DOCSLIB.ORG

8.3 Roundabouts in Series

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
8.3 Roundabouts in Series Disclaimer: This website and documents are provided for use by persons outside of the Kansas Department of Transportation as information only. The Kansas Department of Transportation, the State of Kansas, nor its officers or employees, by making this website and documents available for use by persons outside of KDOT, does not undertake any duties or responsibilities of any such person or entity who chooses to use this website and documents. This website and documents should not be substituted for the exercise of a person’s own professional judgment nor the determination by contractors of the appropriate manner and method of construction on projects under their control. It is the user’s obligation to make sure that he/she uses the appropriate practices. Any person using this website and documents agrees that KDOT will not be liable for any commercial loss; inconvenience; loss of use, time, data, goodwill, revenues, profits, or savings; or any other special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages in any way related to or arising from use of this website and documents. Chapter 8 - System Considerations 8.1 Proximity to Other Traffic Control Devices................................................................... 140 Queuing at Roundabouts..................................................................................................................... 140 Unsignalized intersections .................................................................................................................. 140 Signalized intersections....................................................................................................................... 141 Rail crossings ................................................................................................................................... 141 Parking ....................................................................................................................................142 8.2 Access Management.......................................................................................................... 143 Access into the Roundabout................................................................................................................ 143 Access near the Roundabout ................................................................................................................144 8.3 Roundabouts in Series ...................................................................................................... 146 Chapter 8 – System Considerations Kansas Roundabout Guide Page 140 October 2003 8.1 Proximity to Other Traffic Control Devices Due to the close spacing of intersections in many urban and suburban areas, roundabouts are often considered for locations near other activities such as unsignalized intersections, signalized intersections, railroad crossings, and parking areas. One of the principle measures to identify this spacing is an estimate of queuing. This section provides a brief discussion of queuing, followed by a discussion of locating roundabouts in each of these locations. Queuing at Roundabouts Queuing is an important measure of the performance of a roundabout and how other intersections perform in close proximity to it. A downstream queue that extends into a roundabout impedes circulating flow. As circulating flow is impeded, exits upstream of the impeded exit become blocked, further increasing the queuing within the circulatory roadway. In theory, an entire roundabout could become jammed if an exit is blocked for a sufficient period of time. In addition, queue spillback into a roundabout reduces the overall capacity of each approach that is blocked. Therefore, it is generally preferred to avoid having downstream queues back up into a roundabout for any significant period of time. The principal measure to determine how close a roundabout should be located to a stop- controlled intersection is the amount of queuing expected at each intersection. The HCM 2000 provides procedures for estimating queues at stop-controlled intersections and should be used to make this assessment. For roundabouts, either the estimation procedures in Chapter 4 of this guide, FHWA’s Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, or estimates provided by software should be used. In general, it is desirable for the 95th-percentile queue to be completely accommodated within the space between the two intersections. The 95th-percentile queue at an unsignalized intersection represents the percent of time during the peak period being analyzed (typically the peak fifteen minutes of the peak hour) that the queue will be equal to or less than the percentile estimate. For example, a 95th-percentile queue of 8 vehicles during the peak period means that during the peak period the queue will exceed 8 vehicles only 5 percent of the time. Queuing estimates for a signalized intersection appear to be similar to those for unsignalized intersections but are actually quite different. As noted above, a 95th-percentile queue estimate for an unsignalized intersection represents a queue that will not be exceeded for 95 percent of the time period being studied. A 95th-percentile queue estimate for a signalized intersection typically represents a queue length that will not be exceeded for 95 percent of the signal cycles during the time period being studied. Because the maximum back of queue at a signalized intersection only occurs once each signal cycle and because the 95th-percentile queue occurs for only a small fraction of those cycles, it has less of an impact than the 95th-percentile estimate for unsignalized intersections. Unsignalized intersections This section discusses the case where the roadway approaching or departing the roundabout is interrupted by a stop sign. A common case is an all-way stop-controlled intersection, although it Kansas Roundabout Guide Chapter 8 – System Considerations October 2003 Page 141 could be a two-way stop-controlled intersection with a higher-level roadway. Other cases involving two-way stop-controlled intersections where the major roadway is uninterrupted or cases involving other roundabouts are discussed in subsequent sections. Stop-controlled intersections near a roundabout primarily influence a roundabout through queuing effects. In general, it is best for the 95th-percentile queue between a roundabout and a stop-controlled intersection to be completely contained between the two intersections. It is also best for the 95th-percentile queue from a stop-controlled intersection to end short of the crosswalk area of a roundabout to avoid creating additional potential driver distractions that may compromise pedestrian safety. Signalized intersections Signalized intersections can influence a roundabout in several ways: • Queuing effects. For signalized intersections, it is best for the 95th-percentile queue from a signalized intersection to not back up into the roundabout. However, because such backups are infrequent and momentary (as discussed above), it may be acceptable in highly constrained locations to allow these momentary backups into the roundabout. This should only be done in areas where the downstream signal is operating below capacity and can reliably flush out any queue that builds within the signal cycle and where the unblocked capacity of the roundabout is sufficient to accommodate the loss of capacity during these blocked periods. • Platooned arrival patterns. Signalized intersections create platooned arrival patterns at a roundabout. As noted in Section 8.5.1 of Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, the platooned arrivals from a nearby signal at a roundabout can increase a roundabout’s capacity due to a regular pattern of gaps in traffic that can be used efficiently. The isolated analyses discussed in Chapter 4 will therefore be conservative; simulation could be used to more precisely estimate the effect. • Signal preemption and priority. A roundabout cannot be preempted or give priority to certain vehicles. If a traffic signal is preempted frequently, queues from the signal backing towards the roundabout may be larger than estimated using the above procedures. Rail crossings This section discusses the situation where rails cross one of the approaches to a roundabout (see Exhibit 8-2 of Roundabouts: An Informational Guide) and crossing gates are warranted. In such cases, the rail crossing itself is typically gated. The question is whether the crossing gates on the affected approach are sufficient (Case (a) in FHWA Exhibit 8-2) or whether each approach to the roundabout needs to be gated (Case (b) in FHWA Exhibit 8-2). The primary issue that affects this question is one of safety: what is the likelihood of a queue from the roundabout extending over the tracks, and what ability is there to clear the tracks before an oncoming train arrives? The secondary issue is one of operations: what is the likelihood that a queue at the rail crossing will back up into the roundabout? The following items provide guidance on this analysis: Chapter 8 – System Considerations Kansas Roundabout Guide Page 142 October 2003 • If the 95th-percentile queues between the rail crossing and roundabout can be completely contained between the two facilities, only the rail crossing needs to be gated. This can occur where the rail crossing is located far enough from the roundabout or where traffic volumes on the affected roadway are low. • If the 95th-percentile queue on the affected approach entering the roundabout enters the rail crossing area, then the entire roundabout should
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Access Management Manual, September 5, 2019 TABLE of CONTENTS
    AccessAccess ManagementManagement ManualManual T E X A S Prepared by the City of Irving Public Works/Traffic and Transportation Department Adopted September 5, 2019 Access Management Manual, September 5, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction Page 1.0 Purpose 1 1.1 Scope 1 1.2 Definitions 3 1.3 Authority 10 Section 2 Principles of Access Management 2.1 Relationship between Access and Mobility 11 2.2 Integration of Land Use and Transportation 11 2.3 Relationship between Access and Roadway Efficiency 12 2.4 Relationship between Access and Traffic Safety 12 Section 3 Access Management Programs and Policies 3.1 Identifying Functional Hierarchy of Roadways 14 3.1.1 Sub-Classifications of Roadways 14 3.1.1.1 Revising the “Master Thoroughfare Plan” 15 3.1.2 Comprehensive Plan 15 3.1.3 Discretionary Treatment by the Director 15 3.2 Land Use 15 3.3 Unified Access Planning Policy 16 3.4 Granting Access 16 3.4.1 General Mutual Access 17 3.4.2 Expiration of Access Permission 17 3.4.3 “Grandfathered” Access and Non-Conforming Access 17 3.4.4 Illegal Access 19 3.4.4.1 Stealth Connection 19 3.4.5 Temporary Access 19 3.4.6 Emergency Access 19 3.4.7 Abandoned Access 20 3.4.8 Field Access 20 3.4.9 Provision for Special Case Access 20 3.4.10 Appeals, Variances and Administrative Remedies 20 3.5 Parking and Access Policy 20 3.6 Access vs Accessibility 21 3.7 Precedence of Access Rights Policy 21 3.8 Right to Access A Specific Roadway 22 3.9 Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA’s) 22 3.9.1 Level of Service (LOS) 22 3.9.2 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Requirements
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. 64 Improvements in Apex & Cary Concept 2B Expressway
    S U B K B S 3 CULLER ANITA A S 10 ' D C K ON 22 SHENTON WILLIAM T B C ' S CULLER RUSSELL OVID B FERGUSON 2 9 BOWSER JENNY B S ' BS BELL CHRISTOPHER T SHENTON MARILYN A T CUS 64 17300 Lake 12 ENTERPRISES INC v " L 2016 B BELL MELISSA SUE DUCHE v S T SORRELL LOYD V Pine Dr. 3 ADT 1 B 6 v 33300 0 L " ' K C W O A Laura D 11300 N LL SORRELL DENISE B C v SF 2040 2 2016 RESERVE AT MILLS FARM LLC Duncan Rd. ADT 26500 TOWN & COUNTRY v T 2040 KENNELS S 10' 6' 18' 10' 12' 12' EXIST 12' EXIST 4' 19' 19' 4' 12' EXIST 12' EXIST 12' 10' 18' 6' 10' B ' 9 v PAVED AUX EXIST EXIST AUX PAVED 3200 7200 SHOULDER LANE PS PS LANE SHOULDER T S B ' 9 9600 13800 2700 4400 TT v 38400 42700 11300 8600 v C N 71700 D 75400 K O C C N B O 41600 D 40000 K S " C SALEM STREET ARBORETUM CONDO 2 8 B 4 CLARK HAROLD R CLARK JENNIFER C 1S F 72300 71700 HINSON TIMOTHY M US HWY 64 ALLARD JONATHAN W 12 HINSON LAURA C ' C O ALLARD ERIN F N P C C R 0.02 0.02 0.02 " 0.02 0.02 12 0.02 0.04 2 0.04 . 1 US HWY 64 F :1 .08 08 2: 6:1 6:1 3500 1 F 4 1 0 :1 4: 3200 ' C 6 1 ON :1 6: P C C R 1 6 P VARIABLE 6: :1 VARIABLE C " 4500 R 12 2 2400 " SLOPES :1 :1 SLOPES 500 D 12 2500 2 v R v 6300 F ORIGINAL VARIABLE VARIABLE ORIGINAL C 4200 O GROUND SLOPES SLOPES GROUND N C X T O S R B 13600 PP A TYPICAL SECTION NO.
    [Show full text]
  • MDOT Access Management Guidebook
    ReducingTrafficCongestion andImprovingTrafficSafety inMichiganCommunities: THE ACCESSMANAGEMENT GUIDEBOOK COMMUNITYA COMMUNITYB Cover graphics and ROW graphic by John Warbach, Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. Photos by Tom Doyle, Michigan Department of Transportation. Speed Differential graphic by Michigan Department of Transportation. Road Hierarchy graphic by Rossman Martin & Associates, Inc. Reducing Traffic Congestion and Improving Traffic Safety in Michigan Communities: THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDEBOOK October, 2001 Prepared by the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. 715 N. Cedar Street Lansing, MI 48906-5206 517/886-0555 (tele), www.pzcenter.com Under contract to the Michigan Department of Transportation With the assistance of three Advisory Committees listed on the next page The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Michigan State Transportation Commission or the Michigan Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. Dedication This Guidebook is dedicated to the countless local elected officials, planning and zoning commissioners, zoning administrators, building inspectors, professional planners, and local, county and state road authority personnel who: • work tirelessly every day to make taxpayers investment in Michigan roads stretch as far as it can with the best possible result; and • who try to make land use decisions that build better communities without undermining the integrity of Michigan's road system. D:\word\access\title
    [Show full text]
  • Corner Clearance Criteria
    Technical Update Corner Clearance Criteria A PRIMER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES AS THEY CONSIDER APPROVING SITE PLANS FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON OR NEAR A STREET CORNER Corner clearances represent the Frontage roads and connectors minimum distances that should be required between intersections and Inadequate corner clearances can driveways along arterial and collector result in traffic-operation, safety, and streets. As stated in AASHTO’s A Policy capacity problems. These problems on Geometric Design of Highways and can be caused by blocked driveway Streets: “Driveways should not be ingress and egress movements, situated within the functional conflicting and confusing turns at boundary of at-grade intersections. intersections, insufficient weaving This boundary would include the distances, and backups from far-side longitudinal limits of auxiliary lanes.” driveways into intersections. Also, Corner Clearance is discussed in FHWA’s Office of Operations website Specific operational and safety titled, “Access Management Principles problems include: Presentation”. Through traffic is blocked by (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/access_mgm vehicles waiting to turn into a t/presentations/am_principles_intro/i driveway. ndex.htm) It is listed among the main Right or left turns into or out of methods that are utilized as part of an a driveway (both on artery and agency’s Access Management crossroad) are blocked. Program. These methods include: Driveway traffic is unable to Permits, legislation, and corridor enter left-turn lanes. planning Driveway exit movements are Medians impacted by stopped vehicles in Auxiliary lanes left-turn lanes. Signals and signal spacing Traffic entering an arterial road Driveway location, spacing, and from the intersecting street or design road has insufficient distance.
    [Show full text]
  • Neighborhood Road Design Guidebook a Massachusetts Guide to Sustainable Design for Neighborhood Roads
    NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD DESIGN GUIDEBOOK A MASSACHUSETTS GUIDE TO SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ROADS A joint project of the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Planning Association Home Builders Association of Massachusetts Prepared for the Citizen Planner’s Training Collaborative March 14, 2012 Overview 2 1. Why a new Guidebook now? 2. Who will use this? 3. What is the general approach 4. Examples of recommended design standards 5. Cross Sections 6. Implementation Why Now? 3 1. Road design for whom? 2. Change in vehicle types 3. What is a win-win approach? 4. Length of time to change rules and regulations Why a new Guide now? 4 Massachusetts guide for Neighborhood Roads to create model guidelines and match local settings. This is called “context sensitive” design. Other road design manuals don’t get at local streets very well Who might use the Guidebook? 5 There are many “actors” in Transportation Design Engineers and designers (private and public sectors) Applicants who are building new infrastructure as part of their projects; Planning Directors/Planners; Planning Boards, Board of Selectmen, Fire and Emergency Service providers; Regional Planning Associations – link to state funding and state projects; Abutters; Land use and environmental advocates; and Finally –build roads that benefit the USERS What kind of Guidebook? 6 Project Goals Reduce environmental impacts of roadway development, operation and maintenance; Encourage Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) in residential roadway design; Provide specific guidelines and references for municipal application; Promote innovative techniques for stormwater management; and Reduce maintenance costs of roadways and stormwater systems. What kind of Guidebook? 7 Project Goals (contin.) Encourage consistency in approach and rationale in residential roadway design across Massachusetts; Promote inter-connectivity of roads; Promote pedestrian and non- motorized access; Promote universal accessibility; and Provide guidance for the design of neighborhood scale residential roads.
    [Show full text]
  • Driveway Guidelines for Residents
    The City of Plantation Engineering Department 401 Northwest 70th Avenue, Plantation FL 33317 Engineering Department guidelines for driveway permit applications. 1. New and replacement driveways require a Building permit. Seal coating a single-family driveway does not require a permit. 2. Application Process: a. Applicant will submit application to the Building Department. Building permit application shall be completed in full with the following: ჿ Provide (3) three sets of plans on original survey with proposed driveway improvements. ჿ If the residential property resides in an HOA community an approval letter from the HOA is required. b. Upon submission of the Building permit application city staff will prepare a notice of findings/corrections that will be provided to the applicant for review and revision. If the applicant has Engineering related questions they can contact the Engineering Department at (954) 797-2282 to discuss. c. Once staff comments have been addressed the applicant will resubmit the changes for review. Identical plan changes must be provided on all three plan sets. d. If application is complete and the request meets the requirements the permit will be approved and the applicant will be notified that the permit is ready for pick-up. 3. The typical requirements for all single residence driveways are as follows: a. The allowable driveway surface material can be constructed of asphalt, concrete or paver brick. Refer to the City’s Engineering detail for “Standard Driveway Detail” minimum requirements. b. The maximum allowable impervious area for any property is 65% of the overall lot area. If a driveway is to be expanded it must meet this criterion.
    [Show full text]
  • 214 Driveways 214.1 General
    Topic #625-000-002 FDOT Design Manual January 1, 2019 214 Driveways 214.1 General This chapter provides driveway design criteria and requirements for connections to the State Highway System. The FDOT Access Management Guidebook provides further guidance and information on driveways and medians. For additional information and definitions, including Connection Categories, and requirements for obtaining access to the State Highway System, refer to: • Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Rule 14-96 (State Highway Connection Permits) and • Rule 14-97, F.A.C. (State Highway System Access Control Classification System and Access Management Standards). This criteria applies to new construction, reconstruction, and Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (RRR) projects. New Construction criteria must be met for new and reconstruction projects, and for proposed improvements included within RRR projects. For RRR Projects, unaltered driveways that are not in compliance with the new construction criteria in this chapter, Standard Plans, or ADA requirements are not required to be reconstructed. The terms “driveway”, “connection”, and “turnout” are used in various FDOT manuals, handbooks, and guides. A driveway is an access constructed within a public R/W connecting a public road with adjacent property. The intent is to provide vehicular access in a manner that will not cause the blocking of any sidewalk, border area, or roadway. The term “connection” encompasses a driveway or side road and its appurtenances: • islands, • curb cut ramps, • separators, • signing, • transition tapers, • pavement marking, • auxiliary lanes, • required signalization, • travel way flares, • maintenance of traffic or • drainage pipes and structures, • other means of access to or from controlled access facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. 64 Improvements in Apex & Cary Concept 2B Expressway
    NEAL DAVID C BATTLE WILLIAM MICHAEL NEAL HOLLY GETMAN BATTLE LISA ANNE DELAIR SHANE K DELAIR KERRI E CAMBERATO JOSEPH A FULTON WILLIAM H WARM JAN K FULTON BARBARA E 2200 C N O 2016 2016 C WORSHAM JULIUS BERRYE III Chalon Dr. ' 5 2700 WORSHAM DONNA WESTON 2300 ADT ADT Edinburgh Dr. 2040 2040 MINIMUM 800 FT.* 3300 CUS 64 DESIRABLE 1,000 FT. TO 1,300 FT.* L FULL CONTROL OF ACCESS* 500 1200 C 500 1300 A 600 1800 14' 6' 18' 12' 12' 12' 12' 17.5' 17.5' 12' 12' 12' 12' 18' 6' 14' 43300 45700 45700 50300 C P 700 2200 C 15' W/GR 20 15' W/GR ' BS R T 50300 " A 8 1 75800 78900 78900 83900 WILKES JOELLEN H 10' 10' 83900 FDPS FDPS US HWY 64 US HWY 64 US HWY 64 3500 6300 .75' .75' 1800 1700 5000 .02 .02 4300 7500 500 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 2: .08 .04 .02 .04 .08 :1 2000 2500 1 2 6000 6:1 6:1 4:1 :1 600 MP 4 " C 6:1 :1 96 6 (2) GRADE VARIABLE 6:1 6:1 VARIABLE POINT 2 C SLOPES :1 :1 SLOPES 2 24' 46' 24' 5800 8000 SCHMIDT FREDERICK K A SCHMIDT SUSANORIGINAL BVARIABLE EXIST PAVEMENT EXIST MEDIAN EXIST PAVEMENT VARIABLE ORIGINAL 5800 GROUND SLOPES SLOPES GROUND 6800 Mackenan Dr. 10000 Gregson Dr. C 4' 12' 12' 4' A 7000 Edinburgh Dr. LEFT OR U-TURN LEFT OR U-TURN FULL CONTROL OF ACCESS* MINIMUM 800 FT.* ORIGINAL ORIGINAL GROUND 30' 0.75' 0.75' 30' GROUND DESIRABLE 1,000 FT.
    [Show full text]
  • Access Control
    Access Control Appendix D US 54 /400 Study Area Proposed Access Management Code City of Andover, KS D1 Table of Contents Section 1: Purpose D3 Section 2: Applicability D4 Section 3: Conformance with Plans, Regulations, and Statutes D5 Section 4: Conflicts and Revisions D5 Section 5: Functional Classification for Access Management D5 Section 6: Access Control Recommendations D8 Section 7: Medians D12 Section 8: Street and Connection Spacing Requirements D13 Section 9: Auxiliary Lanes D14 Section 10: Land Development Access Guidelines D16 Section 11: Circulation and Unified Access D17 Section 12: Driveway Connection Geometry D18 Section 13: Outparcels and Shopping Center Access D22 Section 14: Redevelopment Application D23 Section 15: Traffic Impact Study Requirements D23 Section 16: Review / Exceptions Process D29 Section 17: Glossary D31 D2 Section 1: Purpose The Transportation Research Board Access Management Manual 2003 defines access management as “the systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operations of driveways, median opening, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway.” Along the US 54/US-400 Corridor, access management techniques are recommended to plan for appropriate access located along future roadways and undeveloped areas. When properly executed, good access management techniques help preserve transportation systems by reducing the number of access points in developed or undeveloped areas while still providing “reasonable access”. Common access related issues which could degrade the street system are: • Driveways or side streets in close proximity to major intersections • Driveways or side streets spaced too close together • Lack of left-turn lanes to store turning vehicles • Deceleration of turning traffic in through lanes • Traffic signals too close together Why Access Management Is Important Access management balances traffic safety and efficiency with reasonable property access.
    [Show full text]
  • HOV Brochure
    P F 3 e O 3 d 5 e B 3 r o 0 a x l F 9 W i r Contact Us! 7 s t a 1 W y 8 , a W y A S o PUBLIC WORKS 9 u 8 t h 0 “What Your 6 253-661-4131 3 - 9 Washington 7 1 PUBLIC SAFETY 8 Driver Guide Does Not 253-661-4707 Teach E-MAIL This guide will You.” [email protected] ex p la in t o dr iv er s WEB SITE t he b est wa y t o cityoffederalway.com n a v iga t e o ur C it y usin g H O V la n es a n d U-t ur n s sa f ely , lega lly , a n d ef f ic ien t ly . BROUGHT TO YOU BY YOUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT As you may have USING HOV MYTH: When exiting business driveways and LEGAL noticed, Federal entering the roadway, I must drive through the HOV lane and enter traffic directly in the general Way is now home LANES U-TURNS purpose or ”through” lane to HOV lanes The City is along many of our The most common FACT: NO! The HOV lanes are intended as encouraging use of major roadways. question drivers of a single- acceleration lanes for vehicles entering the LEGAL U-turns HOV lanes have been installed on S 348th occupancy vehicle ask is: roadway. Enter the HOV lane to accelerate, and where appropriate. Street, on SR 99 (S 312th to S 324th), and on “When and where am I change lanes at your first safe opportunity.
    [Show full text]
  • Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections
    Technical Summary Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections FHWA-SA-10-002 Foreword This technical summary is designed as a reference for State and local transportation officials, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Division Safety Engineers, and other professionals involved in the design, selection, and implementation of access management near traditional intersections (e.g., signalized, unsignalized and stop controlled intersections). Its purpose is to provide an overview of safety considerations in the design, implementation, and management of driveways near traditional intersections in urban, suburban, and rural environments where design considerations can vary as a function of land uses, travel speeds, volumes of traffic by mode (e.g., car, pedestrian, or bicycle), and many other variables. The technical summary does not include any discussion on roundabout intersections. More information about roundabouts is available in Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, published by the FHWA [1]. Section 1 of this technical summary presents an overview of access management factors that should be considered for improving safety near intersections in any setting. Section 2 presents access management considerations and treatments to improve safety near traditional intersections in suburban, urban, and rural settings. This section features a case study of an access management retrofit project in a suburban area. Section 3 points the reader to additional resources. This publication does not supersede any publication; and is a Final version. Disclaimer and Quality Assurance Statement Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • 11.20.050 Lot Design. (1) Access. Every Lot Shall Be Provided with Satisfactory Access by a Public Street Connecting to an Exist
    11.20.050 Lot design. (1) Access. Every lot shall be provided with satisfactory access by a public street connecting to an existing public street, except as provided in WCC 11.16.190, and 11.20.020(10-12), and 11.20.020(11). 11.20.020 Streets. (1) Locations. The street layout of every subdivision shall be in conformance with any adopted comprehensive plan or circulation element thereof, and shall provide for the continuation of major streets which serve property contiguous to the subdivision. Street networks shall provide ready access for fire and other emergency vehicles. The hearing examiner, upon recommendation of city staff, may require additional access points if such are found to be necessary to protect the public safety. (2) Intersections. Street intersections shall be as nearly at right angles as is practicable. Street jogs with off-sets of less than 125 feet between centerlines should be avoided in residential subdivisions where possible. The streets should be designed so as to not intersect with arterial streets at intersections any closer than 1,000 feet. (3) Grades. Grades shall be not less than five-tenths percent on any street, and not more than 10 percent for local streets, or more than eight percent for collector or arterial streets. (4) Alignment. Connecting street centerlines deflecting from each other at any one point more than 10 degrees shall be connected by a curve of at least a 100-foot radius for collector and local streets, and at least a 300-foot radius for arterial streets. A tangent at least 100 feet long shall be introduced between curves on arterial streets.
    [Show full text]