DOCSLIB.ORG

Rural Expressway Intersection Synthesis of Practice and Crash Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rural Expressway Intersection Synthesis of Practice and Crash Analysis RURAL EXPRESSWAY INTERSECTION SYNTHESIS OF PRACTICE AND CRASH ANALYSIS Sponsored by the Iowa Department of Transportation (CTRE Project 03-157) Final Report October 2004 Disclaimer Notice The opinions, fi ndings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Iowa Department of Transportation. The sponsor(s) assume no liability for the contents or use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specifi cation, or regulation. The sponsor(s) do not endorse products or manufacturers. About CTRE/ISU The mission of the Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) at Iowa State Uni- versity is to develop and implement innovative methods, materials, and technologies for improv- ing transportation effi ciency, safety, and reliability while improving the learning environment of students, faculty, and staff in transportation-related fi elds. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. CTRE Project 03-157 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Rural Expressway Intersection Synthesis of Practice and Crash Analysis October 2004 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. T. H. Maze, Neal R. Hawkins, and Garrett Burchett 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research and Education Iowa State University 11. Contract or Grant No. 2901 South Loop Drive, Suite 3100 Ames, IA 50010-8634 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Iowa Department of Transportation Final Report 800 Lincoln Way 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Ames, IA 50010 15. Supplementary Notes This report is available in color at www.ctre.iastate.edu 16. Abstract This report presents a national synthesis of rural expressway, two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection safety strategies and intersection designs and an analysis of Iowa expressway TWSC intersection crash characteristics. A rural expressway is a multi-lane highway with a divided median and with mostly at -grade intersections, although some intersections may be grade separated. The synthesis of intersection strategies is conducted in two parts. The first is a literature review and the second part is a national survey of strategies currently being applied by state transportation agencies. The characterization of crash patterns at TWSC expressway intersections is examined through the analysis of 5 years of crash data at 644 intersections. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement crash characteristics—expressway—intersections— intersection design—traffic safety—safety performance functions No restrictions. 19. Security Classification (of this 20. Security Classification (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price report) page) Unclassified. Unclassified. 115 NA RURAL EXPRESSWAY INTERSECTION SYNTHESIS OF PRACTICE AND CRASH ANALYSIS Principal Investigator T. H. Maze Professor, Department Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering Iowa State University Co-Principal Investigator Neal R. Hawkins Associate Director of Traffic Operations Center for Transportation Research and Education Iowa State University Research Assistant Garrett Burchett Center for Transportation Research and Education Iowa State University Center for Transportation Research and Education Iowa State University 2901 Loop Drive, Suite 3100 Ames, IA 50010-8632 Phone: 515-294-8103 Fax: 515-294-0467 www.ctre.iastate.edu Final Report October 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................XIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................XV 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Report Organization.................................................................................................. 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 3 2.1 Methodology............................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Expressway Intersection Design Policy Studies ....................................................... 4 2.3 Safety impacts of intersection features ..................................................................... 7 2.4 Intersection safety modeling studies....................................................................... 10 Three-legged Intersection Model.............................................................................. 14 Four-legged Intersection Model ............................................................................... 14 2.5 Special Designs: Treatments and Innovative Technology...................................... 15 Intersection Median Width........................................................................................ 15 Median Opening Widths............................................................................................ 16 Median Left-turn Acceleration Lanes ....................................................................... 16 Offset Right- and Left-Turn Lanes............................................................................ 18 Indirect Left-turns..................................................................................................... 18 Offset T-Intersection ................................................................................................. 21 Unconventional Intersection Designs ....................................................................... 22 Semi-Roundabout Intersection.................................................................................. 24 2.6 Technology to Assist in Intersection Safety........................................................... 25 Prince William County, Virginia .............................................................................. 25 Norridgewock, Maine................................................................................................ 27 Intersection Decision Support System ...................................................................... 29 v Summary Remarks..................................................................................................... 30 3. EXPRESSWAY INTERSECTION SURVEY ............................................................. 31 3.1 Methodology........................................................................................................... 31 3.2 Survey Responses by State Transportation Agencies............................................. 33 Alabama Department of Transportation .................................................................. 33 Arizona Department of Transportation ................................................................... 34 California Department of Transportation ............................................................... 34 Colorado Department of Transportation ................................................................. 36 Florida Department of Transportation .................................................................... 36 Illinois Department of Transportation ..................................................................... 37 Indiana Department of Transportation .................................................................... 38 Iowa Department of Transportation......................................................................... 38 Kentucky Transportation Cabinet ............................................................................ 44 Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development ................................... 45 Maryland Department of Transportation ................................................................ 45 Michigan Department of Transportation ................................................................. 46 Minnesota Department of Transportation................................................................ 47 Mississippi Department of Transportation .............................................................. 48 Missouri Department of Transportation .................................................................. 49 Nebraska Department of Roads ............................................................................... 51 New York State Department of Transportation ....................................................... 52 North Carolina Department of Transportation ....................................................... 53 North Dakota Department of Transportation .......................................................... 55 Oklahoma Department of Transportation ............................................................... 56 Oregon Department of Transportation .................................................................... 56 vi Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ........................................................... 57 South Carolina Department of Transportation ........................................................ 57 South Dakota Department of Transportation .......................................................... 59 Texas Department of Transportation ....................................................................... 60 Virginia Department of Transportation ................................................................... 60 Washington
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SIMULATION of DIFFERENT INTERSECTION DESIGN for IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW with FACTORS CONSIDERING LOCATION, POPULATION and DRIVER EXPECTANCY Sourabh Kumar Singh Dr
    Science, Technology and Development ISSN : 0950-0707 SIMULATION OF DIFFERENT INTERSECTION DESIGN FOR IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW WITH FACTORS CONSIDERING LOCATION, POPULATION AND DRIVER EXPECTANCY Sourabh Kumar Singh Dr. Anil kunte Associate Professor, Research Scholar, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Department of Civil Department of Civil Engineering Engineering, Shri JJT Engineering, Shri JJT Noida International University University University Dr. Paritosh Srivastava Abstract: In today’s economic growth the vehicular traffic is increasing day by day, which leads to failure of intersections before their time period. To increase the efficiency of these failed intersections the engineers added lanes to the existing major and minor roads, but this method do not give results which it used to deliver in the past, hence other methods were adopted. So to increase the efficiency and fulfil the criteria for successful intersection ,to cape with it several intersection are designed which are unconventional in nature like jug handle, bow tie, continuous flow intersection and median u turn which are very effective in increasing green time on highway and minor roads. The software used in this study is Auto- cad for planning and drawing purpose which can be used in sim-traffic software which will be used for simulation purpose of the traffic flow on different designs of intersections. The factors which are considered in this study are -location of town centre, population of the zone and driver expectancy. The final conclusion of this study is that continuous flow intersection provides the best results when the traffic is increased. The construction cost is least in median u turn and giving maximum result than all other intersections.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Network Plan Middleton, WI
    Report Transportation Network Plan City of Middleton, WI December 2006 Report for City of Middleton, Wisconsin Transportation Network Plan Prepared by: Traffic Associates LLC and STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC.® 910 West Wingra Drive Madison, WI 53715 www.strand.com December 2006 Approved by Middleton City Council November 21, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. or Following SECTION 1–INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.01 Overview.................................................................................................... 1-1 1.02 Executive Summary................................................................................... 1-3 SECTION 2–EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 2.01 Existing Transportation System................................................................. 2-1 2.02 Traffic Data Collection................................................................................ 2-14 2.03 Existing Conditions Modeling..................................................................... 2-16 SECTION 3–FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.01 Future Traffic Forecasting.......................................................................... 3-1 3.02 Future Conditions Traffic Operations Modeling ......................................... 3-4 3.03 Prioritization of Future Motor Vehicle Needs ............................................. 3-6 SECTION 4–SOLUTION TYPES 4.01 Transportation Solutions............................................................................ 4-1 4.02 Traffic Management Perspective ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Safety
    5 Safety 5.1 Introduction 103 5.2 Conflicts 104 5.2.1 Vehicle conflicts 105 5.2.2 Pedestrian conflicts 108 5.2.3 Bicycle conflicts 110 5.3 Crash Statistics 111 5.3.1 Comparisons to previous intersection treatment 111 5.3.2 Collision types 113 5.3.3 Pedestrians 117 5.3.4 Bicyclists 120 5.4 Crash Prediction Models 122 5.5 References 125 Exhibit 5-1. Vehicle conflict points for “T” Intersections with single-lane approaches. 105 Exhibit 5-2. Vehicle conflict point comparison for intersections with single-lane approaches. 106 Exhibit 5-3. Improper lane-use conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 107 Exhibit 5-4. Improper turn conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 108 Exhibit 5-5. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at signalized intersections. 109 Exhibit 5-6. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at single-lane roundabouts. 109 Exhibit 5-7. Bicycle conflicts at conventional intersections (showing two left-turn options). 110 Exhibit 5-8. Bicycle conflicts at roundabouts. 111 Exhibit 5-9. Average annual crash frequencies at 11 U.S. intersections converted to roundabouts. 112 Exhibit 5-10. Mean crash reductions in various countries. 112 Exhibit 5-11. Reported proportions of major crash types at roundabouts. 113 Exhibit 5-12. Comparison of collision types at roundabouts. 114 Exhibit 5-13. Graphical depiction of collision types at roundabouts. 115 Exhibit 5-14. Crash percentage per type of user for urban roundabouts in 15 towns in western France. 116 Exhibit 5-15. British crash rates for pedestrians at roundabouts and signalized intersections. 117 Exhibit 5-16. Percentage reduction in the number of crashes by mode at 181 converted Dutch roundabouts.
    [Show full text]
  • What Are the Advantages of Roundabouts?
    What is a roundabout? A roundabout is an intersection where traffic travels around a Circulatory central island in a counter- Truck Apron Roadway clockwise direction. Vehicles entering or exiting the roundabout must yield to vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Figure 1 presents the elements of a roundabout. Yield Line Splitter Island Figure 1: Elements of a Roundabout What are the advantages of roundabouts? • Less Traffic Conflict: Figure 2 compares the conflict points between a conventional intersection and a modern roundabout. The lower number of conflict points translates to less potential for accidents. • Greater safety(1): Primarily achieved by slower speeds and elimination of left turns. Design elements of the roundabouts cause drivers to reduce their speeds. • Efficient traffic flow: Up to 50% increase in traffic capacity • Reduced Pollution and fuel usage: Less stops, shorter queues and no left turn storage. • Money saved: No signal equipment to install or maintain, plus savings in electricity use. • Community benefits: Traffic calming and enhanced aesthetics by landscaping. (1) Statistics published by the U.S. Dept. of transportation, Federal Highway Administration shows roundabouts to have the following advantages over conventional intersections: • 90% reduction in fatalities • 76% reduction in injuries • 35% reduction in pedestrian accidents. Signalized Intersection Roundabout Figure 2: Conflict Point Comparison How to Use a Roundabout Driving a car • Slow down as you approach the intersection. • Yield to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the roadway. • Watch for signs and pavement markings. • Enter the roundabout if gap in traffic is sufficient. • Drive in a counter-clockwise direction around the roundabout until you reach your exit. Do not stop or pass other vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Movingforward
    FORWARD movingfAll 2010 A quarterly review of news and information about Pennsylvania local roads. When to Use Stop Signs in Alleys A Guide to Understanding the State’s Requirements Related to Traffic-Control Devices at Alley Intersections by Patrick Wright, Pennoni Associates When deciding whether to use stop signs and other An alley is considered a “highway” in the Vehicle traffic-control devices in alleys, municipalities Code because it is a “roadway open to the use of the should be familiar with two major issues. The first public.” Following this logic, the junction of an alley is whether traffic control is even required, and the with another highway (including another alley) is con- second is how to properly place the signs especially sidered an “intersection” under the Vehicle Code, and within the space constraints found in most alleys. thus crosswalks (whether marked or unmarked) exist. Understanding Alleys What Traffic-Control and Intersections Devices Are Required? Alleys are defined separately in both the Now that the definitions of alleys and intersec- Pennsylvania Vehicle Code (Title 75) and the tions have been clarified, the next step is to deter- Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices mine what traffic-control devices are required for (MUTCD). According to the Vehicle Code (Title alleys. As at any intersection, the Vehicle Code does 75, Section 102) as well as the MUTCD, an alley not necessarily require stop signs or other traffic-con- is “a street or highway intended to provide access to trol devices. Instead, the code has specific “rules of the rear or side of lots or buildings in urban districts the road” that govern driving behavior and the right- and not intended for the purpose of through of-way at intersections depending on the situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Intersections Comparative Analysis
    Alternative Intersections Comparative Analysis Morgan State University The Pennsylvania State University University of Maryland University of Virginia Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University West Virginia University The Pennsylvania State University The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute Transportation Research Building University Park, PA 16802-4710 Phone: 814-865-1891 Fax: 814-863-3707 www.mautc.psu.edu OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS By: John Sangster and Hesham Rakha Mid-Atlantic University Transportation Center Final Report Department of Civil and Environment Engineering Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University July 23, 2015 1 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. VT-2012-03 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Operational Analysis of Alternative Intersections July 21, 2015 6. Performing Organization Code Virginia Tech 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. John Sangster and Hesham Rakha 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 3500 Transportation Research Plaza 11. Contract or Grant No. Blacksburg, VA 24061 DTRT12-G-UTC03 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report US Department of Transportation Final Report Research & Innovative Technology Admin UTC Program, RDT-30 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Alternative intersections and interchanges, such as the diverging diamond interchange (DDI), the restricted crossing u-turn (RCUT), and the displaced left-turn intersection (DLT), have the potential to both improve safety and reduce delay. However, partially due to lingering questions about analysis methods and service measures for these designs, their rate of implementation remains low.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometric Design Strategic Research TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2006 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C110 January 2007 Geometric Design Strategic Research TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2006 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Vice Chair: Linda S. Watson, Executive Director, LYNX–Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2006 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, State Highway Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Christopher P. L. Barkan, Associate Professor and Director, Railroad Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Rail Group Chair Shelly R. Brown, Principal, Shelly Brown Associates, Seattle, Washington, Legal Resources Group Chair Christina S. Casgar, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of Intermodalism, Washington, D.C., Freight Systems Group Chair James M. Crites, Executive Vice President, Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, Aviation Group Chair Arlene L. Dietz, C&A Dietz, LLC, Salem, Oregon, Marine Group Chair Robert C. Johns, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Policy and Organization Group Chair Patricia V. McLaughlin, Principal, Moore Iacofano Golstman, Inc., Pasadena, California, Public Transportation Group Chair Marcy S. Schwartz, Senior Vice President, CH2M HILL, Portland, Oregon, Planning and Environment Group Chair Leland D. Smithson, AASHTO SICOP Coordinator, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, Operations and Maintenance Group Chair L. David Suits, Executive Director, North American Geosynthetics Society, Albany, New York, Design and Construction Group Chair Barry M.
    [Show full text]
  • Arlington County Pavement Marking Specifications
    DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ARLINGTON COUNTY PAVEMENT MARKING SPECIFICATIONS MAY 2017 T-1.1 PAVEMENT MARKINGS Table of Contents 1. General ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Marking Plan Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 4 Exhibits ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 MK – 1 Typical Crosswalk ......................................................................................................................... 5 MK – 1a Typical Crosswalk Details .............................................................................................................. 6 MK – 2 Typical Cross Section ..................................................................................................................... 7 MK – 3 Typical Speed Hump Markings ...................................................................................................... 8 MK – 4 Typical Speed Table ...................................................................................................................... 9 MK – 4a Typical Speed Hump Details .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TAC 2003 Jughandle Final
    UNCONVENTIONAL ARTERIAL DESIGN Jughandle Intersection Concept for McKnight Boulevard in Calgary G. FurtadoA, G. TenchaA and, H. DevosB A McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Surrey, BC B McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Edmonton, AB ABSTRACT: A functional planning study was initiated along McKnight Boulevard by the City of Calgary in response to the growing traffic and peak hour congestion routinely experienced along the corridor. The objective of the study was to identify and define, the most suitable improvements for medium term (2015 horizon) and long-term (2038 horizon) traffic demands, while conforming to a large number of independent constraints. Numerous alternatives were identified, and in due course rejected, due to their inability to adequately address the project requirements or satisfactorily meet stakeholder needs. Ultimately, a conventional intersection design involving widening along the south side of the corridor and the jughandle intersection concept were short listed for further evaluation and comparison. These design alternatives were subjected to a relatively rigorous appraisal that included performance, signing, laning and signalization requirements, property impacts, access and transit requirements, safety considerations, human factors and environmental impacts to name a few. It was found that operationally, the jughandle intersection design has compelling application potential in high volume corridors where local access is required and full grade separation is impractical or too costly. However, the jughandle property acquisition requirements and resulting costs along highly urbanized corridors, combined with their limited implementation experience in North America, can preclude their use in less than optimum circumstances. 1. INTRODUCTION Arterial roadways are typically designed and built with the intention of providing superior traffic service over collector and local roads (1).
    [Show full text]
  • A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Public Consultation APRIL 2018
    A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down public consultation APRIL 2018 Response to consultation questions Note: This response should be read in conjunction with the letter attached to this consultation response. This document details our response to the questions raised in the consultation documents provided by Highways England on the proposed scheme as currently designed. We note that while we have now been presented with more information about the design, a substantial amount of detailed design work still needs to be undertaken. We also await the publication of the full Environmental Impact Assessment and associated Heritage Impact Assessment to enable us to properly assess the potential impacts of the proposed scheme and the effectiveness of the measures proposed to mitigate those impacts. All of the comments we provide in this document (and the associated letter) are therefore given in the expectation of the delivery of a considered, high quality solution to the final design and construction of this proposed scheme, appropriate to the protection of this internationally important site. The potential impacts and benefits of the proposed scheme must be tested in accordance with UNESCO/ICOMOS guidance to assess whether it will protect, conserve and enhance the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the World Heritage Site (WHS). To that end, notwithstanding the need for Highways England as the scheme promoters to complete such an assessment as part of their full Heritage Impact Assessment, we, together with Historic England, have carried out our own assessments using this guidance to inform our position. Based on the findings of our latest assessment, we consider that while Highways England have made many improvements to the road design in an attempt to protect the WHS, further mitigation measures are required in order to ensure that the road, particularly in the western part of the WHS, does not cause unacceptable harm to its OUV.
    [Show full text]
  • Access Control
    Access Control Appendix D US 54 /400 Study Area Proposed Access Management Code City of Andover, KS D1 Table of Contents Section 1: Purpose D3 Section 2: Applicability D4 Section 3: Conformance with Plans, Regulations, and Statutes D5 Section 4: Conflicts and Revisions D5 Section 5: Functional Classification for Access Management D5 Section 6: Access Control Recommendations D8 Section 7: Medians D12 Section 8: Street and Connection Spacing Requirements D13 Section 9: Auxiliary Lanes D14 Section 10: Land Development Access Guidelines D16 Section 11: Circulation and Unified Access D17 Section 12: Driveway Connection Geometry D18 Section 13: Outparcels and Shopping Center Access D22 Section 14: Redevelopment Application D23 Section 15: Traffic Impact Study Requirements D23 Section 16: Review / Exceptions Process D29 Section 17: Glossary D31 D2 Section 1: Purpose The Transportation Research Board Access Management Manual 2003 defines access management as “the systematic control of the location, spacing, design, and operations of driveways, median opening, interchanges, and street connections to a roadway.” Along the US 54/US-400 Corridor, access management techniques are recommended to plan for appropriate access located along future roadways and undeveloped areas. When properly executed, good access management techniques help preserve transportation systems by reducing the number of access points in developed or undeveloped areas while still providing “reasonable access”. Common access related issues which could degrade the street system are: • Driveways or side streets in close proximity to major intersections • Driveways or side streets spaced too close together • Lack of left-turn lanes to store turning vehicles • Deceleration of turning traffic in through lanes • Traffic signals too close together Why Access Management Is Important Access management balances traffic safety and efficiency with reasonable property access.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Manual M 22-01.15 July 2018
    Publications Transmittal Transmittal Number Date PT 18-056 July 2018 Publication Distribution To: Design Manual Holders Publication Title Publication Number Design Manual – July 2018 M 22-01.15 Originating Organization WSDOT Development Division, Design Office – Design Policy, Standards, and Safety Research Section Remarks and Instructions What’s changed in the Design Manual for July 2018? See the summary of revisions beginning on Page 3. How do you stay connected to current design policy? It’s the designer’s responsibility to apply current design policy when developing transportation projects at WSDOT. The best way to know what’s current is to reference the manual online. Access the current electronic WSDOT Design Manual, the latest revision package, and individual chapters at: www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/m22-01.htm We’re ready to help. If you have comments or questions about the Design Manual, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Area of Practice Your Contacts Geometric Design, Roadside Safety Jeff Petterson 360-705-7246 [email protected] and Traffic Barriers Chris Schroedel 360-705-7299 [email protected] General Guidance and Support John Donahue 360-705-7952 [email protected] To get the latest information on individual WSDOT publications: Sign up for email updates at: www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/ HQ Design Office Signature Phone Number /s/ Jeff Carpenter 360-705-7821 Page 1 of 6 Remove/Insert instructions for those who maintain a printed manual NOTE: Also replace the Title Page CHAPTER/SECTION REMOVE
    [Show full text]