DOCSLIB.ORG

NCHRP Report 350

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

National Cooperative Highway Research Program NCHRP Report 350 Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features Transportation Research Board National Research Council TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1992 OFFICERS Chairman: William W. Millar, Executive Director, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Vice Chairman: A. Ray Chamberlain, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Transportation Executive Director: Thomas B. Deen, Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MICHAEL ACOTT, President, National Asphalt Pavement Association (ex officio) ROY A. ALLEN, Vice President, Research and Test Department, Association of American Railroads (ex officio) MARION C. BLAKEY, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) GILBERT E. CARMICHAEL, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) BRIAN W. CLYMER, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio) JACK R. GILSTRAP, Executive Vice President, American Public Transit Association (ex officio) DOUGLAS B. HAM, Research and Special Programs Acting Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) THOMAS H. HANNA, President and Chief Executive Officer, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc (ex officio) THOMAS D. LARSON, Federal Highway Administrator. U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) WARREN G. LEBACK, Maritime Administrator. U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) THOMAS C. RICHARDS, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) ARTHUR E. WILLIAMS, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ex officio) JAMES M. BEGGS, Chairman, SPACEHAB, Inc. KIRK BROWN, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation DAVID BURWELL, President, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy L. GARY BYRD, Consulting Engineer, Alexandria, Virginia L. STANLEY CRANE, former Chairman and CEO of CONRAIL RICHARD K. DAVIDSON, Chairman and CEO, Union Pacific Railroad JAMES C. DELONG, Director of Aviation, Philadelphia International Airport JERRY L. DEPOY, Vice President, Properties & Facilities, USAir THOMAS J. HARRELSON, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Transportation LESTER P. LAMM, President, Highway Users Federation LILLIAN C. LIBURDI, Director. Port Department, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ADOLF D. MAY, JR., Professor and Vice Chairman, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California. Berkeley WAYNE MURI, Chief Engineer, Missouri Highway & Transportation Department (Past Chairman, 1990) CHARLES P. O'LEARY, JR., Commissioner. New Hampshire Department of Transportation NEIL PETERSON, Executive Director. Los Angeles County Transportation Commission DELLA M. ROY, Professor of Materials Science, Pennsylvania State University JOSEPH M. SUSSMAN, JR East Professor of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN R. TABB, Director, Chief Administrative Officer, Mississippi State Highway Department JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, Director, California Department of Transportation C. MICHAEL WALTON, Paul D. & Betty Robertson Meek Centennial Professor and Chairman, Civil Engineering Department, University of Texas at Austin (Past Chairman, 1991) FRANKLIN E. WHITE, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation JULIAN WOLPERT, Henry G. Bryant Professor of Geography, Public Affairs and Urban Planning, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University ROBERT A. YOUNG III, President, ABF Freight Systems, Inc NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for NCHRP THOMAS D. LARSON, U.S. Department of Transportation WILLIAM W. MILLAR, Port Authority of Allegheny County (Chairman) A. C. MICHAEL WALTON, University of Texas at Austin RAY CHAMBERLAIN, Colorado Department of Transportation L. GARY BYRD, Consulting Engineer FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, American Association of State Highway and THOMAS B. DEEN, Transportation Research Board Transportation Officials Field of Design Area of Vehicle Barrier Systems Project Panel C22-7 ROGER L. STOUGHTON, California Department of Transportation F. J. TAMANINI, Energy Absorption Systems, Inc., Virginia (Chairman) THOMAS TURBELL, VTI, Sweden JAMES E. BRYDEN, New York State Department of Transportation HARRY W. TAYLOR, Federal Highway Administration CHARLES E. DOUGAN, Connecticut Department of Transportation (The late) EDWARD N. POST, University of Nebraska-Lincoln DENNIS L. HANSEN, Hennepin Co. Department of Transportation, Minn. MARTY HARGRAVES, FHWA Liaison Representative JAMES H. HATTON, JR., Federal Highway Administration FRANK R. McCULLAGH, TRB Liaison Representative WALTER J. JESTINGS, Parsons, Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Georgia JAMES F. ROBERTS, Jefferson City, Missouri Program Staff CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Senior Program Officer ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs ROBERT B. MILLER, Financial Officer KENNETH S. OPIELA, Senior Program Officer DAN A. ROSEN, Senior Program Officer LOUIS M. MAcGREGOR, Program Officer SCOTT SABOL, Senior Program Officer DANIEL W. DEARASAUGH, JR., Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Editor AMIR N. HANNA, Senior Program Officer National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350 Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features H. E. ROSS, JR., D. L. SICKING, and R. A. ZIMMER Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas and J. D. MICHIE Dynatech Engineering Inc. San Antonio, Texas Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1993 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH NCHRP REPORT 350 PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 22-7 FY'89 approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614 administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually ISBN 0-309-04873-7 or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the L. C. Catalog Card No. 92-61950 accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These Price $13.00 problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Areas of Interests In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the Bridges, Other Structures, Hydraulics and Hydrology American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Materials and Construction initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Safety and Human Performance employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on Modes a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Highway Transportation Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Research NOTICE Council was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with suited for this purpose as: it maintains an extensive committee the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board's judgment that the program concerned is of structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and resources of the National Research Council. cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research use them. Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of State Highway The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified and Transportation officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee needs to be included in the program are proposed
Recommended publications
  • UDOT Supplemental Specifications

    UDOT Supplemental Specifications

    UDOT Supplemental Specifications Table of Contents Section No. Title – Type 1. 01355 Environmental Compliance – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 2. 01455 Material Quality Requirements – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 3. 01456 Materials Dispute Resolution – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 4. 01554 Traffic Control – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 5. 01557S Maintenance of Traffic – Special Provision (04/19/16) 6. 01571 Temporary Environmental Controls – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 7. 01721 Survey – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 8. 02056 Embankment, Borrow, and Backfill – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 9. 02221 Remove Structure and Obstruction – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 10. 02316 Roadway Excavation – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 11. 02610 Drainage Pipe – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 12. 02701 Pavement Smoothness – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 13. 02742S Project Specific Surfacing Requirements – Department Special Provision (06/30/15) 14. 02744S Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) – Materials Special Provision (06/30/15) 15. 02748 Prime Coat/Tack Coat – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 16. 02765M Pavement Marking Paint – Materials Special Provision (10/05/15) 17. 02768 Pavement Marking Materials – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 18. 02822 Right-of-Way Fence and Gate – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 19. 02841 W-Beam Guardrail – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 20. 02842 Delineators – Supplemental Specifications (01/01/17) 21. 02843 Crash Cushions and Barrier End Treatments – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 22. 02844 Concrete Barrier – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 23. 02890 Retroreflective Sheeting – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 24. 02891 Traffic Sign – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) 25. 13557 Variable Message Sign – Supplemental Specification (01/01/17) Supplemental Specification 2017 Standard Specification Book SECTION 01355 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 SECTION INCLUDES A.
  • Temporary Barrier Guidance Manual December 2018 Temporary Barrier Guidance

    Temporary Barrier Guidance Manual December 2018 Temporary Barrier Guidance

    Temporary Barrier Guidance Manual December 2018 Temporary Barrier Guidance Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 1.1 Temporary Barrier Use Applications ..................................................................................... 3 1.2 Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 3 2. Work Zone Clear Zone and Roadside Safety .........................................................................4 2.1 Fixed Objects ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Longitudinal Drop-offs .......................................................................................................... 5 3. Temporary Barrier for Hazard Protection - Placement and Deflection Distance Guidance ......5 3.1 Protection from Fixed Objects .............................................................................................. 5 3.2 Protection from Longitudinal Drop-offs ................................................................................ 5 3.3 Length of Need Calculation ................................................................................................... 6 3.3.1 Length of Need Procedure ................................................................................................. 7 3.3.2 Length of Need Procedure for Barrier Flare .....................................................................
  • Cable Barrier Submission

    Cable Barrier Submission

    Washington State Cable Median Barrier In-Service Study Doug McClanahan Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47329 Olympia Washington 98504-7329 Tel: (360) 705-7264 Fax: (360) 705-7330 [email protected] Richard B. Albin Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47329 Olympia Washington 98504-7329 Tel: (360) 705-7451 Fax: (360) 705-7330 [email protected] John C. Milton Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47329 Olympia Washington 98504-7329 Tel: (360) 705-7299 Fax: (360) 705-7330 [email protected] Submitted for presentation at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the National Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2004. Estimated word count: 4080 text. November 2003 Washington State Cable Median Barrier In-Service Study Doug McClanahan Washington State Department of Transportation Richard B. Albin Washington State Department of Transportation John C. Milton Washington State Department of Transportation ABSTRACT Since 1989, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Engineers (AASHTO) Roadside Design Guide has contained information on a cable median barrier design that mounts the middle cable on the back side of the posts so that it can contain and redirect vehicles that strike the system from either side. Cable median barrier has been tested in accordance with NCHRP Report 350 Test Level 3. However, there are only a couple of studies that have been performed on the in-service performance of this system. This report documents Washington’s experience with cable median barrier by analyzing its initial installation cost, maintenance costs, maintenance experiences, and accident history before and after installation. The report is based on accident and maintenance report data associated with 24.4 total miles of cable median barrier located in three distinct locations along Interstate 5 (I-5).
  • Subdivision Street Standards Manual

    Subdivision Street Standards Manual

    TOWN OF MARANA Subdivision Street Standards Manual May 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER & SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Purpose……………………………………………………………………... 1 1.3 Applicability……………………………………………………………….. 2 2.0 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND REGULATIONS…………………….. 2 2.1 Functional Classification………………………………………….………... 2 2.2 Incorporated Regulations Adopted by Reference…………………………... 3 3.0 TRAFFIC STUDIES………………………………………………………………. 3 4.0 STREET LAYOUT AND GEOMETRIC DESIGN………………………………... 4 4.1 Street Layout………………………………………………………………… 4 4.2 Cul-de-sacs………………………………………………………………….. 5 4.3 Design Speed………………………………………………………………... 6 4.4 Design Vehicle…………………………………………………….………… 6 4.5 Horizontal Alignment……………………………………………………….. 7 4.6 Vertical Alignment………………………………………………………….. 7 4.7 Intersection Alignment…………………………………………….………… 8 4.8 Intersection Sight Distance…………………………………………………. 9 4.9 Residential and Commercial Drive Entrances………………………………. 10 4.10 Roadway Superelevation…………………………………………………….. 11 4.11 Roadway Drainage Crossings……………………………………………….. 11 4.12 Mountainous Terrain………………………………………………………… 11 4.13 Environmentally Sensitive Roadways………………………………………. 12 4.14 Alternative Access…………………………………………………………… 12 5.0 RIGHT OF WAY……………………………………………………………………. 13 6.0 ELEMENTS IN THE CROSS SECTION…………………………………………... 14 6.1 Travel Lanes……………………………………………………….………… 14 6.2 Curbing……………………………………………………………………… 14 6.3 Sidewalks………………………………………………………….………… 15 6.4 Shoulders………………………………………………………….………… 16 6.5 Roadside
  • Temporary Traffic Control Manual First Edition

    Temporary Traffic Control Manual First Edition

    Temporary Traffic Control Manual First Edition Temporary Traffic Control Manual • • • Engineering Judgement The 2009 MUTCD (Arizona Supplement) states in Section 1A.13 (64), “Engineering Judgement – the evaluation of available pertinent information, and the application of appropriate principles, provisions, and practices as contained in this Manual and other sources, for the purpose of deciding upon the applicability, design, operation, or installation of a traffic control device. Engineering judgement shall be exercised by an engineer, or by an individual working under the supervision of an engineer, through the application of procedures and criteria established by the engineer. Documentation of engineering judgement is not required.” No single publication would be able to cover all diverse conditions and circumstances a Temporary Traffic Control practitioner may encounter in governing traffic on city streets. Engineering judgment is essential in applying the principles and practices contained in this 2017 Temporary Traffic Control Manual (TTCM). Variations from the requirements and typical illustrations in this manual may be needed based on analysis and engineering judgment of a specific situation. The City Traffic Engineer shall have the final authority with respect to such variations. Acknowledgements The City of Mesa Transportation Department sincerely appreciates and would like to acknowledge the following organizations for their contributions in the completion of this Temporary Traffic Control Supplement: • American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), National • American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), Arizona Chapter • City of Mesa Engineering and Traffic Operations Departments • City of Mesa Police Department Engineering Judgement 1 Temporary Traffic Control Manual • • • Introduction Temporary traffic control planning is important as it minimizes impact on the traveling public.
  • Chapter 2 Design Geometrics and Criteria

    Chapter 2 Design Geometrics and Criteria

    Topic #625-000-007 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 January 1, 2017 Chapter 2 Design Geometrics and Criteria 2.0 General ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.0.1 Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Near or Within Project Limits ............................................................. 2-3 2.1 Lanes ......................................................................................... 2-4 2.1.1 Travel Lanes and Auxiliary Lanes............................... 2-4 2.1.2 Other Lane Widths ..................................................... 2-5 2.1.3 Ramp Traveled Way Widths ....................................... 2-6 2.1.4 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities ......... 2-6 2.1.4.1 Pedestrian Facilities ................................... 2-6 2.1.4.2 Bicycle Facilities ......................................... 2-7 2.1.4.3 Public Transit Facilities ............................... 2-7 2.1.5 Cross Slopes .............................................................. 2-7 2.1.5.1 Hydroplaning Risk Analysis ........................ 2-8 2.1.6 Roadway Pavement ................................................. 2-11 2.1.6.1 Alternative Roadway Paving Treatments ............................................... 2-11 2.1.6.2 Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement Requirements for Patterned Pavement ................................. 2-13 2.1.7 Transitions of Pavement Widths ............................... 2-15 2.1.8 Number of Lanes on the State Highway System ...... 2-15 2.2 Medians ..................................................................................
  • Research Spotlight

    Research Spotlight

    RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION Bureau of Field Services Michigan Department of Transportation Research Spotlight Cable median barriers: Project Information REPORT NAME: Study of High- A cost-effective means Tension Cable Barriers on Michigan Roadways to save lives START DATE: October 2011 Median-crossover crashes are among the most hazardous events that can occur on freeways, often leading to serious injury or death. In recent REPORT DATE: October 2014 years, high-tension cable median barriers have emerged as a cost- RESEARCH REPORT NUMBER: effective alternative to conventional barriers in preventing such crashes. RC-1612 MDOT began installing them on state freeways in 2008. This research TOTAL COST: $223,895 project confirmed that cable median barriers are effective at reducing crossover crashes and improving freeway safety in Michigan, produced COST SHARING: 20% MDOT, 80% guidelines to help identify the best locations to install them, and FHWA through the SPR, Part II, developed content for public outreach materials explaining their benefit. Program MDOT Project Manager Problem Carlos Torres, P.E. Freeway median barriers made of concrete, steel Geometric Design Unit guardrail or high-tension Design Division cable are all effective at Michigan Department of preventing crossover Transportation crashes, but they can be 425 West Ottawa Street costly to install and main- Lansing, MI 48909 tain. Cable median barriers [email protected] have lower installation costs 517-335-2852 than concrete or guardrail Since their installation on selected Michigan highways beginning in alternatives, though they 2008, cable median barriers have reduced crossover crash rates in are more easily damaged these highway segments by 87 percent. by vehicle strikes, leading to higher maintenance and repair costs.
  • Cast-In-Place Concrete Barriers

    Cast-In-Place Concrete Barriers

    rev. May 14, 2018 Cast-In-Place Concrete Barriers April 23, 2013 NOTE: Reinforcing steel in each of these barrier may vary and have been omitted from the drawings for clarity, only the Ontario Tall Wall was successfully crash tested as a unreinforced section. TEST LEVEL NAME/MANUFACTURER ILLUSTRATION PROFILE GEOMETRIC DIMENSIONS CHARACTERISTICS AASHTO NCHRP 350 MASH New Jersey Safety-Shape Barrier TL-3 TL-3 32" Tall 32" Tall The New Jersey Barrier was the most widely used safety shape concrete barrier prior to the introduction of the F-shape. As shown, the "break-point" between the 55 deg and 84 deg slope is 13 inches above the pavement, including the 3 inch vertical reveal. The flatter lower slope is intended to lift the vehicle which TL-4 TL-4 http://tf13.org/Guides/hardwareGuide/index.php?a absorbs some energy, and allows vehicles impacting at shallow angles to be 32" Tall 36" Tall X ction=view&hardware=111 redirected with little sheet metal damage; however, it can cause significant instability to vehicles impacting at high speeds and angles. Elligibility Letter TL-5 TL-5 B-64 - Feb 14, 2000 (NCHRP 350) 42" Tall 42" Tall NCHRP Project 22-14(03)(MASH TL3) NCHRP 20-07(395) (MASH TL4 & TL5) F-shape Barrier TL-3 TL-3 The F-shape has the same basic geometry as the New Jersey barrier, but the http://tf13.org/Guides/hardwareGuide/index.php?a 32" Tall 32" Tall "break-point" between the lower and upper slopes is 10 inches above the ction=view&hardware=109 pavement.
  • NDOT Statewide Integrated Transportation Reliability Program ______

    NDOT Statewide Integrated Transportation Reliability Program ______

    ______________________________________________ NDOT Statewide Integrated Transportation Reliability Program _____________________ DRAFT Technical Memorandum No. 6 – Performance Measurement Plan Prepared by: October, 2009 092202013 Copyright © 2009, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT – PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PLAN 1. OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PLAN ................................................................. 1 1.1 What is Performance Measurement and Why Use it? ......................................................... 1 1.2 How Performance Measurement is Used in Other States .................................................... 2 1.3 How Can Performance Monitoring Benefit NDOT and its Partners? ................................ 4 1.4 How is Transportation Performance Currently Being Monitored? .................................... 4 1.5 What is the Best Way to Measure Reliability in Nevada? ................................................... 5 1.6 How Do Performance Measures Relate to ITRP Strategies?............................................. 10 2. OUTCOME-BASED PERFORMANCE MEASURES .......................................................................... 11 3. ACTIVITY-BASED PERFORMANCE MEASURES ........................................................................... 23 4. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORTING ............................................................................ 33 1.1 Overview of the Process and Progress ...............................................................................
  • Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditionsâ•fla Synthesis Study

    Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditionsâ•fla Synthesis Study

    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs JTRP Technical Reports Joint Transportation Research Program 2012 Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditions—A Synthesis Study Erdong Chen Purdue University, [email protected] Jennifer Brown Purdue University, [email protected] Andrew Tarko Purdue University, [email protected] Recommended Citation Chen, E., J. Brown, and A. Tarko. Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditions—A Synthesis Study. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2012/08. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2012. doi: 10.5703/ 1288284314670. This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PURDUE UNIVERSITY USE OF BARRIERS IN RURAL OPEN Road Conditions— A SYNTHESIS STUDY Erdong Chen Graduate Research Assistant School of Civil Engineering Purdue University Jennifer Brown Graduate Research Assistant School of Civil Engineering Purdue University Andrew P. Tarko Professor of Civil Engineering School of Civil Engineering Center for Road Safety Purdue University Corresponding Author SPR-3515 Report Number: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2012/08 DOI: 10.5703/1288284314670 RECOMMENDED CITATION Chen, E., J. Brown, and A. P. Tarko. Use of Barriers in Rural Open Road Conditions—A Synthesis Study. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2012/08. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of Transportation
  • Feature 215 Medians

    Feature 215 Medians

    Chapter 7. RCI Features & Characteristics Feature 215 FEATURE 215 MEDIANS Roadway Side Allows Tie LRS Package Feature Type Interlocking Secured C Yes Yes Length Yes Yes Responsible Party for District Planning Data Collection Definition/Background: Denotes type of medians and median barriers on divided highways. MDBARTYP | TYPE OF MEDIAN BARRIER Who/What uses this Offset Offset HPMS MIRE Information Required For Direction Distance 35 Planning, Maintenance, Work All functionally classified N/A N/A Program, Traffic Operations, roadways on the SHS, all HPMS HPMS standard samples off the SHS, Active Exclusive roadways, all SIS related roadways, and all managed lanes. Definition/Background: Denotes type of median barrier. Important When Gathering: A barrier is defined as any longitudinal and vertical physical structure between roadbeds preventing motorists from crossing to the other side of the travelway. How to Gather this Data: Record appropriate code. Special Situations: When more than one barrier type exists, use Code 20-Other. Codes Descriptions 03 Cable Barrier 04 Guardrail (all types) 05 Fence 06 Barrier Wall 20 Other 28 Canal, river, or other waterway 7-172 | RCI Handbook Feature 215 EXAMPLES EXAMPLES OF CODING COMBINATIONS RCI Handbook | 7-173 Chapter 7. RCI Features & Characteristics Feature 215 MEDWIDTH | HIGHWAY MEDIAN WIDTH Who/What uses this Offset Offset HPMS MIRE Information Required For Direction Distance 36 Planning, Maintenance, Work All functionally classified N/A N/A Program, Traffic Operations, roadways on the SHS, all HPMS HPMS standard samples off the SHS, Active Exclusive roadways, all SIS related roadways, and all managed lanes. Definition/Background: Denotes the median width in feet.
  • Seminar Presentation

    Seminar Presentation

    2014 SPECIFICATIONS UPDATE Book Cover for the 2014 Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets and Bridges Hierarchy of Organizational Elements 3 TXDOT SPECIFICATION FORMAT 2004 Format 2014 Format 4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ITEMS 1 – 9 Roxana Garcia, P.E. ITEM 1 – Definitions of Terms New Definitions: . Concrete Construction Joint. A joint formed by placing plastic concrete in direct contact with concrete that has attained its initial set. Intelligent Transportation System. An integrated system that uses video and other electronic detection devices to monitor traffic flows. Monolithic Concrete Placement. The placement of plastic concrete in such a manner and sequence to prevent a construction joint. Replacement Alternate. A bid item identified in the proposal form that a Bidder may substitute for a specific regular item of work. Suspension. Action taken by the Department or federal government pursuant to regulation that prohibits a person or company from entering into a Contract, or from participating as a subcontractor, or supplier of materials or equipment used in a highway improvement Contract as defined in Transportation Code, Chapter 223, Subchapter A. 6 ITEM 2 – Instructions to Bidders . Incorporated the current special provisions for Item 2. Clarifies that a bid proposal form will not be issued to a Bidder who is suspended or debarred by the Commission, Department, or any federal agency. Separates the language regarding confidential questionnaire and bidder’s questionnaire. Separates the language for electronic and manual bids. Updates the section regarding Home State Bidding Preferences with the latest legislative requirements. 7 ITEM 3 – Award and Execution of Contract . For projects with railroad requirements, the Contractor submits the right of entry agreement and associated insurance during contract execution.