DOCSLIB.ORG

DMS Travel Time Evaluation-Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DMS Travel Time Evaluation-Final Report DDMMSS TTrraavveell TTiimmee PPiilloott PPrroojjeecctt EEvvaalluuaattiioonn Final Report Prepared by: April, 2011 091025054 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Travel Time Pilot Program Background ................................................................................. 5 1.2 Pilot Program Initiation ............................................................................................................ 5 1.3 DMS Travel Time Pilot Program Timeframe ......................................................................... 7 1.4 Project Evaluation Overview and Goals .................................................................................. 7 1.5 Focus and Organization of This Report ................................................................................... 8 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Atlanta, Georgia ....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Chicago, Illinois ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Houston, Texas ......................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Los Angeles, California ........................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Portland, Oregon ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.6 Salt Lake City, Utah ................................................................................................................ 12 2.7 San Antonio, Texas .................................................................................................................. 12 2.8 San Francisco Bay Area, California ....................................................................................... 13 2.9 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 14 3. EVALUATION STRATEGY ................................................................................................................. 15 3.1 Research and Evaluation Hypothesis ..................................................................................... 15 3.2 Year 1 Initial Launch and Mid-Year Adjustment ................................................................ 16 3.3 Factors Influencing the Evaluation ........................................................................................ 16 3.4 Impacts to Freeway Speeds and Mobility .............................................................................. 17 3.4.1 Define Analysis Zones and Establish Baseline Speeds ................................................... 17 3.4.2 Analyze Freeway Speeds with Active Travel Time Message Displays ............................ 20 3.5 Assess Impacts of Travel Times on Crash Rates near DMS ................................................ 21 3.6 Public Perception of Travel Time Messages .......................................................................... 22 3.6.1 On-Line Surveys .............................................................................................................. 23 3.6.2 Phone Interviews ............................................................................................................. 25 3.6.3 Customer Feedback Reporting ........................................................................................ 25 3.7 Impact of Travel Time Outreach Activities on 511 and AZ511.gov Usage ........................ 25 3.8 Travel Time Validation ........................................................................................................... 25 4. EVALUATION RESULTS AND SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 27 4.1 Crash Analysis Assessment and Summary ............................................................................ 27 4.2 Speed/Mobility Impact Assessment and Summary............................................................... 28 4.3 User Feedback .......................................................................................................................... 29 4.3.1 Phone Survey Results and Summary ............................................................................... 29 4.3.2 User Feedback from Web Survey .................................................................................... 31 4.4 Travel Time Validation Runs ................................................................................................. 36 4.5 511 Usage Comparison ............................................................................................................ 37 4.6 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 37 091025054 ADOT DMS Travel Time Pilot Project Evaluation Final Report i April 2011 5. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 39 5.1 Systems Engineering Overview .............................................................................................. 39 5.1.1 Systems Engineering Goals and Objectives of this Project ............................................ 39 5.1.2 Interfacing with the Regional ITS Architecture .............................................................. 40 5.2 Feasibility Study ....................................................................................................................... 41 5.2.1 ITS Applications Supported ............................................................................................ 41 5.2.2 Technical Feasibility ....................................................................................................... 42 5.2.3 Financial Feasibility ....................................................................................................... 42 5.2.4 Institutional Feasibility ................................................................................................... 43 5.3 Concept of Operations ............................................................................................................. 43 5.3.1 Concept Development ..................................................................................................... 43 5.3.2 Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 44 5.3.3 Operational Concept ....................................................................................................... 44 5.3.4 Operational Guidelines ................................................................................................... 46 5.4 System Requirements and Design .......................................................................................... 48 5.4.1 System Requirements ...................................................................................................... 48 5.4.2 System Design ................................................................................................................. 49 5.5 System Implementation ........................................................................................................... 49 5.6 System Test and Verification .................................................................................................. 50 5.6.1 Subsystem Verification and Validation ........................................................................... 50 5.6.2 Program Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 50 5.7 System Operations, Maintenance and Lifecycle ................................................................... 51 6. EXPANSION PLAN ............................................................................................................................. 52 6.1 2002 Estimate of Travel Time Pilot Program Costs ............................................................. 52 6.2 Costs of Travel Time Program ............................................................................................... 53 6.2.1 Travel Time Algorithm Development/Support ................................................................ 53 6.2.2 Incremental Week Day Power Costs Associated With DMS Posting Travel Time During Peak Hours ........................................................................................................................................ 54 6.2.3 Maintenance/Upgrade Costs for DMS Used to Post Travel Times ................................ 55 6.2.4 Hardware, Software, Licensing Costs Used to Support the Entire State ITS Program .. 56 6.2.5 TOC Facility Costs Used to Support the Entire State ITS Program ............................... 56 6.2.6 TOC Staff Costs Used to Support the Entire State ITS Program .................................... 57 6.2.7 Lifecycle Costs ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • Route Restriction Information: Table 4
    R17-6-412, Table 4 – Updated April 06, 2021 Table 4. Permanent Highway Restrictions, Requirements, Conditions, and Allowances For “Transport Subject To” requirements see end of document. Route Restriction Location Transport Subject to: Height Length Width Weight (in lbs) (MP = Milepost) Escort requirements: F = front escort, R = rear escort, F/R = front and rear escort, and LE = law enforcement escort Interstate 8 MP 0.00 (California State R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Line) to MP 21.06 (Dome R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Valley Road TI) Interstate 8 MP 21.06 Westbound (Dome R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R Valley Road TI Underpass - R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Structure 1325) Interstate 8 MP 21.06 (Dome Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road TI) to MP 30.80 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Avenue 29E - Wellton TI) Interstate 8 MP 30.80 Westbound R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R (Avenue 29E - Wellton R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Underpass - Structure 1332) Interstate 8 MP 30.80 (Avenue 29E - R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Wellton TI) to MP 144.55 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Vekol Valley Road TI) Interstate 8 MP 144.55 (Vekol Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road Underpass - Structure R17-6-408; R17-6-409 550) Interstate 8 MP 144.55 (Vekol Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road TI) to MP 151.70 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Junction SR 84) Interstate 8 MP 151.70 Eastbound R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 10” Over 14’ - 16’ = R (Junction SR 84 Underpass - R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Structure 1063)
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Concurrent Resolution 1012
    Senate Engrossed State of Arizona Senate Fifty-second Legislature First Regular Session 2015 SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1012 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S COMMENTS TO THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF THE PRIMARY FREIGHT NETWORK. (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) - i - S.C.R. 1012 1 Whereas, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) submitted 2 comments to the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) in response to the 3 proposed designation of the Primary Freight Network (PFN) that highlighted 4 problems with the proposal and provided recommendations for improvement; and 5 Whereas, the federal legislation "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 6 Century Act" (MAP-21) calls for the United States Secretary of Transportation 7 to designate up to 27,000 miles on existing interstate and other roadways, 8 with a possible addition of 3,000 miles in the future, as a PFN to help 9 states strategically direct resources toward improving freight movement; and 10 Whereas, the Federal Register notice identifies more than 41,000 miles 11 of comprehensive, connected roadway that a Federal Highway Administration 12 (FHWA) analysis shows would be necessary to transport goods efficiently on 13 highways throughout the nation to make up the PFN; and 14 Whereas, the PFN proposal is based on the origins and destination of 15 freight movement, shipment tonnage and values, truck traffic volumes and 16 population; and 17 Whereas, under MAP-21, the PFN
    [Show full text]
  • CX Appendix C Burro Movem
    1 B. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 2 Name and Address of Applicant or Applicant Organization: 3 Arizona Game and Fish Department 4 5000 W. Carefree Highway 5 Phoenix, AZ 85086 6 Evaluation of Burro Movements and Collisions along Roads Near Lake Pleasant 7 Herd Management Area 8 With burro populations above acceptable Herd Management Area (HMA) levels, burro- 9 vehicle collisions (BVC) have become an increasing problem for the travelling public on 10 roads in proximity to Lake Pleasant (LP) HMA. BVC in and around the LPHMA have 11 increased dramatically and exceeded 35 between October 1, 2015 and December 7, 12 2015, and will continue to pose a hazard to motorists. The Bureau of Land Management 13 (BLM) and its partners are seeking solutions to return the population to acceptable HMA 14 levels. Current BLM burro removal efforts cannot keep pace with the herd’s population 15 growth. Until long-term burro reduction strategies are implemented, there is an ever 16 increasing risk to the safety of both motorists and burros. The Arizona Department of 17 Transportation (ADOT) shoulders a bulk of the liability associated with BVCs. To help 18 mitigate risks to motorists and burros, an evaluation of burro movements and collision 19 locations is warranted. We propose to gather information on burro movements along 20 roads within and adjacent to LPHMA through the collection of 1) GPS movement data, 21 2) BVC hotspots and associated variables, and 3) burro roadway access point camera 22 data collection. Our analysis of this Information will 1) provide recommendations for 23 strategic reduction in BVCs while considering implications to wildlife connectivity and 2) 24 identify additional areas for burro removal efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Transportation History
    Arizona Transportation History Final Report 660 December 2011 Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers' names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-AZ-11-660 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date December 2011 ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION HISTORY 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author 8. Performing Organization Report No. Mark E. Pry, Ph.D. and Fred Andersen 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. History Plus 315 E. Balboa Dr. 11. Contract or Grant No. Tempe, AZ 85282 SPR-PL-1(173)-655 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report & Period Covered ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 206 S. 17TH AVENUE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Project Manager: Steven Rost, Ph.D. 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract The Arizona transportation history project was conceived in anticipation of Arizona’s centennial, which will be celebrated in 2012. Following approval of the Arizona Centennial Plan in 2007, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) recognized that the centennial celebration would present an opportunity to inform Arizonans of the crucial role that transportation has played in the growth and development of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Wildlife Guards and Right of Way Escape Mechanisms for Large Ungulates in Arizona
    SPR-729 SEPTEMBER 2020 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Wildlife Guards and Right of Way Escape Mechanisms for Large Ungulates in Arizona Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Wildlife Guards and Right of Way Escape Mechanisms for Large Ungulates in Arizona SPR-729 September 2020 Published by: Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration This report was funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material, presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. This report is subject to the provisions of 23 USC § 409. Any intentional or inadvertent release of this material, or any data derived from its use, does not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC § 409, which reads as follows: 23 USC
    [Show full text]
  • Combined Gas Tax Rates
    Transportation Needs & Funding: Where do we go from here? Surface Transportation Funding Task Force September 28, 2016 © 2016, All Rights Reserved. Best Driving Experience in the World – Phoenix Waze is the world's largest community- based traffic and navigation app. ©2016, All Rights Reserved. 2 Major Sources of Transportation Uses of Local & Regional Funds Revenue in Maricopa County (estimated for FY 2017) Other, (estimated for FY 2017) 0.4% $2,914,340 Regional Highways, HURF, $246,000,000 $368,954,384 Dedicated 32.8% 23.5% Local & Regional Funds, $749,658,000 47.8% ADOT Funds, $282,200,000 Streets, 18.0% $48,781,870 Transit, 6.5% $451,961,790 Federal Funds, 60.3% $167,800,000 10.7% Total Major Sources: $1.568 billion Local & Regional Funds: $749.6 million ©2016, All Rights Reserved. 3 $1.25 billion Rebalancing $1.77 billion Under Construction 1 $2.30 billion Programmed $3.90 billion Deferred 13 14 12 11 8 3 5 2 10 6 7 4 9 0 New Construction 0 Traffic Interchange 0 ROW Protection 0 Technology REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS FOR Illustrative Projects = $8.7 bil. PRESENTATION PURPOSES ONLY. Interstate 17 Loop 303 Add Lanes, Anthem Way to Yavapai County Final determination will be Add Lanes, SR-30 to Interstate 17 completed with the fiscally- constrained NexGen Regional Transportation Plan. US-60/Grand Ave Interstate 10/Interstate 17 Spine COMPASS Improvements Add Lanes, Loop 202 to Loop 101 I-11/Hassayampa New Freeway, Interstate 10 to US-93 Interstate 10/Papago Add Lanes, 459th Ave to Verrado Way SR-24/Gateway Meridian Rd to US-60/SR-79 Arizona SR-30 Freeway Conversion, SR-85 to Loop 303 Add Lanes, Loop 303 to Loop 202 New Freeway, Loop 202 to I-17 Pinal North-South New Freeway, SR-287 to US-60 Loop 303 New Freeway, SR-238 to SR-30 Arizona SR-85 Freeway Conversion, I-8 Interchange Interstate 8 to Interstate 10 SR-238 SR-347 Interstate 10 SR-79 Add Lanes, Riggs Rd to SR- Add Lanes, SR-79B (South) to Add Lanes, Loop 303 to SR-347 Add Lanes, Maricopa to I-10 387 Hunt Hwy © 2013, All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Highway Department - Arizona Department of Transportation
    Arizona Pavements/Materials Conference November 15, 2011 History of Arizona’s Transportation System Arizona State University Memorial Union Richard L. Powers, P.E. Foot trails to Superhighways Arizona – Transportation Ancient Footpaths Ancient Trails Spanish Explorer Routes 1520 - 1776 Mountain Men Trails 1825 - 1834 Routes of Explorers 1844 - 1858 Toll Roads in Arizona 1850’s – 1890’s Senator Highway – Arizona’s First Toll Road The crown jewel of Arizona’s backroads of the Bradshaw Mountains, the Senator Highway was first built between 1866 and 1867 as part of the Prescott and Lynn Creek Toll Road. The charge was $1.50 per wagon and fifty cents (4 “bits”) for a horse and rider. This was considered expensive in its day. 1864 - Toll roads were authorized by Territorial Legislature. Stage Routes Toll Roads 1840 - 1869 Military Trails 1850 - 1880 Famous Trails The U.S. Camel Corps A 1857 survey mission across northern Arizona, led by Lt. Edward Fitzgerald Beale. Hi Jolly In 1856 became one of the first camel drivers ever hired by the US Army to lead the camel corps experiment in the Southwest. Hadji Ali grave in Quartzsite, Arizona Arizona’s River Ports & Ferry 1852 -1909 Arizona’s Railroad Growth 1888 -1976 Rail Service 1898 Early Air Travel 1890’s The First Roads in Arizona First Freight Haulers State takes Control of the Roads Prior to 1909 - All road expenditures were made under direction of County Board of Supervisors 1909 – 1912 - March 18, 1909 Territorial road law created office of Territorial Engineer J.B. Girand, The Board of Control was established to manage expenditures – Board of Supervisors were required to levy taxes to pay for road improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • I-10 Multimodal Corridor Final Report
    Interstate 10 - Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study Task Assignment MPD 09-11 Final Report Prepared for Arizona Department of Transportation Multimodal Planning Division Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. March 2013 This page is intentionally left blank. Interstate 10 – Phoenix to California Border, Multimodal Corridor Profile Study Task Assignment MPD 09-11 | Final Report| March 2013 i Contents List of Figures ii 4.10 Airports 4-22 8. Projects in the I-10 Corridor 8-1 List of Tables ii 4.11 Railroads 4-23 8.1 Programmed projects 8-1 Abbreviations and Acronyms iii 4.12 Utilities 4-23 8.2 Potential projects 8-5 Executive Summary ES-1 5. Movement of People, Goods, and Services 5-1 9. References 9-1 1. Study Description 1-1 5.1 Vehicular traffic flow 5-1 5.2 Transit services 5-9 1.1 Corridor overview 1-1 5.3 Freight movement 5-10 1.2 I-10 Corridor agency roles 1-1 1.3 Planning and environmental linkages 1-3 6. Safety and Security 6-1 1.4 Purpose and need 1-3 6.1 Crash history 6-1 1.5 Goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria 1-4 6.2 Geometric design 6-1 1.6 Stakeholder and public outreach 1-4 6.3 Access control 6-1 2. History of the I-10 Corridor 2-1 6.4 Ports of entry 6-6 6.5 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station emergency 2.1 Construction 2-1 evacuation plan 6-6 2.2 Previous planning studies 2-2 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan
    VERDE VALLEY REGIONAL LAND USE PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan was developed through citizen determination and input received at community meetings. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on a regular basis to refine the Plan. The Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan was officially adopted by Yavapai County Board of Supervisors on November 20, 2006. YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Carol Springer, District 1 Thomas Thurman, District 2 A.G. “Chip” Davis, District 3 COUNTY STAFF Ken Spedding, Development Services Director Enalo Lockard, Assistant Director Beth Escobar, Planner Terri Nelson, Yavapai County GIS VERDE VALLEY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Nancy Buckel Town of Camp Verde Will Wright Town of Camp Verde Sherry Bailey Town of Clarkdale Steve Brown Town of Clarkdale Normalinda Zuniga Town of Clarkdale Tim Costello City of Cottonwood George Gehlert City of Cottonwood Charlie Scully City of Cottonwood Kathy Levin City of Sedona Mike Raber City of Sedona Renee Tavares Town of Jerome Lillian Moodey ASLD Michelle Flaherty ASLD CONSULTANTS Richard F. Counts, Vice President Community Sciences Corporation 3900 East Camelback Road, Suite 403 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Dava Z. Hoffman, Dava & Associates Peter M. Lima, P.E., Lima & Associates ACK - i VERDE VALLEY REGIONAL LAND USE PLAN CITIZEN PARTICIPANTS During the Regional Land Use Plan process, numerous citizens participated in workshops, providing insights into their particular community. Residents from several Valley communities (Sedona, Cottonwood, Camp Verde, Clarkdale, Jerome, Big Park, Cornville, Lake Montezuma, Verde Village, as well as the Beaver Creek and Red Rock/Dry Creek areas) attended planning events in their neighborhood. There are more than 150 residents we'd like to thank for participating in the process; but, these select few followed the process from inception to adoption -- providing input, photos, community profiles, draft Plan refinement and the like.
    [Show full text]
  • Outreach Notice
    OUTREACH NOTICE Forestry Technician (Aid) and (Handcrew) GS-0462-3/4/5 AZ-COF-Crew 4 Coconino National Forest Flagstaff Ranger District Announcement #: TEMP-OCR-0462-5-HANDCREW-DT TEMP-OCR-0462-4-HANDCREW-DT TEMP-OCR-0462-3-FIRE-DT Position Explanation: The Coconino National Forest will be filling up to 9 Temporary Employment Positions at the GS-3, 4, and 5 levels. These positions will serve as crewmembers on a 10- person fuels-funded handcrew, based on the Flagstaff Ranger District. This notification is being circulated to inform prospective candidates of these upcoming opportunities and determine interest in the positions. A complete job descriptions can be found on USAJOBS.gov under the announcements numbers listed above. Interested applicants should respond by completing the included crew interest form. TEMP-OCR-0462-03-FIRE-DT-These are entry level positions for applicants whom meet basic requirements. No previous experience is required for these positions. TEMP-OCR-0462-4-HANDCREW-DT-These are positions for applicants with at least 90 days experience in fire or fuels management and who are basically qualified for the position. TEMP-OCR-5-HANDCREW-DT-These are “Senior Firefighter Positions” for applicants whom are fully qualified as a Firefighter Type 1 and have completed S-290 Intermediate Wildland Fire Behavior. Crew 4 is a multi-faceted, district level handcrew. The crew implements prescribed fires; conducts hazard fuels reductions projects, monitors prescribed fire effectiveness and response to local and national wildland fires. The typical field season for the crew is mid-May through late October or early November.
    [Show full text]
  • Current List of Designated Preferred and Restricted Routes
    LEGEND Restrictions (Columns A to K) Designations (Columns L to P) 0 = All Hazmats A = All NRHM Hazmats 1 = Class 1 Explosives B = Class 1 Explosives 2 = Class 2 - Gas P = Class 7 HRCQ Radioactive 3 = Class 3 - Flammable I = Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) 4 = Class 4 - Flammable Solid/Combustible M = Medical Waste 5 = Class 5 - Organic 6 = Class 6 - Poison 7 = Class 7 - Radioactive ID 8 = Class 8 - Corrosives REST = Restricted Route 9 = Class 9 - Dangerous (Other) PREF = Preferred Route i = Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) PRES = Prescribed Route RECOM - Recommended Route YEAR DATE ID A B C D E F G HIJ K BLANK L NO P M STATE_ TEXT STATE CITY COUNTY ABBR ALABAMA YEAR DATE ID A B C D E F G HIJ K BLANK L NO P M STATE_ TEXT STATE CITY COUNTY ABBR 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALBattleship Parkway [Mobile] froma By Bridge Rd. Alabama Mobile [Mobile] to Interstate 10 [exit 27] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALBay Bridge Rd. [Mobile] from Interstate 165 to Alabama Mobile Battleship Parkway [over Africa Town Cochran Bridge] [Westbound Traffic: Head south on I165; To by-pass the downtown area, head north on I165.] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 10 from Mobile City Limits to Exit 26B Alabama Mobile [Water St] [Eastbound Traffic: To avoid the downtown area, exit on I-65 North] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 10 from Mobile City Limits to Exit 27 Alabama Mobile 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 65 from Interstate 10 ton Iterstate 165 Alabama Mobile [A route for trucks wishing to by-pass the downtown area.] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 65 from Mobile City Limits to Interstate Alabama Mobile 165 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 165 from Water St.
    [Show full text]