DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of Single Point Urban Interchange and Diverging

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of Single Point Urban Interchange and Diverging COMPARISON OF SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AND DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE THROUGH SIMULATION Thesis Submitted to The School of Engineering of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering By Rawan Ramadhan Dayton, Ohio May 2019 COMPARISON OF SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AND DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE THROUGH SIMULATION Name: Ramadhan, Rawan APPROVED BY: _____________________________ ____________________________ Deogratias Eustace, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE Philip Appiah-Kubi, Ph.D. Advisory Committee Chairperson, Committee Member, Associate Professor, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Department of Engineering Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Management, Systems, and Technology _____________________________ Paul Goodhue, P.E., PTOE Committee Member, Traffic Key Services Leader, LJB, Inc. _____________________________ _____________________________ Robert J. Wilkens, Ph.D., P.E. Eddy M. Rojas, Ph.D., M.A., P.E. Associate Dean for Research & Innovation Dean, School of Engineering Professor School of Engineering ii © Copyright by Rawan Ramadhan All rights reserved 2019 iii ABSTRACT COMPARISON OF SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AND DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE THROUGH SIMULATION Name: Ramadhan, Rawan University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. Deogratias, Eustace In 1960, there were 74,431,800 vehicles registered in the United States. Looking at the most recent data currently available shows that in 2016 there were 268,799,083 registered vehicles in the United States. Roadway facilities constructed in the 1960s were not designed to handle vehicular traffic of these proportions. The ever increasing volumes of motor vehicle traffic at heavily traveled interchanges and intersections heighten the risk of single or multiple vehicle crashes particularly when they are not designed to manage high volumes. Traffic engineers from state and federal departments of transportation have responded to calls for safer roads and interchanges in some areas that have been identified as dangerous because of an increase in fatal and non-fatal motor vehicle crashes. In the road network the highway system and the local street system are related. According to the Federal Highway Administration, “the term interchange means the junction of two or more streets requiring partial or complete grade separation.” Interchanges located in urban areas are utilized to facilitate traffic flow between arterial roadways and freeways on- and off- ramps. Congestion and safety are the two main objectives traffic engineers consider while remodeling an interchange design. Several types of renovated interchanges are normally considered to meet the growing population mobility needs. The Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) is one of the solutions has been considered since 1974 but it was iv flourished and implemented in the 1990s. The other innovative interchange solution appeared first in France in the mid-1970s known as Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI). Likewise, the DDIs did not gain popularity back then until in the 2000s. The first DDI in the United States was constructed in 2009 in Springfield, Missouri. The main aim of this study is to compare the performance of traffic flow between SPUI and DDI based on existing traffic data for a peak hour retrofitting an existing Conventional Diamond Interchange (CDI). The analysis of the two interchange designs in conjunction with the existing design are used in the comparison study to identify which interchange design performs best among each other. The Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) used in this study include queue delay, queue length, vehicle delay and stopped delay. This study obtain traffic turning movements and signal timing data from the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). The turning movement counts (TMC) were taken from ODOT’s Transportation Data Management System for the year 2017. VISSIM version 11 software was used for microscopic simulation. The optimum signal phasing for the three interchange designs were obtained from SYNCHRO 10 software based on the PM peak hour traffic data. The virtual interchange network design geometry in both software programs were almost identical. Several assumptions were made to stay consistent as much as possible while comparing the three designs since they have completely different geometric layouts. For example, the existing CDI data included the through movements from off-ramps to on-ramps. Since the two alternative designs (SPUI and DDI) exclude the through movements from off-ramps to on-ramps, their data were added to the right turn v movements. Moreover, the speed limit was set to be in the range of 30 mph while driving in the interchange to meet all three design specifications. The analysis of results show that there are significant advantages and disadvantages associated with each design (CDI, SPUI and DDI). During implementation, various factors such as cost, efficiency, safety, delay, etc., need to be considered when attempting to select the best design, which would be the most appropriate method as these may vary from situation to situation. However, in the current study, a DDI performed best, followed by a SPUI, and then CDI was last. Moreover, CDI with its signal timing optimized very highly improved all MOEs considered when compared with the CDI with existing signal timing. vi DEDICATION Dedicated to my backbone who believed in my capabilities. Thanks for holding me together to be the strong woman that I am today. Thank you so much Mom without your love and support I wouldn’t reach this point. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To begin, special thanks to the Almighty God for this opportunity and all the graces in my life. I wouldn’t accomplish anything without God’s will. Also, my gratitude goes to my principal advisor, Dr. Deogratias Eustace who helped me finish this thesis and supported me to overcome all the obstacles I’ve been through. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Philip Appiah-Kubi who also helped me hold onto this thesis until the end. His kind words were always on top of my head whenever I was down. Also, many thanks go to Eng. Charlie Fisher of ODOT who provided me the data I needed for this thesis study. Thanks Eng. Paul Goodhue for serving on my thesis committee and providing me comments that helped to improve my report. Finally, I’m thankful to my family for their encouragement. I wouldn’t succeed in my educational life without your support. Thanks to those who shared even a single thought about this thesis; sharing your knowledge means a lot to me. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiv LIST OF SYMBOLS/ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... xv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Conventional Diamond Interchanges (CDIs) ...................................................... 2 1.1.2 Single Point Urban Interchanges (SPUIs) ........................................................... 3 1.1.3 Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDIs) ........................................................... 4 1.2 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Objectives of Study ................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Organization of the Thesis Report ............................................................................. 7 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 9 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Alternative Interchange Designs ............................................................................. 10 2.3 Common Interchanges and their Characteristics ..................................................... 11 ix 2.3.1 Diamond Interchanges (DIs) ............................................................................. 11 2.3.2 Directional Interchanges ................................................................................... 12 2.3.3 Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDIs) ......................................................... 12 2.3.4 Single Point Urban Interchanges (SPUIs) ......................................................... 13 2.4 Recent Research ...................................................................................................... 13 2.5 Earlier Research ....................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION .................................. 21 3.1 Source of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic
    MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration for Streets and Highways Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic Dotted line indicates edge of binder spine. MM UU TT CC DD U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2003 Edition Page i The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard in accordance with Title 23 U.S. Code, Sections 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a), 23 CFR 655, and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(8), 1.48(b)(33), and 1.48(c)(2). Addresses for Publications Referenced in the MUTCD American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 www.transportation.org American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) 8201 Corporate Drive, Suite 1125 Landover, MD 20785-2230 www.arema.org Federal Highway Administration Report Center Facsimile number: 301.577.1421 [email protected] Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) 120 Wall Street, Floor 17 New York, NY 10005 www.iesna.org Institute of Makers of Explosives 1120 19th Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-3605 www.ime.org Institute of Transportation Engineers
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10 Grade Separations and Interchanges
    2005 Grade Separations and Interchanges CHAPTER 10 GRADE SEPARATIONS AND INTERCHANGES 10.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL TYPES OF INTERCHANGES The ability to accommodate high volumes of traffic safely and efficiently through intersections depends largely on the arrangement that is provided for handling intersecting traffic. The greatest efficiency, safety, and capacity, and least amount of air pollution are attained when the intersecting through traffic lanes are grade separated. An interchange is a system of interconnecting roadways in conjunction with one or more grade separations that provide for the movement of traffic between two or more roadways or highways on different levels. Interchange design is the most specialized and highly developed form of intersection design. The designer should be thoroughly familiar with the material in Chapter 9 before starting the design of an interchange. Relevant portions of the following material covered in Chapter 9 also apply to interchange design: • general factors affecting design • basic data required • principles of channelization • design procedure • design standards Material previously covered is not repeated. The discussion which follows covers modifications in the above-mentioned material and additional material pertaining exclusively to interchanges. The economic effect on abutting properties resulting from the design of an intersection at-grade is usually confined to the area in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. An interchange or series of interchanges on a freeway or expressway through a community may affect large contiguous areas or even the entire community. For this reason, consideration should be given to an active public process to encourage context sensitive solutions. Interchanges must be located and designed to provide the most desirable overall plan of access, traffic service, and community development.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDELINES for TIMING and COORDINATING DIAMOND November 2000 INTERCHANGES with ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. TX-00/4913-2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date GUIDELINES FOR TIMING AND COORDINATING DIAMOND November 2000 INTERCHANGES WITH ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Nadeem A. Chaudhary and Chi-Leung Chu Report 4913-2 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 7-4913 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research: Construction Division September 1998 – August 2000 Research and Technology Transfer Section 14. Sponsoring Agency Code P. O. Box 5080 Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation. Research Project Title: Operational Strategies for Arterial Congestion at Interchanges 16. Abstract This report contains guidelines for timing diamond interchanges and for coordinating diamond interchanges with closely spaced adjacent signals on the arterial. Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) researchers developed these guidelines during a two-year project funded by the Texas Department of Transportation. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Diamond Interchanges, Capacity Analysis, Traffic No restrictions. This document is available to the Signal Coordination, Traffic Congestion, Signalized public through NTIS: Arterials National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 50 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized GUIDELINES FOR TIMING AND COORDINATING DIAMOND INTERCHANGES WITH ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS by Nadeem A.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Ramp Design Procedures for Facilities Without Frontage Roads
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-05/0-4538-3 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date RECOMMENDED RAMP DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR September 2004 FACILITIES WITHOUT FRONTAGE ROADS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. J. Bonneson, K. Zimmerman, C. Messer, and M. Wooldridge Report 0-4538-3 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 0-4538 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2002 - August 2004 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Ramp Design Considerations for Facilities without Frontage Roads 16. Abstract Based on a recent change in Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) policy, frontage roads are not to be included along controlled-access highways unless a study indicates that the frontage road improves safety, improves operations, lowers overall facility costs, or provides essential access. Interchange design options that do not include frontage roads are to be considered for all new freeway construction. Ramps in non- frontage-road settings can be more challenging to design than those in frontage-road settings for several reasons. Adequate ramp length, appropriate horizontal and vertical curvature, and flaring to increase storage area at the crossroad intersection should all be used to design safe and efficient ramps for non-frontage-road settings.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 92-82 Interchange Improvement Project
    SR 92-82 Interchange Improvement Project SAN MATEO (SM) COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 4 – SM – 92-82(Post Miles 11.0/10.3, 11.5 /10.7) Expenditure Authorization 23552/Project ID 0412000496 Initial Study with Negative Declaration Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation May 2014 General Information About This Document For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in Braille, in large print, on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to Department of Transportation, District 4 Office of Public Affairs, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623; (510) 286-4444 (Voice), or use the California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice) or 711. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables 4 SUMMARY 7 CHAPTER 1- Proposed Project 12 Introduction 12 Purpose and Need 13 CHAPTER 2 - Project Alternatives 14 Alternatives 14 Build Alternative Partial Cloverleaf 14 No Build Alternative 19 Alternatives Discussed But Eliminated From Further Analysis: 19 CHAPTER 3 - Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 19 UTILITIES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 21 Affected Environment 21 Environmental Consequences 21 Avoidance Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 21 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 22 Regulatory Setting 56 Affected Environment 56 Project Alternatives 56 Environmental Consequences 56 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Measures 56 VISUAL/AESTHETICS
    [Show full text]
  • South Portland Smart Corridor Plan
    Portland – South Portland Smart Corridor Plan June 2018 revised October 2018 PACTS – City of Portland – City of South Portland – MaineDOT 3.2.3 Public Transit .................................................................................... 33 CONTENTS 3.2.4 Pedestrian ......................................................................................... 37 3.2.5 Bicycle ................................................................................................ 40 3.2.6 Corridor Safety Record ................................................................. 41 3.3 FOREST AVENUE NORTH – MORRILL’S CORNER TO WOODFORDS CORNER ...... 44 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1 3.3.1 Land Use and Urban Design ......................................................... 44 STUDY GOALS ................................................................................................................. 1 3.3.2 Roadway and Traffic ..................................................................... 45 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 4 3.3.3 Public Transit .................................................................................... 49 SMART CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 6 3.3.4 Pedestrian ......................................................................................... 49 Intersection and
    [Show full text]
  • Interchange Modification Report
    INTERSTATE 75 AND STATE ROAD 884 (COLONIAL BOULEVARD) INTERCHANGE LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION REPORT Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation – District One February 2015 Interchange Modification Report Interstate 75 and State Road 884 (Colonial Boulevard), Lee County, Florida I, Akram M. Hussein, Florida P.E. Number 58069, have prepared or reviewed/supervised the traffic analysis contained in this study. The study has been prepared in accordance and following guidelines and methodologies consistent with FHWA, FDOT and Lee County policies and technical standards. Based on traffic count information, general data sources, and other pertinent information, I certify that this traffic analysis has been prepared using current and acceptable traffic engineering and transportation planning practices and procedures. ______________________________ Akram M. Hussein, P.E. #58069 ______________________________ Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1-1 SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................. 2-1 SECTION 3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 3-1 SECTION 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 4-1 4.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 4-5 4.2 TRAFFIC FACTORS .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)
    What Why How CFI - SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Intersection Control Evaluation A performance-based approach to objectively screen alternatives by focusing on the safety related benefits of each. Traditional Intersections SR 11 @ SR 124, Jackson County, GA Johnson Rd @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Dogwood Trail @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Roundabout SR 138 @ Hembree Rd, Fulton County, GA Roundabout • 215+ Existing • 50+ On System/or GDOT $$ • 165+ Off System • 20+ Currently Under Construction • 155+ Planned/programmed RBTs 6 Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) I-95 @ SR 21, Port Wentworth, Chatham County, GA Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) • 6 Existing • 2 Design/under construction • 10+ Under consideration Total: 18+ Continuous Green T SR 120 @ John Ward Rd SW, Cobb County, GA Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) SR 400 @ Lenox Rd NE, Fulton County, GA Reduced Conflict U-Turn (RCUT) SR 20 @ Nail Rd, Henry County, GA Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Unsignalized Signalized • Minor Stop • Signal • All-Way Stop • Median U-Turn • Mini Roundabout • RCUT • Single Lane Roundabout • Displaced Left Turn (CFI) • Multilane Roundabout • Continuous Green-T • RCUT • Jughandle • RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn • Diamond Interchange (signal) • High-T (unsignalized) • Quadrant Roadway • Offset-T Intersections • Diverging Diamond • Diamond Interchange (Stop) • Single Point Interchange • Diamond Interchange (RAB) • Turn Lane Improvements • Turn Lane Improvements • Other Intersection Control Evaluation Deliver a transportation
    [Show full text]
  • View Preliminary Design Report
    Preliminary Design Report I-494/I-35W Interchange Preliminary Design Project Bloomington, MN S.P. No. 2785-350 SEH No. MNTCO 107371 March 30, 2010 I-494/I-35W Interchange Preliminary Design Project Preliminary Design Report Bloomington, MN S.P. NO. 2785-350 SEH No. MNTCO 107371 March 30, 2010 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Jeff Rhoda, PE Date: Lic. No.: 26377 Reviewed by: Date Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302 952.912.2600 Executive Summary • Develop an alternative that incorporates the provisions of an In-Line BRT station located at or between American Boulevard and 82nd Street. Background Information The interchange alternative developed from the project would be considered for further evaluation leading into the The I-494 and I-35W corridors are major transportation corridors in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The ability to development of a Level 1 Layout Approval by Mn/DOT and possible reevaluation of the 2001 FEIS. effectively move the users of these transportation corridors to their destinations with reduced congestion and improved safety continues to be a challenge today and in the foreseeable future. The I-494 and I-35W interchange area Existing Conditions and Prioritized Deficiencies consistently remains as one of the higher ranked locations for congestion and safety deficiencies in the metro area and the country; a 2010 study, based on Travel Time Index (TTI), ranked I-494 17th worst commute in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Diverging Diamond Interchange Agenda
    Diverging Diamond Interchange Agenda . DDI Design . DDI vs. SPUI . SPUI Lessons Learned . DDI Retrofit Design . DDI – I-15/Pioneer Crossing What is a DDI? A DDI is a concept that requires drivers to briefly cross to the left, or opposite side of the road at carefully designed crossover intersections, to eliminate a signal phase. Primary Goal: Better accommodate left turns and eliminate a phase in the signal cycle. What is a DDI? Advantages Disadvantages . Reduces Signal Phases; . Lower Speed Through Improves Operations Interchange . Reduces Conflict Points; . Requires Longer Footprint Improves Safety Between Intersections . Reduces Bridge Area; . Not Practical with a One-way Lowers Costs Frontage Road DDI Design Signal Phasing Alternating Progression Left Turn Progression DDI Design Safety . About 50% Fewer Points of Conflict . Conflict Comes From Only One Direction . Lower Speed Conflicts (less severity, fewer accidents) DDI Design . When is a DDI a possible solution? • Heavily Congested Locations • Intersections Spacing of Approximately 500 Feet or More • Skewed Intersections Work Well Interchange Design DDI Intersection DDI Facts: First 5 Constructed in 3 States DDI Facts: Currently 34 Locations in 14 States SPUI Facts: First 3 Constructed in 3 States SPUI Facts: Currently over 250 in 35 States SPUI’s in Arizona: First Constructed . University Dr/Hohokam Expwy (SR-143) . I-10/7th Street and 7th Avenue . SR-51 (Squaw Peak Parkway) SPUI’s in Arizona: ADOT Comments . Early Designs Work Well . Tight Footprint is Most Effective . Right Turns can be an Issue . Pedestrian Crossings need more research . Left Turn Design is Critical University/Hohokam, Phoenix, AZ DDI Retrofit Design - St George, Utah DDI Retrofit Design - St George, Utah DDI Retrofit Design - SR 210/Baseline DDI Retrofit Design - SR 210/Baseline DDI Retrofit Design - Graves Mill Rd/US 501 DDI Retrofit Design - Graves Mill Rd/US 501 CPHX Examples I-10/University Drive CPHX Examples SR 101/Thunderbird Selection of DDI - I-15/Pioneer Crossing .
    [Show full text]
  • Upgrade U.S. 30 Whitley County
    Upgrade U.S. 30 Whitley County A Concept for a U.S. 30 Freeway across Whitley County, Indiana Whitley County U.S. 30 Planning Committee January 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Public Participation ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 The Concept for U.S. 30 ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Improvement Examples .............................................................................................................................................. 37 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................................................ 41 WHITLEY COUNTY U.S. 30 PLANNING COMMITTEE Ryan Daniel, Mayor Mark Hisey, Vice President of Facilities Design City of Columbia City Parkview Health George Schrumpf, Commissioner Jon Myers,
    [Show full text]
  • Interchange and Intersection Designs for Use in Spot On!Ine
    INTERCHANGE AND INTERSECTION DESIGNS FOR USE IN SPOT ON!INE October 22, 2013 This document contains examples of 31 different interchange and intersection designs with for use in SPOT On!ine, NCDOT’s GIS- based Web Application for providing automated, near real-time prioritization scores and project costs. The designs shown provide a variety of configurations for users to choose from when entering an existing or proposed (project) interchange or intersection type for a new project in the application. The designs selected are used to calculate quantitative scores for the Prioritization process, as well as calculate a planning-level cost estimate for the project. The interchange and intersections designs used in SPOT On!ine were developed by a team from the Strategic Prioritization Office (SPOT), Roadway Design Unit, Preliminary Estimates Section, and the Transportation Planning Branch. Please contact the Strategic Prioritization Office with any questions. INTERCHANGE AND INTERSECTION DESIGNS FOR USE IN SPOT ON!INE Table of Contents Diamond Interchange ................................................................. 3 Directional Interchange with 2 Flyover Ramps and 2 Loops – Diamond Interchange with 1 Loop ............................................. 4 Example 2 ............................................................................... 19 Diamond Interchange with 2 Loops ............................................ 5 Directional Interchange with 3 Flyover Ramps and 1 Loop ..... 20 Tight Urban Diamond Interchange ............................................
    [Show full text]