DOCSLIB.ORG

Sign Library 1/2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT Sign Library 1/2011 January, 2011 City of Portland Transportation System Management 1120 SW 5th Ave, Room 800 Portland, OR 97204 City of Portland TRAFFIC SIGN CODE BOOK Contents Regulatory Signs R 1000’S—STOP & YIELD ............................................................................................................ 1-1 R 1000 STOP ...................................................................................................... 1-1 R 1060 YIELD ...................................................................................................... 1-1 R 1100 STOP RELATED...................................................................................... 1-1 R 2000’S—SPEED ZONES ........................................................................................................... 1-2 R 2000 POSTED SPEED .................................................................................... 1-2 R 2230 SPEED ENFORCEMENT RELATED ...................................................... 1-4 R 3000’S—TURNS & LANE USE .................................................................................................. 1-4 R 3000 STANDARD TURN PROHIBITIONS ........................................................ 1-4 R 3200 MANDATORY TURNS .............................................................................. 1-7 R 3320 OPTIONAL TURN ARROWS ................................................................... 1-9 R 3535 LANE RESTRICTIONS............................................... .................1-13 R 3560 PERMITTED TURNS ............................................................................ 1-14 R 3600 TURN LANES ........................................................................................ 1-14 R 3700 LANE USE ARROWS ........................................................................... 1-16 R 3900 EXCEPTION RIDERS ........................................................................... 1-20 R 3990 LANE YIELD TO BIKES ........................................................................ 1-22 R 4000’S—SIGNAL REGULATIONS ........................................................................................... 1-23 R 4000 SIGNAL APPROACH ............................................................................ 1-23 R 4200 SIGNAL DESIGNATION ........................................................................ 1-25 R 4400 TURN PROHIBITIONS AT SIGNAL ....................................................... 1-26 R 5000’S—FLOW ........................................................................................................................ 1-29 R 5000 TRANSVERSE FLOW ........................................................................... 1-29 R 5100 LONGITUDINAL FLOW ......................................................................... 1-30 R 5400 TRANSOBSTRUCTIONAL FLOW ......................................................... 1-31 R 5520 PASSING .............................................................................................. 1-33 R 6000-6599—USAGE REGULATIONS....................................................................................... 1-34 R 6000 USAGE EXCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 1-34 R 6100, 6620-6729 TRUCK USAGE REGULATIONS................................. 1-35, 1-43 R 6300 WEIGHT LIMIT ...................................................................................... 1-37 R 6400 GENERAL USE REGULATIONS ........................................................... 1-41 OBSOLETE REGULATORY SIGNS ................................................................................. 1-44 to 1-65 contents i 1/11 School, Pedestrian, Bicycle Regulatory Signs S 1000’S—SCHOOL ZONES ........................................................................................................ 2-1 S 1000 SCHOOL SPEED .................................................................................... 2-1 S 1100 SCHOOL ZONE ...................................................................................... 2-2 S 1300 SCHOOL BUS STOP WARNING ............................................................. 2-3 S 2000’S—PEDESTRIAN .............................................................................................................. 2-3 S 2000 GENERAL PEDESTRIAN SIGNS ........................................................... 2-3 S 2200 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGNS ................................................... 2-5 S 2500 PEDESTRIAN GUIDE SIGNS................................................................. 2-6 S 3000’S—BIKE ROUTES .......................................................................................................... 2-11 S 3000 BICYCLE REGULATORY SIGN............................................................. 2-11 S 3200 BICYCLE ARROW RIDERS .................................................................. 2-13 S 3400 BICYCLE TRAIL SIGNS ........................................................................ 2-14 S 3500 BICYCLE TURN WARNING SIGNS ....................................................... 2-14 S 3630, S 3970 BICYCLE SIGNAL/PUSH BUTTON SIGNS................... 2-15, 2-20 S 3700 BICYCLE WARNING SIGNS ................................................................. 2-16 S 3800 BICYCLE GUIDE SIGNS ...................................................................... 2-17 S 3960-3963—DISABLED ACCESS ........................................................................................... 2-20 S 4000—SKATE ROUTES............................................................................................................ 2-20 OBSOLETE SCHOOL/PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ............................................................. 2-20 to 2-27 Warning Signs W 1000-1499—CURVE WARNING ................................................................................................. 3-1 W 1500-1999—INTERSECTION & MERGE WARNING ................................................................. 3-3 W 2000-2299—APPROACH WARNING ......................................................................................... 3-7 W 2000 TUNNELS ............................................................................................... 3-7 W 2100 LANE DROPS ........................................................................................ 3-8 W 2300-2499—OBSTRUCTION WARNING .................................................................................. 3-9 W 2500-2699—VERTICAL CLEARANCE, GRADES ................................................................... 3-10 W 2700-2999—SIGNAL, STOP & YIELD ..................................................................................... 3-13 W 2700 SIGNAL APPROACHES ...................................................................... 3-13 W 2800 OTHER APPROACHES ....................................................................... 3-13 W 3000-3299—CROSSING ......................................................................................................... 3-14 W 3000 VEHICULAR CROSSING ..................................................................... 3-14 1/11 contents ii W 3130 NONVEHICULAR CROSSING ............................................................. 3-16 W 3300-3699—AREA WARNING ................................................................................................. 3-18 W 3300 ON-ROAD AREA WARNINGS .............................................................. 3-18 W 3500 OFF-ROAD AREA WARNINGS ............................................................ 3-18 W 3700-3989—IMPASSABLE AREAS ........................................................................................ 3-19 W 3990-4499—SPEED ADVISORY ............................................................................................. 3-22 OBSOLETE WARNING SIGNS ....................................................................................... 3-24 to 3-34 Construction Signs G1000C-5350C—GUIDE CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................... 4-1 R 2000C-5499C—REGULATORY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 4-1 W 1000C-5369C—WARNING CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 4-3 OBSOLETE CONSTRUCTION SIGNS ............................................................................ 4-13 to 4-14 Parking Signs P 1000-1599—NO PARKING ......................................................................................................... 5-1 P 1000 NO PARKING (ALL HOURS ALL DAYS).................................................. 5-1 P 1080 NO PARKING (VARIOUS HOURS & DAYS) ............................................ 5-1 P 1300 NO STOPPING OR PARKING................................................................. 5-7 P 1500 RIDERS .................................................................................................... 5-9 P 1600-1799—SCHOOL PARKING .............................................................................................. 5-10 P 1800-1999—OTHER PROHIBITIONS ......................................................................................5-11 P 2000-2499—LOADING ZONES ................................................................................................ 5-14 P 2000 TRUCK LOADING ZONES .................................................................... 5-14 P 2430 OTHER LOADING ZONES ...................................................................
Recommended publications
  • To Download a PDF of Our May, 2020 Edition

    To Download a PDF of Our May, 2020 Edition

    H PUBLISHED IN NORTHEAST PORTLAND SINCE 1984 H STAR PUBLISHING INC. STAR THE HOLLYWOOD StarH SERVING NORTHEAST AND NORTH METROPOLITANHNEWS PORTLAND NEIGHBORHOODS H MAY 2020 H VOLUME 37, NUMBER 11 H #NEPDX UMASKED NORTH AND NORTHEAST NEIGHBORS MAKE THE MOST OF THESE CHALLENGING TIMES (Cover photo by Katharine Kimball Photography/www.katharinekimball.com) photo by (Cover 97208 SIGNATURE GRAPHICS SIGNATURE PORTLAND, OREGON 97213 OREGON PORTLAND, PORTLAND, OR PORTLAND, PAID 2000 N.E. 42ND AVENUE PMB 142 PMB AVENUE 42ND N.E. 2000 U.S. POSTAGE U.S. NORTH AND NORTHEAST METRO NEIGHBORHOODS METRO NORTHEAST AND NORTH STANDARD NEWS STAR HOLLYWOOD THE PRESORTED H 2 THE STAR NEWS WWW.STAR-NEWS.INFO: SERVING NORTHEAST AND NORTH PORTLAND NEIGHBORHOODS MAY 2020 HSTAR REMEMBERING OUR NEIGHBORS Longtime Hollywood Booster The Hollywood Star News THANK YOU Serving North and Northeast Neighborhoods. Alfred Novacek passes in April Published monthly in Northeast Portland. www.star-news.info The Hollywood community lost a friend NEIGHBORS! Mailing Address when neighbor and Hollywood Booster 2000 N.E. 42nd Ave. PMB 142 Here at Star headquarters, we have legend Alfred Novacek passed away on Portland, OR 97213 received many heartwarming notes, Tuesday, April 21 in Portland. Phone 503-282-9392 The son of John and Mary Hamsa cards, letters, photos, cartoons, Mary DeHart Owner and Publisher Novacek, Alfred was born on June 15, [email protected] stories – and even a few checks 1935 in Brainard, Nebraska. – from readers who appreciate Alfred served in the Navy from 1957 Mary Ann Seeger our resolve to continue publishing through 1959 and was assigned to the Air Administrative Assistant during these challenging times.
  • In the Vehicle Safety World, High-Tech Appears to Rule Supreme. a Recent MIT Study, Though, Has Proved How

    In the Vehicle Safety World, High-Tech Appears to Rule Supreme. a Recent MIT Study, Though, Has Proved How

    TYPOGRAPHY TYPOGRAPHY Knowledge of all fonts In the vehicle safety world, high-tech appears to rule supreme. A recent MIT study, though, has proved how er Ky Pictures optimising typeface characteristicseiM couldDer s be a simple and hun ryan rG & t aGIN effective method of providingPe iM a significant reduction in ruce Mehler & b , MONOTY ELAB interface demandIT a G and associated distractions Jonathan Dobres,F M b AUTHOR COURTESY o IMAGES e have a strange relationship New Roman or clownish Comic touchscreen by the reader. At the same time, differences between the two typefaces. with typography. Every day Sans. More to the point, few people mounted in the letterforms must not become too Where Frutiger is open, leaving ample we see thousands of words realise that the design of typefaces simulator, with constrained or monotonous, lest the space between letters and the lines composed of millions of – and the way in which their strokes eye-tracking reader’s eye confuse a ‘g’ for a ‘9’. This of individual letterforms, Eurostile is letters. These letterforms and terminations play off each other cameras, an IR tension between legibility, consistency tighter and more closed. Eurostile also Wsurround us, inform us, and entice from letter to letter and word to word illumination pod and variation is at the heart of all enforces a highly consistent squared- us. Yet in our increasingly literate and – can have a significant impact on and the face typographic design. Consider Frutiger off style, while Frutiger allows for information-saturated society, we our ability to read and absorb what video camera – a typeface crafted in the ‘humanist’ more variety in letter proportions take them for granted, and rarely spare they are trying to communicate.
  • Draft Northeast Portland District Profile

    Draft Northeast Portland District Profile

    DRAFT NORTHEAST DISTRICT PROFILE DRAFT Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. Area Description ……………………………………………………………………. Demographics Data ……………………………………………………………. Organization ……………………………………………………………………. Neighborhood Facilities & Services ………………..…………………………… Urban Renewal Areas ……………………………………………………………. Land Use ……………………………………………………………………. Environment ……………………………………………………………………. Development Activity ……………………………………………………………. Economic Development ……………………………………………………………. Transportation ……………………………………………………………………. Existing Plans and Policies ……………………………………………………. Major Capital Improvement Projects ……………………………………………. District-wide Issues .……………………………………………………………. Potential Projects ………..………………………..…………………………………. Plan Implementation …………………………..…………………………………. DRAFT Introduction In 2004 the Bureau of Planning launched the District Liaison Program which assigns a City Planner to each of Portland’s designated liaison districts. Each planner acts as the Bureau’s primary contact between community residents, nonprofit groups and other government agencies on planning and development matters within their assigned district. As part of this program, District Profiles were compiled to provide a survey of the existing conditions, issues and neighborhood/community plans within each of the liaison districts. The Profiles will form a base of information for communities to make informed decisions about future development. This report is also intended to serve as a tool for planners and decision-makers to monitor the implementation of
  • Improvements in Surface Transportation Signing

    Improvements in Surface Transportation Signing

    Improvements in Surface Transportation Signing A chronological overview of designs, research and field studies that includes the development of the Clearview type system and related application concepts to improve the consistency, performance, and visual quality of traffic control devices. Prepared for: Mr. Gregory Nadeau Mr. Mark Kehrli Administrator Director Office of the Administrator Transportation Operations Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration Mr. Jeffrey Lindley Mr. Kevin Sylvester Associate Administrator MUTCD Office Office of Operations Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration Prepared by: March 21, 2016 Donald T. Meeker, F. SEGD Meeker & Associates, Inc. Larchmont, NY This body of work started at this sleepy intersection off of I-84 in the state of Oregon. As part of a motorist information project for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), I was finally forced to look for the answers to questions that I had wondered for years. Why? 1) Why is the structure of this information so eclectic and seemingly dysfunctional? 2) We are taught that mixed case would be more readable (why isn’t book/magazine/newspaper text published in all upper case?); so why are conventional road guide sign destination names in all upper case letters? 3) Why is the destination name on that freeway guide sign so fat? Why does it appear that you can’t fit your finger through the center space of the small “e” and the letterforms chunk up when viewed at a distance? 2 3 A lot of information competing for your attention yet created as if it is to stand alone! And Oregon is not alone.
  • Sign Book 1260

    Sign Book 1260

    City of Portland INUSE SchoolPedBike Sign Sign Code Book December 12, 2018 Sign Code & Size, Shape, Color MUTCD code Legend Requestor S0000 S1002A WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT rider 24x12 S4-2 RECTANGLE Used since 06/15/2004 BLACK/WHITE To be used with the SCHOOL SPEED 20 (S1002) sign Karla Zenz S1002B SCHOOL DAYS / 7AM - 5PM 24x18 OS4-8 RECTANGLE Used since 07/01/2006 BLACK/WHITE To be used with S1002 at the beginning of a school speed zone that is adjacent to school grounds and that does not have school beacons. Jennie Tower S1004 WHEN FLASHING rider 24x12 S4-4 RECTANGLE Used since 06/07/2004 BLACK/WHITE Rider to be used with S1002. For school zones 35 mph or greater that are adjacent to school grounds with a beacon present, or for non-adjacent crosswalks with a beacon. Karla Zenz S1005G [up arrow] + SCHOOL SPEED 20 36x36 S4-5 DIAMOND Used since 04/23/2010 BLACK/WHITE/SYG Need Reduced School Speed Limit Ahead sign to inform drivers on larger roads where the presence of the school is not apparent and no school beacon. Sabrina Kao S1010G SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT 20 24x38 S5-1 RECTANGLE Used since 02/27/2014 BLACK/WHITE/STRGRN LIMIT legend added for compliance with MUTCD standard Andrew Sullivan S1020 SCHOOL/FINES HIGHER 24x24 RECTANGLE Used since 06/03/2004 BLACK/SYG To be used for school zone when a beacon is already present on a road 30 mph or less adjacent to school grounds. Karla Zenz Page 1 of 109 City of Portland INUSE SchoolPedBike Sign Sign Code Book December 12, 2018 Sign Code & Size, Shape, Color MUTCD code Legend Requestor S1099 [SCHOOL ADVANCE WARNING symbol] 36x36 S1-1 PENTAGON Used since 05/24/2004 BLACK/SYG Strong yellow green only comes in Type IX sheeting.

  • Frutiger (Tipo De Letra) Portal De La Comunidad Actualidad Frutiger Es Una Familia Tipográfica

    Iniciar sesión / crear cuenta Artículo Discusión Leer Editar Ver historial Buscar La Fundación Wikimedia está celebrando un referéndum para reunir más información [Ayúdanos traduciendo.] acerca del desarrollo y utilización de una característica optativa y personal de ocultamiento de imágenes. Aprende más y comparte tu punto de vista. Portada Frutiger (tipo de letra) Portal de la comunidad Actualidad Frutiger es una familia tipográfica. Su creador fue el diseñador Adrian Frutiger, suizo nacido en 1928, es uno de los Cambios recientes tipógrafos más prestigiosos del siglo XX. Páginas nuevas El nombre de Frutiger comprende una serie de tipos de letra ideados por el tipógrafo suizo Adrian Frutiger. La primera Página aleatoria Frutiger fue creada a partir del encargo que recibió el tipógrafo, en 1968. Se trataba de diseñar el proyecto de Ayuda señalización de un aeropuerto que se estaba construyendo, el aeropuerto Charles de Gaulle en París. Aunque se Donaciones trataba de una tipografía de palo seco, más tarde se fue ampliando y actualmente consta también de una Frutiger Notificar un error serif y modelos ornamentales de Frutiger. Imprimir/exportar 1 Crear un libro 2 Descargar como PDF 3 Versión para imprimir Contenido [ocultar] Herramientas 1 El nacimiento de un carácter tipográfico de señalización * Diseñador: Adrian Frutiger * Categoría:Palo seco(Thibaudeau, Lineal En otros idiomas 2 Análisis de la tipografía Frutiger (Novarese-DIN 16518) Humanista (Vox- Català 3 Tipos de Frutiger y familias ATypt) * Año: 1976 Deutsch 3.1 Frutiger (1976)
  • Streetcar System Concept Plan a Framework for Future Corridor Planning and Alternatives Analysis

    Streetcar System Concept Plan a Framework for Future Corridor Planning and Alternatives Analysis

    PORTLAND STREETCAR SYSTEM CONCEPT PLAN A Framework for Future Corridor Planning and Alternatives Analysis Adopted September 9, 2009 by Portland City Council This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration How this document will be used This document will be used to identify and select corridors for future Alternatives Analysis and planning studies as funding becomes available. No funding plan or schedule has been identified for any of the potential streetcar projects. Transit corridors citywide were assessed to determine which corridors have the best potential for future streetcar investment. Corridors that are shown in this document represent the best opportunities for streetcar infrastructure. Detailed corridor by corridor analysis, study and discussions with corridor neighborhoods are necessary to determine if a streetcar investment is warranted. No individual corridor can move forward without a detailed analysis and planning study to address the purpose and need of a streetcar project and to comprehensively evaluate project impacts. The Portland Bureau of Transportation fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA Title II, and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For accommodations and additional information, contact the Title II and Title VI Coordinator at Room 1204, 1120 SW 5th Ave, Portland, OR 97204, or by telephone 503-823-2559, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. PORTLAND STREETCAR SYSTEM CONCEPT PLAN A Framework for Future Corridor Planning and Alternatives Analysis Adopted by Portland City Council September 9, 2009 Resolution 36732 Acknowledgements City of Portland Bureau of Transportation Sam Adams, Mayor, Commissioner of Public Utilities Susan D.
  • Font Design for Street Name Signs

    Font Design for Street Name Signs

    PennDOT LTAP technical INFORMATION SHEET Font DesigN for Street Name SIgns #174 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has terminated its approval of the Clearview Highway font, summer/2016 which PennDOT had specified as the standard font for freeway guide signs and conventional highway street name signs. Standard Alphabets for Traffic Control Devices, more commonly referred to as Highway Gothic, is now the only approved font for the design of traffic signs. FHWA has not issued a mandate on the replacement of signs using the Clearview font, but all future sign installations are to use the Highway Gothic font. This means existing signs may remain in use for their normal service life but should be replaced with a sign using Highway Gothic, when appropriate, as part of routine maintenance. Highway Gothic is a modified version of the standard Gothic font and was originally developed in the late 1940s by the California Department of Transportation. The font has six configurations known as letter series (B, C, D, E, E (modified), and F). Each series increasingly widens the individual letter sizing and expands the spacing between the letters. D3-1 street name sign with Street name signs (D3-1) and most other guide signs must be Highway Gothic font. designed separately because of variability in the message or legend that limits the ability to standardize sizes. PennDOT Publication 236, Handbook of Approved Signs, provides the minimum requirements for street name signs (D3-1). Additionally, the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states that letters used on street name signs (D3-1) must be composed of a combination of lowercase letters with initial uppercase letters.
  • Evaluation of the Safety Effectiveness of Clearview Font and Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting on Michigan Freeways and Non- Freeways

    Evaluation of the Safety Effectiveness of Clearview Font and Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting on Michigan Freeways and Non- Freeways

    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 8-2015 Evaluation of the Safety Effectiveness of Clearview Font and Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting on Michigan Freeways and Non- Freeways Lusanni Mercedes Acosta Rodrieuez Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Civil Engineering Commons, and the Transportation Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Acosta Rodrieuez, Lusanni Mercedes, "Evaluation of the Safety Effectiveness of Clearview Font and Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting on Michigan Freeways and Non-Freeways" (2015). Master's Theses. 616. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/616 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVALUATION OF THE SAFETY EFFECTIVENESS OF CLEARVIEW FONT AND FLUORESCENT YELLOW SHEETING ON MICHIGAN FREEWAYS AND NON-FREEWAYS by Lusanni Mercedes Acosta Rodriguez A thesis submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering Civil Engineering Western Michigan University August 2015 Thesis Committee: Valerian Kwigizile, Ph.D., Chair Jun-Seok Oh, Ph.D. Zhanbo Sun, Ph.D. Diana Prieto, Ph.D. EVALUATION OF THE SAFETY EFFECTIVENESS OF CLEARVIEW FONT AND FLUORESCENT YELLOW SHEETING ON MICHIGAN FREEWAYS AND NON-FREEWAYS Lusanni Mercedes Acosta Rodríguez, M.S.E Western Michigan University, 2015 Halation or irradiation makes guide sign fonts difficult to read. Missing the necessary guide sign information causes anxiety and confusion to drivers, and hence may lead to crashes.
  • Traffic Operations Guidance Manual REVISION NO.: 15

    Traffic Operations Guidance Manual REVISION NO.: 15

    COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET FRANKFORT, KY 40622 MANUAL TITLE: Traffic Operations Guidance Manual REVISION NO.: 15 DATE REQUESTED: April 2021 REPRINT: REQUESTED BY: Kim Jasper NEW: NEW & REVISED POLICIES CHAPTER/ EXPLANATION OLD NEW SECTION PAGES PAGES TO BE TO BE DELETED ADDED The purpose of this printing is to include the following new and revised policies and procedures in the Traffic Operations Guidance Manual. This revision also includes one exhibit update and a Table of Contents update. TO-400 One-Way Signing on Bifurcated Highways TO-402-01 Stop Control at Intersections TO-402-01 Passing Regulations TO-402-02 Freeway Prohibition Signs TO-402-02 NO U-TURN Signs TO-402-03 No U-turn Signs TO-402-03 Truck Lane Restrictions TO-402-04 TO-402-04 Speed Regulations TO-402-05 TO-402-05 STOP Signs at Railroad Crossings TO-402-06 TO-402-06 Median Crossover Signs TO-402-07 Anti-Littering Signs TO-402-07 Anti-Littering Signs TO-402-08 KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS Signs TO-402-08 Stop Control at Intersections TO-402-09 Weight Limit Signs TO-402-09 KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS Signs TO-402-10 NO TURN ON RED Signs TO-402-10 Weight Limit Signs TO-402-11 Yield Here To Pedestrians Signs TO-402-11 NO TURN ON RED Signs TO-402-12 Engine Compression System Signs TO-402-12 Seat Belt Signs TO-402-13 Introduction TO-404-01 TO-404-01 Route Signs TO-404-02 TO-404-02 FORMERLY Signs TO-404-03 TO-404-03 Destination & Distance Signs TO-404-04 TO-404-04 Street Name Signs TO-404-05 TO-404-05 Numbering of Signalized Intersections TO-404-06 TO-404-06
  • Parkrose‐Argay Development Study Vision Workshop Report

    Parkrose‐Argay Development Study Vision Workshop Report

    Parkrose‐Argay Development Study Vision Workshop Report City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability March 2019 Parkrose‐Argay Development Study Vision Workshop Report Parkrose‐Argay Development Study Vision Workshop Report Parkrose‐Argay Development Study Vision Workshop Report March 2019 Contents Introduction and Overview 1 Community Engagement and Vision Workshop What Did the Community Say – Summary of Key Themes How is this Report Organized? Summary of Responses and Comments 7 Summary of Responses to Questions 1 to 5 Summary of Responses to Questions 6 to 10 Appendix 27 Open‐Ended Responses to Questions 1 to 11 Parkrose‐Argay Development Study Vision Workshop Report Parkrose‐Argay Development Study Vision Workshop Report Introduction and Overview The Parkrose‐Argay Development Study will explore opportunities to create a complete and connected neighborhood on the 30‐acre site at NE 122nd Avenue and NE Shaver Street. This effort will result in a concept plan for a walkable, community‐oriented development that serves the area. In the process, the project team and consultants will consider market conditions, financial feasibility, community perspectives and public policy goals for equitable growth on this potential opportunity site. The development study will look at the area in a holistic way to help achieve greater benefits for the community and owners, if or when it is developed. Rossi, Giusto, Garre farms site and surrounding neighborhood. One of the largest undeveloped properties in Portland, the study site has been owned and farmed by the Rossi, Giusto and Garre families for many decades. Notably, the land is home to the iconic red barn and adjacent farmland.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 240/Monday, December 14, 2020

    Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 240/Monday, December 14, 2020

    80898 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Instructions: You must include the devices, which is to promote the safe agency name and docket number or the and efficient utilization of the highways Federal Highway Administration Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) and streets through an uninterrupted for the rulemaking at the beginning of uniform system of signs, signals, and 23 CFR Parts 470, 635, and 655 your comments. All comments received markings as road users travel between [FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2020–0001] will be posted without change to http:// jurisdictions. Uniformity and www.regulations.gov, including any consistency in message, placement, and RIN 2125–AF85 personal information provided. operation of traffic control devices have FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. been shown to address the expectancy National Standards for Traffic Control Kevin Sylvester, Office of of the road user, resulting in a more Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Transportation Operations, (202) 366– predictable response. The system of Control Devices for Streets and 2161, [email protected], or Mr. uniform traffic control devices works in Highways; Revision William Winne, Office of the Chief concert with the natural tendencies of AGENCY: Federal Highway Counsel, (202) 366–1397, the road user in the various high- Administration (FHWA), U.S. [email protected], Federal judgment situations that the road user Department of Transportation (DOT). Highway Administration,