Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Works proposes new guardrail criteria; staff to prioritize high‑speed hazards and crash patterns
Summary
Public Works presented proposed guardrail guidelines that would tighten when guardrails are installed on existing roadways. Staff said fences generally are not a warrant for guardrail and described a flow chart of criteria including posted speed (≥40 mph), clear‑zone hazards and crash patterns.
Kathy Valencia, Transportation Project Delivery Manager in Public Works, presented draft guardrail guidelines aimed at standardizing responses to frequent citizen requests for guardrails on existing roadways.
Valencia said the city received many retrofit guardrail requests and that guardrail is a high-cost countermeasure that is not always the safest engineering response. Quoting AASHTO, Valencia said: “Guardrail is meant to reduce the probability of a vehicle striking an object that is less forgiving than striking the guardrail itself.” She told the committee that in urban areas the typical clear zone is 4–6 feet but that many obstacles exist inside that zone.
Staff provided cost and workload context: roughly $560,000 was spent on guardrail requests in the past five years, over $400,000 on guardrail repair since 2020, 18 retrofit requests were processed last year and about 20 requests are currently in queue. Staff estimated that fulfilling the current queue would cost between $1.3 million and $1.4 million (and noted recent steel tariffs could increase that figure).
The proposed decision flow requires: a posted speed limit of at least 40 mph; a sharp curve or steep downgrade; and a clear‑zone hazard that cannot reasonably be removed or relocated (examples include steep embankments, bodies of water or habitable structures). The guidance explicitly states that fences are not intended to be protected by guardrail and that many fence-related requests should be referred to lower-cost alternatives or to traffic‑calming and enforcement measures.
Deputy Director Carly Camposano gave examples of cheaper, successful alternatives where guardrail would not be appropriate. She described a project at Fourth and Havana in which staff and CDOT installed a raised turn island rather than guardrail to address vehicles encroaching into a private property. Camposano also noted that if crash patterns exist, engineering changes such as signal phasing, signage, roundabouts or other geometric changes can be more effective than guardrail.
Committee members asked about resident communications and enforcement. Staff said they will publish a fact sheet and web materials explaining the criteria and alternative solutions and will coordinate with Aurora Police Department on enforcement in speeding hot spots.
No formal adoption was recorded in the transcript; committee discussion concluded with staff taking direction to finalize the criteria and prepare outreach materials.
