DOCSLIB.ORG

Truck Accommodation Design Guidance: Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Truck Accommodation Design Guidance: Final Report Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-04/0-4364-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date TRUCK ACCOMMODATION DESIGN GUIDANCE: FINAL October 2003 REPORT 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Dan Middleton, Alan Clayton, Cesar Quiroga, and Debbie Jasek Report 0-4364-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 0-4364 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2001-August 2003 P. O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Research Project Title: Truck Accommodation Design Guidance 16. Abstract The number of trucks on many highways in Texas and across the nation has increased to the point that special or unique roadway design treatments may be warranted. Increases in truck traffic have resulted from increases in time-sensitive freight (e.g., just-in-time deliveries), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and until recently a robust economy. As particular corridors have become increasingly dominated by truck traffic, or in locations where truck traffic might reasonably be segregated, questions have arisen regarding accommodations and treatments to address issues caused by truck traffic that may be appropriate for those corridors. This research investigated the sensitivity of current Texas design practice to the unique operating characteristics of large commercial vehicles and determined threshold conditions under which design should reflect these larger vehicles. Findings of this study indicate that serious consideration needs to be given trucks when the average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT) reaches 5000 trucks per day during the design period. When the design AADTT reaches 25,000 trucks per day, there may be justification for considering separated truck roadways with a minimum of two lanes in each direction. This research recommends that the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) consider changes in the following design parameters in its TxDOT Roadway Design Manual (and/or other appropriate documents): stopping sight distance, intersection and channelization, lane width, shoulder width and composition, sideslopes and drainage features, traffic barriers, passive signs, and acceleration lanes. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Trucks, Commercial Vehicles, Truck Roadways, No restrictions. This document is available to Truck Lane Restrictions, Geometric Design, the public through NTIS: Roadside Safety Features National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 258 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized TRUCK ACCOMMODATION DESIGN GUIDANCE FINAL REPORT by Dan Middleton, P.E. Program Manager Texas Transportation Institute Alan Clayton, P.Eng. Professor of Civil Engineering University of Manitoba Cesar Quiroga Associate Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute and Debbie Jasek Assistant Research Specialist Texas Transportation Institute Report 4364-1 Project Number 0-4364 Research Project Title: Truck Accommodation Design Guidance Sponsored by Texas Department of Transportation In Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration October 2003 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data, the opinions, and the conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Texas A&M University System, or the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). This report does not constitute a standard or regulation, and its contents are not intended for construction, bidding, or permit purposes. The use of names or specific products or manufacturers listed herein does not imply endorsement of those products or manufacturers. The engineer in charge of the project was Dan Middleton, P.E. # 60764. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was conducted in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of several persons who made the successful completion of this research possible. This especially includes the Program Coordinator, Mr. Rick Collins, and the Project Director, Mr. Gus Lopez. Special thanks are also extended to Mr. Charles Koonce and Ms. Carol Davis, who served as Technical Advisors, and to Mr. Larry Baird, Mr. Tom Beeman, Mr. Ray Belk, Ms. Maria Burke, Mr. Chris Hehr, Ms. Elizabeth Hilton, and Mr. Cecil Johnson for their participation in the project. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................xi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... xiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................1 1.0 BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................5 1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................5 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................6 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ............................................................6 2.0 INPUT FROM STAKEHOLDERS .............................................................................7 2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................7 2.2 METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................7 2.3 FINDINGS BASED ON STAKEHOLDER INPUT .......................................8 2.3.1 TxDOT Survey Findings......................................................................8 2.3.2 DPS Office Meeting and Survey........................................................11 2.3.3 TxDOT Research and Technology Implementation (RTI) Survey Findings..................................................................................14 2.3.4 TxDOT Office Interviews ..................................................................18 2.3.5 Motor Carrier Interviews....................................................................29 3.0 TEXAS TRUCK FLEET ...........................................................................................37 3.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................37 3.2 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................37 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT FLEET ..............................................37 3.3.1 Size and Makeup of the Texas Truck Fleet........................................37 3.3.2 Trucks Allowed by Oversize/Overweight Permitting........................40 3.3.3 Semitrailers Longer than 53 Feet .......................................................41 3.3.4 Truck Length and Width Exclusive Devices......................................43 4.0 MAJOR TRUCK CORRIDORS IN TEXAS.............................................................45 4.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................45 4.2 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................45 4.2.1 GIS-T Platform...................................................................................45 4.2.2 Road Network ....................................................................................46 4.3 CURRENT LEVELS OF TRUCK ACTIVITY.............................................47 4.3.1 Commodity Flows and Derived Truck Movements...........................47 4.3.2 Truck Flows........................................................................................62 4.4 ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN TRUCK TRAFFIC ....................................80 4.4.1 Truck Forecasts for Specific Corridor Proposals ...............................80 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 5.0 TRUCK DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED ELSEWHERE................91 5.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................91 5.2 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................91 5.3 RESULTS OF LITERATURE SEARCH......................................................91 5.3.1 Strategies for Truck Accommodation ................................................93 5.4 RESULTS OF FOLLOW-UP CONTACTS ................................................106 5.4.1 New Jersey Turnpike........................................................................106
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis of Traffic Capacity on Mountainous Two Lane Highway Adding Climbing Lane
    MATEC Web of Conferences 81, 04009 (2016) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/20168104009 ICTTE 2016 Analysis of Traffic Capacity on Mountainous Two Lane Highway Adding Climbing Lane Yunwei Meng1,2 , Hailing Li2, Hejun Chai2 and ZonglingYan 2 1The Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering, Ministry of Education, Tongji University, 201804,Shanghai, China 2China Merchants Chongqing Communications Technology Research & Design Institute Co., LTD, 400067,Chongqing, China Abstract. During the construction of mountainous double lane highway, climbing lane plays a certain role for enhancing the traffic capacity. In order to explore traffic capacity improvement effect for different conditions of climbing lane, 20 representative models are chosen, which contain various combinations of alignment and traffic parameters. The changes of traffic capacity, average speed, delays, and saturation in models are obtained before and after the use of a climbing lane by means of numerical simulation. The results show that the use of a climbing lane could improve traffic capacity, average speed, while reducing delays and saturation. The improvement effect is different according to different combinations of alignment and traffic parameters. The research could provide a reference for mountainous climbing lane construction intend. 1 Introduction found that it is possible to generate traffic bottlenecks in the lane separation and convergence position. It can Because of the limitation of geology, topography and effectively ease traffic congestion by extending the length engineering investment, two-way two lane highway is of the transition section [4]. Setting up a reasonable common form in mountainous area of China. Two lane climbing lane, it can slow down the occurrence of traffic highways in mountain area is the main artery, assuming congestion [5].
    [Show full text]
  • US 64 from West of NC 281 at Lake Toxaway to Indian Creek Transylvania County WBS No
    US 64 From West of NC 281 at Lake Toxaway to Indian Creek Transylvania County WBS No. 34428.2.2 T.I.P. No. R-2409C EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action Categorical Exclusion. 2. CONTACTS The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this Proposal: Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Mr. Edward A. Green, P.E., Division Engineer Division Administrator Highway Division 14 Office Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 253 Webster Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Sylva, NC 28779 Telephone: (919) 856-4346 Telephone: (828) 586-2141 3. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS REQUIRED The proposed action will require permits pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality will be needed for fill activity in adjacent wetlands and surface waters. A Section 404 permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers will be required to discharge and place fill materials into wetlands. 4. PROPOSED ACTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and FHWA propose transportation improvements to US 64 from 0.3 mile west of NC 281 at Lake Toxaway to Indian Creek, Transylvania County. The proposed project is included in the NCDOT 2012-2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as project number R-2409C. The project consists of upgrading this 1.5-mile, two-lane roadway to improve geometric design conditions and add a climbing lane.
    [Show full text]
  • DN-GEO-03031 June 2017 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IRELAND (TII) PUBLICATIONS
    Rural Road Link Design DN-GEO-03031 June 2017 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IRELAND (TII) PUBLICATIONS About TII Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) is responsible for managing and improving the country’s national road and light rail networks. About TII Publications TII maintains an online suite of technical publications, which is managed through the TII Publications website. The contents of TII Publications is clearly split into ‘Standards’ and ‘Technical’ documentation. All documentation for implementation on TII schemes is collectively referred to as TII Publications (Standards), and all other documentation within the system is collectively referred to as TII Publications (Technical). Document Attributes Each document within TII Publications has a range of attributes associated with it, which allows for efficient access and retrieval of the document from the website. These attributes are also contained on the inside cover of each current document, for reference. TII Publication Title Rural Road Link Design TII Publication Number DN-GEO-03031 Activity Design (DN) Document Set Standards Stream Geometry (GEO) Publication Date June 2017 Document 03031 Historical NRA TD 9 Number Reference TII Publications Website This document is part of the TII publications system all of which is available free of charge at http://www.tiipublications.ie. For more information on the TII Publications system or to access further TII Publications documentation, please refer to the TII Publications website. TII Authorisation and Contact Details This document
    [Show full text]
  • The Undisputed Market Leader in Design-Build
    THE UNDISPUTED MARKET LEADER IN DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS PROJECT LOCATION OWNER DESIGN-BUILD TEAM or CONTRACTOR Glenn Highway Improvements Anchorage, AK Alaska DOT Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. SR202L South Mountain Freeway Project Phoenix, AZ Arizona DOT Connect 202 Partners, LLC Loop 202 Widening Phoenix, AZ Arizona DOT Kiewit + Sundt + URS I-10 INA Road GMP 2 Tucson, AZ Arizona DOT Sundt/Kiewit JV Metro Orange Line Extension Chatsworth, CA LACMA Brutoco Engineering + Mc Lean & Schultz + Wildan Engineering I-15 & I-235 Devore Interchange Devore, CA CALTRANS Atkinson Contractors, LP BART Warm Springs Extension Fremont, CA CALTRANS Warm Spring Constructors CA High Speed Rail-1 DB Fresno, CA California High Speed Rail Authority Tutor Perini/Zachry/Parsons, A Joint Venture SR-99 Realignment-CMGC Fresno, CA CALTRANS MSE Retaining Systems, Inc. Fresno Braided Ramps Fresno, CA CALTRANS R & L Brosamer, Inc. SR-58 Kramer Junction CMGC Hinkley, CA CALTRANS Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. Inglewood Stadium Inglewood, CA TURNER HUNT LA NFL JOINT VENTURE Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. I-405 Sepulveda Pass Design Build Los Angelos, CA CALTRANS Kiewit Infrastructure West Company SDRBDT Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project San Diego, CA SAN DIEGO Assoc. of Govts. (SANDAG) Mid-Coast Transit Constructors Smugglers Gulch Wash Tunnel San Diego, CA USACE Kiewit + Simon Wong Engineering + HNTB COSMIX Colorado Springs, CO CDOT SEMA Construction + CH2M Hill T-REX Denver, CO CDOT + RTD Kiewit + Parsons Transportation Group RTD West Corridor (Fastracks)* Golden, CO RTD Herzog + Stacey Witbeck JV + David Evans & Assoc. I-25 Trinidad Phase B Trinidad, CO CDOT Slaton Brothers, Inc. Rehab of Frederick Douglas Bridge Washington, DC DC Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Iii Roads and Streets Chapter Contents
    CHAPTER III ROADS AND STREETS TOC-III-3 of 3 CHAPTER III ROADS AND STREETS CHAPTER CONTENTS Page No.I...........................................................................................................GENERAL 1 A. Introduction............................................................................................................1 B. Definitions .............................................................................................................1 C. Authorization, Permits ...........................................................................................3 D. Abbreviations.........................................................................................................4 II. DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................................................4 A. Pre-Design Meeting ...............................................................................................4 B. Preliminary Considerations....................................................................................4 1. Factors to be Considered in Trafficway Design ........................................4 2. Survey Requirements.................................................................................5 3. Right-of-Way Requirements......................................................................6 4. General Development Plan ........................................................................7 5. Preliminary Studies....................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • BMP Chapter 3: Bicycle Network Recommendations
    Chapter 3 Bellingham Bicycle Master Plan | Chapter 3: Bicycle Network Recommendations Chapter 3: Bicycle Network Recommendations Chapter 3 presents the recommended network of on-street bicycle facilities that will help Bellingham meet the goals of this Plan. It describes the methodology used to develop the proposed network and suggests facility types for each street segment in the network. This chapter also provides a prioritized list of recommendations to facilitate strategic and timely implementation of the Plan. Network Opportunities and Constraints The City of Bellingham street system presents both opportunities and constraints for developing an on- street, city-wide bicycle network that safely connects all major destinations for bicyclists of all skill levels. In areas of the City that have a traditional street grid pattern, such as Downtown, Fairhaven, and neighborhoods west of Interstate 5 (I-5), there are strong opportunities on local and arterial streets to develop a system of well-connected bicycle facilities. In newer sections of the City, particularly to the east and north of I-5, there are more dead-end streets and larger blocks, making it harder to develop an extensive network of bicycle facilities in these areas. Many of these areas with limited connectivity were built under the current land use and local, State, and federal environmental regulations, which are much more restrictive than in the past and can make street and trail construction - and associated environmental impact mitigation - very expensive. One of the most significant challenges for creating a connected bicycle network is I-5. There are currently eleven arterial streets that cross I-5 over a nine-mile stretch and many of these are intimidating to novice and intermediate bicyclists.
    [Show full text]
  • ROADWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES English Revised
    TDOT - ROADWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES English Revised: 10/27/15 SECTION II - PRELIMINARY PLANS CHAPTER 1 - DESIGN GUIDELINES 2-100.00 PROJECT FOLDER (See 1-100.00) 2-105.00 ROADWAY DESIGN CHECKLIST - PRELIMINARY PLANS (See 1-105.00) 2-110.00 PROJECT ACTIVITY STATUS SHEET (See 1-110.00) 2-112.00 SIZE OF FULL-SIZE PLAN AND CROSS-SECTION SHEETS (See 3-102.00 and 4-112.00) 2-115.00 IDENTIFICATION OF SUPERVISORS, DESIGNERS, AND CHECKERS ON TITLE SHEET (See 3-105.00) 2-115.01 SPECIAL NOTES 2-115.05 EQUATION BLOCKS ON TITLE SHEET (See 4-115.20) 2-115.10 EXCLUSIONS ON TITLE SHEET (See 4-115.25) 2-115.15 TRAFFIC BLOCK ON TITLE SHEET 2-115.20 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 2-115.25 SPECIAL LOG MILE NOTE 2-120.00 TRAFFIC DATA FOR DESIGN 2-125.00 VERTICAL CLEARANCES FOR NON-INTERSTATE BRIDGES 2-127.00 SUBMITTAL OF PLANS FOR STRUCTURAL GRADE APPROVAL 2-130.00 SUPERELEVATION RATES AND RUN-OFF 2-132.00 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE 2-135.00 THE CLEAR ZONE ROADSIDE CONCEPT 2-135.05 CLEAR ZONES ON CURVED ALIGNMENTS 2-136.00 LANDSCAPING 2-140.00 MEDIAN OPENING SPACING 2-145.00 EXCAVATION AND UNDERCUTTING (See 4-203.00) 2-145.05 EARTHWORK BALANCES (See 2-145.10, 3-315.05 and 3-315.15) 2-145.07 SUBMISSION OF GRADING QUANTITIES SHEETS (See 3-315.20 and 4- 203.50) 2-145.10 SHRINKAGE AND SWELL FACTORS (See 2-145.05, 3-315.10, and 4- 203.05) 2-150.00 TRUCK CLIMBING LANES 2-150.01 LOCATION GUIDELINES 2-150.02 CAPACITY ANALYSIS 2-i TDOT - ROADWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES English Revised: 10/27/15 2-150.03 CRITICAL LENGTH OF GRADE 2-150.04 DESIGN GUIDELINES 2-150.05 DOWNGRADES 2-150.06
    [Show full text]
  • Roads: Geometric Design and Layout Planning
    Chapter 7 Roads: Geometric design and layout planning 7 GUIDELINES FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENT PLANNING AND DESIGN TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE . 1 INTRODUCTION. 1 Reference to planning . 1 Classification of the road and street system. 2 Measures of effectiveness (MOE) . 3 Traffic calming . 4 BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS. 4 The design vehicle. 4 The design driver . 5 The road surface . 5 THE ELEMENTS OF DESIGN . 6 Design speed. 6 Ceiling speed . 6 Design hour . 6 SIGHT DISTANCE . 8 Stopping sight distance (SSD) . 8 Barrier sight distance (BSD) . 8 Decision sight distance (DSD) . 10 Passing sight distance (PSD) . 10 Intersection sight distance (ISD) . 10 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT . 13 Tangents . 14 Curvature and superelevation . 14 Superelevation runoff. 14 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT . 15 Curvature . 15 Gradients. 17 Climbing lanes . 18 CROSS-SECTION DESIGN . 19 i Roads: Geometric design and layout planning Chapter 7 GUIDELINES FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENT PLANNING AND DESIGN Lanes . 19 Shoulders . 21 Medians and outer separators . 22 Verges . 22 Sidewalks . 22 Slopes . 24 INTERSECTIONS . 24 Introduction . 24 Location of intersections. 25 The types of intersection control . .26 The form of intersections . 28 Intersection components . 29 Mini-roundabouts . 32 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 35 ii Chapter 7 Roads: Geometric design and layout planning GUIDELINES FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENT PLANNING AND DESIGN LIST OF TABLES Table 7.1 Comparison between classification systems . .3 Table 7.2 Dimensions of design vehicles (m) (after Wolhuter and Skutil 1990) . .4 Table 7.3 Minimum turning radii . .5 Table 7.4 Brake force coefficients . .6 Table 7.5 Recommended design and ceiling speed . .7 Table 7.6 Stopping sight distance on level roads . .8 Table 7.7 Barrier sight distance .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1270 Auxiliary Lanes
    Chapter 1270 Auxiliary Lanes 1270.01 General Exhibit 1270-3 Speed Reduction Warrant Example 1270.02 Climbing Lanes Exhibit 1270-4 Auxiliary Climbing Lane 1270.03 Passing Lanes Exhibit 1270-5 Passing Lane Example 1270.04 Slow-Moving Vehicle Turnouts Exhibit 1270-6 5 Length of Passing Lanes 1270.05 Shoulder Driving for Slow Vehicles Exhibit 1270-7 Passing Lane Configurations 1270.06 Emergency Escape Ramps Exhibit 1270-8 Buffer Between Opposing Passing Lanes 1270.07 Documentation Exhibit 1270-9 Auxiliary Passing Lane 1270.08 References Exhibit 1270-10 Emergency Escape Ramp Example Exhibit 1270-11 Emergency Escape Ramp Length Exhibit 1270-1 Climbing Lane Example Exhibit 1270-12 Rolling Resistance (R) Exhibit 1270-2 Speed Reduction Warrant: Performance for Exhibit 1270-13 Typical Emergency Escape Ramp Trucks 1270.01 General Auxiliary lanes are used to comply with capacity demand; maintain lane balance; accommodate speed change, weaving, and maneuvering for entering and exiting traffic; and encourage carpools, vanpools, and the use of transit. For signing and delineation of auxiliary lanes, see the Standard Plans, the Traffic Manual, and the MUTCD. Contact the region Traffic Engineer for guidance. Although slow-moving vehicle turnouts and shoulder driving for slow vehicles are not auxiliary lanes, they are covered in this chapter because they perform a similar function. For additional information, see the following: Chapter 1103 Design controls, including speed Chapter 1230 Geometric cross section components Chapter 1310 Turn lanes Chapter 1310 Speed change lanes at intersections Chapter 1360 Collector-distributor roads Chapter 1360 Weaving lanes Chapter 1410 High-occupancy vehicle lanes 1270.02 Climbing Lanes 1270.02(1) General Climbing lanes (see Exhibit 1270-1) are normally associated with truck traffic, but they may also be considered in recreational or other areas that are subject to slow-moving traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Vehicle Climbing Lanes
    HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD Bulletin 104 Vehicle Climbing Lanes National Research Co HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD Officers and Members of the Executive Committee 1955 OFFICERS G. DONALD KENNEDY, Chairman K. B. WOODS, Vice Chairman FRED BUBGGRAF, Director ELMER M. WARD, Assistant Director Executive Committee C. D. CuRTiss, Commissioner^ Bureau of Public Roads A. E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary, American Association of State Highway Officials LOUIS JORDAN, Executive Secretary, Division of Engineering and Industrial Research, National Research Council R. H. BALDOCK, State Highway Engineer, Oregon State Highway Commission PYKE JOHNSON, Consultant, Automotive Safety Foundation G. DONALD KENNEDY, President, Portland Cement Association O. L. KiPP, Assistant Commissioner and Chief Engineer, Minnesota Department of Highways BURTON W. MARSH, Director, Safety and Traffic Engineering Department, Ameri• can Automobile Association C. H. ScHOLER, Head, Applied Mechanics Department, Kansas State College REX M. WHITTON, Chief Engineer, Missouri State Highway Department K. B. WOODS, Director, Joint Highway Research Project, Purdue University Editorial Staff FRED BURGGRAF ELMER M. WARD WALTER J. MILLER 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington 25, D. C. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Highway Resoarch Board. HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD BuUetin 104 Vehicle Ctimbing Lanes PRESENTED AT THE Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting January 11-14, 1955 1955 Washington, D. C. Department of Design T. E. Shelburne, Chairman Director of Research, Virginia Department of Highways, University of Virginia COMMITTEE ON GEOMETRIC fflGHWAY DESIGN D. W. Loutzenheiser, Chairman Acting Chief, Urban Highway Branch, Bureau of Public Roads R. H. Baldock, State Highway Engineer, Oregon State Highway Commission Warren James Cremean, Urban Projects Engineer, Ohio Department of Highways Ralph L, Fisher, Engineer of Design, New Jersey State Highway Department Fred W.
    [Show full text]
  • From Truck-Only Lanes
    Appendix A. NCHRP Project 03-73 Separation of Vehicles – CMV- Only Lanes Task 7 – Interim Report NCHRP Project 3-73: Separation of Vehicles - CMV-Only Lanes A. NCHRP Project 03-73 Separation of Vehicles – CMV-Only Lanes Task 7 – Interim Report A.1 Introduction This interim report document provides results of the first phase of research on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 03-73 Separation of Vehicles – Commercial Motor Vehicle-Only Lanes project. It presents a review and discussion of a wide range of issues relevant to planning, designing, and evaluating a variety of concepts from CMV-Only Lanes that should be useful to planners and policy makers in the public and private sector. It also presents an evaluation of available data and its suitability to conduct additional analyses in Phase II of the research plan. A.1.1 Project Overview For a number of years, there has been growing interest in commercial motor vehicle (CMV)- only lanes and several notable proposals for CMV-only lane systems/projects have appeared in the planning and traffic engineering literature. To a large extent, this growth in interest has been related to the growth in truck traffic relative to automobile traffic and the contribution of truck traffic to congestion. Heavy trucks have a greater impact on capacity than their sheer volume would suggest, especially when mixed with automobiles. Separation of autos and trucks may be a beneficial way of building more system capacity in certain circumstances. A number of studies also have suggested that CMV-only lanes that are tolled may present a viable means of financing system capacity improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 3
    Chapter 3: Bicycle Network Recommendations Chapter 3 presents the recommended network of on-street bicycle facilities that will help Bellingham meet the goals of this Plan. It describes the methodology used to develop the proposed network and suggests facility types for each street segment in the network. This chapter also provides a prioritized list of recommendations to facilitate strategic and timely implementation of the Plan. Network Opportunities and Constraints The City of Bellingham street system presents both opportunities and constraints for developing an on- street, city-wide bicycle network that safely connects all major destinations for bicyclists of all skill levels. In areas of the City that have a traditional street grid pattern, such as Downtown, Fairhaven, and neighborhoods west of Interstate 5 (I-5), there are strong opportunities on local and arterial streets to develop a system of well-connected bicycle facilities. In newer sections of the City, particularly to the east and north of I-5, there are more dead-end streets and larger blocks, making it harder to develop an extensive network of bicycle facilities in these areas. Many of these areas with limited connectivity were built under the current land use and local, State, and federal environmental regulations, which are much more restrictive than in the past and can make street and trail construction - and associated environmental impact mitigation - very expensive. One of the most significant challenges for creating a connected bicycle network is I-5. There are currently eleven arterial streets that cross I-5 over a nine-mile stretch and many of these are intimidating to novice and intermediate bicyclists.
    [Show full text]