DOCSLIB.ORG

Hov Lanes Be Successful?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hov Lanes Be Successful? aH bO cV TheA B s C’ of H O V The Texas Experience Wm. R. Stockton, P.E. Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Ginger Daniels, P.E. Associate Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Douglas A. Skowronek, P.E. Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute David W. Fenno, P.E. Assistant Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Report 1353-I Project Number 0-1353 Research Project Title: An Evaluation of High-Occupancy Vehicle Projects in Texas Sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation In Cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the opinions, findings, and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration or the Texas Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a stan- dard, specification, or regulation, nor is it meant for construction, bid- ding, or permit purposes. This report was prepared by Wm. R. Stockton (Texas certification number 41188), Ginger Daniels (Texas certification number 64560), Doug A. Skowronek (Texas certification number 80683 ), and David W. Fenno (Texas certification number 84643). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is the final report from more than a decade of research into the effectiveness of HOV lanes in Texas. Numerous people have made significant contributions over the course of this research. Mr. Alvin R. Luedecke, P.E., the TxDOT project director, has been most prominent in providing consistent and insightful guidance to the research team throughout. He has skillfully directed the research to assure that it meets both the immediate and long-term needs of TxDOT. Dr. Dennis L. Christiansen, P.E., was the initial leader in this research and has maintained a high profile presence and involvement throughout. Other key contributors include Ms. Tina Collier, who produced the last three editions; Mr. Russell Henk, P.E., who served as research supervisor; Mr. Mike Ogden, P.E., who managed the data col- lection and analysis in Houston; Mr. Danny Morris and Mr. David Sena, who provided extensive data analysis throughout the project; Mr. Kevin Hall, who assisted with air quality assessment; and Drs. Tim Lomax, P.E., and Katherine F. Turnbull, who provided guidance and feedback throughout the project. TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 September 1999 2 TABLE OF Implementation Recommendations 5 CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE Introduction 7 CHAPTER TWO HOV Lanes 101 9 What Is an HOV Lane? 9 How Do They Work? 9 What Is The Purpose of an HOV Lane? 9 Are HOV Lanes And Carpool Lanes The Same Thing? 9 What Do HOV Lanes Do? 9 What Are The Types of HOV Lanes in Texas? 10 Why Do Cities Build HOV Lanes? 10 What Is The Role of HOV Lanes? 10 What Are Realistic Expectations of HOV Lanes? 10 CHAPTER THREE Will (my) HOV Lanes be Successful? 13 Under What Conditions Are HOV Lanes Most Likely to Be Successful? 13 Who Uses HOV Lanes? 13 Who Benefits From HOV Lanes? 14 Isn’t Money Better Spent on New Freeway Lanes? 15 How Do We Avoid The “Empty Lane” Syndrome? 15 Will the Installation of an HOV Lane Relieve Congestion? 16 What Are the Best Ways to Provide Access To/from HOV Lanes? 16 Who Is Responsible for Operating, Enforcing and Maintaining HOV Lanes? 16 Does the Public Look Favorably on HOV Lanes? 17 What Is a HOT Lane? 17 CHAPTER FOUR Measuring Performance 19 Objective 1. Increase Roadway Person-Movement 19 Objective 2. Improve Bus Transit Operating Efficiency 19 Objective 3. Improve Total Roadway Efficiency 20 Constraint 1. No Impact on General Purpose Lanes 20 Constraint 2. HOV Lanes Should Be Cost-Effective 20 Constraint 3. Maintain Public Acceptance 21 Constraint 4. HOV Lanes Should Have a Favorable or Neutral Impact on Air Quality and Fuel Consumption 21 CHAPTER FIVE Conclusions 23 Person-Movement 23 Carpooling 23 Bus Transit 23 Total Roadway Efficiency 23 Impact on General-Purpose Lanes 24 Cost-Effectiveness 24 Public Support 24 Air Quality and Fuel Consumption 24 Factors Affecting HOV Lane Utilization 24 Summary 25 REFERENCES 27 3 The primary purpose of an HOV lane is to increase the total number of people tmoved through a corridor by offering two kinds of travel incentives: a substantial savings in travel time and a reliable and predictable trip. 4 IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS ■ That Metropolitan Planning Organizations, TxDOT and the transit authorities continue plans to consider HOV lanes for freeway corri- dors that are already congested or projected to be congested. Freeways with average daily traffic per lane of 25,000 should be carefully examined for potential HOV lane benefits. ■ That all entities recognize the crucial role of transit in making effec- tive and efficient use of HOV lanes, and avoid those that would be carpool-only HOV lanes. ■ That all entities recognize the unique nature of each corridor, and plan and implement HOV lanes only after thorough analysis has shown that a particular HOV lane will meet the objectives and sat- isfy the constraints outlined in this report. ■ That HOV lane planners carefully balance the support facilities associated with an HOV lane and the number of additional people who will take advantage of the HOV lane to assure that the HOV lane warrants the magnitude of support costs. ■ That all entities recognize that the intent of HOV lanes is to increase the person-movement capability of a corridor, not reduce the con- gestion of single-occupant vehicles. ■ That an evaluation plan and schedule for any implemented HOV lane should be developed along with the planning of the HOV lane. That evaluation plan should identify the measures of effectiveness to be used and the data to be collected as a routine process of ongoing evaluation. ■ That TxDOT continue some level of HOV lane evaluation to track new HOV lane designs employed in Dallas and impacts of growing HOV lane use in Houston. ■ That TxDOT support future research into the following unknowns: ❚ How important is trip time reliability in attracting users to HOV lanes? ❚ Can hardware/software be developed to automate HOV lane evaluation data collection and HOV lane enforcement? ❚ Under what circumstances will HOV lanes succeed without tran- sit? ❚ Can a comprehensive analysis package including both system analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis be developed for use by planners? ❚ What are the impacts of converting HOV lanes to other special uses (including HOT lanes)? ❚ What are the best institutional arrangements for operating and enforcing HOV lanes (including how costs are covered)? ❚ What are the implications of HOV lanes and light-rail transit in the same corridor– do they compete, or complement? 5 HOV facilities are one element in a complex transportation system. They serve a particular hmarket that consists primarily of long, dispersed trips oriented to major activity centers. 6 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The implementation of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes is a very important decision. Done right they offer a great opportunity for timproving person-movement in a corridor. Done the wrong way or in the wrong place, they can be a significant public relations disaster. This report attempts to identify some of the key policy level questions that do (or should) arise from the consideration of HOV lanes and to shed light on the some of the answers to these questions. The intent of this report is to provide the reader with a nontechni- cal introduction into the Texas experience with high occupancy vehi- cle lanes. It is a companion report to Research Report 1353-6F, which is the final technical report of this series. That report includes all of the results of the long-term evaluations conducted over most of the last decade. This series of reports is sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Significant additional research benefit was gained in projects sponsored by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) and the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). The researchers divided this summary report into three sections. The first section is a basic introduction to HOV lanes, including what they are, how they work, and typical reasons for considering HOV lanes. Following the initial section is a detailed discussion that sheds some light on the question of: “Is this type of improvement the right thing to do?” That discussion describes the findings of the Texas research on some of the key questions that are typically asked when a community is considering an HOV lane. The final section of the report deals with how to know if an operating HOV lane is meeting expectations. It identifies measurable objectives and constraints that will provide important ongoing evaluation and feedback. 7 Carpooling has declined nationally by an average of 30% in the past two cdecades.Yet on Texas freeway corridors with mature HOV lanes, there has been an increase in carpooling of 100% or greater during the same time period. 8 Chapter 2 HOV LANES 101 What Is an HOV Lane? An HOV lane is a separate lane that is restricted to vehicles occupied by two or more people. HOV lanes usually include carpools, van- pools and buses. HOV lanes can be used on freeways or arterial streets, though the HOV lanes evaluated in this research project were all on freeways. How Do They Work? HOV lanes are typically located in highly congested areas, usually in or adjacent to the median of the freeway. The high occupancy vehi- cles enter the lane at designated points and travel along the lane at speeds usually much faster than adjacent general purpose lanes. What Is The Purpose of an HOV Lane? The primary purpose of HOV lanes is to increase the total number of persons moved in the freeway corridor.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic
    MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration for Streets and Highways Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic Dotted line indicates edge of binder spine. MM UU TT CC DD U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2003 Edition Page i The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard in accordance with Title 23 U.S. Code, Sections 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a), 23 CFR 655, and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(8), 1.48(b)(33), and 1.48(c)(2). Addresses for Publications Referenced in the MUTCD American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 www.transportation.org American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) 8201 Corporate Drive, Suite 1125 Landover, MD 20785-2230 www.arema.org Federal Highway Administration Report Center Facsimile number: 301.577.1421 [email protected] Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) 120 Wall Street, Floor 17 New York, NY 10005 www.iesna.org Institute of Makers of Explosives 1120 19th Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-3605 www.ime.org Institute of Transportation Engineers
    [Show full text]
  • Preferential and Managed Lane Signs and General Information Signs
    2009 Edition Page 253 CHAPTER 2G. PREFERENTIAL AND MANAGED LANE SIGNS Section 2G.01 Scope Support: 01 Preferential lanes are lanes designated for special traffic uses such as high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), light rail, buses, taxis, or bicycles. Preferential lane treatments might be as simple as restricting a turning lane to a certain class of vehicles during peak periods, or as sophisticated as providing a separate roadway system within a highway corridor for certain vehicles. 02 Preferential lanes might be barrier-separated (on a separate alignment or physically separated from the other travel lanes by a barrier or median), buffer-separated (separated from the adjacent general-purpose lanes only by a narrow buffer area created with longitudinal pavement markings), or contiguous (separated from the adjacent general-purpose lanes only by a lane line). Preferential lanes might allow continuous access with the adjacent general-purpose lanes or restrict access only to designated locations. Preferential lanes might be operated in a constant direction or operated as reversible lanes. Some reversible preferential lanes on a divided highway might be operated counter-flow to the direction of traffic on the immediately adjacent general-purpose lanes. 03 Preferential lanes might be operated on a 24-hour basis, for extended periods of the day, during peak travel periods only, during special events, or during other activities. 04 Open-road tolling lanes and toll plaza lanes that segregate traffic based on payment method are not considered preferential lanes. Chapter 2F contains information regarding signing of open-road tolling lanes and toll plaza lanes. 05 Managed lanes typically restrict access with the adjacent general-purpose lanes to designated locations only.
    [Show full text]
  • Module 6. Hov Treatments
    Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Module 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS MODULE 6. HOV TREATMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 6-5 TREATMENTS ..................................................... 6-6 MODULE OBJECTIVES ............................................. 6-6 MODULE SCOPE ................................................... 6-7 6.2 DESIGN PROCESS .......................................... 6-7 IDENTIFY PROBLEMS/NEEDS ....................................... 6-7 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTNERS .................................... 6-8 CONSENSUS BUILDING ........................................... 6-10 ESTABLISH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................... 6-10 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA / MOES ....................... 6-10 DEFINE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................. 6-11 IDENTIFY AND SCREEN TECHNOLOGY ............................. 6-11 System Planning ................................................. 6-13 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 6-15 EVALUATION .................................................... 6-16 6.3 TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES .................. 6-18 HOV FACILITIES ................................................. 6-18 Operational Considerations ......................................... 6-18 HOV Roadway Operations ...................................... 6-20 Operating Efficiency .......................................... 6-20 Considerations for 2+ Versus 3+ Occupancy Requirement ............. 6-20 Hours of Operations ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Managed Lane Alternatives
    Potential Managed Lane Alternatives 10/13/2017 Typical Section Between Junctions Existing Typical Section Looking North* *NLSD between Grand and Montrose Avenues is depicted. 1 Managed Lanes Managed Lanes (Options that convert one or more existing general purpose lanes to a managed lane to provide high mobility for buses and some autos) Potential managed lane roadway designs: • Option A – Three‐plus‐One Managed Lane (Bus‐only or Bus & Auto) • Option B –Two‐plus‐Two Managed Lanes • Option C – Three‐plus‐Two Reversible Managed Lanes • Option D – Four‐plus‐One Moveable Contraflow Lane (NB and SB, or SB Only) 2 1 10/13/2017 Option A – 3+1 Bus‐Only Managed Lane* Proposed Typical Section Looking North Between Junctions** *Converts one general purpose lane in each direction to a Bus‐Only Managed Lane. **NLSD between Grand and Montrose Avenues is depicted. 3 3+1 Bus‐Only Managed Lane • Benefits o Bus travel speeds would be unencumbered by vehicle speeds in adjacent travel lanes (same transit performance as Dedicated Transitway on Left Side) o Bus lanes would be available at all times and would not be affected by police or disabled vehicles o Bus lanes combined with exclusive bus‐only queue‐jump lanes at junctions would minimize bus travel times and maximize transit service reliability o Forward‐compatible with future light rail transit option • Challenges o Conversion of general purpose traffic lane to bus‐only operation will divert some traffic onto remaining NLSD lanes and/or adjacent street network 4 2 10/13/2017 Option A – 3+1 Managed Lane* Proposed Typical Section Looking North Between Junctions** *Converts one general purpose lane in each direction to a Shared Bus/Auto Managed Lane.
    [Show full text]
  • Replacement of Davis Avenue Bridge Over Indian Harbor Bridge No
    REPLACEMENT OF DAVIS AVENUE BRIDGE OVER INDIAN HARBOR BRIDGE NO. 05012 November 19, 2019 1 MEETING AGENDA • Project Team • Project Overview • Existing Conditions • Alternatives Considered • Traffic Impacts • Proposed Alternative • Railing Options • Construction Cost / Schedule • Contact Information • Questions 2 PROJECT TEAM Town of Greenwich Owner Alfred Benesch & Company Prime Consultant, Structural, Highway, Hydraulic, Drainage Design GZA GeoEnvironmantal Inc. Environmental Permitting Didona Associates Landscape Architects, LLC Landscaping Services, Planning 3 LOCATION MAP EXIT 4 EXIT 3 BRIDGE LOCATION 4 AERIAL VIEW BRIDGE LOCATION 5 PROJECT TIMELINE CURRENT PROJECT STATUS INVESTIGATION ALTERNATIVES PRELIMINARY FINAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE ASSESSMENT DESIGN DESIGN Spring to Fall 2020 February 2018 to June 2018 to January 2019 to May 2019 to May 2018 January 2019 April 2019 December 2019 6 PROJECT GOALS • Correct Existing Deficiencies of the Bridge (Structural and Functional) • Improve Multimodal Traffic Flow at Bridge Crossing (Vehicles / Bicycles / Pedestrians) • Maintain / Enhance Safety at Bridge Crossing • Meet Local, State, and Federal Requirements 7 EXISTING BRIDGE – BRIDGE PLAN 8 EXISTING BRIDGE – CURRENT PLAN VIEW 9 EXISTING BRIDGE Existing Bridge Data • Construction Year: 1934 • Structure Type: Concrete Slab Supported on Stone Masonry Abutments and Pier • Structure Length: 37’‐3” (17’‐1” Span Lengths) • Bridge Width: 43’+ (Outside to Outside) • Lane Configuration: Two Lanes, Two 4’ Sidewalks • Existing Utilities: Water, Gas (Supported
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of 2015 Anticipated Special Event Street Closures
    SUMMARY OF 2015 ANTICIPATED SPECIAL EVENT STREET CLOSURES City of Bristol, Tennessee Last updated Monday, July 13, 2015. Friday, July 17, 2015 – Fifth Border Bash. State Street between Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and 6th Street/Moore Street will be closed from 4:00 p.m. to approximately 1 1 :00 p.m. for the Border Bash event. One-half block sections of Lee Street and Bank Street adjacent to State Street will also be closed. Parking will be restricted on State Street between 5th Street/Lee Street and 6th Street/Moore Street; on far southern Lee Street; on westbound State Street between Moore Street and the bank entrance; and the northernmost parking space on 6th Street, all after 1:45 p.m. 5th Street itself is not closed, but there will be no access to it from State Street or Lee Street during the closure period. Eastbound State Street left turns to northbound Moore Street, typically prohibited, will be permitted while State Street is closed for this event. Motorists should also be aware of a right lane closure on southbound Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Virginia approaching State Street during this time. Saturday, July 18, 2015 - SonShine KidsFest at Anderson Park. For this event, the two-lane roadways surrounding Anderson Park will be closed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Olive Street; the dead-end block of 5th Street north of Olive Street; and Alabama Street between Olive Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard). Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard will remain open to traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • CONCRETE Pavingtechnology Concrete Intersections a Guide for Design and Construction
    CONCRETE PAVINGTechnology Concrete Intersections A Guide for Design and Construction Introduction Traffic causes damage to pavement of at-grade street and road intersections perhaps more than any other location. Heavy vehicle stopping and turning can stress the pavement surface severely along the approaches to an intersection. The pavement within the junction (physical area) of an intersection also may receive nearly twice the traffic as the pavement on the approaching roadways. At busy intersections, the added load and stress from heavy vehicles often cause asphalt pavements to deteriorate prematurely. Asphalt surfaces tend to rut and shove under the strain of busses and trucks stopping and turning. These deformed surfaces become a safety concern for drivers and a costly maintenance problem for the roadway agency. Concrete pavements better withstand the loading and turning movements of heavy vehicles. As a result, city, county and state roadway agencies have begun rebuilding deteriorated asphalt intersections with con- crete pavement. These agencies are extending road and street system maintenance funds by eliminating the expense of intersections that require frequent maintenance. At-grade intersections along business, industrial and arterial corridor routes are some of the busiest and most vital pavements in an urban road network. Closing these roads and intersections for pavement repair creates costly traffic delays and disruption to local businesses. Concrete pavements provide a long service life for these major corridors and intersections. Concrete pavements also offer other advantages for As a rule, it is important to evaluate the existing pave- intersections: ment condition before choosing limits for the new concrete pavement. On busy routes, it may be desir- 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Concrete Sidewalk Specifications
    CONCRETE SIDEWALK SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with these specifications and the requirements of the State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Current Edition (hereafter “Standard Specifications”). Concrete sidewalks shall conform to the lines and grades established by the City Engineer. All removal and replacements will be made as ordered by the City Engineer. The Contractor shall construct one-course sidewalks of a minimum thickness of four (4) inches in accordance with the plans and specifications. Sidewalk through a driveway section shall be a minimum thickness of six (6) inches. Concrete driveway approaches shall be a minimum thickness of six (6) inches. SUBGRADE A new sub-base may be required by the Engineer if, in his opinion, the soil in the subgrade is soft or spongy in places and will swell or shrink with changes in its moisture content. If a new sub- base is required, it shall consist of granular material and shall be spread to a depth of at least three (3) inches and thoroughly compacted. While compacting the sub-base the material shall be thoroughly wet and shall be wet when the concrete is deposited but shall not show any pools of water. If the Contractor undercuts the subgrade two (2) inches or more, he shall, at his expense, bring the subgrade to grade by using gravel fill and it shall be thoroughly compacted. Where sidewalk is placed over excavations such as tree roots or sewer laterals, four (4) one-half (1/2) inch reinforcing bars shall be placed to prevent settling or cracking of the sidewalk.
    [Show full text]
  • Concrete Pavementspavements N a a T T I I O O N N a a L L
    N N a a t t i i o o n n a a Technical Services l l , R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o Vail, Colorado u u t t May 22-25, 2005 Steve Waalkes, P.E. C C o o n n f f e e r r e e Managing Director n n c American Concrete Pavement Association c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 TRB National Roundabouts Conference D D Concrete Roundabouts R R Concrete Roundabouts A A F F T T N N a a Flexible Uses liquid asphalt as binder Pro: usually lower cost Con: requires frequent maintenance & rehabilitation t t i i Asphalt o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C Terminology Terminology o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Rigid Uses cement as binder Pro: longer lasting Con: higher cost Concrete F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o s n n c f f e i e r r t e e n n e y c c t e h e t 2 2 e 0 0 f s 0 0 aterials onstructability a e conomics 5 erformance (future maintenance) 5 Why Concrete Roundabouts? Why Concrete Roundabouts? D D E C P M R R • • • • •S •A A A F F T T Realize there is a choice N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 What performance characteristics of Where do we typically use concrete pavement? (situations, traffic conditions, applications, etc.) concrete pavement make it the best choice for roundabouts? 5 5 Why Concrete Roundabouts? Why Concrete Roundabouts? D D R R 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Freeway Management and Operations Handbook September 2003 (See Revision History Page for Chapter Updates) 6
    FREEWAY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS HANDBOOK FINAL REPORT September 2003 (Updated June 2006) 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 use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-OP-04-003 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Freeway Management and Operations Handbook September 2003 (see Revision History page for chapter updates) 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Louis G. Neudorff, P.E, Jeffrey E. Randall, P.E., Robert Reiss, P..E, Robert Report Gordon, P.E. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Siemens ITS Suite 1900 11. Contract or Grant No. 2 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10121 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Transportation Management Research Federal Highway Administration Room 3404 HOTM 400 Seventh Street, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington D.C., 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Jon Obenberger, FHWA Office of Transportation Management, Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR) 16. Abstract This document is the third such handbook for freeway management and operations. It is intended to be an introductory manual – a resource document that provides an overview of the various institutional and technical issues associated with the planning, design, implementation, operation, and management of a freeway network.
    [Show full text]
  • Dual Carriageways Dual Carriageways – Know the Dangers
    ROAD SAFETY EDUCATION Dual Carriageways Dual carriageways – know the dangers Never confuse a dual carriageway with a motorway. Both may have 2 or 3 lanes, a central reservation and a national speed limit of 70 mph, but that’s as far as the similarity goes. When driving on a dual carriageway there are many dangers you need to be aware of. Know the difference between dual carriageways and motorways Unlike motorways… • Dual carriageways may have variable speed limits; • Dual carriageways usually permit right turns; • Dual carriageways allow traffic to join from the left and cross from left to right; • Cyclists, mopeds, farm vehicles and pedestrians are allowed to use dual carriageways; • Dual carriageways may have Pelican Crossings, traffic lights, roundabouts and Zebra Crossings. 2 Know the speed limits Dual carriageways often have lower or variable speed limits shown by red circular signs. Rule 124 of The Highway Code NI says you MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle. The presence of street lights generally means that there is a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit unless otherwise specified. 3 Know your stopping distances (Rule 126) Always drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. Leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. Remember - • Never get closer than the overall stopping distance (see typical stopping distances table); • Always allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle Know how to join a in front on roads carrying dual carriageway fast-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced; When joining a dual carriageway • The two-second gap rule should obey signs and road markings.
    [Show full text]
  • Click Here for Technical Note
    DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES VOLUME 6 ROAD GEOMETRY SECTION 1 LINKS PART 4 TD 70/XX DESIGN OF WIDE SINGLE 2+1 ROADS SUMMARY This Standard sets out the design requirements for Wide Single 2+1 roads. INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES VOLUME 6 ROAD GEOMETRY SECTION 1 LINKS PART 4 TD 70/XX DESIGN OF WIDE SINGLE 2+1 ROADS Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 2. Design Principles 3. Geometric Standards 4. Junctions 5. Traffic Signs and Road Markings 6. Road Users’ Specific Requirements 7. Economics 8. References 9. Enquiries Appendix A: Traffic Signs and Road Markings (Sample layouts) Volume 6 Section 1 Chapter 1 Part 4 TD 70/XX Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION General Changeover: A carriageway layout which effects 1.1 A Wide Single 2+1 (WS2+1) road consists a change in the designated use of the middle lane of two lanes of travel in one direction and a single of a WS2+1 road from one direction of traffic to lane in the opposite direction. This provides the opposite direction. overtaking opportunities in the two lane direction, while overtaking in the single lane direction is Climbing Lane: An additional lane added to a prohibited. single or dual carriageway in order to improve capacity and/or safety because of the presence of a steep gradient. Scope Conflicting Changeover: A changeover where 1.2 This Standard applies to single carriageway the vehicles using the middle lane are travelling trunk roads in rural areas. TD 9 (DMRB 6.1.1) is towards each other.
    [Show full text]