View Q&A

I'm reaching out to discuss the quad guard configuration shown below, located on a local road with a speed limit of 35 mph.

Recently, I received an inquiry about reducing the curb reveal of the retaining wall. However, upon reviewing the site, I noticed that the crash cushion is obstructed by a retaining wall, which seems unusual to me. The distance between the quad guard and the retaining wall is approximately 35 ft.

Do you consider the crash cushion shown to be obsolete and non-compliant?

I would appreciate your opinion on this matter. If you have a few minutes, perhaps we could discuss it further over the phone.

Thank you,

For the situation below, the crash cushion would still need to remain in place in order to shield the end of the bridge rail. However, the retaining wall creates separate issues. The upstream end of the retaining wall that is perpendicular to the travelway poses a rigid hazard for vehicles to impact similar to the bridge rail end being shielded by the crash cushion. Additionally, this portion of the retaining wall and the slope accompanying it may serve to increase vehicle instability if impacted.

In a case like this, I think we would recommend extending the retaining wall upstream longitudinally and then flaring it back laterally over some distance to reduce concerns for vehicle impacts on the 90-degree bend in the retaining wall that juts forward.

Thanks!