DOCSLIB.ORG

2016 Freeway Congestion & Reliabliity Report-Metro Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2016 Freeway Congestion & Reliabliity Report-Metro Region 2016 Freeway Congestion & Reliability Report MACOMB Chapter 4 OAKLAND METRO REGION WAYNE SUMMARY Contents Performance Measures Definitions .......................1 Regional Congestion Severity ................................3 Regional Congestion Miles by Severity .................7 Ranked UDC by Location .......................................8 Mobility Measures: I-75 Corridor .........................10 Mobility Measures: I-94 Corridor .........................22 Mobility Measures: I-96 Corridor .........................34 Mobility Measures: I-275 Corridor .......................48 Mobility Measures: I-696 Corridor .......................54 Mobility Measures: M-10 Corridor ......................64 Mobility Measures: M-14 Corridor ......................72 Mobility Measures: M-39 Corridor ......................76 Mobility Measures: M-53 Corridor ......................84 Mobility Measures: M-59 Corridor ......................90 > FREEWAY CONGESTION & RELIABILITY REPORT > Freeway Performance Measures Chapter 4 Performance Measures Definitions Delay No Delay Delay POSTED SPEED 60 MPH* ACTUAL SPEED Total delay > Delay is calculated by taking the difference between actual speeds when they fall below 60 mph and the posted speed limit for freeways posted atPOSTED 70 mph. SPEE DThis is to take Recurring out the delay caused by the lower average speeds from commercial 60vehicles. MPH Recurring Total delay per mile > Delay per mile is calculated by taking the totalAVERA delayGE SPEED and dividing it by the length of the freeway. This was performed for eachNon-recurring route in each county. ACTUAL SPEED User Delay Cost > User Delay Costs (UDC) is calculated by multiplying delay x hourly vol- ume per hourly user cost. Delay is calculated by taking the difference between actual speeds when they fall below 60 mph and the posted speed limit. Hourly volumes are derived from Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Commercial Average Daily Traffic (CADT). Hourly user costs are based on FederalNorthbou Highwaynd Administration Travel Times (FHWA)Avg publication75th % number95th FHWA-SA-98-079,% “Life-Cycle Cost16.0 Analysis in Pavement Design.” Congestion Severity14.0 > Congestion Severity is calculated based on the worst hourly aver- age speed experienced12.0 Small duringdierence the AM or PM Peak period per traffic Largemessage dierence channel (TMC) segment. A TMC segmentbetween average is a standard for delivering real-time trafficbetween information. average They vary 10.0 and 95th percentile and 95th percentile from tenths of a miletravel long times to several miles long. travel times 8.0 • Three differentMinutes categories are used to distinguish severity levels: low (>= 55 mph), mod- 6.0 erate (>= 35 mph & < 55 mph), and severe (< 35 mph). 4.0 2.0 Reliable Unreliable 0.0 1:00 PM PM 2:00 PM 3:00 4:00 PM 4:00 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM AM 5:00 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM Time of Day * On segments with a speed limit of 55 mph, delay is calculated when speeds fall below 55 mph. 1 POSTED SPEED > FREEWAY CONGESTION & RELIABILITY REPORT > Freeway Performance Measures Recurring 60 MPH Recurring AVERAGE SPEED Non-recurring Chapter 4 Performance Measures ACTUALDefinitions SPEED Northbound Travel Times Avg 75th % 95th % 16.0 14.0 12.0 Small dierence Large dierence between average between average 10.0 and 95th percentile and 95th percentile travel times travel times 8.0 Minutes 6.0 4.0 2.0 Reliable Unreliable 0.0 1:00 PM PM 2:00 PM 3:00 4:00 PM 4:00 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM AM 5:00 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM Time of Day Travel Time Reliability > A measure of travel time consistency over a period of time. When travel times are unreliable, customers are more likely to experience unexpected delays. Trav- el times are shown to be reliable when the 95th percentile travel time remains close to the average travel time. 75th Percentile Travel Time > The amount of time a customer should budget to be on-time three out of four days (75% of the time). 95th Percentile Travel Time > The amount of time a customer should budget to be on-time nineteen out of twenty days (95% of the time). The 95th percentile travel time is also known as the planning time. 2 > FREEWAY CONGESTION & RELIABILITY REPORT > Freeway Performance Measures Figure 1. 2016 Metro Region AM peak congestion severity northbound/eastbound Chapter 4 2016 Metro Region AM Peak Congestion Severity 4 Northbound/Eastbound ¦¨§75 ¦¨§94 59 53 ¦¨§696 ¦¨§96 10 14 ¦¨§96 39 ¦¨§275 2016 Congestion Severity Severe Moderate ¦¨§94 Low ¦¨§75 3 > FREEWAY CONGESTION & RELIABILITY REPORT > Freeway Performance Measures Figure 2. 2016 Metro Region PM peak congestion severity northbound/eastbound Chapter 4 2016 Metro Region PM Peak Congestion Severity 4 Northbound/Eastbound ¦¨§75 ¦¨§94 59 53 ¦¨§696 ¦¨§96 10 14 ¦¨§96 39 ¦¨§275 2016 Congestion Severity Severe Moderate ¦¨§94 Low ¦¨§75 4 > FREEWAY CONGESTION & RELIABILITY REPORT > Freeway Performance Measures Figure 3. 2016 Metro Region AM peak congestion severity southbound/westbound Chapter 4 2016 Metro Region AM Peak Congestion Severity 4 Southbound/Westbound ¦¨§75 ¦¨§94 59 53 ¦¨§696 ¦¨§96 10 14 ¦¨§96 39 ¦¨§275 2016 Congestion Severity Severe Moderate ¦¨§94 Low ¦¨§75 5 > FREEWAY CONGESTION & RELIABILITY REPORT > Freeway Performance Measures Figure 4. Figure 2. 2016 Metro Region congestion severity southbound/westbound Chapter 4 2016 Metro Region PM Peak Congestion Severity 4 Southbound/Westbound ¦¨§75 ¦¨§94 59 53 ¦¨§696 ¦¨§96 10 14 ¦¨§96 39 ¦¨§275 2016 Congestion Severity Severe Moderate ¦¨§94 Low ¦¨§75 6 > FREEWAY CONGESTION & RELIABILITY REPORT > Freeway Performance Measures Chapter 4 Table 1. 2016 Congestion Miles by Severity - AM Peak Region Low Moderate Severe Bay 795.5 0.0 0.0 Grand 668.5 27.1 2.4 Metro 445.6 144.2 35.0 Southwest 498.6 1.7 0.0 University 733.6 40.5 8.0 North 399.5 0.0 0.0 Superior 100.0 2.4 0.0 Total 3641.2 215.9 45.3 Table 2. 2016 Congestion Miles by Severity - PM Peak Region Low Moderate Severe Bay 795.5 0.0 0.0 Grand 656.0 34.8 7.1 Metro 356.8 212.3 55.6 Southwest 498.6 1.7 0.0 University 704.3 63.2 14.6 North 399.5 0.0 0.0 Superior 100.0 2.4 0.0 Total 3510.7 314.4 77.3 7 > FREEWAY CONGESTION & RELIABILITY REPORT > Freeway Performance Measures Chapter 4 Table 3. 2016 Metro Region UDC Data 2012-2015 Average 2016 Rank UDC Per Mile Location (Route, County) Rank UDC Per Mile Location (Route, County) 1 $2,355,000 I-696 Oakland Co. 1 $2,625,000 I-696 Oakland Co. 2 $1,161,000 I-94 (55mph) Detroit TSC 2 $1,514,000 I-94 (55mph) Detroit TSC 3 $1,000,000 I-75 (55mph) Detroit TSC 3 $1,168,000 I-75 (55mph) Detroit TSC 4 $893,000 I-96 plus Local Detroit TSC 4 $958,000 I-96 Oakland Co. 5 $764,000 I-96 Taylor TSC 5 $865,000 M-39 (55mph) Detroit TSC 6 $763,000 I-96 Oakland Co. 6 $842,000 I-75 Oakland Co. 7 $656,000 I-75 Oakland Co. 7 $733,000 I-96 plus Local Detroit TSC 8 $654,000 M-39 (55mph) Detroit TSC 8 $662,000 I-96 Taylor TSC 9 $582,000 M-10 Oakland Co. (70 mph section) 9 $632,000 M-59 Oakland Co. (70 mph section) 10 $579,000 M-59 Oakland Co. (70 mph section) 10 $471,000 M-10 (55mph) Detroit TSC 11 $518,000 M-10 (55mph) Detroit TSC 11 $459,000 I-94 Taylor TSC 12 $438,000 I-94 Taylor TSC 12 $391,000 M-10 Oakland Co. (70 mph section) 13 $401,000 M-14 Taylor TSC 13 $324,000 I-696 Macomb Co. 14 $345,000 I-75 Taylor TSC 14 $255,000 I-94 Macomb Co. 15 $325,000 I-275 Wayne Co. 15 $253,000 I-275 Wayne Co. 16 $310,000 I-696 Macomb Co. 16 $220,000 I-75 Taylor TSC 17 $310,000 I-94 Macomb Co. 17 $187,000 M-14 Taylor TSC 18 $306,000 M-53 Macomb Co. (70 mph section) 18 $184,000 M-53 Macomb Co. (70 mph section) 2012-2015 Average 2016 Total Total Rank Location (Route, County) Rank Location (Route, County) UDC UDC 1 $60,343,000 I-75 Oakland Co. 1 $77,465,000 I-75 Oakland Co. 2 $47,105,000 I-696 Oakland Co. 2 $52,509,000 I-696 Oakland Co. 3 $37,153,000 I-94 (55mph) Detroit TSC 3 $48,460,000 I-94 (55mph) Detroit TSC 4 $34,837,000 I-96 plus Local Detroit TSC 4 $38,832,000 I-75 (55mph) Detroit TSC 5 $33,275,000 I-75 (55mph) Detroit TSC 5 $32,715,000 I-96 Oakland Co. 6 $26,048,000 I-96 Oakland Co. 6 $28,602,000 I-96 plus Local Detroit TSC 7 $19,722,000 I-94 Taylor TSC 7 $24,230,000 M-39 (55mph) Detroit TSC 8 $19,242,000 I-94 Macomb Co. 8 $20,664,000 I-94 Taylor TSC 9 $18,305,000 M-39 (55mph) Detroit TSC 9 $15,815,000 I-94 Macomb Co. 10 $17,646,000 I-96 Taylor TSC 10 $15,293,000 I-96 Taylor TSC 11 $14,628,000 I-275 Wayne Co.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide
    Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide A Complete Compendium Of RV Dump Stations Across The USA Publiished By: Covenant Publishing LLC 1201 N Orange St. Suite 7003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Copyrighted Material Copyright 2010 Covenant Publishing. All rights reserved worldwide. Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide Page 2 Contents New Mexico ............................................................... 87 New York .................................................................... 89 Introduction ................................................................. 3 North Carolina ........................................................... 91 Alabama ........................................................................ 5 North Dakota ............................................................. 93 Alaska ............................................................................ 8 Ohio ............................................................................ 95 Arizona ......................................................................... 9 Oklahoma ................................................................... 98 Arkansas ..................................................................... 13 Oregon ...................................................................... 100 California .................................................................... 15 Pennsylvania ............................................................ 104 Colorado ..................................................................... 23 Rhode Island ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mound Road Industrial Corridor Technology And
    Mound Road Industrial Corridor Technology and Innovation Project Partners: Macomb County, City of Sterling Heights, and City of Warren, MI Contact: John Crumm, Director of Planning, Macomb County Department of Roads (586) 469-5285; [email protected] www.innovatemound.org/INFRA Project Name Mound Road Industrial Corridor Technology and Innovation Project Was an INFRA application for this project submitted No previously? If yes, what was the name of the project in the previous N/a application? Previously Incurred Project Cost $67,797 Future Eligible Project Cost $216,860,000 Total Project Cost $216,927,797 INFRA Request $130,116,000 Total Federal Funding (including INFRA) $130,116,000 (60% of total cost) Are matching funds restricted to a specific project No component? If so, which one? Is the project or a portion of the project currently Yes located on a National Highway Freight Network? Is the project or a portion of the project located on the Yes National Highway System? • Does the project add capacity to the Interstate No system? • Is the project in a national scenic area? No Do the project components include a railway-highway No grade crossing or grade separation project? o If so, please include the grade crossing ID N/a Do the project components include an intermodal or No freight rail project, or freight project within the boundaries of a public or private freight rail, water (including ports) or intermodal facility? If answered yes to either of the two component questions N/a above, how much of requested INFRA funds will be spent
    [Show full text]
  • US-60/Grand Avenue Corridor Optimization, Access Management, and System Study (COMPASS)
    US-60/Grand Avenue COMPASS Loop 303 to Interstate 10 TM 3 – National Case Study Review US-60/Grand Avenue Corridor Optimization, Access Management, and System Study (COMPASS) Loop 303 to Interstate 10 Technical Memorandum 3 National Case Study Review Prepared for: Prepared by: Wilson & Company, Inc. In Association With: Burgess & Niple, Inc. Partners for Strategic Action, Inc. Philip B. Demosthenes, LLC March 2013 3/25/2013 US-60/Grand Avenue COMPASS Loop 303 to Interstate 10 TM 3 – National Case Study Review Table of Contents List of Abbreviations 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Purpose of this Paper ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Michigan 1 (M-1)/Woodward Avenue – Detroit, Michigan ................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Access to Urban/Suburban Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Corridor Access Control ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Form 496, Auditing Procedures Report
    Michigan Department of Treasury 496 (02/06) Auditing Procedures Report Issued under P.A. 2 of 1968, as amended and P.A. 71 of 1919, as amended. Local Unit of Government Type Local Unit Name County County City Twp Village Other Fiscal Year End Opinion Date Date Audit Report Submitted to State We affirm that: We are certified public accountants licensed to practice in Michigan. We further affirm the following material, “no” responses have been disclosed in the financial statements, including the notes, or in the Management Letter (report of comments and recommendations). Check each applicable box below. (See instructions for further detail.) YES YES NO 1. All required component units/funds/agencies of the local unit are included in the financial statements and/or disclosed in the reporting entity notes to the financial statements as necessary. 2. There are no accumulated deficits in one or more of this unit’s unreserved fund balances/unrestricted net assets (P.A. 275 of 1980) or the local unit has not exceeded its budget for expenditures. 3. The local unit is in compliance with the Uniform Chart of Accounts issued by the Department of Treasury. 4. The local unit has adopted a budget for all required funds. 5. A public hearing on the budget was held in accordance with State statute. 6. The local unit has not violated the Municipal Finance Act, an order issued under the Emergency Municipal Loan Act, or other guidance as issued by the Local Audit and Finance Division. 7. The local unit has not been delinquent in distributing tax revenues that were collected for another taxing unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Driven Approach to Characterize and Forecast the Impact of Freeway Work Zones on Mobility Using Probe Vehicle Data
    Wayne State University Wayne State University Dissertations January 2019 Data Driven Approach To Characterize And Forecast The Impact Of Freeway Work Zones On Mobility Using Probe Vehicle Data Mohsen Kamyab Wayne State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations Part of the Computer Sciences Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Kamyab, Mohsen, "Data Driven Approach To Characterize And Forecast The Impact Of Freeway Work Zones On Mobility Using Probe Vehicle Data" (2019). Wayne State University Dissertations. 2358. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/2358 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wayne State University Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. DATA DRIVEN APPROACH TO CHARACTERIZE AND FORECAST THE IMPACT OF FREEWAY WORK ZONES ON MOBILITY USING PROBE VEHICLE DATA by MOHSEN KAMYAB DISSERTATION Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2019 MAJOR: CIVIL ENGINEERING (Transportation) Approved By: Advisor Date DEDICATION To my beloved family and all my well-wishers. i ACKNOWLEDGMENT I am grateful to many people for their support as I wrote this dissertation. I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my committee chair Dr. Stephen Remias for his excellent guidance and insight at each step of this process. I am extremely grateful for his continuous support, encouragement and patience. Special thanks to all my committee members whom provided me with their generous guidance and support.
    [Show full text]
  • Location Plan (Pdf)
    . INVENSITY - Office Detroit Location Plan Arrival by Car Coming from I-94 ■ Head southwest on I-94 W (351 ft) ■ Use the left lane to take exit 215A to merge onto M-10 S toward Downtown (1.7 miles) ■ Take exit 2A toward Flint (0.6 miles) ■ Use the right lane to merge onto I-75 N (0.6 miles) ■ Use the right lane to take exit 51C for Interstate 75 N/Interstate 375 S toward Flint/Downtown (0.2 miles) ■ Keep right at the fork to stay on Exit 51C, follow signs for I-375 S/Down Town and merge onto I-375 S (0.3 miles) ■ Take the exit toward Lafayette Ave (0.1 miles) ■ Turn right onto Macomb St Destination will be on the left (0.2 miles) Coming from I-96 ■ Head northeast on W Grand River Ave/Woodside St toward W Interstate 96 Service Rd/Jeffries Fwy (118 ft) ■ Use the left lane to turn left onto W Interstate 96 Service Rd/Jeffries Fwy (312 ft) ■ Turn left at the 1st cross street onto Livernois Ave (351 ft) ■ Turn left at the 1st cross street onto Jeffries Fwy/Woodside St (236 ft) ■ Use the left lane to take the ramp onto I-96 E (0.2 miles) ■ Merge onto I-96 E (3.2 miles) ■ Use the left 2 lanes to merge onto I-75 N toward Flint (2.3 miles) ■ Use the right lane to take exit 51C for Interstate 75 N/Interstate 375 S towards talent by made innovation Flint/Downtown (0.2 miles) ■ Keep right at the fork to stay on Exit 51C, follow sign for I-375 S/Down Town and merge onto I-375 S (0.3 miles) ■ Take the exit toward Lafayette Ave (0.1 miles) ■ Turn right onto Macomb St (0.2 miles) Coming from I-75 ■ Head northwest on I-75 N (7.1 miles) ■ Take exit 202 for M-33 toward Alger/Rose City/Interstate 75 (0.4 miles) ■ Turn left onto M-33 S/W Alger Rd (0.3 miles) ■ Turn left onto the Interstate 75 S ramp to Saginaw (0.4 miles) ■ Merge onto I-75 S (87.3 miles) ■ Keep left at the fork to stay on I-75 S (63 miles) ■ Continue onto I-375 S (0.5 miles) ■ Take the exit toward Lafayette Ave (0.1 miles) ■ Turn right onto Macomb St (0.2 miles) INVENSITY Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • View the Complete Listing of Dementia Services in the West Michigan Area
    GVSU School of Public, Nonprofit and Health Administration 401 W Fulton Street, Room 288C Grand Rapids, MI, 49504 (616) 331-6165 [email protected] In-home Medical Care In-Home Medical Care Holland Hospital Home Health Services (616) 394-3346 https://www.hollandhospital.org/hh/home-health-services.aspx We offer support for everything from medication management to cooking dinner to simply lending a little companionship. Our services can include: ● Skilled Nursing Care: Hospital-quality care that’s delivered at home. We offer the full range of nursing services and clinical specialties to patients of all ages, including support for managing both chronic and acute medical conditions. ● Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapy: Physical, occupational and speech therapists use proven rehabilitation techniques to help patients live fuller, more independent lives. ● Telehealth: A simple-to-use device that collects vital signs, such as blood pressure, pulse oximetry, heart rate and weight, and transmits data to Holland Hospital Home Health Telehealth Services. The telehealth team will take appropriate action if a patient’s health status requires intervention. In-Home Medical Care Care Resources PACE 616-913-2006 https://www.careresources.org Home care services provided by Care Resources staff when recommended by our team of healthcare professionals. In-Home Medical Care Spectrum Health Visiting Nurse Association 616-486-3900 https://www.spectrumhealth.org/patient-care/at-home-care/visiting-nurses Visiting Nurse Association offers a number of specialized programs and services to help you improve your health and safety in the comfort of your home. Once your needs have been identified, a personalized care plan will be developed.
    [Show full text]
  • CVS PHARMACY 13580 Grand River Avenue Detroit, MI 48227 TABLE of CONTENTS
    NET LEASE INVESTMENT OFFERING CVS PHARMACY 13580 Grand River Avenue Detroit, MI 48227 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Profile II. Location Overview III. Market & Tenant Overview Executive Summary Photographs Demographic Report Investment Highlights Aerial Market Overview Property Overview Site Plan Tenant Overview Map NET LEASE INVESTMENT OFFERING DISCLAIMER STATEMENT DISCLAIMER The information contained in the following Offering Memorandum is proprietary and strictly confidential. STATEMENT: It is intended to be reviewed only by the party receiving it from The Boulder Group and should not be made available to any other person or entity without the written consent of The Boulder Group. This Offering Memorandum has been prepared to provide summary, unverified information to prospective purchasers and to establish only a preliminary level of interest in the subject property. The information contained herein is not a substitute for a thorough due diligence investigation. The Boulder Group has not made any investigation and makes no warranty or representation. The information contained in this Offering Memorandum has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable; however, The Boulder Group has not verified, and will not verify, any of the information contained herein, nor has The Boulder Group conducted any investigation regarding these matters and makes no warranty or representation whatsoever regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. All potential buyers must take appropriate measures to verify all of the information set forth herein. NET LEASE INVESTMENT OFFERING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE The Boulder Group is pleased to exclusively market for sale a single tenant net leased CVS Pharmacy located in SUMMARY: Detroit, Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation
    NFS Form 10-900-b 1024-0018 (March 1992) RECEIVED 2280 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service OCT 2 9 1999 National Register of Historic Places NAT REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each Hem by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. X New Submission _ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing_____________________________ Historic Highway Bridges of Michigan, 1875-1948 B. Associated Historic Contexts__________________________ (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) The Evolution of Michigan's Highway Bridges, 1875-1948 Wayne County: An Exemplary Road Commission, 1906-1948 C. Form Prepared by________ name/title Charlene K. Roise and Clayton B. Fraser (Fraserdesign), Historians_____ organization Hessr Roise and Company______________ date August 1998 street & number 100 North First Street____________ telephone 612-338-1987_________ city or town Minneapolis state Minnesota____ zip code 55401 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth irf 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards /and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Plan Hazel Park, Michigan
    Master Plan Hazel Park, Michigan Prepared for: Hazel Park Planning Commission Hazel Park, Michigan Prepared by: McKenna Associates, Incorporated Community Planning # Urban Design 32605 West Twelve Mile Road, Suite 165 Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334 Telephone: (248) 553-0290 Facsimile: (248) 553-0588 Adopted by the Hazel Park Planning Commission: March 21, 2000 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City Council Ben Colley, Mayor Donna Vance, Mayor Pro-Tem Ken Mayo, Councilman Jack Lloyd, Councilman Doug Pashakarnis, Councilman Planning Commission Michael Webb, Chairman Joel Holcombe, Vice Chairman Al Sheridan, Recording Secretary Lisa Chrouch Robert Peterson Linda Zeiss Elaine Carene K. Joseph Young Richard Robbins Administration K. Joseph Young, City Manager Gary Carey, Community Development Director Amy Vansen, Community Development Planner Hazel Park Master Plan i March, 2000 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments .....................................................i Table of Contents ..................................................... ii List of Maps, Tables and Figures ........................................iv I. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 A. History and Background ...................................... 1 B. What a Master Plan Is and Is Not ............................... 2 C. How to Use a Master Plan .................................... 4 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS ........................ 6 A. Regional Analysis ........................................... 6 B. Existing Land Use Survey ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices for Road Weather Management
    Best Practices for Road Weather Management Version 3.0 June 2012 Acknowledgments While many individuals deserve recognition, the authors want to particularly acknowledge all the staff at the participating state departments of transportation who provided materials and were generous with their time and expertise. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Highway Administration. Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. ii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-HOP-12-046 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date June 2012 Best Practices for Road Weather Management, Version 3.0 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Co-Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Ray Murphy, FHWA; Ryan Swick, Booz Allen Hamilton; Gabe Guevara, FHWA 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Statement Pension and OPEB Bonds
    NEW ISSUE-Book-Entry-Only RATINGS†: Fitch: AA S&P Global Ratings: AA+ In the opinion of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Bond Counsel, under existing law, (i) the interest on the Taxable Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, Series 2017-A (the “Series 2017-A Bonds”) and the Taxable Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, Series 2017-B (the “Series 2017-B Bonds,” together with the Series 2017-A Bonds, the “Bonds”) is INCLUDED in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and (ii) the Bonds and the interest on and income from the Bonds are exempt from taxation by the State of Michigan or a political subdivision of the State of Michigan, except estate taxes and taxes on gains realized from the sale, payment or other disposition thereof. See “TAX MATTERS” herein and Appendix C hereto. CITY OF ROYAL OAK COUNTY OF OAKLAND STATE OF MICHIGAN $106,040,000 TAXABLE LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2017-A $20,570,000 TAXABLE LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2017-B Dated: February 21, 2017 Due: October 1, as shown on inside cover The Taxable Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, Series 2017-A (the “Series 2017-A Bonds”) and the Taxable Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, Series 2017-B (the “Series 2017-B Bonds,” together with the Series 2017-A Bonds, the “Bonds”) are being issued by the City of Royal Oak, County of Oakland, State of Michigan (the “City”) pursuant to the provisions of Act 34, Public Acts of Michigan, 2001, as amended (“Act 34”), and a resolution adopted by the City Commission of the City on September 12, 2016 (the “Resolution”).
    [Show full text]