DOCSLIB.ORG

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What Is the MUTCD?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What Is the MUTCD? National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bus/BRT Applications Introduction • I am Steve Andrle from TRB standing in for Randy McCourt, DKS Associates and 2019 ITE International Vice President • I co-manage with Claire Randall15 TRB public transit standing committees. • I want to bring you up to date on planned bus- oriented improvements to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What is the MUTCD? • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – Standards for roadway signs, signals, and markings • Authorized in 23 CFR, Part 655: It is an FHWA document. • National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) develops content • Sponsored by 19 organizations including ITE, AASHTO, APTA and ATSSA (American Traffic Safety Services Association) Background • Bus rapid transit, busways, and other bus applications have expanded greatly since the last edition of the MUTCD in 2009 • The bus-related sections need to be updated • Much of the available research speaks to proposed systems, not actual experience • The NCUTCD felt it was a good time to survey actual systems to see what has worked, what didn’t work, and to identify gaps. National Survey • The NCUTCD established a task force with APTA and FTA • Working together they issued a survey in April of 2018. I am sure some of you received it. • The results will be released to the NCUTCD on June 20 – effectively now • I cannot give you any details until the NCUTCD releases the findings Survey Questions • Have you participated in design and/or operations of bus applications on surface streets? • Are you familiar with the MUTCD? • Have you utilized bus traffic control devices from the MUTCD on your bus project (devices listed)? Survey Questions • Have you observed issues associated with the public’s proper comprehension of bus- related traffic control devices? • Have you experienced issues with left turning traffic, confusion, intrusion into exclusive bus operations? • How would you characterize the crash history you have experienced with surface street bus operations? Survey Questions • Are there possible changes to the traffic control devices on your project that could have the potential to reduce/lower the crash history and improve bus operation? Outreach - Systems Surveyed West • Denver: Flatiron Flyer • Eugene: EmA • Los Angeles MTA: Orange, Harbor, El Monte and Rapid • Oakland AC: Transit Rapid Bus • Orange County: OCTA Bravo • San Bernardino: sbX • Santa Clara: VTA Rapid 522 • Seattle: KC Metro Rapid Ride • Vancouver, WA: the Vine Systems Surveyed - South/Southwest • Atlanta: MARTA Q • Austin: Metro Rapid • El Paso: Brio • Miami: South Miami-Dade Busway • Orlando: Lynx Systems Surveyed – East • Boston: MBTA Silver Line • Harford: CTfasttrak • New York: City Bus • Pittsburgh Busway • Providence: Tunnel • Richmond GRTC Pulse • Upper Darby, PA: Ardmore Busway Systems Surveyed - Midwest • Chicago: Loop Link • Cleveland: Healthline • Grand Rapids: Silver Line • Kansas City: Max • Minneapolis: Metro Red Line Initial Findings • The use of signs that permit a bus movement but exclude a general vehicle movement (bus only) are the most used devices followed by bus signals • A large number of responses observed issues related to effectiveness of bus traffic controls devices in shared/exclusive lanes. Initial Findings • Most of the comments about median/bus lane intrusion were related to failure to obey issues • Crashes were not identified as a "problem", however the one area where they were more common were surface street applications with narrow lanes and right hook issues. Closing • I wanted to take the opportunity afforded by this conference to make you aware of this activity relating to BRT and Busway signage, signals, and pavement markings • I also want to mention some TRB Resources Upcoming TRB Conferences • July 14-17: Asset Management -- San Diego (Has a public transportation track) • September 30- October 3: Rural and Intercity Bus -- Breckenridge • April 7-9, 2019: LRT joint with APTA - Jersey City • April 14-17, 2019: Demand Responsive and Innovative Transportation Services - Baltimore Transit-Related Policy Studies • Just completed -- Evidentiary protection of Transit Safety Information • SR 319 -- Between Public and Private Mobility: Examining the Rise of Technology-Enabled Transportation Services Handy Feature - Snap Searches • Available on TRB Library Tab (Under Resources and Data Bases) • 30 topics and growing • Everything TRB has done on a topic in the last 3- 5 years. Extremely handy! • Don’t see what you want. We’ll build one for you. • http://www.trb.org/InformationServices/TRBLib rary1.aspx Thank You TRB.org Extra Public Transportation Standing Committees • AP000 Transformative Trends in Transit Data • AP010 Management and Performance • AP015 Capacity and Quality of Service • AP018T Task Force on Safety and Security • AP020 Emerging and Innovative Technologies • AP025 Planning and Development • AP030 Marketing and Fare Policy • AP040 Automated Transit Systems • APO45 Passenger Intermodal Transfer Facilities Standing Committees Continued • AP050 Bus Transit Systems • AP055 Rural Public and Intercity Bus • AP060 Paratransit • AP065 Rail Transit Systems • AP070 Commuter Rail • AP075 Light Rail and Streetcar • AP085 Ferry Transportation • ABE50 Transportation Demand Management • ABE60 Accessible Transportation and Mobility •.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States
    BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States By: Andrew Degerstrom September 2018 Contents Introduction .............................................................................................1 Purpose of this Report .............................................................................1 Economic Development and Transit-Oriented Development ...................2 Definition of Bus Rapid Transit .................................................................2 Literature Review ..................................................................................3 BRT Economic Development Outcomes ...................................................3 Factors that Affect the Success of BRTOD Implementation .....................5 Case Studies ...........................................................................................7 Cleveland HealthLine ................................................................................7 Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway East Liberty Station ..... 11 Pittsburgh Uptown-Oakland BRT and the EcoInnovation District .......... 16 BRTOD at home, the rapid bus A Line and the METRO Gold Line .........20 Conclusion .............................................................................................23 References .............................................................................................24 Artist rendering of Pittsburgh's East Liberty neighborhood and the Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway Introduction Purpose of this Report If Light Rail Transit (LRT)
    [Show full text]
  • [Title Over Two Lines (Shift+Enter to Break Line)]
    BUS TRANSFORMATION PROJECT White Paper #2: Strategic Considerations October 2018 DRAFT: For discussion purposes 1 1 I• Purpose of White Paper II• Vision & goals for bus as voiced by stakeholders III• Key definitions IV• Strategic considerations Table of V• Deep-dive chapters to support each strategic consideration Contents 1. What is the role of Buses in the region? 2. Level of regional commitment to speeding up Buses? 3. Regional governance / delivery model for bus? 4. What business should Metrobus be in? 5. What services should Metrobus operate? 6. How should Metrobus operate? VI• Appendix: Elasticity of demand for bus 2 DRAFT: For discussion purposes I. Purpose of White Paper 3 DRAFT: For discussion purposes Purpose of White Paper 1. Present a set of strategic 2. Provide supporting analyses 3. Enable the Executive considerations for regional relevant to each consideration Steering Committee (ESC) to bus transformation in a neutral manner set a strategic direction for bus in the region 4 DRAFT: For discussion purposes This paper is a thought piece; it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion and a means to frame the ensuing debate 1. Present a The strategic considerations in this paper are not an set of strategic exhaustive list of all decisions to be made during this considerations process; they are a set of high-level choices for the Bus Transformation Project to consider at this phase of for regional strategy development bus transformation Decisions on each of these considerations will require trade-offs to be continually assessed throughout this effort 5 DRAFT: For discussion purposes Each strategic consideration in the paper is 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Calabrese - General Manager RTA Ridership by Mode ! 500 Buses - 75 % ! 60 Heavy Rail Vehicles - 10% ! 24 RTV’s (BRT) - 8% ! 48 Light Rail Vehicles - 6% ! Paratransit - 100 vehicles - 1% RTA Fleet GCRTA HealthLine Euclid Avenue Transformation Euclid Avenue History Euclid Avenue History Alternatives Analysis - late 1990’s ! Subway ! Light Rail ! Do Nothing (keep the #6 bus) ! Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Mode Selection Criteria ! Capacity (30,000 + daily customers) ! Connectivity ! Funding possibilities (FTA) ! Cost - capital and operating ! Economic development potential " Renew Aging Infrastructure Vision for the “Silver Line” BRT ! “Rail Like” Image ! Fast ! Simple ! Safe ! First Class ! Help Revitalize Corridor Euclid Corridor Project ! 9.38 miles long ! 36 stations (from 100 bus stops) ! Travel time from 40 to 28 minutes ! Building face to building face ! Pedestrian and bicycle friendly ! Landscape/hardscape treatment ! Pubic Art - Integrated/stand-alone Exclusive Right of Way Funding Pie Charts FTA 80% ODOT 20% 2000 ODOT FTA 25% 50% City MPO RTA 2004 Ground Breaking October 2004 “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction (3.5 years) “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction “Rail Like” Image ! Reduced Travel Time " Multi-Door Boarding " Exclusive Right-of-Way " Traffic Signal Prioritization " Higher Travel Speeds " Level Boarding " Precision Docking " Rear Facing Wheel Chair Restraints " Off-Board Fare Collection “Rail Like” Image ! Hi-Frequency
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs
    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs Jingquan Li, Jacob Tsao, Ching-yao Chan, Kun Zhou, and Wei-Bin Zhang UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-02 California PATH University of California Berkeley March 11, 2015 Page 1 of 54 ADA Notice Individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternative formats. For information call (916) 654-6410, or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Records and forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS- 89, Sacramento, CA 95814 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE TR0003 (REV. 10/98) 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER CA 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE December 2014 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput- 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Jingquan Li, Jacob Tsao, Ching-yao Chan, Kun Zhou, UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-02 and Wei-Bin Zhang 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER California PATH Program, University of California at Berkeley 1357 46th St., Richmond, CA 94804 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Irvine 4000 Anteater Instruction and Research Bldg., Irvine, CA 92697 12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED California Department of Transportation Division of Research and Innovation 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE P.O. Box 942873, MS 83 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES 16. ABSTRACT This report documents a research effort to understand the current practice and issues associated with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) planning and deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Ctfastrak Existing Condition
    Hartford Line TOD Action Plan Desire & Readiness Workshop: Town of Windsor Locks October 20, 2016 State Project No. 170-3396 1 Task 8 Agenda 1. Project Background and Overview 2. TOD Principles and Precedents 3. CTrail Hartford Line Station Area Assessment • TOD Desire & Readiness Criteria • Initial Observations from the Project Team 4. Interactive Workshop • Preliminary Areas of Focus • Instructions 2 Project Background Establishing a Point of Departure in Windsor Locks • Hartford Line TOD Action Plan • Town of Windsor Locks POCD Update • Main Street Property Acquisition and • Windsor Locks TOD Study Pre-Development (OPM) • Making it Happen • CRCOG Regional Complete Streets Policy and Action Plan (OPM) • Historic Train Station Reuse Study Windsor Locks Downtown • Capitol Region Master Plan Transportation Plan 2007 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ongoing/Forthcoming • Incentive Housing Downtown TIF Zone Study District Master Plan • Capital Region POCD Town of Windsor Locks EA/EIE for NHHS Rail Program POCD 3 Project Background Initial Thoughts from the Project Team: Key Issues to Advance TOD in Windsor Locks Reinvigorate downtown/Main Street Activate and maximize development as a destination potential of catalytic sites in the station area . Address lasting impacts of urban . Target sites and recommended sequencing renewal, and change the mindset of Main have been identified, but there are Street as a pass through outstanding questions: . Find a balance between maintaining • What can be done to make sites more traffic flow and creating a pedestrian- attractive to potential developers? and bicycle-friendly downtown • Are there opportunities to assemble a critical mass of sites to enable a larger . Consider developing a downtown development proposition? parking strategy 4 Source: Windsor Locks TOD Study Project Background Funding through FTA Pilot Program for TOD Planning .
    [Show full text]
  • Sunrail.Com Not to Scale
    WELCOME ABOARD! BROCHURE LYMMO is your ride to great places M around Downtown Orlando. Whether you’re heading to work, a meal, or one of the many attractions Downtown, LYMMO’s frequent service and bus-only lanes will get you there faster. LYNX is the public transit provider for LYMMO Orange, Lime and And when you’re riding LYMMO, you Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties. never have to worry about parking. Additional connectivity with Grapefruit Lines If you don’t see your destination here, Lake and Polk counties. CONTACT US and we can connect you DIRECT SERVICE TO: to the right LYMMO. CONTACT US for information on fares, bus stops, schedules and trip planning: Amway Center Heritage Square Ready to roll? Look inside for more info... Bob Carr Theater Lake Eola Park 407-841-5969 phone County Courthouse LYNX Central Station 407-423-0787 tdd County Health Dept Orlando City Stadium Dr Phillips Center Parramore Notice of Title VI Rights: LYNX operates its programs and services without regard to race, color, golynx.com web religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, or family status in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any person who believes Effective: he or she has been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice APRIL 2017 related to Title VI may file a complaint in writing to LYNX Title VI Officer Desna Hunte, 455 N. Garland Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801 or by calling THANK YOU FOR RIDING LYNX! 407-254-6117, email [email protected] or www.golynx.com. Information in other languages or accessible formats available upon request.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Calabrese – General Manager Greater Cleveland RTA Overview . Service Area 59 municipalities 500 square miles Population of 1.5 million . Customers Served 200,000 on a typical weekday 1 RTA Overview . Services Modes 500 Buses 100 Paratransit Vans 20 Job Access Vans 60 Heavy Rail Vehicles 48 Light Rail Vehicles 24 RTV’s - (HealthLine BRT) 2 RTA Fleet 3 GCRTA HealthLine Euclid Avenue Transformation Euclid Avenue History 4 Euclid Avenue History Euclid Avenue History . Streetcars disappeared in 1954 . # 6 Bus Route put in service Great Service with Low Image . Alternative Analysis Subway or Light Rail Do Nothing (keep the #6 bus) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 5 Mode Selection Criteria . Capacity (30,000 + daily customers) . Connectivity . Funding possibilities (FTA) . Cost Capital Operating . Economic development potential Vision for the “Silver Line” . “Rail-Like” Image . Fast . Simple . Safe . First Class . Promote Economic Development 6 Euclid Corridor Project – 9.38 Miles . 36 stations . Travel time from 28 to 40 minutes . Building face to building face . Pedestrian friendly with bike lanes . Landscape/hardscape treatment 1,500 trees with irrigation . Integrated/stand-alone public art 7 Ground Breaking October 2004 8 Funding Pie Charts - $200 Million FTA 80% ODOT 20% 2000 ODOT FTA 25% 50% City MPO RTA 2004 Exclusive Right of Way 9 10 11 “Rail-Like” Characteristics . Quicker Travel Times Exclusive Right-of-Way Higher Travel Speed Limit Traffic Signal Prioritization Precision Docking Level Boarding “Stations” Off Board Fare Collection 12 “Rail-Like” Service and Image . Hi-Frequency Service 24x7 Peak every 5 minutes Off-Peak every 8 to 15 minutes .
    [Show full text]
  • Grtc Pulse Brt Tour Tour Summary
    GRTC PULSE BRT TOUR TOUR SUMMARY WHAT IS THE PULSE BRT SYSTEM? • 7.6-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) route in Richmond, Virginia, with 14 stations connecting residential areas, healthcare providers and downtown businesses that opened for service in 2018. • BRT runs in mixed traffic, dedicated center running and business access and transit (BAT) lanes. • Buses arrive every 10 to 15 minutes, with an average of over 7,000 riders every weekday. • Pulse BRT received the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Quality of Life Award. WHAT WAS THE GOAL OF THE TOUR? • Experience a dedicated guideway BRT route similar to the planned Rush Line BRT Project. • Meet staff and officials from local agencies involved in the Pulse BRT project, as well as community members and business representatives along the corridor. • Gather lessons learned about BRT project development, which can be applied to Rush Line decision-making. WHO ATTENDED THE TOUR? • Representatives from the Rush Line BRT Project Policy, Technical and Community Advisory Committees, along with partner agencies and Rush Line BRT Project staff. 1 GRTC PULSE BRT TOUR SUMMARY WHO DID WE MEET WITH ON THE TOUR? • Over the course of two days (October 3 and 4, 2019), we met with representatives from the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC), Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Virginia Department of Transportation, City of Richmond, Henrico County, Virginia Commonweath University, local businesses and community organizations. WHAT WERE SOME OF THE KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE TOUR? Attendees learned pertinent and valuable information by riding the Pulse BRT, listening to project staff presentations and participating in panel discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Powerpoint Template
    The Challenges of Planning and Executing Major Underground Transit Programs in Los Angeles Bryan Pennington, Senior Executive Officer, Program Management • Nation’s third largest transportation system • FY2018 Budget of $6.1 billion • Over 9,000 employees • Nation’s largest clean-air fleet (over 2,200 CNG buses) • 450 miles of Metro Rapid Bus System • 131.7 miles of Metro Rail (113 stations) • Average Weekday Boardings (Bus & Rail) – 1.2 million • 513 miles of freeway HOV lanes 2 • New rail and bus rapid transit projects • New highway projects • Enhanced bus and rail service • Local street, signal, bike/pedestrian improvements • Affordable fares for seniors, students and persons with disabilities • Maintenance/replacement of aging system • Bike and pedestrian connections to transit facilities 3 4 5 6 7 • New rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) capital projects • Rail yards, rail cars, and start-up buses for new BRT lines • Includes 2% for system-wide connectivity projects such as airports, countywide BRT, regional rail and Union Station 8 Directions Walk to Blue Line and travel to Union Station Southwest Chief to Los Angeles Union Station 9 • Rail transit projects • Crenshaw LAX Transit Project • Regional Connector Transit Project • Westside Purple Line Extension Project • Critical success factors • Financial considerations/risk management • Contract strategy • Lessons learned • Future underground construction • Concluding remarks • Questions and answers 10 11 •Los Angeles Basin •Faults •Hydrocarbons •Groundwater •Seismicity •Methane and Hydrogen Sulfide 12 •Crenshaw LAX Transit Project •Regional Connector Transit Project •Westside Purple Line Extension Project • Section 1 • Section 2 • Section 3 13 • 13.7 km Light Rail • 8 Stations • Aerial Grade Separations, Below Grade, At-Grade Construction • Maintenance Facility Yard • $1.3 Billion Construction Contract Awarded to Walsh / Shea J.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit
    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Performance Characteristics Stations Mixed Traffic Lanes* Service Characteristics Newest Corridor End‐to‐End Travel Departures Every 'X' Travel Speed (MPH) City Corridor Segment Open length (mi) # Spacing (mi) Miles % Time Minutes BRT Systems Boston Silver Line Washington Street ‐ SL5 2002 2.40 13 0.18 1.03 42.93% 19 7 7.58 Oakland San Pablo Rapid ‐ 72R 2003 14.79 52 0.28 14.79 100.00% 60 12 14.79 Albuquerque The Red Line (766) 2004 11.00 17 0.65 10.32 93.79% 44 18 15.00 Kansas City Main Street ‐ MAX "Orange Line" 2005 8.95 22 0.41 4.29 47.92% 40 10 13.42 Eugene Green Line 2007 3.98 10 0.40 1.59 40.00% 29 10 8.23 New York Bx12 SBS (Fordham Road ‐ Pelham Pkwy) 2008 9.00 18 0.50 5.20 57.73% 52 3 10.38 Cleveland HealthLine 2008 6.80 39 0.17 2.33 34.19% 38 8 10.74 Snohomish County Swift BRT ‐ Blue Line 2009 16.72 31 0.54 6.77 40.52% 43 12 23.33 Eugene Gateway Line 2011 7.76 14 0.55 2.59 33.33% 29 10 16.05 Kansas City Troost Avenue ‐ "Green Line" 2011 12.93 22 0.59 12.93 100.00% 50 10 15.51 New York M34 SBS (34th Street) 2011 2.00 13 0.15 2.00 100.00% 23 9 5.22 Stockton Route #44 ‐ Airport Corridor 2011 5.50 8 0.69 5.50 100.00% 23 20 14.35 Stockton Route #43 ‐ Hammer Corridor 2012 5.30 14 0.38 5.30 100.00% 28 12 11.35 Alexandria ‐ Arlington Metroway 2014 6.80 15 0.45 6.12 89.95% 24 12 17.00 Fort Collins Mason Corridor 2014 4.97 12 0.41 1.99 40.00% 24 10 12.43 San Bernardino sbX ‐ "Green Line" 2014 15.70 16 0.98 9.86 62.79% 56 10 16.82 Minneapolis A Line 2016 9.90 20 0.50 9.90 100.00% 28 10 21.21 Minneapolis Red Line 2013 13.00 5 2.60 2.00 15.38% 55 15 14.18 Chapel Hill N‐S Corridor Proposed 8.20 16 0.51 1.34 16.34% 30 7.5 16.40 LRT Systems St.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Strategies for Congestion Management
    EFFECTIVE PRACTICES FOR CONGESTION MANAGEMENT: FINAL REPORT Requested by: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Prepared by: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Cambridge, MA Resource Systems Group, Inc. Burlington, VT November 2008 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 20-24(63), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board. Acknowledgements This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-24. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Project 20-24 is intended to fund studies of interest to the leadership of AASHTO and its member DOTs. Christopher Porter of Cambridge Systematics was the lead author of the report, working with John Suhrbier of Cambridge Systematics and Peter Plumeau and Erica Campbell of Resource Systems Group. The work was guided by a task group chaired by Constance Sorrell which included Daniela Bremmer, Mara Campbell, Ken De Crescenzo, Eric Kalivoda, Ronald Kirby, Sheila Moore, Michael Morris, Janet Oakley, Gerald Ross, Steve Simmons, Dick Smith, Kevin Thibault, Mary Lynn Tischer, and Robert Zerrillo. The project was managed by Andrew C. Lemer, Ph. D., NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Trans- portation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This docu- ment is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E: Cultural Resources Technical Report
    SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Appendices Appendix E: Cultural Resources Technical Report June 2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Appendices This page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 2019 PREPARED FOR PlaceWorks PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants E-1 E-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for PlaceWorks 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 Attn: Colin Drukker Prepared by Alex Wesson, B.A., Chris Millington, M.A., RPA and Nicole Kromarek, B.A. SWCA Environmental Consultants 51 W. Dayton Street Pasadena, California 91105 (626) 240-0587 www.swca.com Contact: Chris Millington, Project Manager SWCA Project No. 31474 SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 18-270 February 2019 E-3 This page intentionally left blank. E-4 Cultural Resource Technical Report for the San Bernardino Countywide Plan, San Bernardino County, California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Scope: In support of the forthcoming San Bernardino Countywide Plan, PlaceWorks retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to summarize the existing conditions of cultural resources within the study area, evaluate potential impacts that could occur to these resources because of the Countywide Plan, and to provide mitigation measures for potential impacts. The study area is composed of all unincorporated lands that are subject to the County of San Bernardino’s land use jurisdiction; also referred to as the “County Control Area,” the study area is approximately 1,623,988 acres (2,537 square miles) in area, or 12.627 percent of the approximately 12,861,026-acre (20,105- square mile) county.
    [Show full text]