DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effect of Tidal Inlets on Open Coast Storm Surge Hydrographs: a Case Study of Hurricane Ivan (2004)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effect of Tidal Inlets on Open Coast Storm Surge Hydrographs: a Case Study of Hurricane Ivan (2004) THE EFFECT OF TIDAL INLETS ON OPEN COAST STORM SURGE HYDROGRAPHS: A CASE STUDY OF HURRICANE IVAN (2004) by MICHAEL B. SALISBURY JR. B.S. University of Central Florida, 2003 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the College of Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2005 ABSTRACT Florida’s Department of Transportation requires design storm surge hydrographs for coastal waters surrounding tidal inlets along the coast of Florida. These hydrographs are used as open ocean boundary conditions for local bridge scour models. At present, very little information is available on the effect that tidal inlets have on these open coast storm surge hydrographs. Furthermore, current modeling practice enforces a single design hydrograph along the open coast boundary for bridge scour models. This thesis expands on these concepts and provides a more fundamental understanding on both of these modeling areas. A numerical parameter study is undertaken to elucidate the influence of tidal inlets on open coast storm surge hydrographs. Four different inlet-bay configurations are developed based on a statistical analysis of existing tidal inlets along the Florida coast. The length and depth of the inlet are held constant in each configuration, but the widths are modified to include the following four inlet profiles: 1) average Florida inlet width; 2) 100 meter inlet width; 3) 500 meter inlet width; and 4) 1000 meter inlet width. In addition, two unique continental shelf profiles are used to design the ocean bathymetry in the model domains: a bathymetry profile consistent with the west/northeast coast of Florida (wide continental shelf width), and a bathymetry profile similar to the southeast coast of Florida (narrow continental shelf width). The four inlet-bay configurations are paired with each of the bathymetry profiles to arrive at eight model domains employed in ii this study. Results from these domains are compared to control cases that do not include any inlet-bay system in the computational domain. The ADCIRC-2DDI numerical code is used to obtain water surface elevations for all studies performed herein. The code is driven by astronomic tides at the open ocean boundary, and wind velocities and atmospheric pressure profiles over the surface of the computational domains. Model results clearly indicate that the four inlet-bay configurations do not have a significant impact on the open coast storm surge hydrographs. Furthermore, a spatial variance amongst the storm surge hydrographs is recognized for open coast boundary locations extending seaward from the mouth of the inlet. The results and conclusions presented herein have implications toward future bridge scour modeling efforts. In addition, a hindcast study of Hurricane Ivan in the vicinity of Escambia Bay along the Panhandle of Florida is performed to assess the findings of the numerical parameter study in a real-life scenario. Initially, emphasis is placed on domain scale by comparing model results with historical data for three computational domains: an ocean-based domain, a shelf-based domain, and an inlet-based domain. Results indicate that the ocean-based domain favorably simulates storm surge levels within the bay compared to the other model domains. Furthermore, the main conclusions from the numerical parameter study are verified in the hindcast study: 1) the Pensacola Pass-Escambia Bay system has a minimal effect on the open coast storm surge hydrographs; and 2) the open coast hydrographs exhibit spatial dependence along typical open coast boundary locations. iii In loving memory of my father: Michael B. Salisbury April 6, 1939 – October 17, 2002 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A project of this magnitude requires assistance from a number of people, to whom I would like to express appreciation and gratitude for helping me complete this research. First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Scott C. Hagen, for providing me with the opportunity to pursue my graduate education at the University of Central Florida. This thesis would not have been possible without his support and guidance, and the result is a testament to his abilities as a researcher and an educator. I would also like to thank Dr. Manoj Chopra and Dr. Gour-Tsyh Yeh for agreeing to serve on my thesis committee and for providing interesting and challenging classes; both current and past lab members: Yuji Funakoshi, Peter Bacopoulos, David Coggin, Satoshi Kojima, Daniel Dietsche, Ryan Murray, and Michael Parrish for making my time in the lab and at UCF an enjoyable experience; Dr. Max Sheppard, Dr. Don Slinn, Dr. Frederique Drullion, and Mr. Robert Weaver at the University of Florida for providing valuable direction during our project meetings; Dr. Alan Zundel and his students in the Environmental Modeling Research Laboratory at Brigham Young University for their assistance with the mesh generation software SMS; Mr. Andrew Cox of Oceanweather, Inc. for providing the Hurricane Ivan wind field used in this study; and Mr. Rick Renna of the Florida Department of Transportation for providing valuable direction during project meetings and on bridge scour modeling issues in general. Last but not least, I am very grateful to have such a wonderful family in my life. To my wife, for supporting me during both good times and bad, and for saying “yes” when the v moment came. And to my mother, who taught me the importance of receiving a good education and for making many sacrifices throughout my life to make sure I had the best opportunities available to me. It has been a long journey to get to this point in my life, but I think they’ll agree that it has been worth it. This study was funded in part by Award UFEIES0404029UCF as a subcontract from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) via the University of Florida (UF); Award N00014-02-1-0150 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce; and Award N00014-02-1-0150 from the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the FDOT, UF, NOAA, Department of Commerce, or NOPP and its affiliates. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................ xviii CONVERSION FACTORS.............................................................................................. xx CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 Florida’s Tidal Inlets ....................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Pensacola Pass, Florida ....................................................................... 2 1.2 Hurricane Ivan................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Research Objective.......................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2. TIDAL INLETS........................................................................................... 9 2.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Hydrodynamic Conditions ............................................................................ 10 2.3 Effect on the Astronomic Tides..................................................................... 14 2.4 Tidal Prism .................................................................................................... 16 2.4.1 Tidal prism versus cross-sectional area............................................. 18 CHAPTER 3. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 19 3.1 Storm Surge Modeling .................................................................................. 19 3.1.1 Long-wave modeling......................................................................... 19 3.1.2 Short-wave modeling........................................................................ 22 3.2 Numerical Modeling of Inlets ....................................................................... 23 3.3 Scour Modeling ............................................................................................. 26 vii CHAPTER 4. MODEL DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 32 4.1 Circulation Model Formulation in Cartesian Coordinates ............................ 32 4.2 Circulation model formulation in Spherical Coordinates.............................. 36 4.3 Hurricane Ivan Wind Field Model ................................................................ 38 4.4 Synthetic Wind Field Model ......................................................................... 41 CHAPTER 5. FINITE ELEMENT MESH DEVELOPMENT ........................................ 43 5.1 Idealized Domains......................................................................................... 44 5.1.1 Florida’s tidal inlets........................................................................... 44 5.1.2 Inlet-bay configuration.....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Florida Audubon Naturalist Summer 2021
    Naturalist Summer 2021 Female Snail Kite. Photo: Nancy Elwood Heidi McCree, Board Chair 2021 Florida Audubon What a privilege to serve as the newly-elected Chair of the Society Leadership Audubon Florida Board. It is an honor to be associated with Audubon Florida’s work and together, we will continue to Executive Director address the important issues and achieve our mission to protect Julie Wraithmell birds and the places they need. We send a huge thank you to our outgoing Chair, Jud Laird, for his amazing work and Board of Directors leadership — the birds are better off because of your efforts! Summer is here! Locals and visitors alike enjoy sun, the beach, and Florida’s amazing Chair waterways. Our beaches are alive with nesting sea and shorebirds, and across the Heidi McCree Everglades we are wrapping up a busy wading bird breeding season. At the Center Vice-Chair for Birds of Prey, more than 200 raptor chicks crossed our threshold — and we Carol Colman Timmis released more than half back to the wild. As Audubon Florida’s newest Board Chair, I see the nesting season as a time to celebrate the resilience of birds, while looking Treasurer forward to how we can protect them into the migration season and beyond. We Scott Taylor will work with state agencies to make sure the high levels of conservation funding Secretary turn into real wins for both wildlife and communities (pg. 8). We will forge new Lida Rodriguez-Taseff partnerships to protect Lake Okeechobee and the Snail Kites that nest there (pg. 14).
    [Show full text]
  • A Addison Bay, 64 Advanced Sails, 351
    FL07index.qxp 12/7/2007 2:31 PM Page 545 Index A Big Marco Pass, 87 Big Marco River, 64, 84-86 Addison Bay, 64 Big McPherson Bayou, 419, 427 Advanced Sails, 351 Big Sarasota Pass, 265-66, 262 Alafia River, 377-80, 389-90 Bimini Basin, 137, 153-54 Allen Creek, 395-96, 400 Bird Island (off Alafia River), 378-79 Alligator Creek (Punta Gorda), 209-10, Bird Key Yacht Club, 274-75 217 Bishop Harbor, 368 Alligator Point Yacht Basin, 536, 542 Blackburn Bay, 254, 260 American Marina, 494 Blackburn Point Marina, 254 Anclote Harbors Marina, 476, 483 Bleu Provence Restaurant, 78 Anclote Isles Marina, 476-77, 483 Blind Pass Inlet, 420 Anclote Key, 467-69, 471 Blind Pass Marina, 420, 428 Anclote River, 472-84 Boca Bistro Harbor Lights, 192 Anclote Village Marina, 473-74 Boca Ciega Bay, 409-28 Anna Maria Island, 287 Boca Ciega Yacht Club, 412, 423 Anna Maria Sound, 286-88 Boca Grande, 179-90 Apollo Beach, 370-72, 376-77 Boca Grande Bakery, 181 Aripeka, 495-96 Boca Grande Bayou, 188-89, 200 Atsena Otie Key, 514 Boca Grande Lighthouse, 184-85 Boca Grande Lighthouse Museum, 179 Boca Grande Marina, 185-87, 200 B Boca Grande Outfitters, 181 Boca Grande Pass, 178-79, 199-200 Bahia Beach, 369-70, 374-75 Bokeelia Island, 170-71, 197 Barnacle Phil’s Restaurant, 167-68, 196 Bowlees Creek, 278, 297 Barron River, 44-47, 54-55 Boyd Hill Nature Trail, 346 Bay Pines Marina, 430, 440 Braden River, 326 Bayou Grande, 359-60, 365 Bradenton, 317-21, 329-30 Best Western Yacht Harbor Inn, 451 Bradenton Beach Marina, 284, 300 Big Bayou, 345, 362-63 Bradenton Yacht Club, 315-16,
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Division of Law
    Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Division of Law Enforcement Weekly Report Patrol, Protect, Preserve August 16, 2019 through August 29, 2019 This report represents some events the FWC handled over the past two weeks; however, it does not include all actions taken by the Division of Law Enforcement. NORTHWEST REGION CASES BAY COUNTY Officer T. Basford was working the area known as North Shore when he noticed a couple of vehicles parked on the shoulder of the road. He later saw two individuals coming towards the vehicles with fishing gear. Officer Basford conducted a resource inspection and found the two men to be in possession of two redfish. One individual admitted to catching both fish. He was issued a citation for possession of over daily bag limit of redfish. GADSDEN COUNTY Lieutenant Holcomb passed a truck with a single passenger sitting on the side of the road with the window down. He conducted a welfare check and found the individual in possession of a loaded 30-30 rifle and an empty corn bag in the cab of the truck. Further investigation led to locating corn scattered along the roadway shoulders adjacent to the individual’s truck. The individual admitted to placing the corn along the roadway and was cited accordingly. GULF COUNTY Officers T. Basford and Wicker observed a vessel in the Gulf County Canal near the Highland View Bridge and conducted a resource inspection. During the inspection Officer Basford located several fish fillets which were determined to be redfish, sheepshead and black drum. The captain of the vessel was issued citations for the violation of fish not being landed in whole condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Currently the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
    CRITICALLY ERODED BEACHES IN FLORIDA Updated, June 2009 BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATE OF FLORIDA Foreword This report provides an inventory of Florida's erosion problem areas fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, Straits of Florida, Gulf of Mexico, and the roughly seventy coastal barrier tidal inlets. The erosion problem areas are classified as either critical or noncritical and county maps and tables are provided to depict the areas designated critically and noncritically eroded. This report is periodically updated to include additions and deletions. A county index is provided on page 13, which includes the date of the last revision. All information is provided for planning purposes only and the user is cautioned to obtain the most recent erosion areas listing available. This report is also available on the following web site: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/uublications/tech-rut.htm APPROVED BY Michael R. Barnett, P.E., Bureau Chief Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems June, 2009 Introduction In 1986, pursuant to Sections 161.101 and 161.161, Florida Statutes, the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores (now the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems) was charged with the responsibility to identify those beaches of the state which are critically eroding and to develop and maintain a comprehensive long-term management plan for their restoration. In 1989, a first list of erosion areas was developed based upon an abbreviated definition of critical erosion. That list included 217.6 miles of critical erosion and another 114.8 miles of noncritical erosion statewide.
    [Show full text]
  • Pensacola Bay System EPA Report
    EPA/600/R-16/169 | August 2016 | www.epa.gov/research Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation Office of Research and Development 1 EPA/600/R-16/169 August 2016 Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation by Michael A. Lewis Gulf Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Gulf Breeze, FL 32561 J. Taylor Kirschenfeld Water Quality and Land Management Division Escambia County Pensacola, FL 32503 Traci Goodhart West Florida Regional Planning Council Pensacola, FL 32514 National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gulf Breeze, FL. 32561 i Notice The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development (ORD) funded and collaborated in the research described herein with representatives from Escambia County’s Water Quality and Land Management Division and the West Florida Regional Planning Council. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This is a contribution to the EPA ORD Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. The appropriate citation for this report is: Lewis, Michael, J. Taylor Kirschenfeld, and Traci Goodheart. Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-16/169, 2016. ii Foreword This report supports EPA’s Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Coast Red Tide Status Report June 4, 2021
    Red Tide Status - Florida Southwest Coast June 04, 2021 Present Status: The red tide organism, Karenia brevis, persists in Southwest Florida. K. brevis was observed at background and low concentrations in two samples collected from Pinellas County, very low to medium concentrations in seven samples collected from Hillsborough County, very low to medium concentrations in 18 samples collected from Manatee County, background concentrations in one sample collected from Sarasota County, background to low concentrations in 15 samples collected from and offshore of Lee County, and background to medium concentrations in 10 samples collected from and offshore of Collier County. Fish kills suspected to be related to red tide were reported over the past week in Pinellas, Manatee, Lee, and Collier counties. For more details, please visit: https://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/health/fish-kills- hotline/. Respiratory irritation was reported over the past week in Pinellas County (6/1 at Pass-a-Grille) and Collier County. For current information, please visit: https://visitbeaches.org/. Forecasts by the USF-FWC Collaboration for Prediction of Red Tides for Pinellas to northern Monroe counties predict northern movement of surface waters and minimal transport of subsurface waters over the next four days. Date Alongshore County Offshore Site Location Collector Collected Inshore Pinellas - 06/01 not present - Clearwater Beach Pier 60 FWRI Grand Bellagio Condo Dock - 06/01 not present - FWRI (Old Tampa Bay) Bravo Drive; S of (Allens - 06/02 not present -
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey of Escambia County, Florida
    United States In cooperation with Department of the University of Florida, Agriculture Institute of Food and Soil Survey of Agricultural Sciences, Natural Agricultural Experiment Escambia County, Resources Stations, and Soil and Water Conservation Science Department; and the Service Florida Department of Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services How To Use This Soil Survey General Soil Map The general soil map, which is a color map, shows the survey area divided into groups of associated soils called general soil map units. This map is useful in planning the use and management of large areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the map, identify the name of the map unit in the area on the color-coded map legend, then refer to the section General Soil Map Units for a general description of the soils in your area. Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets. Note the number of the map sheet and turn to that sheet. Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. Turn to the Contents, which lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. The Contents shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. Also see the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program Restoration Council (EPA RESTORE 003 008 Cat1)
    Gulf Coast Gulf-wide Foundational Investment Ecosystem Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program Restoration Council (EPA_RESTORE_003_008_Cat1) Project Name: Gulf of Mexico Estuary Program – Planning Cost: Category 1: $2,200,000 Responsible Council Member: Environmental Protection Agency Partnering Council Member: State of Florida Project Details: This project proposes to develop and stand-up a place-based estuary program encompassing one or more of the following bays in Florida’s northwest panhandle region: Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay, Escambia Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, St. Andrews Bay and Apalachicola Bay. Activities: The key components of the project include establishing the host organization and hiring of key staff, developing Management and Technical committees, determining stressors and then developing and approving a Comprehensive Plan. Although this Estuary Program would be modeled after the structure and operation of National Estuary Programs (NEP) it would not be a designated NEP. This project would serve as a pilot project for the Council to consider expanding Gulf-wide when future funds become available. Environmental Benefits: If the estuary program being planned by this activity were implemented in the future, projects undertaken would directly support goals and outcomes focusing on restoring water quality, while also addressing restoration and conservation of habitat, replenishing and protecting living coastal and marine resources, enhancing community resilience and revitalizing the coastal economy. Specific actions would likely include,
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the Following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico
    Generic Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: < Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States Waters < Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico < Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico < Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic < Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico < Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic < Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico (Includes Environmental Assessment) Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33619-2266 813-228-2815 October 1998 This is a publication of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Award No. NA87FC0003. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE ................................................................................................................... 1 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... 10 CONVERSION CHART ....................................................................................... 12 GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................... 13 1.0 PREFACE ..................................................................................................... 20 1.1 List of Preparers ........................................................................... 20 1.2 List of Persons and Agencies
    [Show full text]
  • Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1
    Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Seagrass Integrated Mapping and Monitoring for the State of Florida Mapping and Monitoring Report No. 1 Edited by Laura A. Yarbro and Paul R. Carlson Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute St. Petersburg, Florida March 2011 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Yarbro and Carlson, Editors SIMM Report #1 Table of Contents Authors, Contributors, and SIMM Team Members .................................................................. 3 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 31 How this report was put together ........................................................................................... 36 Chapter Reports ...................................................................................................................... 41 Perdido Bay ........................................................................................................................... 41 Pensacola Bay .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002
    Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002 Edited by L. Handley,1 D. Altsman,2 and R. DeMay3 Abstract Introduction Over the past century, seagrass habitats from the The Gulf of Mexico provides a wide array of valuable bays of Texas to the gulf shores of Florida have decreased. natural resources to the nations that border its shores. As Seagrass beds, which are highly dependent on water quality the value of the gulf coastal environment continues to be and clarity for survival, are home to a multitude of aquatic recognized, it becomes increasingly important to invest in the plants and animals and a source of economic activity through conservation of those resources. Reductions in both abundance commercial and recreational fishing and ecotourism. The U.S. and diversity of various organisms and habitats emphasize a Environmental Protection Agency’s Gulf of Mexico Program critical need to protect these natural assets, many of which (GMP) and its partners have made a commitment to restore, serve important ecological functions. In response to increasing enhance, and protect this important ecosystem. As seagrass trends in habitat degradation, several organizations and habitats decrease, the need for information on the causes and institutions have begun to act together with local residents to effects of seagrass loss, current mapping information, and address these issues. One such effort, facilitated by the U.S. education on the importance of seagrassess becomes greater. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Gulf of Mexico This report is the initial effort of the GMP’s research and Program, will integrate the efforts of a wide range of scientific restoration plan for seagrasses.
    [Show full text]
  • Escambia County Design Standards Manual
    Escambia County Design Standards Manual LEGEND Blue Highlight Federally Required Red Highlight State Required - Green Highlight Previously Adopted Ordinances *(concepts/standards unchanged) Yellow Highlight Director’s Recommendations *The overall concept was not changed however revisions were made to the language for clarity. In addition in some cases the process was streamlined. 11/2014 1 Design Standards Manual 2 3 4 Chapter 1, Engineering 5 6 Article 1 Stormwater 7 8 Sec. 1-1 Stormwater Management Systems 9 Sec. 1-1.1 Stormwater Quality (treatment) 10 Sec. 1-1.2 Stormwater Quantity (attenuations) 11 Sec. 1-1.3 Stormwater Ponds and Impoundments 12 Sec. 1-1.4 Conveyance Systems 13 Sec. 1-1.5 Exemptions 14 Sec. 1-1.6 Other Agency Approvals 15 16 Sec. 1-2 Stormwater Management Plans 17 Sec. 1-2.1 Methods 18 Sec. 1-2.2 Content 19 20 Article 2 Transportation 21 22 Sec. 2-1 Roadway Design 23 Sec. 2-1.1 Minimum Right-of-way widths 24 Sec. 2-1.2 Minimum pavement widths 25 Sec. 2-1.3 Intersections 26 Sec. 2-1.4 Slopes 27 Sec. 2-1.5 Roadway Elevations 28 Sec. 2-1.6 Street Layout 29 Sec. 2-1.7 Traffic Control Devices 30 31 Sec. 2-2 Access Management 32 Sec. 2-2.1 Access Location 33 Sec. 2-2.2 Pedestrian Access 34 Sec. 2-2.3 Traffic Control 35 Sec. 2-2.4 Modification of Existing access 36 Sec.2-2.5 internal Site Access Design 37 Sec. 2-2.6 Commercial Traffic in Residential Areas 38 39 Article 3 Parking 40 41 Sec.
    [Show full text]