DOCSLIB.ORG

Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program Specific Pavement Studies (SPS) Development of Experiment Design: SPS-12 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Preservation Study PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HIF-18-064 October 2018 Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 FOREWORD Pavement preservation represents a proactive approach to maintaining and extending the lives of existing highways. Until recently, limited rigorous performance research existed on the effects of pavement preservation treatments, and consequently there was a reliance on anecdotal information. However, research findings over the past few years are proving that preservation can be an effective approach to extend pavement’s effective service life, improve safety and service condition, and is cost-efficient. The purpose of this report is to document the recommended experimental design for the Long- Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) SPS-12 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement Preservation Study. This study has been designed to establish the impact of selected preservation treatments on pavement performance under different loading and environmental conditions through a field study of in-service pavements starting from construction of the preservation treatments under consideration. The underlying concept of this experiment is to apply the same preservation treatment, at different times, on the same pavement structure to determine the effectiveness of a single application of a treatment as a function of pavement condition and time. This experiment is designed to answer the question on when is the best time to apply a preservation treatment on PCC pavements. It will also enable development and implementation of important pavement preservation products and tools, such as addition of pavement preservation considerations to the AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide and associated software. Although the recommended experiment will not be implemented under the LTPP program, the experiment and this project report can be adopted and adapted by interested highway agencies to achieve the stated benefits. Cheryl Allen Richter, Ph.D., P.E. Director, Office of Infrastructure Research and Development 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. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HIF-18-064 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program October 2018 Specific Pavement Studies (SPS) 6. Performing Organization Code Development of Experiment Design: SPS-12: Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Preservation Study 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report G.R. Rada, T.R. Thompson, G.E. Elkins and R.G. Hicks No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 12000 Indian Creek Court, Suite F 11. Contract or Grant No. Beltsville, MD 20705-1258 DTFH61-14-C-00038 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Federal Highway Administration Covered Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center Final Report; September 2014 6300 Georgetown Pike to July 2017 McLean, Virginia 22101 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is Mr. Jack Springer, HRDI-20 16. Abstract Pavement preservation represents a proactive approach to maintaining and extending the lives of existing highway pavements. At the heart of the preservation decision-making process is pavement performance. This report documents the recommended experimental designs for the LTPP SPS-12 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement Preservation Study. However, the recommended experiment will not be implemented under the LTPP program, but the experiment and this project report can be adopted and adapted by interested highway agencies to achieve the stated benefits, and consequently the impetus for publication of the report. The underlying concept of this experiment is to apply the same preservation treatment, at different times, on the same pavement structure to determine the effectiveness of a single application of a treatment as a function of pavement condition and time. This experiment is designed to answer the question on when is the best time to apply a preservation treatment on PCC pavements. It will also enable development and implementation of important pavement preservation products and tools, such as addition of pavement preservation considerations to the AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide and associated software. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Pavement Preservation, Portland Cement Concrete (PCC), No restrictions. Preservation Treatments, Pavement Performance, Long- Term Pavement Performance (LTPP), Preservation Experiment 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified Pages 314 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC or (F-32)/1.8 ILLUMINATION fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 MASS g grams 0.035 ounces oz kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF ILLUMINATION lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2 *SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 LTPP BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................1 LTPP PAVEMENT PRESERVATION EXPERIMENTS ........................................................5 PROJECT APPROACH ............................................................................................................6 REPORT PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION.........................................................................8 CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ..............................................................................11 OVERVIEW OF EXPERIMENT APPROACH .....................................................................11 KEY EXPERIMENT CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................................13 EXPERIMENT DESIGNS ......................................................................................................28 PROJECT LAYOUT ...............................................................................................................32 OTHER EXPERIMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................34 PROJECT NOMINATION AND ACCEPTANCE PROCESS ..............................................36 CHAPTER 3. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................41 CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES ..........................................................................................41
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interstate 11 Update
    Management Comm ittee Maricopa Association of Governments June 9, 2010 Interstate 11 Update © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 1 Bordering States COG/MPO DISCUSSIONS TiTourism and RRtiecreation . GEORGE:ST . GEORGE:ST Scottsdale of Utah? California California Las Las Navajjj o Nation relates Population: Population:Vegas Vegas Grand Canyon more to New Mexico TOURISM TOURISM 60 M60 M by 2050!by 2050! 1717 II --1717 2525 High-tech High -tech Bedroom Bedroom Extension? Extension? communitycommunity community community industry along II --2525 People People Businesses Businesses Eager/ Springerville Second homes provide shopping/ services to Western New ECONOMIC DE Tourists Tourists Mexico Mexico Commercial Vehicles agriculture agriculture V Mexico’s fastest ELOPMENT growing states are in the north (Sonora, Chihuahua, and Nuevo Leon) Leon) Keyyy CONNECTIONS to Guaymas, Hermosillo, Punta Colonet maquiladoras Proposed Interstate 11 Corridor © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 2 Arizona Arizona COG/MPO DISCUSSIONS .. Commercial Trucking .. Distribution throughout Southwest USA R e c r e a t i o n .. Elevation in Central Arizona (SR(SR--89/SR89/SR--69)69) Pearce Pearce Growth Growth .. USUS--95/SR95/SR--95 Corridor95 Corridor Ferry Ferry Limitations CANAMEX.. CANAMEX .. Natural Resources .. Copper in Safford Area InIn-- .. Emerging Industries rn rn EX?EX? migggration eeee .. Welton Oil Refinery MMMM Warehousing.. Warehousing WestWest CANACANA .. Sun Corridor Megaregion Population Prescott.. Prescott will double Copppper pp mining mining Phoenix.. Phoenix Tucson.. Tucson Agrarian Agrarian Industrial Industrial .. Recreation and Tourism Incoming Incoming Informal Truck Bypasses Commerce! Warehousing/Distribution Hub Proposed Interstate 11 Corridor © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 3 2006 Tonnage of TrailerTrailer--onon--FlatcarFlatcar and ContainerContainer--onon--FlatcarFlatcar Intermodal Moves Proposed Interstate 11 Corridor © 2010, All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Highway Boondoggles 6 Big Projects
    HIGHWAY BOONDOGGLES 6 Big Projects. Bigger Price Tags. Limited Benefits. HIGHWAY BOONDOGGLES 6 Big Projects. Bigger Price Tags. Limited Benefits. WRITTEN BY: GIDEON WEISSMAN AND BRYN HUXLEY-REICHER FRONTIER GROUP MATTHEW CASALE AND JOHN STOUT U.S. PIRG EDUCATION FUND DECEMBER 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Kevin Brubaker of Environmental Law & Policy Center, Clint Richmond of Massachusetts Sierra Club, Chris DeScherer and Sarah Stokes of Southern En- vironmental Law Center, Wendy Landman of WalkBoston, Jenna Stevens of Environment Florida, Ben Hellerstein of Environment Massachusetts, Abe Scarr of Illinois PIRG and Bay Scoggin of TexPIRG for their review of drafts of this document, as well as their insights and suggestions. Thanks also to Frontier Group interns Christiane Paulhus and Hannah Scholl, and Susan Rakov, Tony Dutzik, David Lippeatt and Adrian Pforzheimer of Frontier Group for editorial support. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Policy recommendations are those of NCPIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. Project maps included in this report should be considered approximations based on publicly avail- able information and not used for planning purposes. 2020 NCPIRG Education Fund. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License. To view the terms of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0. With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursu- ing their own narrow agendas, NCPIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • FHWA AMRP FY 2020 Enacted.Pdf
    United States Department of Transportation FY 2020 Annual Modal Research Plans Federal Highway Administration May 1, 2019 Nicole Nason Administrator Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 2 Chapter 1: Introduction/Agency‐Wide Research Approach ................................................................ 8 Chapter 2. High Priority Project Descriptions ........................................................................................ 16 Chapter 3 ‐ FY 2020 Program Descriptions ............................................................................................. 34 Chapter 4 – FY 2021 Program Descriptions .......................................................................................... 250 FHWA FY2020‐FY2021 AMRP– March 2019 Page 1 Executive Summary The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) addresses current issues and emerging challenges, creates efficiencies in the highway and transportation sector, and provides information to support policy decisions through its Research and Technology (R&T) programs. FHWA conducts advanced and applied research; coordinates and collaborates with other research organizations, both nationally and internationally, to leverage knowledge; and develops and delivers solutions to address highway transportation needs. FHWA is uniquely positioned to identify and address highway issues of national significance and build effective partnerships that leverage and
    [Show full text]
  • Summary / Overview of Proposed I-11 Corridor
    Alternative Interstate 11 Corridor From Wickenburg to Mexico Border Prepared by: Sanjeev Ramchandra, M.Ed. [email protected] June 2016 Updated: December 2017 Summary / Overview of Proposed I-11 Corridor To Las Vegas • I-11 still replaces the existing US 93 corridor but a new corridor south of Wickenburg is proposed. • I-11 corridor uses existing highway contours with no urban sprawl and no new desert destruction. • I-11 provides quicker and safer travel to Lukeville border crossing and subsequently to Rocky Point. • I-11 between I-10 and I-8 becomes a southern bypass around Phoenix for I-10 through traffic. • I-11 is an alternate to I-19 for some truck traffic and reduces congestion from Nogales to Tucson. • I-11 generates additional sales tax revenues from To Rocky Point vacationers for state and local governments in AZ. Phoenix West Valley I-11 Corridor (see map) 1) I-11 shares US 60 from Wickenburg to L303. 2) I-11 replaces Loop 303 from US 60 to SR 30. 3) I-11 replaces SR 30 from Loop 303 to SR 85. 1 4) I-11 replaces SR 85 from SR 30 to Gila Bend. 5) I-111 replaces SR 30 from Loop 303 to L202. 6) I-311 replaces Loop 303 from US 60 to I-17. 7) SR 85 freeway segment links I-10 and I-11. 6 A) DO NOT put I-11 west of White Tank Mtns. B) DO NOT extend Loop 303 south of SR 30. C) DO NOT convert SR 74 into a freeway.
    [Show full text]
  • Fatal and Injury Accident Rates on Federal-Aid and Other Highway Systems/1973
    FATAL AND 1111111 1111111 11111111111111111 INJURY PB98-158462 ACCIDENT RATES ON FEDERAL-AID AND OTHER HIGHWAY SYSTEMS/1973 REPRODUCED BY: l'!J§, U.S. Departmentof Commerce NationalTechnical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION• Federal Highway Administration FATAL AND INJURY ACCIDENT RATES ON FEDERAL-AID AND OTHER HIGHWAY SYSTEMS/1973 U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION FederalHighway Administration For saleby the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office,Washington, D.C. 20l02 CONTENTS Table Page Explanatory Note ----------------------------------------------------------------- v Fatality Rate Trends by Highway System ---------------------------­ FRS-1 1 Fatality and Fatal Accident Rates by Highway System and State Fatality Rates --�-------------------------------------------­ FR-1 2 Rural Fatality Rates -----------------------------------------­ FR-2 3 Urban Fatality Rates ----------------------------------------­ FR-3 4 Fatal Accident Rates -----------------------------------------­ FAR-1 5 Rural Fatal Accident Rates -----------------------------------­ FAR-2 6 Urban Fatal Accident Rates ------------------------------------ FAR-3 7 Injury and Injury Accident Rates by Highway System and State Nonfatal Injury Rates ---------------------------------------­ IR-1 8 Rural Nonfatal Injury Rates ----------------------------------­ IR-2 9 Urban Nonfatal Injury Rates ----------------------------------­ IR-3 10 Nonfatal Injury Accident Rates -------------------------------­ IAR-1 11
    [Show full text]
  • PROPOSAL to DESIGNATE US ROUTE 93 AS a FUTURE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY EXHIBIT C - LOGISTICS Meeting Date: April 26, 2010 Document Consists of 22 Pages
    Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to Study the Development and Promotion of Logistics and Distribution Centers Concerning Infrastructure and Transportation Nevada State Legislature April 26, 2010 PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE US ROUTE 93 AS A FUTURE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY EXHIBIT C - LOGISTICS Meeting Date: April 26, 2010 Document consists of 22 pages. Entire Exhibit Provided. © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 1 Bordering States COG/ MPO DISCUSSIONS Tourism and Recreation ST. GEORGE: Scottsdale of Utah? California Las Navajo Nation relates Population: Vegas Grand Canyon more to New Mexico TOURISM 60 M by 2050! 17 I-17 25 High-tech Bedroom Extension? community industry along I-25 People Businesses Eager/ Springerville Second homes provide shopping/ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT services to Western Tourists New Mexico Commercial Vehicles agriculture Mexico’s fastest growing states are in the north (Sonora, Chihuahua, and Nuevo Leon) Key CONNECTIONS to Guaymas, Hermosillo, Punta Colonet maquiladoras Proposal to Designate US Route 93 as a Future Interstate Highway © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 2 Arizona COG/ MPO DISCUSSIONS . Commercial Trucking . Distribution throughout Southwest USA R e c r e a t i o n . Elevation in Central Arizona (SR-89/SR-69) Pearce Growth . US-95/SR-95 Corridor Ferry Limitations . CANAMEX . Natural Resources . Copper in Safford Area In- . Emerging Industries migration . Welton Oil Refinery . Warehousing Western CANAMEX? . Sun Corridor Population Megaregion will double Copper mining . Prescott . Phoenix Agrarian Industrial . Tucson Incoming . Recreation and Tourism Informal Truck Bypasses Commerce! Warehousing/Distribution Hub Proposal to Designate US Route 93 as a Future Interstate Highway © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 3 2006 Tonnage of Trailer -on-Flatcarand Container-on-Flatcar Intermodal Moves Proposal to Designate US Route 93 as a Future Interstate Highway © 2010, All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting Rural and Urban America PART3OF a SERIES
    August 2010 Transportation Reboot: Restarting America’s Most Essential Operating System The Case for Capacity: To Unlock Gridlock, Generate Jobs, Deliver Freight, and Connect Communities Connecting Rural and Urban America http://ExpandingCapacity.transportation.org PART3OF A SERIES AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS Acknowledgements Much of the material cited in this report, including the estimates of capacity increases required, is drawn from research published in May 2007 by the Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). The report, Future Options for the Interstate and Defense Highway System, can be accessed at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trbnet/ acl/NCHRP_20-24_52Task10_NCHRPFinal.pdf. The objective of the research project was to develop a potential vision for the future of the U.S. Interstate Highway System. The report was prepared by a study team led by David Gehr and Steve Lockwood of PB Consult, Gary Maring of Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Kevin E. Heanue, and Alan E. Pisarski. The research was sponsored by AASHTO and the Federal Highway Administration, and was guided by a panel chaired by Harold E. Linnenkohl, Georgia DOT (retired); and included Allen D. Biehler, P.E., Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT; John F. Conrad, P.E., Washington State DOT; Dr. David J. Forkenbrock, University of Iowa; Dr. Clay McShane, Northeastern University; Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT; Thomas E. Norton, Colorado DOT (formerly); Kenneth Orski, Urban Mobility Corporation; Dr. Bruce E. Seely, Michigan Technological University; MG David A. Sprynczynatyk, North Dakota Army National Guard; and LTG Kenneth R. Wykle, National Defense Transportation Association. The analysis period considered in the Future Options report was the 30 years from 2005 to 2035.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Truck Parking Implementation Plan Task 4: Draft Needs Assessment – Truck Parking Supply
    Nevada Truck Parking Implementation Plan Task 4: Draft Needs Assessment – Truck Parking Supply prepared for prepared by Nevada Department Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with of Transportation American Transportation Research Institute Horrocks Engineers Silver State Traffic Data Collection April 15, 2019 www.camsys.com draft report Nevada Truck Parking Implementation Plan Task 4: Draft Needs Assessment – Truck Parking Supply prepared for Nevada Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1975 Los Angeles, CA 90071 with American Transportation Research Institute Horrocks Engineers Silver State Traffic Data Collection date April 15, 2019 Nevada Truck Parking Implementation Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 Parking Attributes .............................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.1 Authorized and Unauthorized .................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 Paved and Unpaved .................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Marked and Unmarked .............................................................................................................. 2-4 2.4 Private and Public .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Economic Development Agenda for Nevada
    Unify Regionalize DiveRsify An Economic D E v E l o p m E n t A G E n D A f o r n E v ada S BROOKINGS MOUNTAIN WEST UNIFY | REGIONALIZE | DIVERSIFY An Economic Development Agenda for Nevada THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION | METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM BROOKINGS MOUNTAIN WEST SRI INTERNATIONAL ©2011 Unify | Regionalize | Diversify Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3 I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 14 II. Nevada’s Economic Challenge ............................................................................................ 18 III. Industry Opportunities for Nevada ....................................................................................... 28 IV. Unify | Regionalize | Diversify: An Approach to Growing the Next Nevada Economy ......... 62 V. Unify: Install an Operating System for 21st Century Economic Development ....................... 71 VI. Regionalize: Support Smart Sector Strategies in the Regions ............................................ 93 VII. Diversify: Set a Platform for Growth through Innovation, Global Engagement, and Aligned Education and Training ............................................................................................................. 106 Appendix A. Steering Committee Members and Board on Economic Development ................ 140 Appendix B. Focus Group Participants and Interviewees
    [Show full text]
  • Intermountain West Corridor • Future I-11 Completing the Southern End of the CANAMEX Corridor
    Intermountain West Corridor • Future I-11 Completing the southern end of the CANAMEX Corridor The challenge and the opportunity ALBERTA BRITISH Calgary The CANAMEX corridor (shown at right) has been completed in Canada COLUMBIA and is almost complete in the United States and Mexico. One of those SASKATCHEWAN unfinished segments lies between Las Vegas and Mexico, and its design and construction will have a major impact in southern Arizona. WASHINGTON NORTH The Sun Corridor Helena MONTANA DAKOTA Estimates for our Sun Corridor region (below, right) project that our trad- OREGON IDAHO SOUTH ing volumes can build an economy for this area larger than that of the DAKOTA United Arab Emirates. Studies consistently show that our transportation WYOMING infrastructure can develop the necessary capacity to move goods and ser- vices to and from Mexico and especially to our west and north. The future NEBRASKA is extremely bright if we are prepared for it. NEVADA Salt Lake City UTAH COLORADO KANSAS A multi-pronged rationale for a Las CALIFORNIA Vegas high priority. Henderson Mexico is more than a close neighbor. It’s one of the fastest growing ARIZONA NEW MEXICO economies in the world. Phoenix • There are over 240 aerospace companies in Mexico. Tucson TEXAS • It’s the world’s leading exporter of tomatoes ($2.03 billion in 2011). CANAMEX Nogales • It’s the world’s leading exporter of beer ($2.02 billion in 2011). TRADE ROUTE • The Port of Guaymas is scheduled for major expansion. Hermosillo • The Mexican government has committed over $300 billion for Guaymas infrastructure investment over the next six years.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Section 4(F) Evaluation Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered March 2019
    FHWA-AZ-EIS-19-01-D Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered March 2019 Federal Aid No. 999-M(161)S ADOT Project No. 999 SW 0 M5180 01P This page intentionally left blank I-11 Corridor Draft Tier 1 EIS Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered For More Information On: 1 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • Alternatives Selection Report • 2 This chapter discusses the alternatives development Purpose and Need 3 and screening process conducted to arrive at • Intermountain West Corridor Study 4 alternatives to be evaluated in detail in this Tier I Please Visit i11study.com/ 5 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 6 2.1 Recommendations from Prior Plans and Studies 7 Recommendations for major transportation corridors in prior plans and studies were a primary 8 input into the initial alternatives for the Interstate 11 (I-11) Corridor. In addition to the 2014 I-11 9 and Intermountain West Corridor Study (IWCS) described in Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need), 10 new major (high-capacity) transportation facilities have been identified as a critical need in 11 various statewide plans, regional transportation plans, and municipal planning documents. 12 Figure 2-1 (Related Planning Recommendations in I-11 Corridor Study Area) is a composite of 13 potential freeway corridors, passenger rail corridors, and freight focus areas that are identified in 14 various planning documents. Key plans and documents that relate to I-11 Corridor planning 15 include: 16 • Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Program (Arizona Department of 17 Transportation [ADOT] 2010) was Arizona’s first multimodal vision for 2050.
    [Show full text]
  • I-10 Multimodal Corridor Final Report
    Interstate 10 - Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study Task Assignment MPD 09-11 Final Report Prepared for Arizona Department of Transportation Multimodal Planning Division Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. March 2013 This page is intentionally left blank. Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013 i Contents List of Figures ii 4.10 Airports 4-22 8. Projects in the I-10 Corridor 8-1 List of Tables ii 4.11 Railroads 4-23 8.1 Programmed projects 8-1 Abbreviations and Acronyms iii 4.12 Utilities 4-23 8.2 Potential projects 8-5 Executive Summary ES-1 5. Movement of People, Goods, and Services 5-1 9. References 9-1 1. Study Description 1-1 5.1 Vehicular traffic flow 5-1 5.2 Transit services 5-9 1.1 Corridor overview 1-1 5.3 Freight movement 5-10 1.2 I-10 Corridor agency roles 1-1 1.3 Planning and environmental linkages 1-3 6. Safety and Security 6-1 1.4 Purpose and need 1-3 6.1 Crash history 6-1 1.5 Goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria 1-4 6.2 Geometric design 6-1 1.6 Stakeholder and public outreach 1-4 6.3 Access control 6-1 2. History of the I-10 Corridor 2-1 6.4 Ports of entry 6-6 6.5 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station emergency 2.1 Construction 2-1 evacuation plan 6-6 2.2 Previous planning studies 2-2 7.
    [Show full text]