DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (MPC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (MPC Evaluation of the Effectiveness of High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Peter T. Martin, Associate Professor Joseph Perrin, Research Assistant Professor Pen Wu and Rob Lambert, Research Assistants University of Utah May 2004 Acknowledgements The research presented in this paper was supported by finding from the Mountain-Plains Consortium (U.S. Department of Transportation) and the Utah Department of Transportation through the Utah Transportation Center. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................................................5 2.1 Review of Other Evaluations................................................................................................5 2.1.1 Houston System ...............................................................................................................5 2.1.2 Oregon Evaluation ...........................................................................................................5 2.1.3 New Jersey Failure...........................................................................................................5 2.1.4 Virginia Success ..............................................................................................................5 2.1.5 California Evaluation.......................................................................................................6 2.1.6 Seattle HOV Evaluation...................................................................................................6 2.1.7 Performance Summary ....................................................................................................6 2.2 Review of Other Agencies’ Educational Programs ..............................................................7 2.2.1 Marketing HOV Lane in Long Island..............................................................................7 2.2.2 Gaining Public Acceptance in Tennessee........................................................................7 2.2.3 Marketing in New Jersey .................................................................................................7 2.2.4 Marketing Features and Benefits of Carpool Lanes.........................................................8 3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................9 3.1 Purpose of Evaluation .........................................................................................................9 3.2 Data Collection .....................................................................................................................9 3.2.1 Location of Data Collection...........................................................................................10 4. HOV LANE UTILIZATION ...................................................................................................11 4.1 GP Lanes vs. HOV Lanes 24-hour Volume Profile ..........................................................11 4.2 GP Lanes vs. HOV Lanes Mode Split ..............................................................................12 4.3 GP Lanes vs. HOV Lanes Throughput .............................................................................12 4.4 HOV Lane Usage During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games..............................................15 5. TRIP RELIABILITY AND TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS ......................................................17 5.1 Corridor-wide Operational Performance ............................................................................17 5.1.1 Travel Speed.................................................................................................................17 5.1.2 Trip Reliability .............................................................................................................18 5.2 Site-Specific Operational Performance...............................................................................20 6. VIOLATIONS...........................................................................................................................21 7. AVERAGE VEHICLE OCCUPANCY ..................................................................................23 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................25 8.1 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................25 8.2 Considerations / Recommendations..................................................................................25 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................29 APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................................31 i LIST OF TABLES Table 4.4-1 24-hour Traffic Volume Changes at I-15 5800 South Between, During and After Olympic Games .....................................................................................................16 Table 5.1-1 Average Weekday HOV and GP Lane Location Speed............................................18 Table 5.1-2 Average Weekday HOV and GP Lane Travel Time Comparison ............................18 Table 6.1-1 Violation Rates at HOV Lane’s Ramp During Weekday .........................................22 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 HOV Lanes Along 1-15 Corridor in Salt Lake Valley................................................. 2 Figure 3.1 Four Reasons to Evaluate ITS Systems ....................................................................... 9 Figure 4.1 24-Hour Traffic Volume Profiles at 5800 South........................................................ 11 Figure 4.2-1 Passengers by Mode and Lane Type....................................................................... 12 Figure 4.3-1 Throughput Comparisons at Different Locations During Morning Peak Period.... 13 Figure 4.3-2 Throughput Comparisons at Different Locations During Afternoon Peak Period . 14 Figure 4.3-3 Overall Throughput Comparisons During Peak Periods ........................................ 15 Figure 4.4-1 Traffic Volume Comparison During Olympic Games............................................ 16 Figure 5.1-1 Variation of Speed Along the HOV And GP Lane in Different Periods ................ 19 Figure 5.2-1 24-hour Traffic Speed Profile at 5800 South Southbound...................................... 20 Figure 6.1-1 Violation Comparison by Location......................................................................... 21 Figure 6.1-2 Violation Rates at 400 South HOV Ramp .............................................................. 22 Figure 7.1-1 Change of AVO Before and After HOV Operations.............................................. 23 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS ATMS Advanced Traffic Management System AVO Average Vehicle Occupancy FHWA Federal Highway Administration GP General Purpose Lanes HOV High Occupancy Vehicle ITS Intelligent Transportation System MOE Measure of Effectiveness SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle TMS Traffic Monitoring Station TOC Traffic Operations Center UDOT Utah Department of Transportation USDOT United States Department of Transportation VPH Vehicles Per Hour VPLH Vehicles Per Lane Per Hour WFRC Wasatch Front Regional Council iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In May of 2001, 16 miles of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane opened on the re-constructed Interstate 15 (I-15). The HOV lanes operate between 600 North and 10600 South in the Salt Lake Valley. A single northbound HOV lane and a single southbound HOV lane are separated from the four general-purpose freeway lanes in both directions by striping that allows HOV lane entrance and exit. The HOV lanes operate twenty-four hours a day and allow vehicles with two or more occupants, motorcycles, and transit vehicles. The only HOV-specific access to an arterial is located at 400 South and allows HOV-only direct access to the I-15 southbound on- ramp and the I-15 northbound off-ramp. This paper reports on a two-year study evaluating HOV lane performance. The analysis assesses the freeway operations before the HOV lanes opened with continued assessment throughout the first year of operation. It looks at automatic data from traffic monitoring stations and manual data from roadside and travel time surveys. The findings indicate that during the afternoon peak period, the HOV lane moves the same number of people as each general-purpose (GP) lane with only 44 percent of the vehicles. However, the HOV lane moves fewer people than its GP lane counterparts throughout the rest of the day during times of little or no congestion. HOV lanes show travel time savings for HOV users. According to measures of travel time between 400 South and 10600 South, relative to the adjacent GP lanes, the HOV lanes provide a 30 percent travel time savings during the afternoon peak period and a 13 percent travel time savings during the morning peak time. Furthermore, unlike the higher variation of travel times on GP lanes,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Behavior-Based Framework for Assessing Barrier Effects to Wildlife from Vehicle Traffic Volume 1 Sandra L
    CONCEPTS & THEORY A behavior-based framework for assessing barrier effects to wildlife from vehicle traffic volume 1 Sandra L. Jacobson,1,† Leslie L. Bliss-Ketchum,2 Catherine E. de Rivera,2 and Winston P. Smith3,4 1 1USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis, California 95618 USA 1 2Department of Environmental Science & Management, School of the Environment, 1 Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97207-0751 USA 1 3USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, La Grande, Oregon 97850 USA 1 Citation: Jacobson, S. L., L. L. Bliss-Ketchum, C. E. de Rivera, and W. P. Smith. 2016. A behavior-based framework for assessing barrier effects to wildlife from vehicle traffic volume. Ecosphere 7(4):e01345. 10.1002/ecs2.1345 Abstract. Roads, while central to the function of human society, create barriers to animal movement through collisions and habitat fragmentation. Barriers to animal movement affect the evolution and tra- jectory of populations. Investigators have attempted to use traffic volume, the number of vehicles passing a point on a road segment, to predict effects to wildlife populations approximately linearly and along taxonomic lines; however, taxonomic groupings cannot provide sound predictions because closely related species often respond differently. We assess the role of wildlife behavioral responses to traffic volume as a tool to predict barrier effects from vehicle-caused mortality and avoidance, to provide an early warning system that recognizes traffic volume as a trigger for mitigation, and to better interpret roadkill data. We propose four categories of behavioral response based on the perceived danger to traffic: Nonresponders, Pausers, Speeders, and Avoiders.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual
    Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual December 2015 Alabama Department of Transportation ROUNDABOUT PLANNING, DESIGN, AND OPERATIONS MANUAL December 2015 Prepared by: The University Transportation Center for of Alabama Steven L. Jones, Ph.D. Abdulai Abdul Majeed Steering Committee Tim Barnett, P.E., ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Stuart Manson, P.E., ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Sonya Baker, ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Stacey Glass, P.E., ALDOT Maintenance Stan Biddick, ALDOT Design Bryan Fair, ALDOT Planning Steve Walker, P.E., ALDOT R.O.W. Vince Calametti, P.E., ALDOT 9th Division James Brown, P.E., ALDOT 2nd Division James Foster, P.E., Mobile County Clint Andrews, Federal Highway Administration Blair Perry, P.E., Gresham Smith & Partners Howard McCulloch, P.E., NE Roundabouts DISCLAIMER This manual provides guidelines and recommended practices for planning and designing roundabouts in the State of Alabama. This manual cannot address or anticipate all possible field conditions that will affect a roundabout design. It remains the ultimate responsibility of the design engineer to ensure that a design is appropriate for prevailing traffic and field conditions. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1-5 1.2. Scope and Organization ............................................................................... 1-7 1.3. Limitations ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10 Grade Separations and Interchanges
    2005 Grade Separations and Interchanges CHAPTER 10 GRADE SEPARATIONS AND INTERCHANGES 10.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL TYPES OF INTERCHANGES The ability to accommodate high volumes of traffic safely and efficiently through intersections depends largely on the arrangement that is provided for handling intersecting traffic. The greatest efficiency, safety, and capacity, and least amount of air pollution are attained when the intersecting through traffic lanes are grade separated. An interchange is a system of interconnecting roadways in conjunction with one or more grade separations that provide for the movement of traffic between two or more roadways or highways on different levels. Interchange design is the most specialized and highly developed form of intersection design. The designer should be thoroughly familiar with the material in Chapter 9 before starting the design of an interchange. Relevant portions of the following material covered in Chapter 9 also apply to interchange design: • general factors affecting design • basic data required • principles of channelization • design procedure • design standards Material previously covered is not repeated. The discussion which follows covers modifications in the above-mentioned material and additional material pertaining exclusively to interchanges. The economic effect on abutting properties resulting from the design of an intersection at-grade is usually confined to the area in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. An interchange or series of interchanges on a freeway or expressway through a community may affect large contiguous areas or even the entire community. For this reason, consideration should be given to an active public process to encourage context sensitive solutions. Interchanges must be located and designed to provide the most desirable overall plan of access, traffic service, and community development.
    [Show full text]
  • Preferential and Managed Lane Signs and General Information Signs
    2009 Edition Page 253 CHAPTER 2G. PREFERENTIAL AND MANAGED LANE SIGNS Section 2G.01 Scope Support: 01 Preferential lanes are lanes designated for special traffic uses such as high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), light rail, buses, taxis, or bicycles. Preferential lane treatments might be as simple as restricting a turning lane to a certain class of vehicles during peak periods, or as sophisticated as providing a separate roadway system within a highway corridor for certain vehicles. 02 Preferential lanes might be barrier-separated (on a separate alignment or physically separated from the other travel lanes by a barrier or median), buffer-separated (separated from the adjacent general-purpose lanes only by a narrow buffer area created with longitudinal pavement markings), or contiguous (separated from the adjacent general-purpose lanes only by a lane line). Preferential lanes might allow continuous access with the adjacent general-purpose lanes or restrict access only to designated locations. Preferential lanes might be operated in a constant direction or operated as reversible lanes. Some reversible preferential lanes on a divided highway might be operated counter-flow to the direction of traffic on the immediately adjacent general-purpose lanes. 03 Preferential lanes might be operated on a 24-hour basis, for extended periods of the day, during peak travel periods only, during special events, or during other activities. 04 Open-road tolling lanes and toll plaza lanes that segregate traffic based on payment method are not considered preferential lanes. Chapter 2F contains information regarding signing of open-road tolling lanes and toll plaza lanes. 05 Managed lanes typically restrict access with the adjacent general-purpose lanes to designated locations only.
    [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]
  • What Is the Difference Between an Arterial Street and a Non-Arterial (Local) Street?
    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ARTERIAL STREET AND A NON-ARTERIAL (LOCAL) STREET? Federal and State guidelines require that streets be classified based on function. Generally, streets are classified as either arterial streets or non-arterial streets. Cities can also use the designations to guide the nature of improvements on certain roadways, such as sidewalks or street calming devices. The primary function of arterials is to provide a high degree of vehicular mobility through effective street design and by limiting property access. The vehicles on arterials are often through traffic. Generally, the higher the classification of a street (Principal Arterial) being the highest), the greater the volumes, through movements, length of trips and the fewer the access points. Arterials in Shoreline are further divided into the three classes and are described as follows: • Principal Arterials have higher levels of local land access controls, with limited driveway access, and regional significance as major vehicular travel routes that connect between cities within a metropolitan area. Examples: Aurora Avenue N, NE 175th Street and 15th Avenue NE • Minor Arterials are generally designed to provide a high degree of intra-community connections and are less significant from a perspective of a regional mobility. Examples: Meridian Avenue N,N/ NE 185th Street and NW Richmond Beach Road • Collector Arterials assemble traffic from the interior of an area/community and deliver it to the closest Minor or Principal Arterials. Collector Arterials provide for both mobility and access to property and are designed to fulfill both functions. Examples: Greenwood Avenue N, Fremont Avenue N and NW Innis Arden Way.
    [Show full text]
  • I-75/Laplaisance Road Interchange Reconstruction Presentation
    I-75 / LAPLAISANCE ROAD INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT OVERVIEW END construction limits along PROJECT LIMITS LaPlaisance Road Limited ROW Albain Ramp E City of Monroe Road Davis Ramp C Drain Monroe Township Fire Station No. 2 LaPlaisance Creek Limited Monroe Charter Township extends through ROW the project limits Ramp D Monroe Links of Lake Boat Club Erie Golf Course adjacent to Ramp B project limits Harbor Marine Trout’s Yacht Ramp A Basin Lake Erie BEGIN construction limits along LaPlaisance Road PROJECT DETAILS Interchange study completed to determine best alternative for design and construction Structure study approval from Federal Highway Reconstruction of LaPlaisance bridge over I-75 Reconstruction of LaPlaisance Road interchange Reconstruction of LaPlaisance Road Reconfiguration of interchange PROJECT TIMELINE Project Letting March 5, 2021 Spring 2021 to Spring 2022 Construction! Bridge and • LaPlaisance Rd bridge over I-75 and LaPlaisance Road pavement constructed in 1955 condition • LaPlaisance Rd interchange ramps reconstructed in 1974 • 25-year (2045) traffic projections Interchange • Reconfiguration of interchange Modernization • Shorter bridge to reduce upfront and future maintenance costs PROJECT NEED SPECIFIC PROJECT INFORMATION (INTERCHANGE RECONFIGURATION) LaPlaisance Road over I-75 (existing condition) Bridge currently closed to traffic Requires replacement due to current condition Existing 14 ft-3 inch (SB) minimum posted underclearance LaPlaisance Road and Ramps The existing interchange operates at an
    [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]
  • Petition For/Request to Initiate Vacation of Public Highway, Street, Alley Or Easement Requirements and Process Overview
    Petition for/request to initiate vacation of public highway, street, alley or easement Requirements and process overview The City of St. Louis Park will vacate public highways, streets, alleys or easements if it is found that the city has no current or future need for these lands. Proceedings to vacate such land may be commenced by petition of a majority of the owners of property fronting upon the portion of the public highway, street, alley or easement to be vacated, by action of the St. Louis Park City Council or by recommendation of the St. Louis Park Planning Commission. In order to constitute a petition for vacation, a majority of abutting property owners of the portion of public highway or street to be vacated must appear on the petition form. If the request is for vacation of a public alley or easement, it must be signed by the majority of owners of property adjacent to the alley or easement in the block where the alley or easement is situated, whether or not the petition requests vacation of the entire alley or easement. The petition shall be filed with the city clerk. If the application represents a request to the planning commission to recommend and to the city council to initiate vacation, that must be specifically stated. The applicant is encouraged to discuss the proposal with community development staff prior to completion of final plans and filing of a petition/request. Submittal checklist ☐ Petition/request ☐ Filing fee (see application for fee schedule) ☐ A complete and accurate legal property description must be submitted if the property to be vacated is an easement.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Gupta Detailed the Current Status of India's Road Network and Its
    Mr. Gupta detailed the current status of India’s road network and its maintenance: “The total length of the road network in India is 4.69 million km. It is the second largest road network in the world, just after the United States. ….. The national highways constitute 82,000 kilometers, 1.7 percent of the total length, and carry 40 percent of the total traffic.” “65 percent of total traffic and 90 percent of passenger traffic are being serviced by roads. The corresponding figures in the 1950s were 12 percent and 31.6 percent. The compounded annual growth rate of traffic on roads during the last two decades has been 9 percent. Road maintenance, however, is not commensurate with the traffic growth rate.” “The Indian Constitution assigns responsibility for the national highway network to the central government while State governments are responsible for developing and maintaining the state highways, major district roads, other district roads, and village roads. ….. The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways is the apex organization in the road sector in the country responsible for the planning, development, and maintenance of the national highways. It extends technical and financial support to state governments for the development of state roads, the connectivity of roads of interest and economic importance; it evolves the standards and specifications for roads and bridges in the country.” “Several road development programs are being implemented in the country. The first, the National Highway Development Program, is one of the world's largest road development programs. It comprises seven phases of development of more than 55,000 km of national highways; of which 21,000 km of road length has already been completed.” “Another is the Rural Road Development Program fully funded by the central government to supplement the efforts of the state governments in the construction and maintenance of the rural road network.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDELINES for TIMING and COORDINATING DIAMOND November 2000 INTERCHANGES with ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. TX-00/4913-2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date GUIDELINES FOR TIMING AND COORDINATING DIAMOND November 2000 INTERCHANGES WITH ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Nadeem A. Chaudhary and Chi-Leung Chu Report 4913-2 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 7-4913 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research: Construction Division September 1998 – August 2000 Research and Technology Transfer Section 14. Sponsoring Agency Code P. O. Box 5080 Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation. Research Project Title: Operational Strategies for Arterial Congestion at Interchanges 16. Abstract This report contains guidelines for timing diamond interchanges and for coordinating diamond interchanges with closely spaced adjacent signals on the arterial. Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) researchers developed these guidelines during a two-year project funded by the Texas Department of Transportation. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Diamond Interchanges, Capacity Analysis, Traffic No restrictions. This document is available to the Signal Coordination, Traffic Congestion, Signalized public through NTIS: Arterials National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 50 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized GUIDELINES FOR TIMING AND COORDINATING DIAMOND INTERCHANGES WITH ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS by Nadeem A.
    [Show full text]
  • ALDOT PROJECT STPMB‐4918(250) Mcfarland Road from 0.1 Mile North of Old Pascagoula Road to Three Notch‐Kroner Road
    ALDOT PROJECT STPMB‐4918(250) McFarland Road from 0.1 Mile North of Old Pascagoula Road to Three Notch‐Kroner Road On behalf of the Alabama Department of Transportation, welcome to the public involvement website for the project to construct McFarland Road from just north of the intersection of Old Pascagoula Road and McDonald Road to Three Notch‐Kroner Road. Due to the ongoing COVID‐19 Pandemic, this website will act as the primary method of public outreach for this project instead of ALDOT’s traditional in‐person meeting format. 1 Project Stakeholders • Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) • Mobile County The proposed improvements are part of the Alabama Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and was included in the Mobile County Pay‐As‐You‐Go program. The project is being designed by Neel‐Schaffer, Inc. in coordination with Mobile County officials. The project is being funded through federal transportation dollars as well as Mobile County Pay‐As‐You‐Go funds. 2 The project is located in south Mobile County approximately ¾ of a mile north of I‐65 and CR‐39 (McDonald Road). For this project, two alternatives will be carried forward through detailed study. Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 begin just north of the intersection of Old Pascagoula Road and McDonald Road and end at the intersection of Ben Hamilton Road and Three Notch‐Kroner Road. The purpose of the proposed project is to relieve traffic congestion along McDonald Road and Three Notch‐Kroner Road. Congestion along McDonald Road and Three Notch Road is due to increased development in the area.
    [Show full text]