DOCSLIB.ORG

I-295 Corridor Update Scarborough to Brunswick

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-295 Corridor Update Scarborough to Brunswick MaineDOT 295 I-295 Corridor Update Scarborough to Brunswick June 2018 I-295 Corridor Update Scarborough to Brunswick Prepared by Maine Department of Transportation Bureau of Planning Transportation Analysis June 2018 Table of Contents I-295 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................ 1 Study Process ................................................................................................................... 3 II. Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 4 Transportation Inventory ................................................................................................. 4 1. Segments .......................................................................................................................... 4 2. Interchanges ..................................................................................................................... 5 3. Related Transportation Facilities and Services ................................................................ 9 Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................. 11 1. Monthly Variation .......................................................................................................... 11 2. Daily Variation ............................................................................................................... 12 3. Design Hour Volumes .................................................................................................... 12 4. Truck Traffic .................................................................................................................. 14 5. Mass Transportation Users ............................................................................................. 14 6. Historical Traffic Growth ............................................................................................... 14 Safety and Mobility Operating Conditions .................................................................... 17 1. Travel Speeds ................................................................................................................. 17 2. Crashes ........................................................................................................................... 19 3. High Crash Locations ..................................................................................................... 20 4. Highway Incidents.......................................................................................................... 20 5. Capacity .......................................................................................................................... 23 6. Level of Service ............................................................................................................. 24 7. Reliability ....................................................................................................................... 25 Environmental Overview ............................................................................................... 27 1. Physical and Biological Environment ............................................................................ 28 2. Land Use, Cultural, Social, and Economic Environment .............................................. 28 3. Atmospheric Environment ............................................................................................. 28 III. Future Conditions............................................................................................................... 29 Forecast .......................................................................................................................... 29 Safety and Mobility Operating Conditions .................................................................... 30 External Factors and Trends .......................................................................................... 35 1. I-95/Maine Turnpike ...................................................................................................... 35 2. Other ............................................................................................................................... 36 IV. Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 38 Strategies, Actions, and Options .................................................................................... 38 Strategy Assessment ...................................................................................................... 39 1. Auxiliary Lanes .............................................................................................................. 39 2. Intelligent Transportation Systems................................................................................. 44 3. Commuter Transit .......................................................................................................... 53 4. Interchange Improvement .............................................................................................. 54 5. New Highway Capacity ................................................................................................. 57 Candidate Actions .......................................................................................................... 62 1. Auxiliary Lanes .............................................................................................................. 62 2. Intelligent Transportation Systems................................................................................. 64 3. Commuter Transit .......................................................................................................... 66 4. Interchange Improvement .............................................................................................. 66 5. New Highway Capacity ................................................................................................. 70 V. Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 71 Auxiliary Lanes .............................................................................................................. 71 Intelligent Transportation Systems ................................................................................ 77 Commuter Transit .......................................................................................................... 78 Interchange Improvement .............................................................................................. 79 New Highway Capacity ................................................................................................. 79 Effectiveness, Cost, and Challenges .............................................................................. 80 1. Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 80 2. Cost................................................................................................................................. 82 3. Implementation Challenges ............................................................................................ 83 4. Benefit/Cost .................................................................................................................... 84 VI. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 85 Near-Term Improvements .............................................................................................. 85 Mid-Term Improvements ............................................................................................... 91 Long-Term Improvements ............................................................................................. 97 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 101 2016 DHV .................................................................................................................... 101 Percent Heavy Vehicles, Tractor Trailers .................................................................... 101 Percent Heavy Vehicles, Single Unit Trucks ............................................................... 101 Crash Summary I - Northbound ................................................................................... 101 Crash Summary II - Northbound ................................................................................. 101 Crash Summary I - Southbound ................................................................................... 101 Crash Summary II - Southbound ................................................................................. 101 High Crash Location Diagrams - Northbound ............................................................. 101 High Crash Location Diagrams - Southbound ............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • David Mohler Signature
    Massachusetts Division 55 Broadway, 10th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 January 15, 2021 (617) 494-3657 (617) 494-3355 www.fhwa.dot.gov/madiv In Reply Refer To: HDA-MA David J. Mohler Executive Director Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116-3969 Subject: FY 2021-2025 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Amendment #2 Dear Mr. Mohler: Thank you for your letter received on January 5, 2021. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has reviewed the Fiscal Years (FY) 2021-2025 STIP with the following amendments and adjustments received from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and endorsed by the relevant Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): Action Organization MPO Endorsement Date 1.01 Berkshire MPO December 22, 2020 1.02-1.05 Boston MPO December 17, 2020 1.06-1.08 Merrimack Valley MPO December 30, 2020 1.09-1.10 Pioneer Valley MPO December 22, 2020 1.11 Southeastern Mass MPO December 9, 2020 Our review consisted of ensuring that the FY 2021-2025 STIP Amendment #2 and associated FY 2021- 2025 TIP Amendments adopted by the MPOs are based on a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative transportation planning process that substantially meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 23 CFR 450. The actions listed above do not require an air quality determination. Changes called for in this STIP amendment maintain financial constraint as required under 23 CFR 450.218. Additionally, our approval of the FY 2021-2025 STIP was subject to the resolution of one corrective action. On December 29, 2020, we received an action plan update addressing the corrective action and a number of recommendations, indicating that all self-certifications have been updated and completing the corrective action.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC
    1 Reimagining DC 295 as a vital multi modal corridor: The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC Jonathan L. Bush A capstone thesis paper submitted to the Executive Director of the Urban & Regional Planning Program at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Masters of Professional Studies in Urban & Regional Planning. Faculty Advisor: Howard Ways, AICP Academic Advisor: Uwe S. Brandes, M.Arch © Copyright 2017 by Jonathan L. Bush All Rights Reserved 2 ABSTRACT Cities across the globe are making the case for highway removal. Highway removal provides alternative land uses, reconnects citizens and natural landscapes separated by the highway, creates mobility options, and serves as a health equity tool. This Capstone studies DC 295 in Washington, DC and examines the cases of San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway, Milwaukee’s Park East Freeway, New York City’s Sheridan Expressway and Seoul, South Korea’s Cheonggyecheon Highway. This study traces the history and the highway removal success using archival sources, news circulars, planning documents, and relevant academic research. This Capstone seeks to provide a platform in favor DC 295 highway removal. 3 KEYWORDS Anacostia, Anacostia Freeway, Anacostia River, DC 295, Highway Removal, I-295, Kenilworth Avenue, Neighborhood Planning, Southeast Washington DC, Transportation Planning, Urban Infrastructure RESEARCH QUESTIONS o How can Washington’s DC 295 infrastructure be modified to better serve local neighborhoods? o What opportunities
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Roads in the United States: History and Current Policy
    TOLL FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES Bridges - Roads - Tunnels - Ferries August 2009 Publication No: FHWA-PL-09-00021 Internet: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage.htm Toll Roads in the United States: History and Current Policy History The early settlers who came to America found a land of dense wilderness, interlaced with creeks, rivers, and streams. Within this wilderness was an extensive network of trails, many of which were created by the migration of the buffalo and used by the Native American Indians as hunting and trading routes. These primitive trails were at first crooked and narrow. Over time, the trails were widened, straightened and improved by settlers for use by horse and wagons. These became some of the first roads in the new land. After the American Revolution, the National Government began to realize the importance of westward expansion and trade in the development of the new Nation. As a result, an era of road building began. This period was marked by the development of turnpike companies, our earliest toll roads in the United States. In 1792, the first turnpike was chartered and became known as the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike in Pennsylvania. It was the first road in America covered with a layer of crushed stone. The boom in turnpike construction began, resulting in the incorporation of more than 50 turnpike companies in Connecticut, 67 in New York, and others in Massachusetts and around the country. A notable turnpike, the Boston-Newburyport Turnpike, was 32 miles long and cost approximately $12,500 per mile to construct. As the Nation grew, so did the need for improved roads.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interstate 295 Project : Construction Advisories, Week of September 13, 2010
    Maine State Library Digital Maine Transportation Documents Transportation 9-13-2010 The Interstate 295 Project : Construction Advisories, Week of September 13, 2010 Maine Department of Transportation Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs Construction Advisories Week of September 13, 2010 (Alert!) New traffic patterns on several bridges: This week, MaineDOT contractors will begin shifting lane closures on several bridges on I-295 southbound in the Portland area from the center to the left lane. These lane closures are 24/7, with two lanes of traffic open during daylight hours. (Alert!) Several Exits and On-Ramps will be closed according to the following planned schedule for this week: o The on-ramp to I-295 southbound from Forest Ave. may be closed nightly from 7PM to 6AM o Southbound Exit 11 (Maine Turnpike Spur) will be closed Tuesday night 9/14 and Wednesday night 9/15 from 7PM to 6AM o The on-ramp to I-295 southbound from Bucknam Road will be closed Wednesday night, 9/15 and Thursday night, 9/16 from 7PM to 6AM o I-295 southbound Exit 10 (US1 & Rt 9, Bucknam Road) will be closed Thursday night, 9/16 and Friday night, 9/17 from 7PM to 6AM. o I-295 southbound Exit 6B (Forest Ave. North) will be closed Friday night, 9/17 from 7PM to 6AM o Detours will be established for all above exit closures. The 24/7 closure of the Veranda St. southbound on-ramp to I-295 has been extended to early October. This 24/7 closure is a safety precaution, due to bridgework and lane closures on I-295 where traffic normally enters from the Veranda St.
    [Show full text]
  • A-To-Be and Globalvia Sign a Contract for Tolling Backoffice in Pocahontas Parkway»
    Press Release A-to-Be and Globalvia sign for tolling backoffice in Pocahontas Parkway A new US contract for A-to-Be MoveBeyond tolling backoffice Virginia, US, January 15th 2018 A-to-Be and Globalvia signed a a new tolling backoffice contract for Globabvia’s Pocahontas Parkway, in Richmond, Virginia, USA. This contract with one of the largest concession management companies is a significant milestone for A-to-Be as it marks its third delivery of its highly proven A-to-Be MoveBeyond tolling backoffice in the US. The Pocahontas project is expected to go live in the first quarter of 2018, complementing two deployments of A-to-Be MoveBeyond at existing client partners — Southern Connector in South Carolina, and Northwest Parkway in Colorado. With this A-to-Be solution, Globalvia is now able to collect and process toll transactions from the entire concession on the operational side, as well as manage client accounts and effectively control the payment process on the commercial side. «A-to-Be is proud to be doing business with Globalvia, one of the largest players in this industry.», according to Pedro Bento, A-to-Be Chief-Sales Officer. «This contract reflects again the strategic importance of the US market for A-to-Be, and that A-to-Be MoveBeyond is proving to be a reliable and cost-efficent solution for any toll road concession in the US. A-to-Be will continue to invest in this market», anticipates Pedro Bento. This solution — A-to-Be MoveBeyond — is also being delivered in Washington state’s Road Usage Charge (RUC) program, as part of a contract won by IMS and A-to-Be this summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Traveler's Guide
    Florida’s Major Highway Construction Projects: April - June 2018 Interstate 4 24. Charlotte County – Adding lanes and resurfacing from south of N. Jones 46. Martin County – Installing Truck Parking Availability System for the south- 1. I-4 and I-75 interchange -- Hillsborough County – Modifying the eastbound Loop Road to north of US 17 (4.5 miles) bound Rest Area at mile marker 107, three miles south of Martin Highway / and westbound I-4 (Exit 9) ramps onto northbound I-75 into a single entrance 25. Charlotte County – Installing Truck Parking Availability System for the SR 714 (Exit 110), near Palm City; the northbound Rest Area at mile marker point with a long auxiliary lane. (2 miles) northbound and southbound Weigh Stations at mile marker 158 106, four miles south of Martin Highway /SR 714 (Exit 110) near Palm City; the southbound Weigh-in-Motion Station at mile marker 113, one mile south of 2. Polk County -- Reconstructing the State Road 559 (Ex 44) interchange 26. Lee County -- Replacing 13 Dynamic Message Signs from mile marker 117 to mile marker 145 Becker Road (Exit 114), near Palm City; and the northbound Weigh-in-Motion 3. Polk County -- Installing Truck Parking Availability System for the eastbound Station at mile marker 92, four miles south of Bridge Road (Exit 96), near 27. Lee County – Installing Truck Parking Availability System for the northbound and westbound Rest Areas at mile marker 46. Hobe Sound and southbound Rest Areas at mile marker 131 4. Polk County -- Installing a new Fog/Low Visibility Detection System on 47.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilson Bridge Traffic Report
    Wilson Bridge Traffic Report Shadow is emphatically abrupt after dilatant Scott transfuses his overburdens tracklessly. Sleepy Otes suns no gondolier antisepticises confoundingly after Ike pistolling dynamically, quite succeeding. Tremayne permutating his encampments rumpling rallentando, but breeched Greg never unpeoples so quaintly. Bridge outage on traffic report is closed 21 I-66 sink I-395 bridges into DC will be closed and traffic will be. About traffic conditions on major roadways across several state. By traffic camera shortened and traffic report includes a lot of. Bridge bundle project traffic report, and wilson bridge deck of us for example, street and wilson bridge traffic report. The current traffic conditions as reported by the DelDOT Transportation Management Center These advisories are updated 24 hours a day with include only. Work will be striping next week to report issues with a hybrid turbine system. Metro Special Report Wilson Bridge washingtonpostcom. The outer loop is I-495 across Wilson Bridge remains closed this. Interstate bridge closures announced ahead of inauguration Interstate bridge closures announced ahead of inauguration Source KEYC News Now File. INDOT monitors road conditions to monster with love most-up-to-date information. Traffic FOX 5 DC. With the dual-span bridge company will ensure than double this number of traffic lanes. Louisiana Department of Transportation La DOTD. Accident On 495 Today In Md Atletica Castelnovo Monti. Wilson No behavior No a No Report 10 days ago Yadkin Clear Clear. The Commonwealth Transportation Board CTB plans to report findings to the. LATEST NEWS Eastbound I-0 lanes near east Bridge reopen after police activity Ex-CEO of Marin firm charged in alleged 350M Ponzi scheme See video of.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Operation and Maintenance Annual Report
    2020 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT PRESENTED BY: HNTB CORPORATION PRESENTED TO: MAINE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY HNTB Corporation 340 County Road, Suite 6-C Telephone (207) 774-5155 The HNTB Companies Westbrook, ME 04092 Facsimile (207) 228-0909 Infrastructure Solutions www.hntb.com October 1, 2020 Maine Turnpike Authority 2360 Congress Street Portland, ME 04102 Ladies and Gentlemen, We are pleased to submit our 2020 Operation and Maintenance Annual Report for the Maine Turnpike. This report sets forth our findings as to the condition of the Maine Turn- pike and our recommendations concerning maintenance, operation, insurance, and depos- its to be made to the Capital Improvement and Reserve Maintenance funds and the Opera- tion and Maintenance budget. Our findings and recommendations are based on a visual inspection of the turnpike facilities performed between April and July, 2020; several additional visual inspections of turnpike facilities made during the year; and, on a careful evaluation of turnpike opera- tion and maintenance procedures. We have periodically reported to the Executive Direc- tor, Chief Operations Officer, or Director of Engineering, on other items which warranted prompt attention. We appreciate the opportunity to provide Consulting Engineering Services and we ac- knowledge the excellent cooperation of Authority members and personnel in the perfor- mance of these services. Best regards, Roland A. Lavallee, P.E., PLS Vice President TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 6. Planning Studies 34 » Annual Inspection Program 2 » Exit 32 Feasibility Study 34 2. Inspection Findings and » Exit 36 Feasibility Study 34 Exit 45 Feasibility Study 34 Corrective Measures 5 » » Gorham Corridor Study and » Vegetative Cover 5 Alternatives Analysis 35 » Pavement 6 » Safety and Capacity Study 35 » Bridges and Minor Spans 7 » Portland Area Mainline » Ancillary Structures 14 Needs Assessment 36 » Drainage 15 » Study of the Future Needs of the Piscataqua » Guardrail and Safety Improvements 16 River Bridge 36 » Lighting 18 7.
    [Show full text]
  • I-295 Corridor Study Scarborough-Brunswick Prepared by Maine Department of Transportation (Mainedot) Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning
    I-295I-295 CorridorCorridor StudyStudy Scarborough-BrunswickScarborough-Brunswick Prepared by Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning May 2010 I-295 Corridor Study Scarborough-Brunswick Prepared by Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning May 2010 Acknowledgements MaineDOT Edward Hanscom, Study Manager Dennis Emidy, Transportation Engineer PACTS John Duncan, Director Eric Ortman, Transportation Planner Paul Niehoff, Transportation Planner Kevin Hooper, Travel Demand Modeler Other Staff Participants Ernest Martin, MaineDOT Project Development Dan Stewart, MaineDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Sue Moreau, MaineDOT Multimodal Planning & Operations Unit Russ Charette, MaineDOT Mobility Management Division Tracy Perez, formerly MaineDOT Office of Passenger Transportation Gerald Varney, FHWA John Perry, FHWA David Willauer, formerly GPCOG Maddy Adams, GPCOG Corridor Advisory Committee Brunswick: Don Gerrish, Town Manager Theo Holtwijk, Town Planner Cumberland: Bill Shane, Town Manager Carla Nixon, Town Planner Falmouth: George Thebarge, Town Planner Tony Hayes, Public Works Director Freeport: Donna Larson, Town Planner Albert Presgraves, Town Engineer Maine Turnpike Authority: Conrad Welzel, Manager of Government Relations Portland: James Cloutier, City Councilor Larry Mead, Assistant City Manager Mike Bobinsky, Public Works Director State Police I-295 Troop: Lieutenant Ron Harmon Scarborough: Ron Owens, Town Manager Joe Ziepniewski, Town Planner South Portland: Tex Haeuser, Planning Director Steve Johnson, Public Works Director Transit Providers Working Group: Peter Hefler, METRO General Manager Westbrook: Paul Boudreau, Public Works Director Eric Dudley, Chief City Engineer Yarmouth: Nat Tupper, Town Manager Dan Jellis, Town Engineer Cover: I-295 northbound, Exit 3 to Exit 4 (PACTS photo) Table of Contents Executive Summary ES-1 I. Introduction 1-1 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Setting 1
    Metropolitan Setting 1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS Capitol Building, and picks up again north of the region at the Beltway. Interstate 295 approaches Washington from the Beltway south of the city, Washington, D. C., is unique in being a city of stopping after crossing the Anacostia River. national and international significance as well as a Interstate 66 approaches from the west, ter- regional center. Its metropolitan area is 2,400 minating at the Beltway. Interstate 270 connects square miles and includes two States and the with the Beltway northwest of the city. Major District of Columbia. The Federal Government parkways lead west along both banks of the owns a sizeable proportion of the land. Potomac and south along the Virginia bank. Washington, D. C., is the focus of one of the Washington’s highway system is one of the most Nation’s fastest growing metropolitan areas. congested in the Nation during peak hours. It has Washington ranked twelfth in population among been targeted for major upgrading and new Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA’s) construction since the late 1950’s, but most of the in 1940 and had moved up to seventh rank by 1970, improvements have been stymied by public opposi- expanding as the role of the Federal Government tion. expanded, but this trend slowed during the 1960’s, The suburbs in the meantime have continued to Bus transit service in the region is criticized for grow, gaining over 60 percent population between being slow, expensive, and uncomfortable. 1960 and 1970 (see Figure 2). The fastest growing Although streetcars have been out of circulation sections of the SMSA during the 1960’s were since 1962, many of the bus routes still follow old Prince William, Prince Georges, and Fairfax streetcar lines that no longer conform to the counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance and Production Review of the Florida Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2019 / 2020
    Performance and Production Review of the Florida Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2019 / 2020 Phone: 850-414-4105 www.ftc.state.fl.us 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 9 Tallahassee, FL 32399 A Report by: The Florida Transportation Commission FY 2019/2020 Performance and Production Review Table of Contents Preface.............................................................................................................................................2 Purpose of this Report.....................................................................................................................3 Latest in Measuring Performance...................................................................................................4 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................5 Overview of Performance...............................................................................................................5 Performance of the System as a Whole...........................................................................................6 FDOT State and District Profiles....................................................................................................9 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Department of Transportation Performance.............................................12 Safety Initiatives............................................................................................................................16 Cost Efficient & Effective Business
    [Show full text]