DOCSLIB.ORG

Tranplanmt Transportation Assets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tranplanmt Transportation Assets November 2017 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1 WHAT WE KNOW ............................................................ 1 Roadways ....................................................................................................1 Governing Framework ......................................................................................... 1 Inventory .............................................................................................................. 4 Condition ............................................................................................................. 9 Trends and Outlook ........................................................................................... 10 Structures ................................................................................................ 10 Governing Framework ....................................................................................... 10 Inventory ............................................................................................................ 11 Condition ........................................................................................................... 12 Trends and Outlook ........................................................................................... 14 Safety Rest Areas .................................................................................... 16 Governing Framework ....................................................................................... 16 Inventory ............................................................................................................ 17 Condition ........................................................................................................... 19 Trends and Outlook ........................................................................................... 20 Highway-Rail Crossings ......................................................................... 20 Governing Framework ....................................................................................... 21 Inventory ............................................................................................................ 21 Condition ........................................................................................................... 23 Trends and Outlook ........................................................................................... 24 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities........................................................... 24 Governing Framework ....................................................................................... 24 Inventory ............................................................................................................ 26 Condition ........................................................................................................... 27 Trends and Outlook ........................................................................................... 27 Transit ...................................................................................................... 28 Governing Framework ....................................................................................... 28 Inventory ............................................................................................................ 28 Condition ........................................................................................................... 29 Trends and Outlook ........................................................................................... 30 Aviation .................................................................................................... 30 Governing Framework ....................................................................................... 30 Inventory ............................................................................................................ 31 Condition ........................................................................................................... 34 Trends and Outlook ........................................................................................... 35 WHAT WE HEARD ......................................................... 36 MDT Biennial Survey ............................................................................... 36 Public Comments .................................................................................... 39 Stakeholder Feedback ............................................................................ 40 MOVING MONTANA FORWARD ................................... 43 Goals and Strategies ............................................................................... 43 Performance Management ..................................................................... 46 Page i November 2017 SOURCES ....................................................................... 47 Figures Figure 1: Functional Classification ........................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: FHWA Rural/Urban Definitions............................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Montana’s Rural and Urban Roadways ................................................................................. 4 Figure 4: Montana Roadways by Responsibility .................................................................................. 5 Figure 5: Designated System Roadways............................................................................................... 6 Figure 6: Multi-state Trade Corridors .................................................................................................... 8 Figure 7: Pavement Condition Examples .............................................................................................. 9 Figure 8: Historical Pavement Condition - Ride Index ....................................................................... 10 Figure 9: Structure Inventory ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 10: Deck Area ............................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 11: Structure Condition by Number ........................................................................................... 13 Figure 12: Riding Surface Condition by Deck Area ............................................................................. 14 Figure 13: Percent of Structurally Deficient Bridge Decks by System .............................................. 14 Figure 14: Percent of Structures and Bridge Decks in Good/Fair/Poor Condition ........................... 15 Figure 15: Highway Segments Underserved by Rest Areas ............................................................... 18 Figure 16: Rest Area Construction/Reconstruction ............................................................................. 19 Figure 17: Health Index Score Distribution for State-maintained Rest Areas ................................... 20 Figure 18: Montana Rail Crossings ........................................................................................................ 22 Figure 19: Highway-Rail Incidents and Fatalities ................................................................................. 24 Figure 20: Statewide Shared Use Path Mileage by Surfacing Type ................................................... 26 Figure 21: Statewide Shared Use Path Condition ................................................................................ 27 Figure 22: Montana Federal and State Transit Funding ...................................................................... 30 Figure 23: Airport Locations ................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 24: Airside Pavement Condition Ratings .................................................................................. 34 Figure 25: Perceived Need for Facilites, Equipment, or Services ...................................................... 37 Figure 26: Possible Improvements in the Trans. System and Roadways ......................................... 38 Tables Table 1: Pavement Condition ................................................................................................................ 9 Table 2: Structure and Deck Condition .............................................................................................. 13 Table 3: Safety Rest Area Inventory ................................................................................................... 17 Table 4: Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory ........................................................................................ 21 Table 5: ADA Feature Inventory .......................................................................................................... 26 Table 6: Urban Transit Provider Fleet Data ....................................................................................... 29 Table 7: Airport Roles .......................................................................................................................... 31 Table 8: Public Comment on Roadways ............................................................................................ 39 Table 9: Public Comment on Structures ...........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southern Arizona Future Connectivity Corridor Feasibility Assessment Report
    I-11 I-11 I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor Study & Southern Arizona Future INTERMOUNTAIN WEST CORRIDOR STUDY Connectivity Corridor Feasibility Assessment Report Prepared for and July 2014 I-11 AND INTERMOUNTAIN WEST CORRIDOR STUDY Southern Arizona Future Connectivity Corridor Feasibility Assessment Report Prepared for Nevada Department of Transportation and Arizona Department of Transportation July 2014 Prepared by and . DISCLAIMER The contents of this planning document are based on information available to the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Nevada Department of Transportation (herein referred to as the Sponsoring Agencies) as of the date of this report. Accordingly, this report may be subject to change. The Sponsoring Agencies’ acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfillment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of any recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project‐level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternatives will be necessary. The Sponsoring Agencies do not warrant the use of this report, or any information contained in this report, for use or consideration by any third party. Nor do the Sponsoring Agencies accept any liability arising out of reliance by a third party on this report, or any information contained in this report. Any use or reliance by third parties is at their own risk. iv Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ........................................................................1 2. Corridor Context ........................................................................................5 3. Existing and Future Conditions Overview .................................................. 11 4. Evaluation Framework and Alternatives Development .............................. 17 5. Alternatives Evaluation Summary and Results .......................................... 21 6.
    [Show full text]
  • I-15 Corridor System Master Plan Update 2017
    CALIFORNIA NEVADA ARIZONA UTAH I-15 CORRIDOR SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2017 MARCH 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The I-15 Corridor System Master Plan (Master Plan) is a commerce, port authorities, departments of aviation, freight product of the hard work and commitment of each of the and passenger rail authorities, freight transportation services, I-15 Mobility Alliance (Alliance) partner organizations and providers of public transportation services, environmental their dedicated staff. and natural resource agencies, and others. Individuals within the four states and beyond are investing Their efforts are a testament of outstanding partnership and their time and resources to keep this economic artery a true spirit of collaboration, without which this Master Plan of the West flowing. The Alliance partners come from could not have succeeded. state and local transportation agencies, local and interstate I-15 MOBILITY ALLIANCE PARTNERS American Magline Group City of Orem Authority Amtrak City of Provo Millard County Arizona Commerce Authority City of Rancho Cucamonga Mohave County Arizona Department of Transportation City of South Salt Lake Mountainland Association of Arizona Game and Fish Department City of St. George Governments Bear River Association of Governments Clark County Department of Aviation National Park Service - Lake Mead National Recreation Area BNSF Railway Clark County Public Works Nellis Air Force Base Box Elder County Community Planners Advisory Nevada Army National Guard Brookings Mountain West Committee on Transportation County
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Purpose and Need
    1. Purpose and Need 1.1 Proposed Action The proposed project involves traffic improvements to United States Highway 93 (U.S. 93) in the Boulder City, Nevada, area. The project limits are between a western boundary at the end of Interstate 515 (I-515) on U.S. 93/United States Highway 95 (U.S. 95) in Henderson (U.S. 95 Milepost [MP] 59.10), approximately 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile) north of the Railroad Pass Hotel and Casino, and an eastern boundary on U.S. 93, approximately 1.2 km (0.75 miles) east of the Hacienda Hotel and Casino. The eastern boundary is coincident with the planned western end of the U.S. 93 Hoover Dam Bypass project Nevada Interchange (see Section 2.1). The Boulder City/U.S. 93 Corridor Study covers a total distance of approximately 16.7 km (10.4 miles) on the present route of U.S. 93 (Figure 1-1). U.S. 93 is the major commercial corridor for interstate and international commerce, and it is the single route through Boulder City, functioning as a principal urban arterial. It is a direct north-south link between Phoenix and Las Vegas, which are two of the fastest-growing areas in the United States (U.S.), and it carries a high volume of east-west traffic from Interstate 40 (I-40) to Las Vegas and to Interstate 15 (I-15). U.S. 93, in combination with other highways, creates a continuous Canada to Mexico (CANAMEX) corridor through the U.S. between Calgary, Alberta, and Nogales, Sonora (Figure 1-2).
    [Show full text]
  • NAFTA Superhighway Order Encourages the Privatization of Taxpayer-Funded Corridor As the Trunk of a Tree, One That Hooks U.S
    —————— 1992 —————— If you look at the map over there, I think it is NAFTA [Ed note: While EO#12803 does not mention “super- self-evident what it means to the whole country, highways,” a brief description is included because this not just to Texas. And if you look at the NAFTA Superhighway Order encourages the privatization of taxpayer-funded corridor as the trunk of a tree, one that hooks U.S. assets, including roads designated as a part of up Mexico and all those markets down there with Memory Hole the international superhighway/supercorridor system.] the industrial heartland of our country, as well as A review of NAFTA Superhighway history Executive Order #12803: the most important economic centers in Canada. reveals that the marketing of this concept “Infrastructure Privatization” I urge this committee to give careful consid- began well over a decade ago. In that time, eration to this concept. As this trade grows, the Signed by President George H.W. Bush on a growing number of highways have been current I–35 won't be able to handle it. It will de- April 30, 1992, EO#12803 encourages designated as “high priority corridors”— a teriorate. We won't take advantage of all the privatization of U.S. infrastructure assets that are rating that allows easier access to federal funds. imaginative opportunities that this superhighway “financed in whole or in part by the Federal Lobbyist seeking to create an designation can give us. (p.687) Government and needed for the functioning international infrastructure have referred The designation of I–35 corridor as a super- of the economy.” The Order defines privatization to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • I-15 Critical Corridor Plan
    I-15 Critical Corridor Plan October 4, 2018 Jacobs One Nevada Transportation Plan Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1 1.1 I-15 Critical Corridor Plan .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Limitations of this Corridor Plan ................................................................................... 2 1.2 Corridor Description and Segments .......................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Segment A—California/Nevada State Line to I-15/I-215 ............................................. 2 1.2.2 Segment B—Core Area of Las Vegas ............................................................................ 2 1.2.3 Segment C—I-15/I-515/US 95 to I-15/CC-215 ............................................................. 2 1.2.1 Segment D—I-15/CC-215 to AZ/NV State Line ............................................................. 2 2 I-15 Background .........................................................................................................................4 2.1 Corridor Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 4 2.1.1 National Context .......................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Regional Connectivity ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL Feasibility Report / Prepared for ADOT
    FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT / PREPARED FOR ADOT I-40/US 93 WEST KINGMAN TI Final Feasibility Report ADOT Project No. 040 M0 48 H732301L FEDERAL PROJECT NO. NH-040-A(AVJ) Topock-Kingman Highway I-40 October 2009 Prepared By Final Feasibility Report l-AÛlUS 93 West K¡ngman Tl ADOT PROJECT NO. O4O MO 48 H732301L FEDERAL PROJECT NO. NH-040-A (AVJ) TOPOCK - KINGMAN HIGHWAY t-40 Prepared for Arizona Department of Transportation October 2009 I-40/US 93 West Kingman TI Feasibility Report Executive Summary Background This study for the I-40/US 93 West Kingman TI, ADOT Project Number 040 MO 48 H732301L, identifies possible corridor alternatives for a new system-to-system directional interchange connecting Interstate 40 (I-40) to United States Route 93 (US 93) near Kingman, AZ. The general location for the various alternative corridors is along I-40 between the Shinarump Drive traffic interchange (TI) and Stockton Hill Road TI (approximate MP 44 to MP 52) and along US 93 between the State Route (SR) 68 TI, near the Kingman Port of Entry, and the existing Beale Street interchange, where US 93 connects with I-40 (approximate MP 67 to MP 71). US 93 is part of the CANAMEX Corridor. The Beale Street interchange between I-40 and US 93 is the third of three “bottleneck” locations along US 93 identified from the previous CANAMEX Corridor study. The first location is Hoover Dam and that area is being addressed with the Hoover Dam Bypass construction. The second location is Wickenburg and that area is being addressed with an interim bypass that began construction in February 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Annual Report 2020-2021
    GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA Annual Report Transportation 2020-2021 Transportation, Government of Alberta | Transportation 2020 –2021 Annual Report ©2021 Government of Alberta | Published: June 2021 ISBN: 978-1-4601-5095-5 (PDF online) ISSN: 2368-0482 (PDF online) Note to Readers: Copies of the annual report are available on the Alberta Open Government Portal website www.alberta.ca ii Transportation | Annual Report 2020 – 2021 Table of Contents Preface . 2 Minister’s Accountability Statement . 3 Message from the Minister . 4 Management’s Responsibility for Reporting . .. 6 Results Analysis . 7 Ministry Overview . 8 Discussion and Analysis of Results . 13 Performance Measure and Indicator Methodology . 45 Financial Information . 51 Reporting Entity and Method Consolidation . .. 52 Ministry Financial Highlights . 53 Supplemental Financial Information . 57 Financial Statements of Other Reporting Entities . 58 Other Financial Information . 74 Annual Report Extracts and Other Statutory Reports . 78 Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act . 79 Transportation | Annual Report 2020 – 2021 1 INTRODUCTION Preface The Public Accounts of Alberta are prepared in accordance with the Financial Administration Act and the Fiscal Planning and Transparency Act. The Public Accounts consist of the annual report of the Government of Alberta and the annual reports of each of the 20 ministries. The annual report of the Government of Alberta contains ministers’ accountability statements, the consolidated financial statements of the province and a comparison of actual performance results to desired results set out in the government’s strategic plan, previously published in one volume entitled Measuring Up report. This annual report of the Ministry of Transportation contains the minister’s accountability statement, the financial information of the ministry and a comparison of actual performance results to desired results set out in the ministry business plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Gateway Region Maps
    custom leasing solutions in a native environment GATEWAY REGION MAPS We Put You in the Best UTAH INTERSTATE COLORADO Possible Position to 15 EDMONTON Succeed NEVADA CANADA ARIZONA CALGARY Central to major centers of commerce GREAT FALLS IDAHO FALLS and ports LAS SALT LAKE CITY VEGAS INTERSTATE INTERSTATE 11 LAS VEGAS • 180 miles to California, the world’s sixth 15 USAINTERSTATE INTERSTATE ARIZONA PHOENIX 25 93 40 largest economy INTERSTATE FLAGSTAFF TUCSON 40 ALBUQUERQUE NOGALES INTERSTATE INTERSTATE • 380 miles to Texas, the world’s 11th 40 HERMOSILLO 40 INTERSTATE 40 largest economy ARIZONA 93 MEXICO INTERSTATE • 148 miles to Mexico, the second largest 17 MEXICO CITY INTERSTATE economy in Latin America 11 PROPOSED ROUTE CANAMEX CORRIDOR INTERSTATE INTERSTATE 11 COMMERCE CENTER Close to major transportation corridors 10 INTERSTATE 10 PHOENIX INTERSTATE 11 CHANDLER • 18 miles to Interstate 10 and the CALIFORNIA MARICOPA / INTERSTATE Canamex trade corridor AK-CHIN 25 CASA GRANDE INTERSTATE INDIAN YUMA 8 COMMUNITY INTERSTATE • 5 miles or less to the proposed 10 INTERSTATE LAS CRUCES Interstate 11, linking Las Vegas TUCSON INTERSTATE 10 10 and Phoenix, a Canamex route that HIGHWAY LEGEND INTERSTATE EL PASO 19 NEW MEXICO bypasses the congestion of I-10 CUIDAD INTERSTATE EXISTING MAJOR HIGHWAY JUAREZ 10 through Phoenix NOGALES STATE ROUTE TEXAS • 13.5 miles to Interstate 8 PROPOSED INTERSTATE ROUTE MEXICO CANAMEX CORRIDOR CHANDLER MARICOPA COUNTY KEY TO BOUNDARIES PINAL COUNTY Ready Access PHOENIX 26.7 miles CHANDLER MARICOPA COUNTY City of
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Orders, Proclamations of General Applicability, and Statements Issued by the Governor Pursuant to A.R.S
    Arizona Administrative Register Governor’s Executive Orders/Proclamations EXECUTIVE ORDERS, PROCLAMATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, AND STATEMENTS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNOR PURSUANT TO A.R.S. § 41-1013(B)(3) The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires the full-text publication of all Executive Orders and Proclama- tions of General Applicability issued by the Governor. In addition, the Register shall include each statement filed by the Governor in granting a commutation, pardon or reprieve, or stay or suspension of execution where a sen- tence of death is imposed. Editor’s note: In accordance with A.A.C. R1-1-109(D), the following Executive Order is republished to correct printing errors in the text and replaces Executive Order 2001-05 published at 7 A.A.R. 1572, April 13, 2001. EXECUTIVE ORDER 2001-05 Amending Executive Order 98-7 ESTABLISHING A GOVERNOR’S TASK FORCE FOR THE CANAMEX CORRIDOR WHEREAS, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) created a preferential trade relationship between Canada, Mexico and the United States and a key component of its successful implementation is the efficient flow of goods, services, people and information between the participating nations; and WHEREAS, trade corridors are geographically designated areas that facilitate the national and transnational movement of goods, ser- vices, people and information; and WHEREAS, the State of Arizona will initially focus on three key components that a viable trade corridor includes, but is not limited to: (1) Transportation: Comprised of a well developed
    [Show full text]
  • Highway 2 Corridor Economic Development Study Background Report Table of Contents 1
    LACOMBE COUNTY Highway 2 Corridor Economic Development Study Phase 1 Background Report September 2002 LACOMBE COUNTY Highway 2 Corridor Economic Development Study Background Report Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 2. The Highway 2 Corridor ............................................................................................. 3 2.1 CANAMEX...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Alberta Transportation Authority ..................................................................................... 3 3. Lacombe County ........................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Agricultural Land Use ..................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Non-Agricultural Use....................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Future Commercial/Industrial Development.................................................................... 7 4. Neighbouring Municipalities...................................................................................... 8 4.1 Town of Lacombe ........................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Town of Blackfalds.........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
    The History of the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1TIER I-11 Corridor Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ISTEA 1991 The CANAME Trade Corridor connecting Mexico and Canada through Arizona was outlined in the ISTEA highway bill. North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA 1994 Establishes trade and manufacturing opportunities between the U.S. Canada and Mexico increasing the importance of creating a north-south connection in the Intermountain West. High Priority Corridors 1995 The CANAME corridor was defined by Congress in the 1995 National Highway Systems Designation Act. Mike OCallaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge 2010 Moving Ahead for Bridge bypassing the Hoover Dam eliminates a major bottleneck on the Progress in the 21st CANAME corridor. Century Act MAP-21 2012 Future I-11 from Phoenix to Las Vegas is designated in federal transportation I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor Study legislation. Arizona and Nevada validate the I-11 Corridor on US 93 between Wickenburg and Las Vegas and define a wide corridor for 2014 further study from Wickenburg to Nogales and from Las Vegas to Reno. Fixing Americas Surface Transportation FAST Act The future I-11 designation is officially extended south to Nogales and 2015 north to Reno in federal transportation legislation. I-11 Corridor Tier 1 EIS Formal National Environmental Policy Act environmental review process 2016 begins on the I-11 Corridor Study from Nogales to Wickenburg Arizona with the goal of identifying a Preferred Corridor Alternative. Federal Lead Agency: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Local Lead Agency: Arizona Department of Transportation ALL INFORMATION PRESENTED IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO REVISION May 2017 Federal Aid No.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah - Alberta Relations
    UTAH - ALBERTA RELATIONS PROFILE RELATIONSHIP OVERVIEW Alberta’s annual exports to Utah have averaged Capital: Salt Lake City • $362 million over the last five years, making it th Alberta’s 24 largest export market. Population: 2.3 million (2002 estimate) • Mormon migrants from Utah settled much of Language: English southern Alberta in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Government: Bicameral • Utah is connected to Alberta by the I-15 highway, Head of Government: Governor Olene Walker (R) providing a link up to the CANAMEX intermodal Term expires November 2004 transportation corridor. • Based on Calgary’s experience in hosting the Currency: US Dollar 1988 Winter Olympics, the Calgary Olympic CDN$1 = 0.74 US (April 2004) Development Association provided the Salt Lake City organizing committee with a significant GSP: US$70.4 billion (2001) amount of information and assistance during the planning stages for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Per Capita Income: US$24,157 (2001) Salt Lake City. Key Industry Sectors: DID YOU KNOW? Machinery, aerospace, mining, food processing, electric equipment, tourism, and agriculture. • The name "Utah" comes from the Native American "Ute" tribe and means people of the mountains. Unemployment: 5.0% (March 2004) The first party of Mormon pioneers arrived in the • Salt Lake Valley in 1847. Main Cities: - Salt Lake City: 181,266 (metro approx. • In 1848, Utah was ceded to the US following the 1 million, including within a 30 mile radius war with Mexico and in 1896 it became the 45th o Provo: 105,170 state. o West Valley City: 111,254 o Sandy: 89,244 • Utah is emerging as a high tech centre, with more o Ogden: 78,641) software enterprises than California's Silicon - St.
    [Show full text]