes into view before reaching a critical position in the passing ma-
neuver beyond which the passing driver is committed to complete the maneuver
[1] [2].

4.6. Warrants for No-Passing Zones

Each passing zone along a length of roadway with sight distance ahead should be

Figure 7. AASHTO (2004) model for PSD calculations.

Table 4. Minimum PSD values for design of two-lane highways.

Design Speed Assumed Speeds (km/h) Minimum Passing Sight Distance

(km/h) Overtaken Vehicle Passing Vehicle (m)

30 11 30 120

40 21 40 140

50 31 50 160

60 41 60 180

70 51 70 210

80 61 80 245

90 71 90 280

100 81 100 320

110 91 110 355

120 101 120 395

130 111 130 440

Source: AASHTO Green Book, 2011, Table 3 & Table 4.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 18 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

equal to or greater than the minimum passing sight distance should be as long as
practical [1] [2] [3]. The criteria for marking passing and no-passing zones on
two-lane highways are established by the MUTCD. Passing zones are not
marked directly. Rather, the warrants for no-passing zones are set by the
MUTCD, and passing zones merely happen where no-passing zones are not
warranted [17]. Table 5 shows the MUTCD PSD warrants for no-passing zones.
These criteria are based on prevailing off-peak 85th-percentile speeds rather
than the design speeds.

4.7. Minimum Lengths of PZs

The MUTCD uses a minimum passing zone length of 120 m to 240 m (400 ft to
800 ft) depending on the 85th percentile speed limit, (i.e. where two no-passing
zones come within 120 m to 240 m of one another, the no-passing barrier stripe
should be continued between them). Table 6 shows the minimum passing zone
Lengths to be Included in marking of PZs and NPZs [1] [2] [17]. Figure 8 shows
the AASHTO and MUTCD criteria for PSD and marking of NPZs.

Table 5. MUTCD warrants for NPZs.

85th percentile speed Limit (km/h) Minimum Passing Sight Distance (m)

40 140

50 160

60 180

70 210

80 245

90 280

100 320

110 355

120 395

130 440

Table 6. Minimum lengths of PZs.

85th Percentile Speed Limit (km/h) Minimum Passing Zone Length (m)
40 140
50 180

60 210

70 240
80 240

90 240

100 240

110 240

120 240

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 19 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

Figure 8. AASHTO and MUTCD criteria for PSD and marking of NPZs.

4.8. PSD on Horizontal Curves

The minimum passing sight distance for a two-lane road is greater than the
minimum stopping sight distance at the same design speed [1] [2] [3] [4]. To
stick with those greater sight distances, Equation (6) for SSD on curves is direct-
ly applicable to passing sight distance but is of limited practical value except on
long curves, because it would be difficult to maintain passing sight distance on
other than very flat curves. Therefore, design for passing sight distance should be
only limited to tangents and very flat curves. Even in level terrain, provision of
passing sight distance would need a clear area inside each curve that would ex-
tend beyond the normal right-of-way line [1] [2] [3] [18]-[25].

4.9. PSD on Crest Vertical Curves

Length values of crest vertical curves for passing sight distance differ from those
for stopping sight distance because of the different sight distance and object
height criteria. Using the 1.08 m (3.50 ft) height of object results in the following
formulas [1] [2]:
when S is less than L:
AS 2
L= (21)
864
when S is greater than L:
864
L 2S −
= (22)
A
where,
L: Length of vertical curve, m;
A: Algebraic difference in grade, percent;
S: Passing sight distance, m.
The minimum lengths of crest vertical curves are substantially longer than
those for stopping sight distances [1] [2] [3]. The extent of difference is evident
by the values of K, or length of vertical curve per percent change in A. Figure 9
shows the parameters used in determining the length of crest vertical curve
based on PSD. Table 7 shows the minimum lengths of crest vertical curve as

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 20 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

Table 7. PSD design controls for crest vertical curves.

Design Speed (km/h) Passing Sight Distance (m) Rate of Vertical Curvature, K

30 120 17

40 140 23

50 160 30

60 180 38

70 210 51

80 245 69

90 280 91

100 320 119

110 355 146

120 395 181

130 440 224

Figure 9. PSD parameters on crest vertical curves.

determined by PSD. Generally, it is impractical to design crest vertical curves

that provide passing sight distance because of high cost and the difficulty of fit-
ting the resulting long vertical curves to the terrain. Normally, passing sight dis-
tance is provided only at locations where combinations of alignment and profile
do not need significant grading [1] [2].

5. Conclusions
Sight distance is the length of highway a driver needs to be able to see clearly.
Sight distance is one of the important areas in highway geometric design. For
safety of highway operations, the designer must provide sight distances of suffi-
cient length along the highway that most drivers can control their vehicles to
avoid collision with other vehicles and objects that conflict with their path.
Three types of sight distances are to be considered in the design of highway
alignments and segments: stopping, decision, and passing sight distance. The
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
has defined acceptable limits for stopping, decision, and passing sight distances
based on analysis of safety requirements. Although greater length is desirable,
sight distance at every point along the highway should be at least that required
for a below-average driver or vehicle to stop in this distance. Stopping sight dis-

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 21 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

tance is the sum of two distances: the distance traversed by the vehicle from the
instant the driver sights an object necessitating a stop to the instant the brakes
are applied and the distance required to stop the vehicle from the instant brake
application begins. Mostly, the stopping sight distance is an adequate sight dis-
tance for roadway design. However, there are cases where it may not be appro-
priate. In areas where information about navigation or hazards must be observed
by the driver, or where the driver’s visual field is cluttered, the stopping sight
distance may not be adequate. In addition, there are avoidance maneuvers that
are safer than stopping, but require more reaction time by the driver. These may
not be possible if the minimum stopping sight distance is used for design. In
these instances, the proper sight distance to use is the decision sight distance.
Various design values for the decision sight distance have been developed from
research by AASHTO. The design engineer will decide when to use the decision
sight distance. Providing the extra sight distance will probably increase the cost
of a project, but it will also increase safety. The decision sight distance should be
provided in those areas that need the extra margin of safety, but it isn’t needed
continuously in those areas that don’t contain potential hazards. Passing sight
distance is a critical component of two-lane highway design. The capacity of a
two-lane roadway is greatly increased if a large percentage of the roadway’s
length can be used for passing. However, providing a sufficient passing sight
distance over large portions of the roadway can be very expensive. Determining
the passing sight distance required for a given roadway is best accomplished us-
ing a simplified AASHTO model. The passing sight distance can be divided into
four distance portions:
d1: The distance the passing vehicle travels while contemplating the passing
maneuver, and while accelerating to the point of encroachment on the left lane.
d2: The length of roadway that is traversed by the passing vehicle while it oc-
cupies the left lane.
d3: The clearance distance between the passing vehicle and the opposing ve-
hicle when the passing vehicle returns to the right lane.
d4: The distance that the opposing vehicle travels during the final 2/3 of the
period when the passing vehicle is in the left lane.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.

References
[1] AASHTO (2018) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 7th Edi-
tion, The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington DC.
[2] AASHTO (2011) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 6th Edi-
tion, The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington DC.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 22 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

[3] AASHTO (2004) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 5th Edi-
tion, The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington DC.
[4] AASHTO (2001) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 4th Edi-
tion, The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington DC.
[5] Brown, R.L. and Hummer, J.E. (2000) Determining the Best Method for Measuring
No-Passing Zones. Transportation Research Record No. 1701, TRB.
[Link]
[6] Rose, E.R., Hawkins, H.G., Holick, A.J. and Bligh, R.P. (2004) Evaluation of Traffic
Control Devices: First Year Activities. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas
A&M University System, College Station, TX.
[7] Polus, A., Livneh, M. and Frischer, B. (2000) Evaluation of the Passing Process on
Two Lane Rural Highways. Transportation Research Record, No. 1701, 53-60.
[Link]
[8] Tsai, Y., Hu, Z. and Wang, Z. (2010) Vision-Based Roadway Geometry Computa-
tion. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 136, 223-233.
[Link]
[9] Shaker, A., Yan, W.Y. and Easa, S. (2011) Construction of Digital 3D Highway
Model Using Stereo IKONOS Satellite Imagery. Geocartography International, 26,
49-67. [Link]
[10] Ben-Arieh, D., Chang, S., Rys, M. and Zhang, G. (2004) Geometric Modeling of
Highways Using Global Positioning System Data and B-Spline Approximation.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 130, 632-636.
[Link]
[11] Nehate, G. and Rys, M. (2006) 3D Calculation of Stopping-Sight Distance from GPS
Data. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 132, 691-698.
[Link]
[12] Azimi, M. and Hawkins, H. (2013) Algorithm for Analyzing Horizontal Sight Dis-
tance from Lane Centerline Coordinates. Transportation Research Record, No.
2358, 12-19. [Link]
[13] Kim, Y., Rana, S. and Wise, S. (2004) Exploring Multiple Viewshed Analysis Using
Terrain Features and Optimization Techniques. Computers and Geosciences, 30,
1019. [Link]
[14] Glennon, J.C. (1998) New and Improved Model of Passing Sight Distance on
Two-Lane Highways. Transportation Research Record No. 1195. TRB, National
Research Council, Washington DC.
[15] Hassan, Y., Easa, S.M. and Abd El Halim, A.O. (1996) Passing Sight Distance on
Two Lane Highways: Review and Revision. Transportation Research Part A, 30,
453-467. [Link]
[16] Harwood, D.W., Gilmore D.K., Richard, K.R., Dunn, J.M. and Sun, C. (2008) Pass-
ing Sight Distance Criteria, NCHRP Report 605, Transportation Research Board.
[17] FHWA (2012) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
[18] Abdulhafedh, A. (2019) An Innovative GIS Method for Evaluating the Visibility of
the Road Using the ArcMap-Tools. Open Access Library Journal, 6, e5586.
[Link]
[19] Berbel, D.C., Castro, M., Medina, L.C. and Maria, S.P.G. (2014) Sight Distance Stu-
dies on Roads: Influence of Digital Elevation Models and Roadside Elements. Pro-

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 23 Open Access Library Journal

 A. Abdulhafedh

cedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 160, 449-458.

[Link]
[20] Castro, M., Iglesias, L., Rodríguez-Solano, R. and Sánchez, J.A. (2006) Geometric
Modelling of Highways Using Global Positioning System (GPS) Data and Spline
Approximation. Transportation Research Part C—Emerging Technologies, 14,
233-243. [Link]
[21] Abdulhafedh, A. (2017) Identifying Vehicular Crash High Risk Locations along
Highways via Spatial Autocorrelation Indices and Kernel Density Estimation.
World Journal of Engineering and Technology, 5, 198-215.
[Link]
[22] Cai, H. and Rasdorf, W. (2008) Modeling Road Centerlines and Predicting Lengths
in 3-D Using LIDAR Point Cloud and Planimetric Road Centerline Data. Comput-
er-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 23, 157-173.
[Link]
[23] Abdulhafedh, A. (2016) Crash Frequency Analysis. Journal of Transportation
Technologies, 6, 169-180. [Link]
[24] Abdulhafedh, A. (2019) Design of Superelevation of Highway Curves: An Overview
and Distribution Methods. Journal of City and Development, 1, 35-40.
[25] Imran, M., Hassan, Y. and Patterson, D. (2006) GPS-GIS-Based Procedure for
Tracking Vehicle Path on Horizontal Alignments. Computer-Aided Civil and Infra-
structure Engineering, 21, 383-394.
[Link]

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1106095 24 Open Access Library Journal