Route 92 Centennial Bridge Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Impacts of Bypass Highways on Small and Medium Size Cities in Florida
Impacts of Bypass Highways on Small and Medium Size Cities in Florida: Knowledge Search and Evaluation of Past Studies December 2010 Prepared for Florida Department of Transportation Prepared by Karen E. Seggerman, AICP Kristine M. Williams, AICP Alexander Bond, AICP Vergil Stover, Ph.D., P.E. Sisinnio Concas, Ph.D. Jillian Penrod-Krause, MPHc Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida Disclaimer: Funding for this study was provided by the Florida Department Transportation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 A. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 5 B. Background and Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 6 II. Bypass Plans and Policy in Florida ......................................................................................................................... 7 A. Florida Bypasses ............................................................................................................................................... 7 B. Plans and Policies ............................................................................................................................................ -
Arkansas State Hichway Commission
ARKANSAS STATE HICHWAY COMMISSION THOMAS B. SCHUECK PHILIPTALDO CHAIRMAN SPRINGDALE LITTLE ROCK ROBERT S. I|OORE, JR. KEITH CIBSO\ VICE CHAIRMAN FORT SMITH ARKANSAs CITY PO. Box 2261 . Little Rock, Arkansas722A3-2261 DALTO\ Phone (501) 569-2000. Voice/TW 71 1 . Fax (501) 569-2400 A. FARtltER, JR. SCOTT E, BE}-\ETT, P.E. JONESBORO www.AnDOT. gov . www.l D riveArkansas.com DIRECTOR April 23, 2019 Mr. Jim McDonnell AASHTO Program Director for Engineering 444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 249 Wash n, D.C. 20001 IA Dear M nnell Reference is made to the solicitation for applications for U.S. Route Numbering changes. Enclosed you will find an application requesting approval to eliminate U.S. Highway 63 between U,S Highway 49 in the City of Brinkley, Arkansas running concurrenfly with lnterstate 40, lnterstate 55, and lnterstate 555 to the junction of U.S. Highway 49 in the bity of Jonesboro, Arkansas. A request to relocate U.S. Highway 63 to run concurrenfly with U.S. Highway 49 from the junction of lnterstate 40 in the City of Brinkley, Arkanias to lnterstate 555 in the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas has been submitted in a sepaiate application. This change only affects routes in the State of Arkansas. This application has been electronically submitted to [email protected]. lf additional information is needed, please advise. S E. Bennett, P.E Director Enclosure c: Senator Tom Cotton Senator John Boozman Congressman Rick CraMord Highway Commission Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Deputy Director and Chief Engineer Assistant Chief Engineer - Planning Federal Highway Administration American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials An Application from the State Highway or Transportation Department of Arkansas for: Elimination of a U.S. -
Mn Mutcd-2D 2014.Qxd
PART 2. SIGNS Chapter 2D. Guide Signs - Conventional Roads TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 2D. GUIDE SIGNS - CONVENTIONAL ROADS Page Section 2D.1 Scope of Conventional Road Guide Sign Standards . 2D-1 2D.2 Application . 2D-1 2D.3 Color, Retroreflection, and Illumination . 2D-1 2D.4 Size of Signs . 2D-1 2D.5 Lettering Style . 2D-3 2D.6 Size of Lettering . 2D-4 2D.7 Amount of Legend . 2D-5 2D.8 Arrows . 2D-5 2D.9 Numbered Highway Systems . 2D-6 2D.10 Route Signs and Auxiliary Signs . 2D-7 2D.11 Design of Route Signs . 2D-7 2D.12 Design of Route Sign Auxiliaries . 2D-8 2D.13 Junction Auxiliary Sign (M2-1) . 2D-9 2D.14 Combination Junction Sign (M2-2) . 2D-9 2D.15 Cardinal Direction Auxiliary Signs (M3-1 through M3-4) . 2D-9 2D.16 Auxiliary Signs for Alternative Routes (M4 Series) . 2D-10 2D.17 ALTERNATE Auxiliary Signs (M4-1, M4-1a) . 2D-10 2D.18 BY-PASS Auxiliary Sign (M4-2a) . 2D-10 2D.19 BUSINESS Auxiliary Sign (M4-3) . 2D-10 2D.20 TRUCK Auxiliary Sign (M4-4) . 2D-10 2D.21 TO Auxiliary Sign (M4-5, M4-5a) . 2D-10 2D.22 END Auxiliary Sign (M4-6, M4-6a) . 2D-11 2D.23 BEGIN Auxiliary Sign (M4-14, M4-14a) . 2D-11 2D.24 TEMPORARY Auxiliary Sign (M4-7, M4-7a) . 2D-11 2D.25 Temporary Detour and Auxiliary Signs . 2D-11 2D.26 Advance Turn Arrow Auxiliary Signs (M5-1, M5-2, M5-3) . 2D-11 2D.27 Lane Designation Auxiliary Signs (M5-4, M5-5, M5-6) . -
The Development of the Interstate Highway System in Texas the Development of the Interstate Highway System in Texas
).4%234!4% 4 % 8 ! 3 !NYWHERETO %VERYWHERE The Development of the Interstate Highway System in Texas The Development of the Interstate Highway System in Texas CONTRIBUTING Penny Beaumont AUTHORS Rhonda Brinkmann David Ellis Chris Pourteau Brandon V. Webb GRAPHIC DESIGN Vicky Nelson COVER DESIGN John Henry This paper was partially supported by a Southwest Region University Transportation Center (SWUTC) project. TTI0603.0506.1M Table of Contents From Anywhere to Everywhere: The Interstate Highway System in Texas ................................... 1 Land, Lots of Land... ...................................................................................................................... 2 Early Interstate Champion: Thomas MacDonald ...............................................................................4 Early Highway Development in Texas .......................................................................................... 5 Early Interstate Champion: Frank Turner ...........................................................................................6 Historical Highlights of the U.S. Interstate Highway System ..........................................................7 The Gilchrist and Greer Eras...........................................................................................8 Inventing the Future: Transportation Research and the Interstates ...............................................9 From Expressways to Interstates: Early Freeways in Texas ......................................................... 10 Route -
US 113 Millsboro South SDEIS
US 113 North / South Study 113 Millsboro-South Area Appendices Appendices US 113 North/South Study Millsboro-South Area Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX A: ALIGNMENT SHEETS US 113 North/South Study Millsboro-South Study Area Page Frames SDEIS Preferred Alternative Proposed Improvements Index Page Limits of Disturbance Parcel Boundaries 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 December 2016 Miles Water 24¬« 24¬« 30¬« «¬24 ¤£113 «¬24 £¤113 £¤113 BARK POND ROAD DUPONT BOULEVARD !( DUPONT BOULEVARD 113£¤ 113 ¤£ !( !( 20¬« !( 113 !( 1 4 5 6 2 3 7 8 9 10 Proposed Improvements Historic Property !( 11 Proposed Bridges Southern DE Heritage Trail Limits of Disturbance Parks and Recreation Agricultural District/Easement US 113 North/South Study A Relocation - Agriculture Millsboro-South Area !( Waters of the US B Relocation - Business Water !( SDEIS Preferred Alternative Parcel Boundaries 100-Year Flood Plain Page 1 of 11 Proposed Pavement Removal Natural Areas (! Noise Receptor Planned/Proposed Development 0 100 200 400 December 2016 £ Feet (! Air Quality Receptor Wetlands ¤ 1 inch = 200 feet BARK POND ROAD !( 113 !( £ !( ¤ !( DUPONT BOULEVARD !( !( !( !( B !( !( !( !( ¬«20 !( THOMPSONVILLE ROAD !( !( !( !( Historic!( Property Southern DE Heritage Trail Proposed Improvements Parks and Recreation Proposed Bridges Agricultural District/Easement Limits of Disturbance!( !(Waters of the US A Relocation - Agriculture Water 100-Year Flood Plain B Relocation - Business !( Natural Areas Parcel Boundaries !( Planned/Proposed Development !( Proposed -
I-69 Segment Four & Five Committee
I-69 Segment Four & Five Committee Report and Recommendations The Interstate-69 (I-69) Segment Four and Segment Five Committee’s Report and Recommendations contains the ideas and recommendations of the segment committee members and does not contain proposals by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). As motorists travel the I-69 Texas route, the work of the I-69 Segment Four and Five Committees is displayed in I-69 signs in South Texas. The Segment Committee members should be proud to see the fruits of their labor in these interstate shields that designate the first portion of I-69 in Texas. When the I-69 Segment Committee process first started, committee members in Segments Four and Five recognized the common needs and goals of our two committees and decide to work and meet essentially as one committee. Identification of shared needs for US 77, US 281, US 59 and State Highway 44 are testament to the value of cooperative partnerships for mutual benefits. We wish to extend our sincere thanks to both Committees for working together to accomplish our common goals. As we reach the conclusion of this stage of the initial planning process, we want to thank the Segment Four and Five committee members for your hard work and diligence in working with your communities and legislators to identify needs and solutions, and to realize the significance of I-69 for economic growth to our regions and throughout Texas. It has been our personal pleasure to work with all of you and the public on this worthwhile endeavor, and we look forward to working with you in the near future promoting economic growth for all of South Texas. -
From the AASHTO Transportation Policy Book, January 2000 Establishment and Development of United States Numbered Highways (Retai
From the AASHTO Transportation Policy Book, January 2000 Establishment and Development of United States Numbered Highways (Retained from October 13, 1991, Revised October 6, 1996) HO1 The purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads. To serve that purpose a system of main interstate routes was designated, and a uniform system of guide and warning signs was adopted for use in all the States, on such designated routes. This system was established in 1926. It has passed the preliminary development state. It has reached the period of review, revision, and consolidation. The U.S. road system now needs perfecting rather than expansion. New construction has opened up newer, better and shorter routes. Demands of interstate traffic have increased and are more exacting. Public acceptance of the U.S. numbered system has made possible the rectification of early concessions made for the purpose of getting the system established and marked. In harmony with the improved condition of State roads, the State route markers of the several States have more and more become a dependable trade mark of quality in those routes. The establishment of a U.S. number as a guide for interstate travel over certain roads has no connection with federal control or the designation of Federal funds for road construction. These numbers may recognize a State road which has been constructed entirely by the use of State funds. Often the U.S. marker is interpreted by the public as identifying a "federal highway" whereas the routes making up the U.S. -
U.S. Highway 66 in California
NPS Form 10-900-b (Rev. 01/2009) OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (formerly 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items X New Submission Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing U.S. Highway 66 in California B. Associated Historic Contexts 1. Development of U.S. Highway 66 in California, San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties, California, 1926-1974 2. U.S. Highway 66 as a Migratory Route, San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties, California, 1926-1974 3. Auto and Tourism Businesses on U.S. Highway 66, San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties, California, 1926-1974 4. Recreation and U.S. Highway 66, San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties, California, 1926-1974 C. Form Prepared by Name/title Carol Roland; Heather Goodson; Chad Moffett; Christina Slattery Organization Mead & Hunt, Inc. Date September 28, 2011 Street & Number 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240 Telephone 916 971 3961 City or Town Sacramento State CA Zip Code 95834 E-mail [email protected] D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. -
Transportation Plan I CITY of DONNELLY -Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2 POPULATION & LAND USE 5 SURFACE DRAINAGE I STREET STANDARDS CITY OF DONNELLY -Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ... LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. 111 LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... I Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 1 Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ...........................................................................................................................2 POPULATION AND LAND USE ................................................................................................ 5 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................... 5 Future Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 6 Population............................................................................................................................... 7 Future Population Projection .................................................................................................. -
ADOT Traffic Engineering Guidelines and Processes (TGP)
ADOT Traffic Engineering Guidelines and Processes June 2015 Section 300 - Signs 351 SPECIAL ROUTES Several special categories of State Highways have been established to more clearly define the role and function of a State Highway within the overall statewide or national system of highways. These special routes (with the exception of Detour and Historic Routes) shall be defined at the state level by the State Transportation Board as part of the official designation of that segment of State Highway. All Special Routes on Interstate and US Routes (with the exception of Detour routes) shall also be approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) prior to placement of any sign noting a special route designation. Historic routes are designated by the state Parkways, Historic, and Scenic Roads Advisory Committee (PHSRAC) {see TGP 335}. The ADOT Route Numbering Committee advises the Director, the State Transportation Board, and PHSRAC on whether and where special routes (except Detour routes) should be defined or applied. Special routes are signed by installing the appropriate M4 series auxiliary above the M1 series route marker sign and below the M3 series cardinal direction auxiliary (if used). Exceptions to this practice for Alternate, Business, and Future routes are noted below. See Figure 351-A for examples. The types of officially-recognized special routes on the State Highway System are as follows: Alternate Route or Alt Route: A route which starts at a point where it branches off from the main numbered route, continues along a different alignment, and then re-connects with the regular route at a different location either within or outside the State. -
Connect the Isle
CONNECT THE ISLE 40 Provide a safe and efficient transportation network to the County by proactively identifying the necessary improvements to offset the impacts of future growth. 41 TRANSPORTATION CONCERNS Throughout the Envisioning the Isle process the County’s transportation network has been a repeated COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FORUMS concern. During the first public forum, roads and PUBLIC FORUM 1 WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST ISSUES FACING traffic were high priorities identified by citizen input. ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY? During the second public forum transportation was • “Traffic problems and lack of sufficient infrastructure” again identified as a significant priority for the County. • “Road infrastructure to keep up with development” With this in mind, staff worked with the Hampton • “Develop infrastructure for pedestrian and Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) non-motorized travel” to develop transportation analyses of both land use PUBLIC FORUM 2 SCENARIO COMMENTS options presented in the third public forum. This • “This scenario is only palatable with an accompanying information was made available for citizens to see transportation/roadwork plan” how proposed land use recommendations would • “Limit red lights” impact the transportation network. Transportation • “Need smarter plan for main routes to avoid 8 lanes” was again a major point of emphasis in comments PUBLIC FORUM 3 during this third input opportunity. SCENARIO COMMENTS • “No additional traffic lights on Rt 10 – Consider Using the public input and guidance from the Planning roundabouts” Commission, the land use map was finalized. The • “More bicycle paths and sidewalks throughout HRTPO analyzed the land use map again to identify the County” the impacts and potential solutions for the County • “Concerned about pass-through traffic on 17 due to development in Suffolk” transportation network.