DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Signage Alternatives for Express Lane Facilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Signage Alternatives for Express Lane Facilities Evaluation of Signage Alternatives for Express Lane Facilities Contract # DTRT12GUTC12 with USDOT Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R) Final Report January 2017 Principal Investigator: Albert Gan, Ph.D. National Center for Transportation Systems Productivity and Management O. Lamar Allen Sustainable Education Building 788 Atlantic Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355 P: 404-894-2236 F: 404-894-2278 [email protected] nctspm.gatech.edu DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. METRIC CONVERSION TABLE U.S. CUSTOMARY UNITS TO SI* (MODERN METRIC) UNITS LENGTH SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL in inches 25.400 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.610 kilometers km mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.280 feet ft m meters 1.090 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL in2 square inches 645.200 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.590 square kilometers km2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.470 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 VOLUME SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL fl oz fluid ounces 29.570 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1,000 L shall be shown in m3. *SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. iii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient′s Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2017 Evaluation of Signage Alternatives for Express Lane Facilities 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Priyanka Alluri, Albert Gan, Dibakar Saha, Luis Fernandez, and Eazaz Sadeghvaziri 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Lehman Center for Transportation Research Florida International University 11. Contract or Grant No. 10555 West Flagler Street, EC 3680, Miami, FL 33174 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered The National Center for Transportation Systems Productivity and Management Final Report (NCTSPM) January 2014 – January 2017 Lamar Allen Sustainable Education Building 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 788 Atlantic Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Express lanes are usually tolled freeway lanes that are separated from general-purpose lanes to provide a higher level of mobility. Guide signs upstream of express lanes are especially crucial as drivers have to read these signs and then comprehend and react to them accordingly while traveling at high speeds. This report presents a focus group study to obtain drivers’ feedback on different express lane sign design alternatives, with a special focus on signs near the entrance of express lane facilities. It also includes a review of the current standards in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for express lane signs and the use of signs on existing express lane facilities from across the country. The provisions of regulatory signs, guide signs, and tolling agency’s pictograph on express lanes are provided in Chapter 2E: Toll Road Signs and Chapter 2G: Preferential and Managed Lane Signs of the MUTCD. However, many existing express lane signs have not been updated to meet the current MUTCD standards for express lane signs. The existing express lane signs were found to vary not only in the types of information they display, but also in color, size, layout, and number of sign panels used. The signs were found to generally display information on toll amounts and accessibility status, and none were found to display comparative travel times on express lanes vs. general-purpose lanes. A focus group study involving 49 participants was conducted to assess drivers’ understandings, preferences, and opinions toward the guide signs at the entrance of express lanes. Sign design alternatives as they relate to the following categories were evaluated: (1) sign legend preference for toll-exempt vehicles in Florida; (2) display of travel time; (3) display of average speed in lieu of travel time; (4) preference for travel time vs. average speed; (5) display of comparative travel times on express lanes vs. general-purpose lanes; (6) preference of comparative travel times vs. comparative average speeds; (7) display of comparative travel times and toll amounts on express lanes and general-purpose lanes; and (8) interpretation of high toll amount on express lanes signs. Additional real-time information on travel time and average speed on express lanes and general-purpose lanes were found to help drivers decide if they want to use express lanes. However, focus group participants found both travel time and speed information to be ambiguous. It is recommended to educate drivers about these measures so that drivers correctly interpret this information. Although this additional information is useful to drivers, care needs to be taken to not overload drivers with too much information. It is imperative to consider the other existing signs and the fact that drivers need to comprehend this information while driving at high speeds. 17. Key Word 18. Distribution Statement Express Lanes, Focus Group Study, Guide Signs, Information Display, No restrictions. Travel Time, Average Speed, Congestion Pricing. 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 85 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by the National Center for Transportation Systems Productivity and Management (NCTSPM) University Transportation Center (UTC). The authors thank Mr. Carlton Ng, Mr. Md Asif Raihan, and Ms. Maria Fernandez, students at Florida International University (FIU), for their assistance in conducting the focus group meetings. The contribution from the 49 focus group study participants is gratefully acknowledged. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Express lanes are usually tolled freeway lanes that are separated from general-purpose lanes to provide a higher level of mobility for vehicles using the facilities (Collier and Goodin, 2004). Depending on its pricing scheme, an express lane facility can require significantly more information to be communicated to drivers than other traditional lane management strategies, such as high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Guide signs in advance of express lanes are crucial as drivers have to read these signs and then comprehend and react to them accordingly while traveling at high speeds. As such, the objective of this research was to determine the optimal amount and type of information to display and the manner in which the information is communicated to drivers. A focus group study was conducted to assess drivers’ understandings, preferences, and opinions toward the guide signs upstream of express lanes. A total of five focus groups involving 49 participants of different age, gender, and ethnic groups were conducted. The following eight potential sign designs and alternatives were evaluated: 1. Sign legend preference for toll-exempt vehicles in Florida 2. Display of travel time 3. Display of average speed in lieu of travel time 4. Preferences for travel time vs. average speed 5. Display of comparative travel times on express lanes vs. general-purpose lanes 6. Preference for comparative travel times vs. comparative average speeds 7. Display of comparative travel times and toll amounts on express lanes and general-purpose lanes 8. Interpretation of high toll amount on express lanes sign The focus group participants were shown the sign alternatives using PowerPoint slides. The slides primarily included the proposed signs and their alternatives, typical layouts, and digitally edited photographs. For each scenario, a set of questions was asked to capture the participants’ understanding of the signs. Some of the key observations are discussed below. Sign Legend Preference Express lanes are usually open to all drivers who choose to pay a toll to use the facility. However, a few vehicles qualify to ride for free on almost all express lane facilities. For example, motorcycles and registered buses and car pools can use express lanes for free on 95 Express in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Since toll-exempt vehicles vary by jurisdiction, displaying this information is helpful for drivers. Two sign alternatives, one displaying toll-exempt vehicles using words alone, and the other displaying the same information using words and symbols, were provided to the participants. A slight majority (51%) of the participants preferred to have the information on toll-exempt vehicles in both symbols and words. However, these results could be biased toward the alternative that uses only words to display toll-exempt vehicles since this sign is currently used on 95 Express in Miami-Dade County and participants are familiar with it. vi Measures of Traffic Conditions on Express Lane Facility Travel time and average speed are good measures of traffic conditions on a facility. However, since these are rarely displayed on the signs, several participants misinterpreted this information.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Air Quality Profile of Curtis Bay, Brooklyn and Hawkins Point, Maryland
    Air Quality Profile Of Curtis Bay, Brooklyn and Hawkins Point, Maryland © 2011, Curtis W. Wright, All Rights Reserved March 2012 Revised June 2012 About the Environmental Integrity Project The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to the enforcement of the nation’s anti-pollution laws and to the prevention of political interference with those laws. EIP provides objective analysis of how the failure to enforce or implement environmental laws increases pollution and harms public health. We also help local communities obtain the protection of environmental laws. Acknowledgement Environmental Integrity Project Research Analyst Robbie Orvis and Attorneys Abel Russ and Leah Kelly contributed to this report. Data Limitations EIP’s analysis of toxic emissions and potential health impacts is based on publicly available data retrieved and analyzed from EPA, state agencies and private companies. Occasionally, government data may contain errors, either because information is inaccurately reported by the regulated entities or incorrectly transcribed by government agencies. In addition, this report is based on data retrieved between August 2011 and February 2012, and subsequent data retrievals may differ slightly as some companies and agencies correct prior reports. EIP is committed to ensuring that the data we present are as accurate as possible. We will correct any errors that are verifiable. June 2012 Revision EIP revised this report in June of 2012 in order to exclude fine particulate matter (PM2.5) data recorded at the FMC Fairfield monitor in Curtis Bay during the year 2008. We did this because we were informed by the Maryland Department of the Environment that this monitor was removed in August of 2008, meaning that the average PM2.5 concentration for that year did not take into account the fall months, during which PM2.5 concentrations tend to be lower than in the summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} 1111 by Kayil York
    Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} 1111 by Kayil York 11:11 by Kayil York (2019, Trade Paperback) С самой низкой ценой, совершенно новый, неиспользованный, неоткрытый, неповрежденный товар в оригинальной упаковке (если товар поставляется в упаковке). Упаковка должна быть такой же, как упаковка этого товара в розничных магазинах, за исключением тех случаев, когда товар является изделием ручной работы или был упакован производителем в упаковку не для розничной продажи, например в коробку без маркировки или в пластиковый пакет. См. подробные сведения с дополнительным описанием товара. Complete Maryland accident reports and news. Home to the Baltimore-Washington Metro Area, Maryland sees millions of people on the road every day. While Maryland has a population of nearly 6 million on its own, the metro region, which directly impacts highway congestion, has a population topping 8 million. Both the metro area’s major biotechnology and defense contractor industries and tourists visiting the area for its rich history keep the small area’s many major roadways full: Interstate 70 starts at a Baltimore park and ride and extends all the way to Cove Fort, Utah. Interstate 81 runs through Hagerstown. Interstate 83 has its southern terminus in Baltimore, a route for travelers from there to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.​ Interstate 95 is the east coast’s major highway, serving every major metropolitan area from Maine to Florida. It is the nation’s longest north-south interstate. ​ Interstate 97: Known as an intrastate interstate, I-97 runs entirely within the state of Maryland and connects Baltimore and Annapolis. It connects Annapolis with Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI). Interstate 195 : Also known as Metropolitan Boulevard, Interstate 195 is just 4.71 miles long.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Guns Are Now Legal for Most Game Species, See Each Game Section for Regulations
    Youth Waterfowl Hunt maximum age now 16 years old. | Page 39 MARYLAND GUIDE TO & 2017-2018 Air Guns Are Now Legal For Most Game Species, See Each Game Section For Regulations. Page 19 Pages 30 Pages 54 New Sunday Deer New Sunday Turkey New Apprentice Hunting Hunting For Kent & Hunting License Is Now Available Montgomery Counties For Junior Hunt and Spring For First Time Hunters with Shooting Hours Restrictions Season In Kent County Introducing… 410-756-5656 JB FARMS “The All-Natural Choice” Carroll County DEER PROCESSING CarrollTaneytown, County Maryland DEERJB PROCESSING FARMS 24-HOUR DROP-OFFTaneytown, MD “Let Us Do the Work!” All Wild Game Bears Bears • Hogs • Exotics • Wild Turkeys • Game Birds Skinned • Custom Cut • Wrapped • Frozen Hogs Deer Bologna, Deer Hot Dogs, Deer Sausage Exotics The All Natural Choice! Grass Fed Wild Turkeys Beef • Lamb • Goats • Chickens • Rabbits • Ducks Free Range Chicken Eggs! Game Birds Skinned Custom Cut WrappeD Frozen Located at: 3523“Let Harney Us Road, Do Taneytown, The Work!” MD 21787 24-HOURWebsite: DROP-OFF JBFarmsMD.com • All Wild Game The 410-756-5656All Natural Choice! Grass Fed Meats available We clean farm and wild birds! Jerky • Bologna • Hot Dogs Snack Sticks • Fresh Sausage We accept donations. You can help! Cube Steaks • Deer Burger Recycle your hide Just drop off in box! Chipped Deer • Smoked Deer Ham dnr.maryland.gov 48 30 44 37 page 8 46 12 CONTENTS 32 59 Messages ����������������������������������� 4 Small Game Hunting ����������������� 46 New Laws and Regulations Furbearer for 2017-18
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore Gateway 3700 Koppers Street Baltimore, MD 21227
    Baltimore Gateway 3700 Koppers Street Baltimore, MD 21227 SJPI.COM | 410.788.0100 Building Features: Five-Story Class 'A' Office • Five story, 100,000 sq. ft. office building 3700 Koppers Street 100,000 SF • Exterior: steel construction with brick masonry Five-Story Specifications and ribbon glass • Abundant, free on-site parking LEED Gold | Core & shell • LEED Gold certified Ceiling Height 9 ft. clear minimum • Visible to 195,000+ vehicles per day along I-95 Suite Sizes 1,500 up to 100,000 SF • Proximate to I-695, MD-295, and I-895 Elevator Yes • On-site deli, catering and fitness center Walls Brick on steel • Baltimore City Enterprise Zone tax credits Office Build to suit available to tenants Parking 5 spaces per 1,000 SF • Located in Baltimore City HubZone HVAC Gas, VAV with zone control • Three elevators serve all five floors Heat Gas Pictured Clockwise From Top Right: Exterior glass line and landscaping of 3700 Koppers Street; lobby interior; tenant exclusive on-site fitness center Visit sjpi.com/baltimoregateway to learn more Baltimore Gateway Local Amenities MARYLAND 372 WILKENS AVE CATON AVE 95 50B 1 Baltimore 50A ALT 95 Gateway 1 JOH AVE CATON HOUSE 97 RESTAURANT 95 CATON PARK RESEARCH CENTER 95 AVENUE 648 CAFE II 97 372 648 144 372 195 144 395 195 295 395 695 295 895 695 895 H A M M O N D ALT WASHINGTON BLVD 695 S F E R 1 R Y R D 95 97 648 372 144 HOLLINS FERRY RD 195 395 295 695 895 26 CHARLES VILLAGE 140 40 DOWNTOWN 40 BALTIMORE CITY GWYNNS FALLS FELLS POINT CANTON WASHINGTON BLVD RIVERSIDE WILKENS AVE Baltimore Gateway 95 95 295 ALT r sco Rive 1 W PATAPSCO AVE Patap CHERRY HILL 69595 895 97 648 895 2 BROOKLYN 372 Distances144 to: Baltimore, MD (Downtown) .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning
    1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING 2 APPEALS OF HENRICO COUNTY HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION 3 BUILDING IN THE HENRICO COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX ON 4 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1999 AT 9:00 A.M. NOTICE HAVING BEEN 5 PUBLISHED IN THE RICHMOND TIMES DISPATCH ON OCTOBER 7, 1999, 6 AND OCTOBER 14 , 1999. 7 Members Present: Richard Kirkland Chairman Daniel Balfour, Vice-Chairman Gene L. McKinney, C. P. C., C.B.Z.A. James W. Nunnally R. A. Wright Also Present: Benjamin Blankinship, Secretary Susan W. Blackburn, County Planner II Priscilla Parker, Recording Secretary 8 9 Mr. Kirkland - All right, before we get started this morning I’ll have 10 the Secretary read the rules, and we will get started with that. 11 12 Mr. Blankinship - Good Morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. 13 Ladies and Gentlemen, the rules for this meeting are as follows: The Secretary, 14 myself, will call the case; then the applicant will come to the podium to present 15 their case. At that time I will ask all those who intend to speak, in favor or in 16 opposition, to stand, and they will be sworn in. The applicant will then present 17 testimony. When the applicant is finished, anyone else will be given an 18 opportunity to speak. After everyone has spoken, the applicant, and only the 19 applicant, will be given an opportunity to rebuttal. After hearing the case, and 20 asking questions, the Board will take the matter under advisement. They will 21 render a decision at the end of the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland, Virginia and Washington, Dc
    29 33 401 31 7 97 32 42 72 35 7 49 45 72 15 131 6 41 201 41 65 169 62 29 114 34 3 87 5 2 57 12 37 2 95 10 49 42 89 91 156 26 400 11 39 66 812 3 9 29 28 30 110 48 187 75 80 22 34 10 Green Bay 11 401 2 201 161 7 37 73 29 23 ONTARIO, CANADA 26 2 9N 2 54 54 55 31 127 35 15 37 54 10 62 2 202 MICHIGAN 21 41 2 95 54 76 41 6 48 37 7 7 89 10 43 7 173 96 75 10 4 401 39 22 7 32 401 2 Kingston 11 3 87 55 3 73 42 55 812 65 81 9N 91 302 202 49 26 45 12 12 3 NEW HAMPSHIRE 80 10 400 7A 302 4 115 9 PIKE 9 RN 302 TU 49 93 E 55 404 28 30 MAIN 201 115 23 112 401 781 MAINE 21 151 75 2 62 21 89 131 23 112 9 11 48 3 1 109 9N 302 13 67 10 401 95 295 44 86 27 39 22 49 151 6 407 28N 87 58 41 25 26 10 41 109 23 400 3 43 25 24 10 401 28 28N 53 21 404 90 82 Lake 22 7 23 31 89 410 Toronto 81 8 12 67 16 151 75 Huron 66 Toronto Pearson Portland 7 ONTARIO, CANADA 23 124 Int’l Airport Portland 86 Lake 4 3 Int’l Jetport 10 25 28 30 28 9 39 23 8 4 33 NEW YORK 37 Ontario 87 90 41 8 Mississauga 13 93 202 57 401 8 9N 4 127 24 4 6 91 104 22 41 407 4 26 22 16 151 33 46 95 46 8 403 3 8 YORK NEW 23 12 83 6 13 1 113 MICHIGAN WISCONSIN 75 16 8 3 81 51 18 18 89 E K 26 59 24 Hamilton 78 104 I 481 P 401 N 90 81 34 49 30 R 151 46 104 4 393 202 16 U T 6 10 9N 14 12 41 7 104 7 E 98 49 28 N 25 Rochester 202 I 16 131 31 Syracuse Hancock 87 MA Madison 43 37 21 403 81 31 63 14 4 52 20 Greater Rochester Int’l Airport 90 41 490 94 96 54 Niagra Falls Int’l Airport 475 29 94 Milwaukee 66 31 90 890 29 9 78 UWAY 31 29 22 4 119 990 NEW YORK STATE THR Y 5 18 190 WA 481 5 18 94 96 75 90 RU Syracuse N 101 18 69 TH 26 EW YO 406 290 ATE R 67 Manchester 69 402 402 6 5 90 RK ST K 67 NEW YO 18 13 S 67 Grand Rapids 390 8 T 125 51 43 401 24 A 3 63 T Y 4 General Mitchell 20 E A 14 90 196 81 81 80 THR UW 90 Int’l Airport 31 21 20 20 67 202 3 169 Gerald R.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 134/Friday, July 16, 2021/Rules
    37854 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The hunting regulations that is more process for promulgating annual efficient and establishes hunting season Fish and Wildlife Service regulations for the hunting of migratory dates earlier than was possible under game birds involves the publication of the previous process. Under the current 50 CFR Part 20 a series of proposed and final process, we develop proposed hunting [Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2020–0032; rulemaking documents. In this final season frameworks for a given year in FF09M22000–212–FXMB1231099BPP0] rule, in addition to our normal the fall of the prior year. We then procedure of setting forth frameworks finalize those frameworks a few months RIN 1018–BE34 for the annual hunting regulations later, thereby enabling the State agencies to select and publish their Migratory Bird Hunting; Final 2021–22 (described below), we are also making season dates in early summer. We Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting minor changes to the permanent provided a detailed overview of the Regulations, and Special Procedures regulations that govern the migratory current process in the August 3, 2017, for Issuance of Annual Hunting bird hunting program. The annual regulations are set forth in subpart K of Federal Register (82 FR 36308). This Regulations part 20 of the regulations in title 50 of rule is the third in a series of proposed AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). and final rules that establish regulations Interior. In this document, we also make minor for the 2021–22 migratory bird hunting ACTION: Final rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Economic Impact Study: Update
    PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY: UPDATE Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. March 2015 PURPLE LINE PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY: UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION (STUDY PURPOSE AND CORRIDOR) .................................................................................. 1 2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 4 2.1 The Character of the Overall Economy ................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Economic Rent Methodology ................................................................................................................. 6 3 THE ECONOMIC EVALUATION DATABASES .............................................................................................. 11 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Economic Benefits Study Process ........................................................................................................ 11 3.3 Transportation Networks: General Overview ...................................................................................... 12 3.4 Auto Network ....................................................................................................................................... 13 3.5 Transit Network ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTH BRONX ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Public Health and Environmental Policy Analysis Funded by the U.S
    SOUTH BRONX ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Public Health and Environmental Policy Analysis funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final Report for Phase I September 2002 Rae Zimmerman (co-PI), Professor and Director Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems (ICIS) New York University, Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Chapter 1. Introduction 8 Chapter 2. Waste Transfer Stations in the South Bronx 14 Chapter 3. Transportation and Traffic 19 Chapter 4. Characterization of Ambient Air Quality in the South Bronx 31 Chapter 5. Asthma and Air Pollution: A Literature Review 63 Chapter 6. Water Quality in the South Bronx Watershed 76 APPENDICES 96 Appendix A. Project Team Members from NYU’s Wagner School/ICIS Appendix B. Summary of Project Meetings and Activities Appendix C. Asthma and Air Pollution Literature Review: Additional List of Relevant Studies Appendix D. List of Selected Project Data Sets Appendix E. Selected Study Area Graphics: Study Area Boundaries, Demographics, Traffic, and Air Quality NOTE: Chapter 2 on waste transfer was prepared by Carlos Restrepo, Doctoral Candidate at the NYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and Graduate Research Assistant at the NYU-Wagner Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems (ICIS), who is the Program Manager for the project, and Cary Hirschstein, Graduate Research Assistant (MUP candidate 2004). Chapter 3 was prepared by and under the direction of Jose Holguin-Veras of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, formerly at The City College of New York (CCNY). Chapter 4, Air Quality, Chapter 5, the asthma and air pollution literature review, and Appendix C were prepared by Carlos Restrepo.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Operations Plan Basic Plan and Emergency Support Functions (Esfs)
    EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN BASIC PLAN AND EMERGENCY SUPPORT FUNCTIONS (ESFS) Anne Arundel County Office of Emergency Management 2019 Edition Steuart Pittman County Executive Basic Plan Anne Arundel County Emergency Operations Plan 2 Anne Arundel County Office of Emergency Management Acting Director Timothy L. Mikules Copyright: 2018 2018 Office of Emergency Management Basic Plan Anne Arundel County Emergency Operations Plan 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Promulgation ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Approval and Implementation Page ........................................................................................................... 15 Acknowledged and Received ......................................................................................................................... 16 Record of Changes ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Change Submission Form ............................................................................................................................... 20 Change Submission Form (continuation page) ...................................................................................... 21 Distribution List .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the Regular Monthly Meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Henrico, Virginia, Held in the Board Room O
    1 Minutes of the regular monthly meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Henrico, 2 Virginia, held in the Board Room of the County Administration Building, Parham and Hungary 3 Spring Roads at 7:00 p.m., November 10, 2004, Display Notice having been published in the 4 Richmond Times-Dispatch on October 20, 2004 and October 27, 2004. 5 6 Members Present: Mrs. Lisa D. Ware, C.P.C., Chairperson, Tuckahoe 7 Mr. Ernest B. Vanarsdall, C.P.C., Vice-Chairman, Brookland 8 Mr. C. W. Archer, C.P.C., Fairfield 9 Mr. John Marshall, Three Chopt 10 M. E. Ray Jernigan, C.P.C., Varina 11 Mr. James B. Donati, Jr., Board of Supervisors, Varina 12 Mr. Randall R. Silber, Director of Planning, Secretary 13 14 Others Present: Mr. Ralph J. Emerson, Assistant Director of Planning 15 Ms. Jean Moore, Principal Planner 16 Mr. Lee Tyson, County Planner 17 Mr. Thomas Coleman, County Planner 18 Mr. Paul Gidley, County Planner 19 Mr. Seth Humphreys, County Planner 20 Ms. Samantha Brown, County Planner 21 Ms. Debra Ripley, Recording Secretary 22 23 Mrs. Ware - Good evening and welcome to the rezoning meeting for November and 24 at this time I will turn the meeting over to the Secretary, Mr. Silber. 25 26 Mr. Silber - Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, everyone. We do have all 27 members of the Planning Commission present this evening. First on the agenda is to consider 28 any deferrals that may be requested by the applicant. We can take those first. Everything on 29 the agenda tonight is under one time slot.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Technical Report
    Appendix D.2 Transportation Technical Report BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON, D.C. SUPERCONDUCTING MAGLEV PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION Appendix D.2 Transportation Technical Report Table of Contents Appendix D.2A Transportation ................................................................................................ A-1 D.2A.1 Transportation Components of Current, Future No-Build, and Future .......................... Build Conditions ...................................................................................................... A-1 D.2A.2 Transportation Network Component: SCMAGLEV - Future Build Condition ............ A-2 D.2A.3 Transportation Network Component: MARC Commuter Rail Current ........................... Condition Service Characteristics ............................................................................ A-5 D.2A.4 Transportation Network Component: Local Transit Systems within Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... A.4-9 D.2A.5 Transportation Network Component: Project Area Roadway Network ............... A.5-17 D.2A.6 Transportation Network Component: Station Area Street Network - ............................. Baltimore Camden Yards Alternative .................................................................. A.6-27 D.2A.7 Transportation Network Component: Station Area Street Network - ............................. Baltimore Cherry Hill Alternative ........................................................................
    [Show full text]