DOCSLIB.ORG

Comment Response Matrix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comment Response Matrix # Name Date Source Comment Response 1 Richard 5/19/2015 Comment I agree with improvements on Interstate Roads in San Comment noted. Camero Card Antonio and I agree with alternative means for funding projects. Otherwise, San Antonio and other cities in Texas will get further behind. Just another avenue to fund roads! 2 Beverly 5/19/2015 Comment As a concerned citizen, I feel we are taxed on just Comment noted. Due to a change in policy by the Alamo Adams Card about everything – this is a tax on our freedom of Area MPO, the project is being modified to remove all movement. Just build the lanes with money tolling components and will now add one additional designated for roads. Managed lanes are for the elite general-purpose (GP) lane and one high-occupancy and many are exempt from fees. The cost will not be vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. covered anyway – They, most often, will not be self- sustainable. Eliminate other taxes – gas, registration, purchase, driver’s licenses, etc. and maybe you have good reason. As long as citizen freedoms are assaulted by taxes, and none have been eliminated there is little reason to be taxed again. Tolls are a war on the poor and small business and benefit the elite. “Use road money for Roads.” Thank you Beverly Adams – a concerned citizen. 3 Chuck 5/19/2015 Comment Great video in entry room. Makes it much easier to Comment noted. Gregory Card visit/see in the other room. Much better set up than at the recent meeting at FUMC near Fair Oaks Parkway. I-10 Project (FM 3351 to La Cantera Pkwy) 4 Carol 5/19/2015 Comment Your nice 3-D rendering shows crowded existing lanes Comment noted. Due to a change in policy by the Alamo Condos Card and much less use of the “managed”, IE toll, lanes. Area MPO, the project is being modified to remove all Sure looks like using all the lanes would level out the tolling components and will now add one additional usage. Keep in mind, there is no alternate route to general-purpose (GP) lane and one high-occupancy get from Boerne to San Antonio and back. I have vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. lived in an area that utilized HOV lanes. Those lanes were very underutilized. Face it, people want to The conversion of frontage roads from two-way to one- drive their own cars in their own time frame. Maybe way is being undertaken as part of different projects a toll road would work, but it sure galls lots of folks to (currently under construction or proposed) to improve pay extra to get to work and back home. I am also operations and safety. These project will reduce head on concerned about the potential loss of two way traffic collisions and eliminate the yield conditions at entrance on the frontage roads. There is no clamor for buses and exit ramps. to San Antonio to Boerne and back. According to a Texas Transportation Institute Study, this corridor has an 11-13% HOV eligibility rate during the peak hours. These results were validated by a DEC traffic survey conducted in March 2016. 5 Malloy 5/19/2015 Comment I have too many comments for this space. My main Comment noted. Due to a change in policy by the Alamo Gould Card objection to the toll (managed lanes) project is that it Area MPO, the project is being modified to remove all will not allow HOV lanes only registered car pools tolling components and will now add one additional with annual fees. Additionally the new enter/exit general-purpose (GP) lane and one high-occupancy ramps combined with one-way frontage roads will vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. create extra-long travel distances just to get to the other side of I 10. Ex. To get to the Presbyterian The conversion of frontage roads from two-way to one- Church in Leon Springs from Ralph Fair Rd it will be way is being undertaken as part of different projects necessary to drive all the way to Dominion Dr. to turn (currently under construction or proposed) to improve around to get back to the church. operations and safety. These project will reduce head on collisions and eliminate the yield conditions at entrance and exit ramps. In regard to the example provided, access to Leon Springs Presbyterian Church from FM 3351 may be reached by going from FM 3351 to the east bound frontage road, then going to Boerne Stage Road, turning left onto Boerne Stage Road, and then turning right onto Old US 87. I-10 Project (FM 3351 to La Cantera Pkwy) 6 Kelly 5/19/2015 Comment • Cookies are always welcome Comment noted. Due to a change in policy by the Alamo Watson Card • The presenters and presentation was great. I Area MPO, the project is being modified to remove all greatly appreciate the presenters staying calm in the tolling components and will now add one additional face of grumpy people and politically grumbling. general-purpose (GP) lane and one high-occupancy • Why isn’t there public/tax funding for this vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. improvement? Why fund it with tolls? • Concerns – access to managed lanes from Ralph Entrance and exit points to the HOV lanes have been Fair Rd many people join I 10 from Ralph Fair Rd but carefully determined based upon traffic analysis in order under the current plan they will not be able to enter to meet design criteria. The design of entrance/exit until significantly down the road. Please, please add points to the HOV lanes is dependent on weaving an entry point for us. distances and the length of the lanes themselves. • Set the tolls so there is some accountability to Although eastbound traffic entering from FM 3351 (Ralph prevent greed from raising tolls. This is NOT a Fair Road) will not have access to the first eastbound HOV revenue stream it is an infrastructure improvement. entrance, the revised concept, including the new general • Texans don’t carpool. Don’t expect it. We are not purpose lane will still benefit traffic conditions. in CA, VA, MD (they carpool). According to a Texas Transportation Institute Study, this corridor has an 11-13% HOV eligibility rate during the peak hours. These results were validated by a DEC traffic survey conducted in March 2016. 7 Jim 5/19/2015 Comment Three comments: Comment noted. Due to a change in policy by the Alamo Dykes Card 1) TxDOT, Bexar County, Alamo RMA, SA, and VIA Area MPO, the project is being modified to remove all should pay as much of the cost as possible rather tolling components and will now add one additional than burdening our kids and grandkids with debt. general-purpose (GP) lane and one high-occupancy The Dallas toll way has been a great revenue vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. generator for Dallas because citizens paid for it up front. The traffic analysis indicates that the use of reversible 2) The east/west managed lanes should be lanes or ramp metering will not be required. Ramp constructed to allow switching lanes from morning metering was not included in AAMPO’s Congestion (east) and evening (west) Mitigation Plan. 3)There should be controlled access lights for on ramps and controlled mixing between managed lanes and general purpose lanes. 8 Abel 5/19/2015 Comment This is a much needed project and will positively Comment noted. Guzman Card benefit all drivers in the area. I would gladly pay to not have to sit in traffic (i.e. managed lanes or tolls). I-10 Project (FM 3351 to La Cantera Pkwy) 9 ML 5/19/2015 Comment I am in support of the managed lane proposal to Comment noted. Dottrel Card relieve congestion of IH-10 and 1604 corridors. 10 Steven G. 5/19/2015 Comment Very much in favor! Extend to Boerne Hwy 46. Comment noted. The eventual expansion of the Lea Card mainlanes towards the Bexar County line is identified in the long-range plan of the AAMPO “Mobility 2040”. Currently, this expansion is shown as managed lanes in the latest version. 11 James M. 5/19/2015 Comment I live off Boerne Stage Rd. What will the speed limit Comment noted. The majority of your remarks deal with LoPresti Card be for Boerne Stage Rd? Concerned about traveling the construction of the Boerne Stage Road Project by from Boerne to H-E-B at Leon Springs – exit needs to Bexar County. be closer than Scenic Loop. There needs to be firm, logical plans for traffic light coordination. When will The current ramp layout will require one to exit at Ralph Boerne State Rd be completed? What if anything is Fair Road if continuing onto the Leon Springs H-E-B at planned for Leon Creek next to Boerne Stage Rd.? Boerne Stage Road. Why was the City of San Antonio not here at this meeting? Where was Ron Nirenberg for this Councilman Nirenberg did participate in our initial Project important meeting? Stakeholder Meeting; however, he had a conflict and could not attend this open-house public meeting. 12 JM 5/19/2015 Comment PLEASE, work with Bexar Co. to make all lights at Comment noted. All of your comments refer to ongoing Startzell Card Ralph Fair overpass/frontage roads and at Old Stage construction projects by TxDOT and Bexar County rather Coach underpass (under IH-10) operate with traffic than the subject project. sensors, not on preset times. IE at 0530 coming south on Ralph Fair, we shouldn’t have to sit on a red light when there is not frontage road traffic.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • City Maintained Street Inventory
    City Maintained Streets Inventory DATE APPROX. AVG. STREET NAME ACCEPTED BEGINNING AT ENDING AT LENGTH WIDTH ACADEMYText0: ST Text6: HENDERSONVLText8: RD BROOKSHIREText10: ST T0.13 Tex20 ACADEMYText0: ST EXT Text6: FERNText8: ST MARIETTAText10: ST T0.06 Tex17 ACTONText0: WOODS RD Text6:9/1/1994 ACTONText8: CIRCLE DEADText10: END T0.24 Tex19 ADAMSText0: HILL RD Text6: BINGHAMText8: RD LOUISANAText10: AVE T0.17 Tex18 ADAMSText0: ST Text6: BARTLETText8: ST CHOCTAWText10: ST T0.16 Tex27 ADAMSWOODText0: RD Text6: CARIBOUText8: RD ENDText10: OF PAVEMENT T0.16 Tex26 AIKENText0: ALLEY Text6: TACOMAText8: CIR WESTOVERText10: ALLEY T0.05 Tex12 ALABAMAText0: AVE Text6: HANOVERText8: ST SWANNANOAText10: AVE T0.33 Tex24 ALBEMARLEText0: PL Text6: BAIRDText8: ST ENDText10: MAINT T0.09 Tex18 ALBEMARLEText0: RD Text6: BAIRDText8: ST ORCHARDText10: RD T0.2 Tex20 ALCLAREText0: CT Text6: ENDText8: C&G ENDText10: PVMT T0.06 Tex22 ALCLAREText0: DR Text6: CHANGEText8: IN WIDTH ENDText10: C&G T0.17 Tex18 ALCLAREText0: DR Text6: SAREVAText8: AVE CHANGEText10: IN WIDTH T0.18 Tex26 ALEXANDERText0: DR Text6: ARDIMONText8: PK WINDSWEPTText10: DR T0.37 Tex24 ALEXANDERText0: DR Text6: MARTINText8: LUTHER KING WEAVERText10: ST T0.02 Tex33 ALEXANDERText0: DR Text6: CURVEText8: ST ARDMIONText10: PK T0.42 Tex24 ALLENText0: AVE 0Text6:/18/1988 U.S.Text8: 25 ENDText10: PAV'T T0.23 Tex19 ALLENText0: ST Text6: STATEText8: ST HAYWOODText10: RD T0.19 Tex23 ALLESARNText0: RD Text6: ELKWOODText8: AVE ENDText10: PVMT T0.11 Tex22 ALLIANCEText0: CT 4Text6:/14/2009 RIDGEFIELDText8:
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Signing and Pavement Markings General Notes
    TOWN OF QUEEN CREEK Development Services Department Traffic Engineering Program TRAFFIC SIGNING AND PAVEMENT 22358 S. Ellsworth Road Queen Creek, Arizona 85142 MARKINGS GENERAL NOTES Signing Plan General Notes 1. The Town Traffic Engineer shall be notified at 480-358-3132 at least five business days prior to beginning any signing work associated with these plans. 2. The Town Traffic Engineer may require the Contractor to adjust signing locations, off- sets and types of signs at the time of installation. 3. All signing materials and installation shall conform to Town requirements, the Arizona Department of Transportation Standard Drawings and Specifications, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (latest ADOT approved edition) and direction from the Town Traffic Engineer at time of installation. 4. The Contractor shall coordinate with the Town Traffic Engineering Division prior to ordering any materials to obtain the latest signing requirements and specifications. 5. The Contractor shall notify the Traffic Engineering Division at 480-358-3132 upon completion of all signing work to schedule a final inspection. The Contractor shall supply all required warranty documents to the Town Traffic Engineering Division prior to final job acceptance. 6. All existing signs temporarily removed by the contractor shall be salvaged for reinstallation by the Contractor. All signs permanently removed by the Contractor shall be salvaged and returned to the Town. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for maintaining each sign that is removed, ensuring that the signs integrity is maintained. In the event the sign is damaged, the Contractor shall be responsible for its replacement. 7. All signs and sign posts shall be installed per ADOT Standard Drawing S-3.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11.02
    Chapter 11.02 DEFINITIONS1 Sections: 11.02.010 Interpretation. 11.02.015 AASHTO. 11.02.020 Acceptance. 11.02.030 All weather surface. 11.02.040 California Culvert Practice. 11.02.050 Consulting engineer. 11.02.060 Contractor. 11.02.070 County. 11.02.080 County engineer. 11.02.090 Department. 11.02.100 Director. 11.02.110 Driveway. 11.02.120 Driveway, common. 11.02.130 Final map. 11.02.140 May. 11.02.145 MUTCD. 11.02.150 Parcel map. 11.02.160 Road, Arterial. 11.02.170 Road, Collector. 11.02.180 Road, Cul-de-sac. 11.02.190 Road, Local. 11.02.200 Road, Through. 11.02.210 Road, Off-site. 11.02.220 Shall. 11.02.230 Special provisions. 11.02.240 Stabilometer “R” value. 11.02.250 State. 11.02.260 State specifications. 11.02.270 Traffic index. 11.02.280 Traveled way. 11.02.290 Turnaround bulb. 11.02.300 Turnaround, hammerhead. 11.02.310 Turnout. 11.02.320 Uniform surface. 11.02.330 Urban development. 11.02.340 Urban streets. 11.02.010 Interpretation. In this title or the state Highway Transportation Officials. (Ord. 3298 § 2, specifications, the intent and meaning of the terms 2016) that are used shall be as defined in Section I of the state specifications except as specifically noted, 11.02.020 Acceptance. “Acceptance” means the revised or added in this title. Except where formal written acceptance by the Director for work otherwise indicated, all specified or referenced which is completed on roads which are to be distances are measured along the ground.
    [Show full text]
  • 501 - Fire Apparatus Access Standard
    VENTURA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 165 DURLEY AVENUE CAMARILLO, CA 83010 www.vcfd.org Office: 805-388-8738 Fax: 805-388-4356 501 - FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS STANDARD The information contained in this standard is provided solely for the convenience of the reader and was being enforced by the Ventura County Fire Protection District at the time of its publication. The District reserves the right to make changes and improvements to this standard as and when required by law, or otherwise, at any time. The District’s current standards will be posted and made available for downloading by the public at the following web site: www.vcfd.org Please note that the District assumes no liability for any damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any errors, omissions, or discrepancies between this standard and any applicable law. It is the sole responsibility of the person or persons conducting any work pursuant to this standard to ensure their work complies with any and all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Supersedes: VCFPD Standards 14.6.4, 14.6.5, 14.6.6, 14.6.7, 14.6.8, 14.6.9 and 14.6.11 CHAPTER 1 – ADMINISTRATION 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard shall be to provide clarification of requirements and establish and assign an acceptable level of quality and minimum level of mandatory controls to provide and maintain required fire department access to premises in compliance with the Ventura County Fire Code. The provisions of this standard are general in nature and are not intended to over- ride the specific requirements of the Ventura County Fire Apparatus Access Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Copy of Alley List 2018 (Final)Test.Xlsx
    Houston Alleys Accepted By the City of houston for Maintenance Block No. (of Parallel Streets) Parallel To Parallel To Beginning End Length Key Map Date Accepted* Hammersmith (13) 7500 Del Monte Dr. Chevy Chase Dr. Alley Amberly Ct. 600 490V Jun‐05 7600 Del Monte Dr. Chevy Chase Dr. Amberly Ct. Fulham Ct. 600 490V Jun‐05 7500 Chevy Chase Amberly Ct. Del Monte Dr. Chevy Chase Dr. 450 490V Jun‐05 7500 Chevy Chase Amberly Ct. Olympia Dr. Chevy Chase Dr. 450 490V Jun‐05 7500 Olympia Dr. Chevy Chase Dr. S. Voss Rd. Amberly Ct. 600 490V Jun‐05 7600 Olympia Dr. Chevy Chase Dr. Amberly Ct. Fulham Ct. 600 490V Jun‐05 2100 Fulham Ct. Amberly Ct. Olympia Dr. Del Monte Dr. 765 490V Jun‐05 N/A Fulham Ct. S. Voss Rd. Olympia Dr. Alley 110 490V Jun‐05 N/A Fulham Ct. S. Voss Rd. Del Monte Dr. Alley 110 490V Jun‐05 7500 Amberly Ct. S. Voss Rd. Del Monte Dr. Chevy Chase Dr. 450 490V Jun‐05 7500 Amberly Ct. S. Voss Rd. Olympia Dr. Chevy Chase Dr. 450 490V Jun‐05 N/A Amberly Ct. S. Voss Rd. Olympia Dr. Alley 110 490V Jun‐05 N/A Amberly Ct. S. Voss Rd. Del Monte Dr. Alley 110 490V Jun‐05 Total: 5405 ft, 1.02 Miles Houston Heights (3) 300 W 19th W 20th Rutland Ashland 624 452V N/A 300 W 20th W 21th Rutland Ashland 639 452V N/A 600 W 20th W 21th Lawrence N Shepherd 610 452V N/A Total: 1873 ft, 0.35 Miles Villa del Parque (2) N/A Carla Normeadow Benbrook Lesue Ann 786 413Y Jun‐05 N/A Stabler Carla Rittenhouse Benbrook 954 413Y Jun‐05 Total: 1740 ft, 0.33 Miles Willowick Place (2) 3000 Essex Terrace Westgrove Weslayan Weslayan 1428 492S Jul‐73 2700 Essex Green Weslayan Essex Terrace Essex Green 293 492S Jul‐73 Houston Alleys Accepted By the City of houston for Maintenance Block No.
    [Show full text]
  • Subdivision Street Standards Manual
    TOWN OF MARANA Subdivision Street Standards Manual May 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER & SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Purpose……………………………………………………………………... 1 1.3 Applicability……………………………………………………………….. 2 2.0 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND REGULATIONS…………………….. 2 2.1 Functional Classification………………………………………….………... 2 2.2 Incorporated Regulations Adopted by Reference…………………………... 3 3.0 TRAFFIC STUDIES………………………………………………………………. 3 4.0 STREET LAYOUT AND GEOMETRIC DESIGN………………………………... 4 4.1 Street Layout………………………………………………………………… 4 4.2 Cul-de-sacs………………………………………………………………….. 5 4.3 Design Speed………………………………………………………………... 6 4.4 Design Vehicle…………………………………………………….………… 6 4.5 Horizontal Alignment……………………………………………………….. 7 4.6 Vertical Alignment………………………………………………………….. 7 4.7 Intersection Alignment…………………………………………….………… 8 4.8 Intersection Sight Distance…………………………………………………. 9 4.9 Residential and Commercial Drive Entrances………………………………. 10 4.10 Roadway Superelevation…………………………………………………….. 11 4.11 Roadway Drainage Crossings……………………………………………….. 11 4.12 Mountainous Terrain………………………………………………………… 11 4.13 Environmentally Sensitive Roadways………………………………………. 12 4.14 Alternative Access…………………………………………………………… 12 5.0 RIGHT OF WAY……………………………………………………………………. 13 6.0 ELEMENTS IN THE CROSS SECTION…………………………………………... 14 6.1 Travel Lanes……………………………………………………….………… 14 6.2 Curbing……………………………………………………………………… 14 6.3 Sidewalks………………………………………………………….………… 15 6.4 Shoulders………………………………………………………….………… 16 6.5 Roadside
    [Show full text]
  • MANUAL of UNIFORM MINIMUM STANDARDS for DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION and MAINTENANCE for STREETS and HIGHWAYS (Commonly Known As the &Qu
    Topic # 625-000-015 MANUAL OF UNIFORM MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS (Commonly known as the "Florida Greenbook") State of Florida Department of Transportation MAY 2011 EDITION The Florida Greenbook will be posted on the FDOT Web Site at: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/FloridaGreenbook/FGB.shtm USER REGISTRATION Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (Commonly known as the "Florida Greenbook") MAY – 2011 EDITION To: “Florida Greenbook” Users The Department of Transportation utilizes a contact database that enables the Department to e-mail important information to registered users on topics selected by each user. The database allows a user to update their physical address, e-mail address, topics of interest, and any other information in their profile at any time. All Florida Greenbook users must register their e-mail addresses in this contact database in order to receive updates, notices, design memos, or other important information concerning the Department's design manuals. Users must register at the following link: http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/contactmanagement/ New subscribers will need to create a new account. Once the information is registered, new subscribers will need to “Edit Interests.” The Florida Greenbook may be found under: Publications Design Roadway Design Florida Greenbook” Topic # 625-000-015 May - 2011 Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways
    [Show full text]
  • Flexibility in Highway Design
    Flexibility in Highway Design U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Page i This page intentionally left blank. Page ii A Message from the Administrator Dear Colleague: One of the greatest challenges the highway community faces is providing safe, efficient transportation service that conserves, and even enhances the environmental, scenic, historic, and community resources that are so vital to our way of life. This guide will help you meet that challenge. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has been pleased to work with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and other interested groups, including the Bicycle Federation of America, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Scenic America, to develop this publication. It identifies and explains the opportunities, flexibilities, and constraints facing designers and design teams responsible for the development of transportation facilities. This guide does not attempt to create new standards. Rather, the guide builds on the flexibility in current laws and regulations to explore opportunities to use flexible design as a tool to help sustain important community interests without compromising safety. To do so, this guide stresses the need to identify and discuss those flexibilities and to continue breaking down barriers that sometimes make it difficult for highway designers to be aware of local concerns of interested organizations and citizens. The partnership formed to develop this guidance grew out of the design-related provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. Congress provided dramatic new flexibilities in funding, stressed the importance of preserving historic and scenic values, and provided for enhancing communities through transportation improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago Railway Blues Described As Heading for Dead End Without Change
    Chicago railway blues described as heading for dead end without change chicagocitywire.com /stories/511200565-chicago-railway-blues-described-as-heading-for-dead-end-without- change Caitlin Nordahl | Aug 31, 8/30/2017 2017 Chicago could end up being tossed off the beaten track if it doesn't get its tangled railways issues straightened out, the Better Government Association (BGA) warned recently. Experts say Windy City gridlock can account for a third of the total time it takes a freight train to cross the United States, and fixing Chicago’s 4,000 miles of rail track, along with other infrastructure maintenance projects, have been deferred to a breaking point, the BGA contends. It can take 26 to 30 hours to simply get through the area by rail, the group says. The piecemeal development of the track system created today's problems, as it was established to accommodate 30 freight railroads that once operated in the area. While that figure was consolidated to the six major railroads and two short-line railroads that now pass through Chicago, the crisscrossing tracks still accommodate 25 percent of the freight trains that move across the country, as well as 50 percent of the intermodal trains. According to the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, approximately 1,300 freight and passenger trains move through the area every day, the BGA reports. The trains compete for position through choke points like the 75th Street corridor, a portion of track that stretches from Evergreen Park to the Dan Ryan Expressway. The corridor is a meeting point for four freight lines and two passenger lines, creating a bottleneck that is one of the worst in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Three TRAFFIC and SAFETY INFORMATION, and KEY ACCESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
    Chapter Three TRAFFIC AND SAFETY INFORMATION, AND KEY ACCESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES INTRODUCTION This Chapter gives an overview of the traffic and safety issues associated with the US- 10/US-31 highway corridor in Mason County, and presents key access management concepts. The study area for this Plan begins at M-116 near Lake Michigan in the City of Ludington and proceeds east along US-10 to the county line with Lake County and then also north at the south junction of US-10/US-31 just west of Scottville to the County line with Manistee County. The corridor, which is approximately 38 miles in length affects the cities of Ludington and Scottville, the Village of Custer and the Townships of Pere Marquette, Amber, Custer, Branch, Victory, Sherman, Grant, Free Soil, and Mason County. US-10 and US-31 are classified as U.S. Routes. They serve as primary highways for local citizens in the region, but also serve as a thoroughfare for those traveling across the Lower Peninsula. See Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1 Location Map Mason County Access Management Plan US-10/US-31 Study Corridor U.S. & State Highway Free Soil Roads Twp Jurisdictions Meade Grant Twp Lakes Twp Streams Free Soil 01230.5 Mi les July 2005 Data Source: MCGI, Dept of Info Tech Map Prepared by Land Information Access Association 1 3 - S Fountain U Hamlin Victory Sherman Sheridan M Twp Twp Twp Twp - 1 1 6 US-10 US-10/US-31 US-10 1 Ludington 3 Amber Custer - Scottville Branch R Twp B Custer Twp Pere Twp Marquette Twp Riverton Twp Summit Eden Logan Twp Twp Twp US-31 Source: Prepared by Land Information Access Association, 2005 US-10/US-31 Access Management Plan Page 3-1 November 11, 2005 TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ANALYSIS Volumes According to 24 Hour AADT (average annual daily traffic) volumes for 2004 provided by the Michigan Department of Transportation and illustrated for all vehicles on Figure 3-2 and just for commercial vehicles on Figure 3-3.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3 Street Design 3.01 General
    SECTION 3 STREET DESIGN 3.01 GENERAL For purposes of geometric and structural design, streets shall be classified according to the following table. The City Engineer will determine the class of all proposed streets. Any deviation from the following standards shall require the approval of the City Engineer. Street standards shown below in bold italic print apply to streets located within the North Area as shown on Figure 3-1, except as modified within the Washington Specific Plan and the Triangle Specific Plan. Street Standards shown below in plain print apply to streets located within the Southport Area as shown on Figure 3-1. TABLE 3.01 Face of Intersection Bike Minimum Minim Median Number Sidewalk Right of Curb to Face of Lane Centerline 3 um Traffic Width Class 1 Width of Travel 4 2 Way (ft) Face of Curb Index Width Radius Lands 7 (ft) Lanes (ft) Curb Radius (ft) (ft) (ft) cape Loop Pkwy - Maximum (Minor/Major)8 136/160 76/100 50 10 16 4/6 6 1150 6 4.5 Loop Pkwy - Minimum (Collect or) 106 56 40 7 16 2 6 800 6 6.5 Major Arterial (4 Lane/6 Lane) 136/160 76/100 50 10 16 4/6 6 1150 6 4.5 Major Arterial 100 min 80 min 50 10 16 4 (min) 6 800 5 N/A Minor Arterial 110 60 40 9 N/A 4 6 800 6 6.5 Minor Arterial 84 64 40 9 N/A 4 6 800 5 N/A Res. Collector (Back/Back Yard) 72 36 30 7 N/A 2 6 550 5 5.5 Res.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Roads Board Transportation Committee March 26, 2019
    Chapter 2 Roads Board Transportation Committee March 26, 2019 William Capers III Department of Transportation Chapter 2 Roads Background ❑ Named for the County Code chapter describing procedures for managing County-owned property ❑ County Code § 2-1-1: “dedicated to public use or title to which is in the name of the Board of Supervisors or the County” ❑ Typically are unimproved non-County maintained right-of-ways, that have not been accepted into the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary System. ❑ Over 100 Chapter 2 roads in the County that have escrows, potentially many more without escrows. 2 Chapter 2 Roads (Continued) Background ❑ VDOT’s current policy is to not accept new roads in the Secondary System unless they have at least three unique users. ❑ When fewer than four users front a right-of-way, current County Code for each new user requires them to pay an escrow for future construction of a public road. ❑The fourth user of the right-of-way is responsible for constructing part of the public street, using the collected escrows, and providing the difference. ❑ Escrows are managed by Land Development Services ❑LDS also handles requests to build on Chapter 2 Roads. 3 Case Studies Case #1- Washington Street (Springfield District) Case #2- Lyles Road (Lee District) Washington Street Case #1: Washington Street (Springfield District) Braddock Road Section of Washington Street not in VDOT Secondary System Washington Street First First Rd Park Authority Property Washington Street was dedicated by a plat recorded on July 23, 1945 5 Case #1: Washington Street (Springfield District) 6 Nature of Inquiry ❑ No public road on this part of Washington Street.
    [Show full text]