DOCSLIB.ORG

Reversible Flow Lane Study SR 5 / US 1 / South Dixie Highway from SW 4Oth Street/Sr 976/Bird Road to Interstate 95 (I-95)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reversible Flow Lane Study SR 5 / US 1 / South Dixie Highway from SW 4Oth Street/Sr 976/Bird Road to Interstate 95 (I-95) Metropolitan Planning Organization Miami-Dade County Reversible flow lane study SR 5 / US 1 / South dixie Highway From SW 4oth street/sr 976/Bird Road to Interstate 95 (I-95) Submitted by: The Corradino Group, Inc. GpC III-07 Miami-dade county, florida DECEMBER 3, 2007 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Miami-Dade County 111 NW First Street, Suite 910 Miami, Florida 33128 REVERSIBLE FLOW LANE STUDY SR 5 / US 1 / South Dixie Highway From SW 40 th Street / SR 976 / Bird Road to Interstate 95 (I-95) December 3, 2007 GPC III - 07 Miami-Dade County, Florida PREPARED BY: THE CORRADINO GROUP 4055 NW 97 TH AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33178 US 1 Reversible Flow Lane Study Final Project Report PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that I am a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida practicing with The Corradino Group, a Florida Corporation, authorized to operate as an engineering business, P.E. #7665, by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Engineers, and that I have prepared or approved the evaluation, findings, opinions, conclusions or technical advice hereby reported for: Work Order Number: GPC III-07 Project: US 1 Reversible Flow Lane Study County: Miami-Dade County MPO Project Manager: Larry Foutz Public Works Project Manager: Joan Shen, P.E. I acknowledge that the procedures and references used to develop the results contained in this report are standard to the professional practice of transportation engineering as applied through professional judgment and experience. SIGNATURE: ______________________ NAME: Ryan Solis-Rios, P.E. FIRM: The Corradino Group P.E. No.: 63345 DATE: December 3, 2007 i US 1 Reversible Flow Lane Study Final Project Report US 1 REVERSIBLE FLOW LANE STUDY FINAL PROJECT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................10 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY ....................................................................................................................................................11 1.2 LITERATURE RESEARCH ...........................................................................................................................................12 II. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................................19 2.1 SAFETY ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................19 2.2 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................................19 2.3 COORDINATION .........................................................................................................................................................20 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................21 3.1 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................................................21 3.1.1 Functional Classification .................................................................................................................................21 3.1.2 Typical Section.................................................................................................................................................21 3.1.3 Land Use ..........................................................................................................................................................26 3.1.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.....................................................................................................................26 3.1.5 Intersections and Signalization ........................................................................................................................28 3.1.6 Lighting............................................................................................................................................................31 3.1.7 Utilities.............................................................................................................................................................31 IV. SAFETY ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................................33 4.1 CRASH DATA ............................................................................................................................................................33 V. NO-BUILD TRAFFIC................................................................................................................................................39 5.1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................................................................................................................................................39 5.1.1 US 1 Directional Splits.....................................................................................................................................41 5.1.2 Projected Traffic Growth .................................................................................................................................42 5.1.3 No-Build Traffic Analysis.................................................................................................................................46 VI. CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................................49 6.1 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................49 6.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................................59 6.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVES TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................61 6.4 LANE USE SIGNALIZATION .......................................................................................................................................67 6.5 IMPACTS OF LEFT TURNS AT THE INTERSECTIONS ....................................................................................................68 6.6 CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COSTS ...............................................................................................................70 6.7 CHALLENGES TO THE PROJECT ’S IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................73 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................................75 ii US 1 Reversible Flow Lane Study Final Project Report LIST OF EXHIBITS FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE S-1 Project Location Map ............................................................................................ 1 S-2 Existing Typical Section ....................................................................................... 3 S-3 Proposed Alternative 2 Typical Section ............................................................... 8 2.1 Standard Location of Reversible Two-Way Left-Turn Signs ............................. 14 3.1 Existing Four-Lane Divided Urban Typical Roadway Section I......................... 23 3.2 Existing Four-Lane Divided Urban Typical Roadway Section II ....................... 24 3.3 Existing Four-Lane Divided Urban Typical Roadway Section III ...................... 25 3.4 US 1 Intersections Schematic Map ..................................................................... 29 3.5 Existing Lane Geometry ..................................................................................... 30 4.1 Intersection Crash Rates ..................................................................................... 37 5.1 FDOT Count Stations and 24-Hour Total Volumes ........................................... 40 5.2 2000 Base Year Model ....................................................................................... 43 5.3 2030 Year Model ................................................................................................ 45 6.1 Alternative 2 (One Reversible Flow Lane) Section ............................................ 50 6.2 Alternative 3 (Two Reversible Flow Lanes) Section I ........................................ 53 6.3 Alternative 3 (Two Reversible Flow Lanes) Section II....................................... 54 6.4 Alternative 3 (Two Reversible Flow Lanes) Section III...................................... 55 6.5 Alternative 4 (Two Reversible Flow Lanes with Left-Turns) ............................. 58 iii US 1 Reversible Flow Lane Study Final Project Report LIST OF TABLES TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE S-1 Crash Data by Severity.......................................................................................... 3 S-2 Signalized Intersections Crash Types.................................................................... 4 S-3 Arterial Roadway-Level of Service (US 1)..........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MN MUTCD Chapter 2H
    Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS 2B.1 Application of Regulatory Signs ..........................................................................................2B-1 2B.2 Design of Regulatory Signs ..................................................................................................2B-1 2B.3 Size of Regulatory Signs ......................................................................................................2B-1 2B.4 Right-of-Way at Intersections ...............................................................................................2B-7 2B.5 STOP Sign (R1-1) and ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P) ...............................................................2B-8 2B.6 STOP Sign Applications .......................................................................................................2B-9 2B.7 Multi-Way Stop Applications ...............................................................................................2B-9 2B.8 YIELD Sign (R1-2) ..............................................................................................................2B-10 2B.9 YIELD Sign Applications .....................................................................................................2B-10 2B.10 STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement .................................................................................2B-10 2B.11 Stop Here For Pedestrians Signs (R1-5 Series) ....................................................................2B-11 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian
    [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]
  • A Guide for HOT Lane Development FHWA
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration A Guide for HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT A Guide for HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT BY WITH IN PARTNERSHIP WITH U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration PRINCIPAL AUTHORS Benjamin G. Perez, AICP PB CONSULT Gian-Claudia Sciara, AICP PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM T. Brent Baker Stephanie MacLachlin PB CONSULT PB CONSULT Kiran Bhatt Carol C. Martsolf KT ANALYTICS PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF James S. Bourgart Hameed Merchant PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF HOUSTON METRO James R. Brown John Muscatell PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Ginger Daniels John O’Laughlin TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Heather Dugan Bruce Podwal COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Charles Fuhs Robert Poole PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF REASON PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE Ira J. Hirschman David Pope PB CONSULT PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF David Kaplan Al Schaufler SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Hal Kassoff Peter Samuel PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF TOLL ROADS NEWSLETTER Kim Kawada William Stockton SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE Tim Kelly Myron Swisher HOUSTON METRO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen Lockwood Sally Wegmann PB CONSULT TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Chapter 1 Hot Lane Concept And Rationale........................................................................2 1.1 HOT lanes Defined .................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Avenue Reversible Lanes Draft Resolution April 20
    Government of the District of Columbia ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION 3F Van Ness ▪ North Cleveland Park ▪ Wakefield ▪ Forest Hills 3F01 – David Cristeal, Chair 3F02 – Alexandria Appah, Vice-Chair 4401-A Connecticut Ave, N.W. 3F03 – Dipali Mehta Box 244, Washington, D.C. 20008 3F04 – Stan Wall, Treasurer [email protected] 3F05 – Claudette David www.anc3f.com 3F06 – Monika Nemeth 3F07 – Matt Buechner, Secretary ______________________________________________________________________________ RESOLUTION REGARDING Connecticut Avenue Reversible Lane Operations and Safety Study April 20, 2021 Whereas the ANC 3F Streets and Sidewalks Committee and ANC 3F adopted resolutions in March 2018 requesting a comprehensive study of the Connecticut Avenue corridor with the overall goals of enhancing pedestrian safety, walkability, and economic vitality of the affected neighborhoods, making improvements to traffic management on Connecticut Avenue and surrounding streets, and considering the creation of dedicated bicycle lanes; Whereas two other ANCs in the affected corridor, ANC 3C and ANC 3/4G, also adopted resolutions requesting a comprehensive study of these issues in 2018; Whereas the DDOT-led Connecticut Avenue Reversible Lane Operations and Safety Study (“Safety Study”) is ongoing, with the key project goals of reducing vehicle crashes, improving safety for all modes of transit, considering a Protected Bicycle Lane, and assessing the feasibility of removing the Reversible Lane Operation; Whereas the “guiding principles” of the Safety Study
    [Show full text]
  • Validity of Reversible Flow Lanes Between Kandy Road Flyover and New Kelani Bridge Roundabout Along A01 to Accommodate Peak Traffic Flows
    ENENGINEEGINEER - Vol. XXXXIV,XXXXIV, No.No. 0404,, pp.pp, [[11-16],10-15], 20112011 © TThehe IInstitutionnstitution of EEngineers,ngineers, SSriri Lanka Validity of Reversible Flow Lanes between Kandy Road Flyover and New Kelani Bridge Roundabout along A01 to Accommodate Peak Traffic Flows K. S. Weerasekera Abstract: This paper examines ways of enhancing road capacity by improving lane efficiency along Colombo-Kandy Road (A01) at Colombo city entrance by introducing reversible traffic flow lanes between Kandy road flyover at Pattiya junction and New Kelani Bridge roundabout, to cater for peak traffic flows. A traffic study was conducted between Pattiya junction and New Kelani Bridge roundabout to find out the benefits and any losses, if reversible traffic flow lanes are introduced along this stretch of road during peak traffic flows in mornings and evenings. Two options of lane assignment were considered for the heavy flow direction during peak hours. Option ( i ) by adding one extra mixed traffic lane towards the heavy flow direction while reducing a lane from the opposite direction, and option ( ii ) adding an additional lane exclusively for buses towards the heavy flow direction while reducing a lane in the opposite direction. These two options were considered for both morning and evening peak traffic flows. By using Davidson’s model the benefits or any losses in travel time was computed for the two options separately for both directional peak traffic flows. The study proved that by the introduction of reversible flow lanes along the considered section, during morning and evening peak traffic flows, the benefits obtained by far outweigh the losses due to minor reduction in road capacity in the opposite directional traffic flows.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ROAD ZIPPER SYSTEM® Moving People
    THE ROAD ZIPPER SYSTEM® Moving People. Safer. Faster. Smarter . Better BEN FRANKLIN BRIDGE: PHILADELPHIA, PA BEFORE: The Ben Franklin Bridge between AFTER: Now, The Road Zipper System balances Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Camden, New Jersey, traffic flow and creates positive protection which has needed more lanes during peak periods. There was no eliminated crossover fatalities. protection from oncoming traffic, resulting in fatalities from head-on collisions. INSTALLATIONS ACROSS THE WORLD, WHY INCLUDING Sydney, Australia LINDSAY? Philadelphia, PA Washington, DC ™ Lindsay Transportation Solutions is dedicated New York, NY to quality construction, modern manufacturing techniques, a commitment to continuous Auckland, New Zealand THE LINDSAY TRANSPORTATION improvement, and an understanding of Boston, MA ADVANTAGE customer needs. Safe San Juan, Puerto Rico Rugged Cost-effective Our flagship products are the Reactive Tension San Diego, CA Trusted Barrier and The Road Zipper Machine – together Reliable Dallas, TX known as The Road Zipper System®. Honolulu, HI Road authorities and contractors around the world have been taking advantage of this low-cost, reusable solution to maximize budgets, reduce congestion, improve safety and increase traffic throughput since 1984. Moving People. Safer. Faster. Smarter . Better CONGESTION TRENDS: 1982-2011 500% 443.3% 400% 392.8% 396.7% 300% 200% 100% 6.6% 34.6% 0% POPULATION TOTAL DELAY FUEL WASTED TOTAL COST LANE MILES (BILLIONS OF HOURS) (BILLIONS OF GALLONS) (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS) OF ROAD DOUBLE DIGIT GROWTH MINIMAL INCREASE In the United States alone, there has been double-digit growth in every transportation metric, while the lane miles of new roads have only marginally increased. Lindsay’s Road Zipper System is one of the most cost-effective and safe options for overcoming these challenges, now and in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Conversions Guidebook
    Office of Operations 21st Century Operations Using 21st Century Technology Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Conversions Guidebook U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration June 2007 Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Conversions Guidebook Prepared for the HOV Pooled-Fund Study and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Prepared by HNTB Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean, VA 22102 Under contract to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) June 2007 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or the use thereof. The contents of this Report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accu- racy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation. This Report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers named herein. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HOP-08-034 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Consideration for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) to High Occupancy Toll June 2007 (HOT) Lanes Study 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Martin Sas, HNTB. Susan Carlson, HNTB Eugene Kim, Ph.D., Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • M-1 EXHIBIT M Stadium Pad Infrastructure and Stadium Related
    EXHIBIT M Stadium Pad Infrastructure and Stadium Related Infrastructure Stadium Pad Infrastructure o Stadium Pad Demolition of existing buildings on Stadium Pad Grading of Pad area and Ring Road within +/- 0.2 Feet of approved grading plans o Inner Ring Road Utilities, including Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS), Low Pressure Water ( LPW), Recycled Water (RW), Sanitary Sewer (SS), Storm Drain (SD) and all dry utilities installed as part of the Joint Trench (JT), installed in roadway capable of being activated 12 months before completion of new stadium. This also includes the laterals or services from each of these utilities serving the Stadium Parcel. Roadway Portland Cement Concrete (PCC), Curb and Gutter Asphalt Concrete (AC) wearing surface to be installed by stadium contractor upon completion of the new Stadium to prevent damage. o Interim Construction Access Corridor on Crisp Road from Griffith to Fisher Minimum of 2 lanes of weatherproof roadway o Interim Construction Access Corridor from Innes to Galvez to Robinson to Fisher to Crisp Minimum of 2 lanes of weatherproof roadway Stadium Related Infrastructure o Stadium Parking Lot/Dual-Use Fields Grading Surface Turf Drive Isles/Roadways Parking Structure Interim Parking Facilities as defined in the Transportation Plan Utilities Operational AWSS, LPW, RW, SS and SD Transportation Management System (TMS), as defined in the Transportation Plan. This core and shell of the Transportation Management Center shall be included within the New Stadium constructed by or on behalf of the 49ers, and the fixtures and LEGAL_US_W # 66181446.1 M-1 improvements within the core and shell of the Transportation Management Center shall be constructed by Developer as set forth in the Infrastructure Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • I-70 Reversible Lane Georgetown to Floyd Hill
    I-70 Reversible Lane Georgetown to Floyd Hill TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................... 1 What is the problem facing I-70? ............................................................................................. 1 Why look at a Reversible Lane? .............................................................................................. 2 Reversible Lane Facts & Assumptions ................................................................................... 2 What is a Reversible Lane? ..................................................................................................... 2 Where could a Reversible Lane be implemented? ................................................................... 2 Who could use a Reversible Lane? ......................................................................................... 3 What is the expected growth of traffic volumes in the corridor? ............................................... 4 If implemented, what travel time savings could be realized? .................................................... 4 What impact would a Reversible Lane have on westbound I-70? ............................................ 4 How long would the Reversible Lane project be useful? .......................................................... 5 Implementation
    [Show full text]
  • Movable Concrete Median Barrier Risk Analysis
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1233 Movable Concrete Median Barrier Risk Analysis JAMES E. BRYDEN AND NICHOLAS J. BRUNO A movable concrete safety-shape barrier was proposed for use in MB-5 configuration was installed to replace the previous steel a reversible-lane configuration on the Tappan Zee Bridge of the median barrier when the structure was reconfigured from six New York State Thruway. Previous tests had indicated that this to seven lanes in 1986. barrier provides performance comparable to that of standard rigid­ The morning eastbound traffic peak is more compressed, concrete safety-shape barrier, except for deflecting laterally on having higher hourly volumes than the evening westbound impact. Because of the narrow median width on this structure, peak, so four lanes were provided to accommodate morning concern arose that an impact on this barrier might cause it to deflect into opposing traffic, causing interference with another peak volumes. The three westbound lanes currently handle vehicle. This paper describes a model developed to assess the risk evening peak traffic at an acceptable level of service. How­ of interference collisions. Traffic and geometric conditions on the ever, anticipated traffic growth is expected to reduce this level structure and the barrier's deflection characteristics were used to of service during the evening peak. One proposal to accom­ calculate the probability that a primary impact on the barrier modate this westbound increase is a reversible lane on the would result in interference with opposing traffic. The model was bridge. The number of lanes open to traffic in opposing direc­ programmed on a microcomputer spreadsheet to.
    [Show full text]
  • I-495 & I-270 Managed Lanes Study: Alternatives Slide Presentation
    WELCOME Please take a seat 1 Alternatives Public Workshop for the I-495 & I-270 Managed Lanes Study 2 Lisa Choplin, DBIA Director, I-495 & I-270 P3 Office Jeff Folden, PE, DBIA Deputy Director, I-495 & I-270 P3 Office 3 Purpose of Today’s Workshop • Provide update on Study Status and Schedule • Present Preliminary Range of Alternatives • Provide summary of Purpose and Need • Present Screening Criteria to evaluate alternatives Future meetings will focus on detailed alternatives and environmental/property information 4 What is the Traffic Relief Plan (TRP)? • To address Maryland’s congestion, a balanced approach to transportation infrastructure improvements is needed for both transit and highways • MDOT is moving forward with $5.6 B Purple Line LRT construction and providing over $1.5 B in funding for Metro • The TRP is an ambitious plan to bring innovative solutions to address the transportation challenges on Maryland’s most congested roads: I-495, I-270, MD 295, I-695, I-95, and other major corridors • Congestion on these routes has a region-wide effect on other transportation modes, including transit 5 Traffic Conditions - Existing • Top 5 highest volume freeway sections in 8 AM 5 PM Maryland are within study area • Today, on average, severe congestion lasts for 7 hours each day on I-270 and 10 hours each day on I-495 • Study area includes several of the most unreliable freeway sections in Maryland (highly variable travel times day to day) • Many sections experience speeds less than Speed (mph) 15 mph under existing conditions and traffic
    [Show full text]
  • Reversible Traffic Lanes CSt
    Traffic Management REVERSIBLE TRAFFIC LANES CST TIME SRT STATE ON REGI AL IMPACT LOCAL RID OR OR C SPT RLES CITSTATE PBLIC AWARENESS Source: http://islengineering.com PERATIN More Information: tti.tamu.edu/policy/how-to-fix-congestion SUCCESS STORIES Description • Bridges, tunnels, and toll booth Arlington, Texas Reversible traffic lanes change direc- areas difficult to widen. The city installed tion based on peak congestion times. • Roads surrounding or leading to/ reversible lanes to Reversing lanes reduces congestion: from special event centers. ease congestion • During morning and evening around two professional • Roads during emergency use sports stadiums: commutes. (hurricane evacuation). • When there is an incident block- • FM 157/Collins Street. ing a lane of traffic. Reversible lanes work well in corridors • SH 180/Division Street. where traffic flow is heavily imbalanced • Before and after a special event. • Road to Six Flags Street. for a short period of time, and there are • When construction or mainte- few other solution options. nance is being done on the road. the best locations for implementation and ensure the public understands the How Will This Help? Reversible traffic lanes add capacity to concept and operation. • Reduces congestion by a road by borrowing from the other (off- borrowing capacity from the other peak) direction. The endpoint treatment requires par- direction. ticular care and attention; common Roads can be adjusted to become a • Increases safety in work zones. treatments extend across an intersec- one-way street or have one middle tion, requiring complex signals and lane operate in the peak direction. • Postpones the need to add inefficient timing strategies.
    [Show full text]