Bollard Detail 5 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

PCC SIDEWALK 5 INCH, SPECIAL PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 8" (SPECIAL) PCC PAVEMENT 8" (SPECIAL) #4 BARS @ 12" EACH WAY #4 BARS @ 12" EACH WAY " 12" FIELD BEND " 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT 12" FIELD BEND 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT 4 4 / / 1 1 TY A EXPANSION JOINT 1.5% VARIES 8" FINISH FLOOR ELEV FINISH FLOOR ELEV 18" DOWEL BARS " " 18" DOWEL BARS " 8 6" @ 18" CENTERS 9 @ 18" CENTERS 9 CONST. JOINT " 8 PLACE 2 LAYERS OF " 30# FELT PAPER B/T WELL BUILDING 8 WELL BUILDING AGG BASE COURSE, TY B 6" " TOP AND BOTTOM TO " CLEAN AGGREGATE FLOOR SLAB FLOOR SLAB 6 BREAK BOND 6 PCC PAVEMENT 3 3 (CA 11) CLEAN AGGREGATE GEOTECHNICAL FABRIC FOR 8" (SPECIAL) (CA 11) GROUND STABILIZATION WELL BUILDING (3) #4 BARS, (3) #4 BARS, GRADE BEAM REPEAT AT (2) SIDES REPEAT AT (2) SIDES TYPICAL PAVEMENT SECTION #4 BARS @18" NOT TO SCALE REPEAT AT (2) SIDES WELL BUILDING #4 BARS @18" GRADE BEAM REPEAT AT (2) SIDES 6" 4' 6" 6" 4' 6" MISSOURI AVE. CONCRETE STOOP SECTION - SIDEWALK NOT TO SCALE 5' " NOTE: 0" '0 5 2'-0" THE COST OF ADDITIONAL CONCRETE, REINFORCEMENT, AGGREGATE, ROUND CONCRETE EXCAVATION, AND FILL WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE RESPECTIVE PAY ITEM " PCC SIDEWALK 5" AT TOP OF PIPE 1 FOR "PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 8" (SPECIAL)" AND PCC SIDEWALK 5" G "PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCH, SPECIAL" N I PERPENDICULAR CURB RAMP D L (STANDARD 424001) I U PERPENDICULAR CURB RAMP B 112' 0" (STANDARD 424001) CONCRETE FILLED F 8" DIA. SCH 40 O " PIPE - PRIME AND E 0 TAPER CURB HEIGHT C TY B CURB, 6" PAINT YELLOW - 2' CURB OPENING A ' TO 0" OVER 2' F 4 " 0 " 1 ' GRADE PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 5 1 PAVEMENT 8" (SPECIAL) " 0 1 ' " 9 6 T CONCRETE 2 - E ' ENCASEMENT TY B CURB, 6" E 2 PCC DRIVEWAY CLASS SI " R 0 PAVEMENT 8" T S ' " 5 8 D 1 N ' O 1 " C 5 0 E S " ' 6 0 ~ 1'-6" 10' 0" 10' 0" 14' 8" 12' 0" 12' 0" 12' 0" 12' 0" 12' 0" 12' 0" 10' 0" 10' 2" 6 DIA " 0 ' BOLLARD DETAIL 5 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 1 " 0 ' BOLLARD " 0 0 0 BOLLARD 1 ' " BOLLARD 5 1 4 AGGREGATE SURFACE ' COURSE, TYPE A, 8" 8 " " 2 6' 6" BY 4' 6" 11' 0" BY 4' 6" 0 ' STOOP STOOP ' 5' 0" 15' 2" 0 0 1 7 n g d . g TY A EXPANSION JOINT n i " k BETWEEN PAVEMENT & r 0 a BUILDING p ' - t 0 h 1 s - BOLLARDS FOR TRANSFORMER 9 9 (COORDINATE WITH ELECTRIC G 6 COMPANY FOR LOCATIONS) 7 " PROPOSED WELL HOUSE BUILDING 8 0 D \ s ' t 0 e 1 e h S D D A " C 6' 0" BY 4' 6" STOOP \ 0 2 h (CENTERED ON DOORWAY - SEE ' P 0 "A" SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS) 1 e v A O JOINT LEGEND M 5' 0" 3 SEE HIGHWAY STANDARD B.L.R. 10-6 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS r e 8 d r " O TYPE A EXPANSION JOINT 0 k PCC CONCRETE SLOPE WALL / PCC SIDEWALK 5 INCH, SPECIAL r ' o DETENTION BASIN 5 (18" DOWEL BARS @ 18" CENTERS W \ 3 TIED INTO WELL HOUSE GRADE BEAM) TYPE C TRANSVERSE JOINT 2 0 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 1 \ s TYPE E LONGITUDINAL JOINT 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 e l i FEET f 1 1 \ : Q USER NAME = seb F.A.I. TOTAL SHEET = DESIGNED - SEB REVISED - SECTION COUNTY PARKING LOT PAVEMENT JOINT PLAN RTE. SHEETS NO. E M DRAWN - SEB REVISED - STATE OF ILLINOIS A 64 82-4T-1 ST. CLAIR 185 41 N MISSOURI AVENUE DEEP WELL FACILITY PLOT SCALE = 20.0000 ' / in. CHECKED - REVISED - E DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT NO. 76G99 L I PLOT DATE = 8/23/2014 DATE REVISED SCALE: 1"=10' SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS STA. TO STA. ILLINOIS FED. AID PROJECT F - - .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Module 6. Hov Treatments
Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Module 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS MODULE 6. HOV TREATMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 6-5 TREATMENTS ..................................................... 6-6 MODULE OBJECTIVES ............................................. 6-6 MODULE SCOPE ................................................... 6-7 6.2 DESIGN PROCESS .......................................... 6-7 IDENTIFY PROBLEMS/NEEDS ....................................... 6-7 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTNERS .................................... 6-8 CONSENSUS BUILDING ........................................... 6-10 ESTABLISH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................... 6-10 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA / MOES ....................... 6-10 DEFINE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................. 6-11 IDENTIFY AND SCREEN TECHNOLOGY ............................. 6-11 System Planning ................................................. 6-13 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 6-15 EVALUATION .................................................... 6-16 6.3 TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES .................. 6-18 HOV FACILITIES ................................................. 6-18 Operational Considerations ......................................... 6-18 HOV Roadway Operations ...................................... 6-20 Operating Efficiency .......................................... 6-20 Considerations for 2+ Versus 3+ Occupancy Requirement ............. 6-20 Hours of Operations ..........................................
[Show full text]
Design Guidelines for the Use of Curbs and Curb/Guardrail
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF CURBS AND CURB/GUARDRAIL COMBINATIONS ALONG HIGH-SPEED ROADWAYS by Chuck Aldon Plaxico A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering by September 2002 APPROVED: Dr. Malcolm Ray, Major Advisor Civil and Environmental Engineering Dr. Leonard D. Albano, Committee Member Civil and Environmental Engineering Dr. Tahar El-Korchi, Committee Member Civil and Environmental Engineering Dr. John F. Carney, Committee Member Provost and Vice President, Academic Affairs Dr. Joseph R. Rencis, Committee Member Mechanical Engineering ABSTRACT The potential hazard of using curbs on high-speed roadways has been a concern for highway designers for almost half a century. Curbs extend 75-200 mm above the road surface for appreciable distances and are located very near the edge of the traveled way, thus, they constitute a continuous hazard for motorist. Curbs are sometimes used in combination with guardrails or other roadside safety barriers. Full-scale crash testing has demonstrated that inadequate design and placement of these systems can result in vehicles vaulting, underriding or rupturing a strong-post guardrail system though the mechanisms for these failures are not well understood. For these reasons, the use of curbs has generally been discouraged on high-speed roadways. Curbs are often essential, however, because of restricted right-of-way, drainage considerations, access control, delineation and other curb functions. Thus, there is a need for nationally recognized guidelines for the design and use of curbs. The primary purpose of this study was to develop design guidelines for the use of curbs and curb-barrier combinations on roadways with operating speeds greater than 60 km/hr.
[Show full text]
"2. Sidewalks". "Boston Complete Streets Design Guide."
Sidewalk Zone Widths The width of the sidewalk contributes to the degree of When making decisions for how to allocate sidewalk space, comfort and enjoyment of walking along a street. Narrow the following principles should be used: sidewalks do not support lively pedestrian activity, and may create dangerous conditions where people walk in the Frontage Zone street. Typically, a five foot wide Pedestrian Zone supports > The Frontage Zone should be maximized to provide space two people walking side by side or two wheel chairs passing for cafés, plazas, and greenscape elements along build- each other. An eight foot wide Pedestrian Zone allows two ing facades wherever possible, but not at the expense of pairs of people to comfortably pass each other, and a ten reducing the Pedestrian Zone beyond the recommended foot or wider Pedestrian Zone can support high volumes of minimum widths. pedestrians. Pedestrian Zone Vibrant sidewalks bustling with pedestrian activity are not > The Pedestrian Zone should be clear of any obstructions only used for transportation, but for social walking, lingering, including utilities, traffic control devices, trees, and furniture. and people watching. Sidewalks, especially along Downtown When reconstructing sidewalks and relocating utilities, all Commercial, Downtown Mixed-Use, and Neighborhood Main utility access points and obstructions should be relocated Streets, should encourage social uses of the sidewalk realm outside of the Pedestrian Zone. by providing adequate widths. > While sidewalks do not need to be perfectly straight, the SIDEWALKS Pedestrian Zone should not weave back and forth in the When determining sidewalk zone widths, factors to consider right-of-way for no other reason than to introduce curves.
[Show full text]
Town Standards Index (Select to View) • Collector Street Cross Section
Town Standards Index (select to view) • Collector Street Cross Section - Standard #3.00 • Collector Street Cross Section w/ Bike Lanes - Standard #3.01 • Local Street Cross Section - Standard #3.02 • Local Street Cross Section (No Curb) - Standard #3.03 • Industrial Street Cross Section - Standard #3.04 • 4-Lane Divided Street Cross Section - Standard #3.05 • Alley Cross Section - Standard #3.06 • Greenway Asphalt Path Cross Section - Standard #3.07 • Utility Trench Pavement Repair - Standard #3.08 • Typical Pavement Repair - Standard #3.09 • Standard Driveway Turnout - Standard #3.12 • Standard Curb & Gutter - Standard #3.13 • Median Curb - Standard #3.14 • Rolled Curb - Standard #3.15 • Residential Cul-de-sac - Standard #3.16 • Barricade for Dead End Streets - Standard #3.17 • Standard Concrete Drop Inlet - Standard #4.10 • Standard Brick Drop Inlet - Standard #4.11 • Standard Drop Inlet Grates - Standard #4.12 • Standard Concrete Catch Basin - Standard #4.13A • Standard Concrete Catch Basin - Standard #4.13B • Standard Brick Catch Basin - Standard #4.14A • Standard Brick Catch Basin - Standard #4.14B • HDPE Pipe - Standard #4.16 • Trench Installation for HDPE - Standard #4.16A • Polypropylene Pipe - Standard #4.17 • Trench Installation for Polypropylene - Standard #4.17A • Dissimilar Pipe Connections to RCP - Standard #4.18 • Curb Ramps - Standard #5.00 • Curb Ramps - New Development - Standard #5.01 • Curb Ramps - New Development - Standard #5.02 • Curb Ramps - New Development - Standard #5.03 • Curb Ramps - Retrofit - Standard #5.04
[Show full text]
PLANNING and DESIGNING for PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents
PLANNING AND DESIGNING FOR PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Guidelines.............................................................................. 2 1.2 How the Pedestrian-Oriented Design Guidelines Can be Used........ 5 1.3 How to Use the Chapters and Who Should Use Them ...................... 6 2. Pedestrian Primer ...................................................................9 2.1 What is Pedestrian-Oriented Design? ................................................. 9 2.2 Link Between Land Use and Transportation Decisions .................. 10 2.3 Elements of a Walkable Environment ............................................... 11 2.4 What Kind of Street Do You Have and What Kind Do You Want?... 12 2.4.1 "Linear" and "Nodal" Structures .......................................................................... 12 2.4.2 Interconnected or Isolated Streets ....................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Street Rhythm......................................................................................................... 15 2.4.4 "Seams" and "Dividers" ........................................................................................ 16 3. Community Structure and Transportation Planning.........17 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 17 3.2 Land Use Types and Organization..................................................... 18
[Show full text]
Final Report Prepared for Albany, NY Joseph D. Tario Senior Project
DEMONSTRATION OF ROUNDABOUT LIGHTING BASED ON THE ECOLUMINANCE APPROACH Final Report Prepared for THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Albany, NY Joseph D. Tario Senior Project Manager and THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Albany, NY Humayun Kabir Project Manager Prepared by THE LIGHTING RESEARCH CENTER , RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 21 Union Street Troy, NY 12180 John D. Bullough and Mark S. Rea Principal Investigators Jeremy D. Snyder, Nicholas P. Skinner, Rosa I. Capó, Patricia Rizzo, Ute Besenecker Project Team Members Project Nos. 18233 / C-08-03 August 2012 NOTICE This report was prepared by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the New York State Department of Transportation (hereafter the "Sponsors"). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Sponsors or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, the Sponsors and the State of New York make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. The Sponsors, the State of New York, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report.
[Show full text]
Draft Alternatives Development and Screening Report
APPENDIX C Draft Evaluation of Managed-lane Concepts Draft Evaluation of Managed-lane Concepts Little Cottonwood Canyon Environmental Impact Statement S.R. 210 - Wasatch Boulevard to Alta Lead agency: Utah Department of Transportation April 3, 2020 This page is intentionally left blank. Contents 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Area for Managed Lanes .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Roadway Context .................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Reversible-lane Concepts ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.1 Moveable Barrier ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Reversible-lane Control Signals and Signs ............................................................................. 11 2.1.3 Other Reversible-lane Technologies ....................................................................................... 15 3.0 Peak-period Shoulder Lane Concept .............................................................................................................
[Show full text]
Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada Project Team
Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada Project Team Project Leads: Nancy Smith Lea, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Dr. Ray Tomalty, School of Urban Planning, McGill University Researchers: Jiya Benni, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Dr. Marvin Macaraig, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Julia Malmo-Laycock, School of Urban Planning, McGill University Report Design: Jiya Benni, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Cover Photo: Tour de l’ile, Go Bike Montreal Festival, Montreal by Maxime Juneau/APMJ Project Partner: Please cite as: Benni, J., Macaraig, M., Malmo-Laycock, J., Smith Lea, N. & Tomalty, R. (2019). Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada. Toronto: Clean Air Partnership. CONTENTS List of Figures 4 List of Tables 7 Executive Summary 8 1. Introduction 12 2. Costs of Bicycle Infrastructure Measures 13 Introduction 14 On-street facilities 16 Intersection & crossing treatments 26 Traffic calming treatments 32 Off-street facilities 39 Accessory & support features 43 3. Costs of Cycling Programs 51 Introduction 52 Training programs 54 Repair & maintenance 58 Events 60 Supports & programs 63 Conclusion 71 References 72 Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Bollard protected cycle track on Bloor Street, Toronto, ON ..................................................... 16 Figure 2: Adjustable concrete barrier protected cycle track on Sherbrook St, Winnipeg, ON ............ 17 Figure 3: Concrete median protected cycle track on Pandora Ave in Victoria, BC ............................ 18 Figure 4: Pandora Avenue Protected Bicycle Lane Facility Map ............................................................ 19 Figure 5: Floating Bus Stop on Pandora Avenue ........................................................................................ 19 Figure 6: Raised pedestrian crossings on Pandora Avenue .....................................................................
[Show full text]
Getting to the Curb: a Guide to Building Protected Bike Lanes.”)
Getting to the Curb A Guide to Building Protected Bike Lanes That Work for Pedestrians This report is dedicated to Joanna Fraguli, a passionate pedestrian safety advocate whose work made San Francisco a better place for everyone. This report was created by the Senior & Disability Pedestrian Safety Workgroup of the San Francisco Vision Zero Coalition. Member organizations include: • Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco • Senior & Disability Action • Walk San Francisco • Age & Disability Friendly SF • San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability Primary author: Natasha Opfell, Walk San Francisco Advisor/editor: Cathy DeLuca, Walk San Francisco Illustrations: EricTuvel For more information about the Workgroup, contact Walk SF at [email protected]. Thank you to the San Francisco Department of Public Health for contributing to the success of this project through three years of funding through the Safe Streets for Seniors program. A sincere thanks to everyone who attended our March 6, 2018 charette “Designing Protected Bike Lanes That Are Safe and Accessible for Pedestrians.” This guide would not exist without your invaluable participation. Finally, a special thanks to the following individuals and agencies who gave their time and resources to make our March 2018 charette such a great success: • Annette Williams, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency • Jamie Parks, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency • Kevin Jensen, San Francisco Public Works • Arfaraz Khambatta, San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability Table of
[Show full text]
Sidewalk Construction Standards
OSHTEMO TOWNSHIP SIDEWALK/SHARED-USE PATH CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Approved August 28, 2018 CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION The construction of Sidewalks and Shared-Use Paths within Oshtemo is managed through the Township’s issuance of a Sidewalk/Non-Motorized Path Permit. The permitting process includes both a pre-pour inspection of the base and concrete forms, and a final project inspection for acceptance of the work. Concrete sidewalk shall conform to MDOT 2012 (or current edition) Standard Specifications for Construction Section 803, "Concrete Sidewalks, Sidewalk Ramps and Steps" and shall be a minimum of five (5) feet wide unless a different width is required by other Township ordinances or regulations. Driveway Sidewalk Crossings Where public sidewalks (AKA pedestrian route) cross residential driveways, the sidewalk shall be constructed of concrete through the driveway. Where a curb-line concrete gutter pan begins the driveway, the driveway apron between the curb and sidewalk shall also be constructed of concrete. Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) commercial driveways that lack a concrete roadway gutter, and which have greater than two lanes or heavy traffic may seek administrative approval to establish a pedestrian route over the driveway in lieu of placing a concrete walkway through the HMA material. When new sidewalks are extended through existing driveways, it shall be administratively determined by the Township to what extent the existing driveway pavements will need to be reconstructed in lieu of providing a pedestrian route over the pavement. Grade The sidewalk shall be constructed to match the existing grade, or as noted on the construction drawings. The sidewalk will have a transverse slope either toward or away from the road to maintain existing drainage patterns.
[Show full text]
Neighborhood Road Design Guidebook a Massachusetts Guide to Sustainable Design for Neighborhood Roads
NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD DESIGN GUIDEBOOK A MASSACHUSETTS GUIDE TO SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ROADS A joint project of the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Planning Association Home Builders Association of Massachusetts Prepared for the Citizen Planner’s Training Collaborative March 14, 2012 Overview 2 1. Why a new Guidebook now? 2. Who will use this? 3. What is the general approach 4. Examples of recommended design standards 5. Cross Sections 6. Implementation Why Now? 3 1. Road design for whom? 2. Change in vehicle types 3. What is a win-win approach? 4. Length of time to change rules and regulations Why a new Guide now? 4 Massachusetts guide for Neighborhood Roads to create model guidelines and match local settings. This is called “context sensitive” design. Other road design manuals don’t get at local streets very well Who might use the Guidebook? 5 There are many “actors” in Transportation Design Engineers and designers (private and public sectors) Applicants who are building new infrastructure as part of their projects; Planning Directors/Planners; Planning Boards, Board of Selectmen, Fire and Emergency Service providers; Regional Planning Associations – link to state funding and state projects; Abutters; Land use and environmental advocates; and Finally –build roads that benefit the USERS What kind of Guidebook? 6 Project Goals Reduce environmental impacts of roadway development, operation and maintenance; Encourage Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) in residential roadway design; Provide specific guidelines and references for municipal application; Promote innovative techniques for stormwater management; and Reduce maintenance costs of roadways and stormwater systems. What kind of Guidebook? 7 Project Goals (contin.) Encourage consistency in approach and rationale in residential roadway design across Massachusetts; Promote inter-connectivity of roads; Promote pedestrian and non- motorized access; Promote universal accessibility; and Provide guidance for the design of neighborhood scale residential roads.
[Show full text]
Optimized Design of Concrete Curb Under Off Tracking Loads December 2008 6
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-09/0-5830-1 Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Optimized Design of Concrete Curb under Off Tracking Loads December 2008 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Chul Suh, Soojun Ha, Moon Won 0-5830-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Austin 0-5830 3208 Red River, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78705-2650 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report, 09/2005-08/2007 Research and Technology Implementation Office 14. Sponsoring Agency Code P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Most research studies in the portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement area focused on addressing distresses related to pavement structure itself. As a result, the design and construction of other structural elements of the concrete curb and curb and gutter (CCCG) system have been overlooked and not much research has been done in this area. Visual inspection of damaged CCCG systems was conducted in the field. All damaged CCCG systems were the TxDOT Type II system and almost all damaged CCCG systems were found at U-turn curbs due to excessive off tracking of traffic. Although geometric changes of the curb design are the fundamental solutions for the off tracking failure, such changes are not feasible in most cases due to economic and space limitations.
[Show full text]