DOCSLIB.ORG

4 Bus Facilities on Limited Access Highways

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
4 Bus Facilities on Limited Access Highways 4-1 4 Bus Facilities on Limited Access Highways In This Chapter: 4.1 General Planning and Design Considerations 4.2 Treatments 4.3 Operational Requirements 4.4 Protecting Future Needs 4.5 References Bus service on freeways and other limited-access highways continues to increase. That growth reflects the expansion of downtown and suburban oriented markets, the growth of HOV lanes, the development of bus-only roadways, and the emergence of bus rapid transit. Bus operation on freeways improves operating speeds and service reliability, especially where priority or exclu- sive facilities are provided. Providing separate facilities for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs) can be a cost- effective means of improving person capacity within a corridor. The use of freeway rights-of- way usually results in lower land costs than for two separate facilities, reduces the displacement of businesses and residences, and lessens impact on neighborhoods. This chapter addresses bus facilities built within a controlled access highway environment, in- cluding special lane treatments for bus priorities, bus access facilities, and passenger transfer facilities within the freeway environment. The chapter begins by discussing general policy considerations such as eligibility, need and justification, and broad design guidelines. It then describes the various lane configurations and geometric guidelines for each type of treatment; provides guidelines for access into and out of busways, bus lanes, and HOV lanes; presents treatments for stations and stops; discusses operational requirements such as signing and enforcement; and addresses the desirability of protecting rights-of-way for the future. The focus is on bus-only facilities. However, since buses operate in HOV (or “managed”) lanes on many freeways, design requirements for these facilities are also included. c04.indd 1 27/11/13 4:57 PM 4-2 Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets 4.1 GENERAL PLANNING AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 4.1.1 Freeway Bus Service Types and Functional Requirements Transit operation on freeways includes a broad range of express, limited stop, and intercity services. Some services operate all day; others run only during peak periods. Some routes may operate non-stop, whereas others may make intermediate stops to serve intersecting local bus routes, park-and-ride facilities, or adjacent developments. A sound understanding of existing and potential bus routes, patterns of passenger demand, levels of rid- ership, and service delivery strategies is a prerequisite for developing transit infrastructure and design requirements. 4.1.2 Policy Context When buses operate with other traffic, the operating and enforcement decisions made by roadway engi- neers can influence the speed, reliability, and safety of transit services. A collaborative decision-making approach for transit (and carpool) operating, design, and enforcement policies is essential, especially on HOV, high-occupancy toll (HOT), and managed lane facilities that seek to maintain transit speed and reli- ability through congested freeway segments. Transit (and carpool) agencies often work closely with their respective state department of transporta- tion in each phase of facility development. Collaborative decisions also create a broader constituency for transit- and HOV-oriented policies that can provide broader support when transit-supportive freeway poli- cies are adopted. Policies can involve preservation of right-of-way for future improvements or integrated facility development within the roadway, often implemented as part of an overall road/transit improve- ment involving the same construction activities. 4.1.3 Selecting the Appropriate Facilities Transit vehicles operating in urban environments often are subject to delay caused by traffic congestion. Congestion results in longer travel times for passengers and may require transit agencies to add more buses to routes to maintain headways, which results in increased operating costs. (1) Preferential lane treatments for buses are implemented to reduce delays and improve reliability for transit operating in congested, mixed traffic. Fast and reliable services may also attract new riders, increase tran- sit capacity in a corridor, and improve the quality of transit services for passengers. According to the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (2nd Edition), bus preferential treat- ments generally can be defined as a range of techniques designed to improve transit vehicle travel speeds and improve overall system of efficiency. 15( ) Types of treatments include dedicated lanes operated as bus only or bus with other HOVs. These treatments may reduce travel time variability and improve schedule adherence for transit. The total person-delay (including passengers in both buses and private vehicles) should be considered when implementing a project to provide dedicated lanes for buses. Facilities should be cost-effective, and planners should consider both the long-term changes to mode split and the potential for attracting new users. Dedicated lanes are more acceptable to policy makers and the community when they do not create undue traffic disruptions to the general-purpose lanes. c04.indd 2 27/11/13 4:57 PM Chapter 4—Bus Facilities on Limited Access Highways 4-3 Buses operating along freeways may operate in bus-only roadways (busways) or in bus-only lanes or designated shoulders. Busways permit high speed, good adherence to schedule, and high visibility, which are desirable for bus rapid transit service. Bus-only lanes or shoulders along freeways improve bus service performance at a lower cost than a dedicated busway. HOV lanes and segregated bus roadways also improve bus speeds and reliability. Throughput is in- creased, particularly when dedicated lanes carry a large number of passengers. Barrier-separated HOV lanes usually require larger cross-sections than bus-only facilities. Sometimes, bus/HOV lanes function as elongated queue bypasses. Table 4-1 lists the types of preferential treatments for buses on limited ac- cess highways and provides the advantages and disadvantages of each type of treatment. 4.1.4 General Guidelines Two basic objectives underlie providing bus transit facilities on limited access highways: y Bus facilities should contribute to improved person throughput. y Bus facilities should be integrated into the corridor. Table 4-1. Types of Preferential Treatments for Buses on Limited Access Highways (1) Treatment Advantages Disadvantages Exclusive busways • Increase bus speed by reducing • Difficulty obtaining sufficient right-of- sources of delay way in existing or new corridor • Improve schedule reliability • Cost to construct • Increase transit identity and visibility Freeway bus lanes Same advantages as exclusive busway; • Adverse effects on traffic, if created however, benefits may not be as by eliminating an existing travel lane significant: • Cost to provide new capacity • Increase bus speed • Requires provisions for preferential • Improve schedule reliability access • May increase transit visibility Freeway HOV lanes • Improve operating speeds for transit • Adverse effects on traffic, if created users, carpool, and vanpool users by eliminating an existing travel lane • Improve schedule reliability • Cost to provide new capacity • Increase person movement capacity • Requires ongoing enforcement of roadway • May pose safety problems for vehicles entering and leaving the lanes unless physically separated Managed or express lanes • Improve transit operating speed • Requires a policy commitment to with preferential access for • Improve schedule reliability prioritizing transit as an objective of transit the managed lane operation Bus only or priority ramps • Maximizes the benefits of bus lanes • Cost to construct or HOV lanes by removing delays for • Requires ongoing enforcement access Queue bypass • Reduces delay for queues at ramp • Bus or HOV lane must be available meters or other locations • HOV preferential treatment requires ongoing enforcement c04.indd 3 27/11/13 4:57 PM 4-4 Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets Additional key considerations include the following: y It is important to identify existing and anticipated congested areas. Generally, dedicated lanes should save at least 30 seconds per mile compared to travel in general purpose lanes. y It is not feasible to remove general purpose travel lanes in the heavy direction of travel for use by tran- sit (and HOVs). Priority facilities should be implemented through added lanes. y Standardization of freeway entrance and exit points to the right of the through traffic makes the use of median priority lanes feasible. y Metering of freeway ramps with bus (or HOV) bypass lanes can improve mainline freeway flow and reduce delays to buses/HOVs. y Radial freeways in urban areas that exceed one million population (especially two million) are good candidates for providing reservation for transit (or HOV) either within the median or alongside major roadway facilities. y Where bus rapid transit service is planned along freeways, building stations along the dedicated lanes can improve the speed, reliability, identity, and passenger attractiveness of the service. These are com- monly referred to as on-line or in-line stations. y Where right-of-way is limited, bus use of shoulders should be considered for congested highway facilities. Tables 4-2 and 4-3 provide some general design guidelines for transit lanes on limited access
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic
    MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration for Streets and Highways Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic Dotted line indicates edge of binder spine. MM UU TT CC DD U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2003 Edition Page i The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard in accordance with Title 23 U.S. Code, Sections 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a), 23 CFR 655, and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(8), 1.48(b)(33), and 1.48(c)(2). Addresses for Publications Referenced in the MUTCD American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 www.transportation.org American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) 8201 Corporate Drive, Suite 1125 Landover, MD 20785-2230 www.arema.org Federal Highway Administration Report Center Facsimile number: 301.577.1421 [email protected] Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) 120 Wall Street, Floor 17 New York, NY 10005 www.iesna.org Institute of Makers of Explosives 1120 19th Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-3605 www.ime.org Institute of Transportation Engineers
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Ready City Report
    City of Rochester Comprehensive Access and Mobility Plan Transit Ready City Report Cover photo from patrickashley via wikimedia Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Priority Corridors .............................................................................................. 2-1 Identification.....................................................................................................2-1 Land Use and Development............................................................................2-3 Street Design and Public Realm ......................................................................2-3 3 Stations and Stops ........................................................................................... 3-1 Basic Bus Stops..................................................................................................3-1 Enhanced Bus Stops .........................................................................................3-1 Transfer Points ...................................................................................................3-1 Stop Hierarchy and Requirements...................................................................3-4 Supportive Right-of-Way Considerations.........................................................3-5 Evolution of the Transit Center .........................................................................3-8 Connections to Intercity Services ....................................................................3-9
    [Show full text]
  • Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration, New York City
    HE tV 18.5 U M T A-M A-06-0049-84-4 a A37 DOT-TSC-U MTA-84-18 no. DOT- Department SC- U.S T of Transportation UM! A— 84-18 Urban Mass Transportation Administration Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration - New York City j ™nsportat;on JUW 4 198/ Final Report May 1984 UMTA Technical Assistance Program Office of Management Research and Transit Service UMTA/TSC Project Evaluation Series NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. - POT- Technical Report Documentation Page TS . 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No. 'A'* tJMTA-MA-06-0049-84-4 'Z'i-I £ 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date MADISON AVENUE DUAL EXCLUSIVE BUS LANE DEMONSTRATION. May 1984 NEW YORK CITY 6. Performing Organization Code DTS-64 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) J. Richard^ Kuzmyak : DOT-TSC-UMTA-84-18 9^ Performing Organization Name ond Address DEPARTMENT OF 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) COMSIS Corporation* transportation UM427/R4620 11501 Georgia Avenue, Suite 312 11. Controct or Grant No. DOT-TSC-1753 Wheaton, MD 20902 JUN 4 1987 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Urban Mass Transportation Admi ni strati pg LIBRARY August 1980 - May 1982 Office of Technical Assistance 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Module 6. Hov Treatments
    Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Module 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS MODULE 6. HOV TREATMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 6-5 TREATMENTS ..................................................... 6-6 MODULE OBJECTIVES ............................................. 6-6 MODULE SCOPE ................................................... 6-7 6.2 DESIGN PROCESS .......................................... 6-7 IDENTIFY PROBLEMS/NEEDS ....................................... 6-7 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTNERS .................................... 6-8 CONSENSUS BUILDING ........................................... 6-10 ESTABLISH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................... 6-10 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA / MOES ....................... 6-10 DEFINE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................. 6-11 IDENTIFY AND SCREEN TECHNOLOGY ............................. 6-11 System Planning ................................................. 6-13 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 6-15 EVALUATION .................................................... 6-16 6.3 TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES .................. 6-18 HOV FACILITIES ................................................. 6-18 Operational Considerations ......................................... 6-18 HOV Roadway Operations ...................................... 6-20 Operating Efficiency .......................................... 6-20 Considerations for 2+ Versus 3+ Occupancy Requirement ............. 6-20 Hours of Operations ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Low-Volume Roads Engineering
    Chapter 4 Chapter Chapter 4 Low-Volume Roads Engineering Low-V Low-V Low-V Low-V Low-V olume R olume R olume R olume R olume R “You get what you Inspect, not what you Expect.” LOW VOLUME ROAD is considered a road The basic steps are: oads Engineering oads Engineering oads Engineering oads Engineering oads Engineering that has relatively low use (an Average Planning A Daily Traffic of less than 400 vehicles per day), Location low design speeds (typically less than 80 kph), and Survey corresponding geometry. Most roads in rural areas are Design low-volume roads. A well planned, located, designed, Construction constructed, and maintained low-volume road system Maintenance is essential for community development, flow of goods If any one of these steps is omitted, a road may and services between communities, and resource perform poorly, not meet its expectations, fail management activities. However roads, and particularly prematurely, require unnecessarily high maintenance, or road construction, can create more soil erosion than cause environmental impacts. Without planning and most other activities that occur in rural areas. Proper good location, a road may not adequately serve its users planning and design of the road system will minimize or may be in a problematic area. Survey and design are adverse impacts to water quality. Poorly planned road needed to fit the road to the ground and have it function systems can have high maintenance and repair costs, properly. Good construction insures that the design is contribute to excessive erosion, and fail to meet the needs implemented and built with some degree of quality of the users.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Review Questions
    Chapter 3 - Learning to Drive PA Driver’s Manual CHAPTER 3 REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. TEENAGE DRIVERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE INVOLVED IN A CRASH WHEN: A. They are driving with their pet as a passenger B. They are driving with adult passengers C. They are driving with teenage passengers D. They are driving without any passengers 2. DRIVERS WHO EAT AND DRINK WHILE DRIVING: A. Have no driving errors B. Have trouble driving slow C. Are better drivers because they are not hungry D. Have trouble controlling their vehicles 3. PREPARING TO SMOKE AND SMOKING WHILE DRIVING: A. Do not affect driving abilities B. Help maintain driver alertness C. Are distracting activities D. Are not distracting activities 4. THE TOP MAJOR CRASH TYPE FOR 16 YEAR OLD DRIVERS IN PENNSYLVANIA IS: A. Single vehicle/run-off-the-road B. Being sideswiped on an interstate C. Driving in reverse on a side street D. Driving on the shoulder of a highway 5. WHEN PASSING A BICYCLIST, YOU SHOULD: A. Blast your horn to alert the bicyclist B. Move as far left as possible C. Remain in the center of the lane D. Put on your four-way flashers 6. WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH AN AREA WHERE CHILDREN ARE PLAYING, YOU SHOULD EXPECT THEM: A. To know when it is safe to cross B. To stop at the curb before crossing the street C. To run out in front of you without looking D. Not to cross unless they are with an adult 7. IF YOU ARE DRIVING BEHIND A MOTORCYCLE, YOU MUST: A.
    [Show full text]
  • High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing
    High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing Project #: RES2016-05 Final Report Submitted to Tennessee Department of Transportation Principal Investigator (PI) Deo Chimba, PhD., P.E., PTOE. Tennessee State University Phone: 615-963-5430 Email: [email protected] Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) Janey Camp, PhD., P.E., GISP, CFM Vanderbilt University Phone: 615-322-6013 Email: [email protected] July 10, 2018 DISCLAIMER This research was funded through the State Research and Planning (SPR) Program by the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration under RES2016-05: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Tennessee and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Tennessee Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. ii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. RES2016-05 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date: March 2018 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Deo Chimba and Janey Camp TDOT PROJECT # RES2016-05 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering; Tennessee State University 11.
    [Show full text]
  • 16Th Street Project Flyer ENGLISH
    16th Street Improvement Project We’re Moving Muni Forward As part of Muni Forward, SFMTA is adding transit and safety improvements along the 22 Fillmore route that will make it safer to walk and bike, increase the reliability of transit service and enhance the customer experience on and off the bus. Project Overview BENEFITS AT A GLANCE The 16th Street Improvement Project aims to improve transit reliability and Reduce travel travel time for the 18,000 customers who ride Muni along the corridor on time by almost an average weekday, while enhancing safety and accessibility. It will address transportation needs of current and future residents, workers and visitors to the southeastern portion of the 22 Fillmore route along 2.3 miles of 16th Street. The 25% project also features utility upgrades as well as new trees, sidewalks and bus shelters. To allow for zero-emission transit service into Mission Bay, the project includes extending the overhead contact system (OCS) that powers our trolley buses on 16th Street from Kansas to Third streets. Additionally, new bike lanes have been added to 17th Street to create a continuous route from Mission Bay to the Mission neighborhood. Wider sidewalks at intersections This project is part of Muni Forward, an ongoing initiative to create a safe, reli- and bus bulb outs for safer able and comfortable experience on and off transit. crossings for people walking and quicker bus boardings. Schedule Stay Connected Construction will occur in two phases. First will be Potrero Hill/ Sign-up to get project updates and alerts: Mission Bay, followed by the Mission neighborhood section.
    [Show full text]
  • American Title a Sociation ~ ~
    OFFICIAL PUBLICATION AMERICAN TITLE A SOCIATION ~ ~ VOUJME XXXVI JUNE, 1957 NUMBER 6 TITLE NEWS Official Publication of THE AMERICAN TITLE ASSOCIATION 3608 Guardian Building-Detroit 26, Michigan Volume XXXVI June, 1957 Number 6 Table of Contents Introduction-The Federal Highway Program ......... ... ................ .. .................... 2 J. E. Sheridan Highway Laws Relating to Controlled Access Roads ..... .. ....... ........... 6 Norman A. Erbe Title Companies and the Expanded Right of Way Problems ...... ............. .. 39 , Daniel W. Rosencrans Arthur A. Anderson Samuel J. Some William A . Thuma INTRODUCTION The Federal Highway Program J. E. SHERIDAN We are extremely grateful to Nor­ veloped its planning sufficiently to man A. Erbe, Attorney General of the show to the satisfaction of the dis­ State of Iowa, for permission to re­ trict engineer the effect of the pro­ print his splendid brief embracing posed construction upon adjace.nt the highway laws of various states property, the treatment of access con­ relating to the control in access roads. trol in the area of Federal acquisi­ Mr. Erbe originally presented this m tion, and that appropriate arrange­ narrative form before the convention ments have been made for mainte­ of the Iowa Title Association in May nance and supervision over the land of this year. As is readily ascertain­ to be acquired and held in the name able, this is the result of a compre­ of the United States pending transfer hensive study of various laws touch· of title and jurisdiction to the State ing on the incidents of highway regu­ or the proper subdivision thereof." lations. Additionally, we are privi­ It is suggested that our members leged to carry the panel discussion bring this quoted portion to the at­ of the American Right of Way Asso­ tention of officers of the Highway ciation Convention held in Chicago, Department and the office of its legal May 16 and 17, dealing with "Title division, plus the Office of the Attor­ Companies and the Expanded Right ney General within the members' ju­ of Way Problems".
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the Safe Siting of School Bus Stops
    Guidelines for the safe location of school bus stops 1. How are bus stops determined? Bus stops will be placed on public roadways and will avoid travel on private roads and/or driveways Bus routes are designed with buses traveling on main arterials with students picked up and dropped off at central locations. Visibility – Bus drivers need to have at least 500 feet of visible roadway to the bus stop. If there is not ample visibility (e.g. curve or hill) a “school bus stop ahead sign” is put in place before the stop in accordance with WAC 392-145-030 Bus drivers activate their school bus warning lights 300-100 feet before arriving at the bus stop, where the posted speed limit is 35 mph and under, and 500-300 feet before arriving at the bus stop where the posted speed limit is 35 mph and over. 2. Why are bus stops located at corners? Bus stops may be located at corners or intersections whenever possible. Corner stops are much more visible to drivers than house numbers. Students are generally taught to cross at corners rather than in the middle of the street. Traffic controls, such as stoplights or signs, are located at corners. These tend to slow down motorists at corners, making them more cautious as they approach intersections. The motoring public generally expects school buses to stop at corners rather than individual houses. Impatient motorists are also less likely to pass buses at corners than along a street. Cars passing school buses create the greatest risk to students who are getting on or off the bus.
    [Show full text]
  • Right of Passage
    Right of Passage: Reducing Barriers to the Use of Public Transportation in the MTA Region Joshua L. Schank Transportation Planner April 2001 Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA 347 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017 (212) 878-7087 · www.pcac.org ã PCAC 2001 Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank the following people: Beverly Dolinsky and Mike Doyle of the PCAC staff, who provided extensive direction, input, and much needed help in researching this paper. They also helped to read and re-read several drafts, helped me to flush out arguments, and contributed in countless other ways to the final product. Stephen Dobrow of the New York City Transit Riders Council for his ideas and editorial assistance. Kate Schmidt, formerly of the PCAC staff, for some preliminary research for this paper. Barbara Spencer of New York City Transit, Christopher Boylan of the MTA, Brian Coons of Metro-North, and Yannis Takos of the Long Island Rail Road for their aid in providing data and information. The Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee and its component Councils–the Metro-North Railroad Commuter Council, the Long Island Rail Road Commuters Council, and the New York City Transit Riders Council–are the legislatively mandated representatives of the ridership of MTA bus, subway, and commuter-rail services. Our 38 volunteer members are regular users of the MTA system and are appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of County officials and, within New York City, of the Mayor, Public Advocate, and Borough Presidents. For more information on the PCAC and Councils, please visit our website: www.pcac.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Daviess County Road and Street Index
    2/22/2021 Daviess County Road and Street Index Route Begin End Length Road Name Number Location Location (miles) Abbie Avenue 1078 KY 2830 Dead End 0.143 Access Road to KY 456 1195 KY 456 Dead End 0.060 Acorn Ridge Court 1334 Beech Hill Drive Dead End 0.141 Affirmed Court 1010D Bold Forbes Way Cul-de-sac 0.047 Alley - 1 (Maceo) 1072L Church Lane 189' W.of High St. 0.094 Alley - 2 (Maceo) 1438 Sacra Drive Dead End 0.039 Alley - 3 (Stanley) 1355C Church Street US 60 0.136 Alley - 4 (Stanley) 1355E Church Street Griffith Station Road 0.103 Alley - 5 (Stanley) 1355D Church Street French Island Road 0.095 Alley - 6 (Brown Court) 1092Z Brown Court Stewart Court 0.137 Alma Court 1112C Waterfield Drive Cul-de-sac 0.159 Alsop Lane 1092A8 US 60 City Limits 0.442 Alvey Bridge Road 1298 KY 279 Hayden Bridge Road 1.454 Alvey Park Drive East 1105 KY 54 Alvey Park Drive W 0.328 Alvey Park Drive West 1106 KY 54 Alvey Park Drive E 0.340 Amethyst Court 1420E Diamond Drive Cul-de-sac 0.053 Antler Avenue 1120E Dead End Foors Lane 0.604 Aristides Drive 1010P Bold Forbes Way Cul-de-sac 0.132 Ashbyburg Road 1247 KY 81 KY 554 1.116 Ashland Avenue 1387B Rand Road (west) Rand Road (east) 0.327 Ashland Avenue Spur 1387B-80 Ashland Avenue End of Maintenance 0.025 At The Post Court 1507k Stirrup Loop Cul-de-sac 0.140 Aubrey Road 1072B Rockport Ferry Road Dead End 0.393 Aubrey Road Connector - 1 1072B-70 Aubry Road KY 2830 (south) 0.019 Aubrey Road Connector - 2 1072B-71 Aubry Road KY 2830 (north) 0.027 Aull Road 1031 Jack Hinton Road KY 144 2.538 Autumn Creek 1213
    [Show full text]