DOCSLIB.ORG

GDOT Powerpoint Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GDOT Powerpoint Template Intersection Types North Carolina • 9,500+ Traffic Signals Tennessee • 100+ On System AWSC South Carolina Alabama Georgia Florida Intersection Types North Carolina • 9,500+ Traffic Signals Tennessee • 100+ On System AWSC South • 175+ Roundabouts Carolina Alabama Georgia SR 372 @ Providence Florida I-285SR 16 @ @ Riverside SR 54 Dr SR 154 @ Cedar Grove Intersection Types North Carolina • 9,500+ Traffic Signals • 100+ On System AWSC South • 175+ Roundabouts Carolina • 25+ RCUTS Georgia Florida SR 20 @ Simpson Mill SR 400 @ N 400 Center Ln SR 92 @ N. Griffin Square Intersection Types • 9,500+ Traffic Signals • 100+ On System AWSC • 175+ Roundabouts • 25+ RCUTS • 5 DDIs Jimmy Carter @ I-85 I-285I-85 @ @ Ashford Pleasant Dunwoody Hill Rd Rd Intersection Types • 9,500+ Traffic Signals • 100+ On System AWSC • 175+ Roundabouts • 25+ RCUTS • 5 DDIs • 1 CFI SR 400 @ SR 53 SR 400 @ SR 53 Intersection Types • 9,500+ Traffic Signals • 100+ On System AWSC • 175+ Roundabouts • 25+ RCUTS • 5 DDIs • 1 CFI • 5+ Continuous Green T W Oglethorpe Blvd. @ N Slappey Blvd. Deliver a transportation system focused on innovation, safety, sustainability and mobility http://alphastockimages.com/ Illinois DOT Illinois DOT Illinois DOT Integrate safety into our decision making process for intersection control on ALL projects The purpose of ICE is to provide: • Traceability • Transparency • Consistency • Accountability • GDOT Design Policy Manual – Ch. 7 Design Policy Manual: At Grade Intersections – Ch. 8 Design Policy Manual: Roundabouts • MUTCD • Frustration due to the lack of non-traditional alternatives considered • Create a level playing field for all alternatives • Desire to infuse safety throughout our decision making process by bringing attention to “non-traditional” intersection types • Provide documentation to support the intersection control decision 2015 2007 2008 2018 2014 2013 2017 Existing Developing Interest in ICE Policies ICE Policies ICE Policies • ICE is required for all projects that do not have concept approval by July 1, 2017 • If ICE would delay the concept report submittal for any projects that have schedules set by July 1, 2017, ICE may be completed during the preliminary design phase • Submittals during preliminary design must occur no later than 1/3 of the way through the time allotted for preliminary design • For GDOT projects, if consultant services have already been procured prior to the effective date, but the concept has not been approved, Office of Traffic Operations will perform the ICE evaluation upon request by the project manager. Intersection Control Evaluation http://www.dot.ga.gov/ Scroll to bottom of the page Not Required Required Waiver No changes to Project is on ICE may be intersection State waived based footprint or route/NHS on appropriate control and/or uses evidence and a State or Federal written request money A project that will not do any widening, where there is no change to intersection geometry or control. Examples include: – Sidewalk/streetscape improvements – bridge replacement (with no realignment or relocation of intersection) – resurfacing – Signal timing and maintenance. – Signal Permit revision w/ no changes to physical footprint of intersection For driveway permits, where the driveway is not a new leg to an already existing intersection, that satisfy either of the following criteria: 1. The driveway is along a divided, multilane roadway where the access will be limited to a closed median (no median opening) with only right-in/right-out access 2. The driveway is along an undivided roadway and the development will not be required to construct left and/or right turn lanes (as per the Driveway Manual and District Traffic Engineer) In certain circumstances where an ICE would otherwise be required, the requirement may be waived based on appropriate evidence presented with a written request. • Proposed improvements do not substantially alter the character of the intersection, and are considered minor in nature, such as extending existing turn lane(s) • The intersection consists of a public roadway intersecting a divided, multilane roadway where the access will be limited to a closed median with only right-in/right-out access that will operate acceptably; • The intersection is along an undivided, two-lane roadway that will not be widened and: o Low risk in terms of exposure (less than 1,000 vehicles entering per day). o Latest 5 years of crash history is not indicative of a crash problem o No undesirable geometric features o Proposed changes will not adversely affect safety Level 1: Chief Engineer (or Designee) • Projects going through PDP • New or revised signal permits • New median openings Level 2: District Engineer with notification to Chief Engineer Projects that are not level 1 where: • Leg is added to intersection • Intersection control is changes Level 3: District Engineer • QR, Driveway Permits, Maintenance Work that does not qualify as level 2 Intersection Control Evaluation Stage 1 Stage 2 Alternative ICE Screening Selection Screening effort to Detailed evaluation of the eliminate non- alternatives identified in competitive options Stage 1 in order to support and identify the selection of the alternatives for further preferred alternative that consideration will be advanced to detailed design Unsignalized • Minor Stop • All-Way Stop • Mini Roundabout • Single Lane Roundabout • Multilane Roundabout • RCUT • RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn • High-T (unsignalized) • Offset-T Intersections • Diamond Interchange (Stop) • Diamond Interchange (RAB) • Turn Lane/Median Improvements • Other Signalized • Signal • Median U-Turn • RCUT • Displaced Left Turn (CFI) • Continuous Green-T • Jughandle • Diamond Interchange (signal) • Quadrant Roadway • Diverging Diamond • Single Point Interchange • Turn Lane/Median Improvements • Other 1. Does alternative address the project need in a balanced manner and in scale with the project? 2. Does alternative improve safety performance in terms of reducing severe crashes? 3. Does alternative incorporate convenience and accessibility for pedestrians and/or bicyclists 4. Does alternative improve (or preserve) traffic operations (congestion, delay, reliability, etc.)? 5. Does alternative appear feasible given the site characteristics, constrains and location context? 6. Does alternative appear feasible with respect to other project factors? 7. Overall feasible alternative? Shortlist of Alternatives from Stage 1 • Total Project Cost RCUT RAB • Traffic Operations • Safety Analysis Traffic Signal • Environmental Impacts • Stakeholder Posture Preferred Alternative Stage 1 • Completed Stage 1 Decision Record • Single intersection projects may proceed seamlessly to Stage 2 • For corridor projects a concurrence memo is recommended • Required for Concept Report Stage 2 • Completed Alternative Selection Decision Record with Supporting documentation • Included in Project Concept Report or as a stand-alone document • Completed waiver form if the ICE recommended alternative is not selected as the preferred alternative • Required in Concept for stand alone intersection projects. Intersection Control Evaluation 1. Provide simplified and consistent way of using data to quantify & evaluate intersection control benefits – Traffic – Safety – Cost – Environmental Impact – Stakeholder Support 2. Provide traceability, transparency, consistency & accountability when evaluating & selecting control types 3. Reduce time to analyze, compare multiple alternatives 4. Select alternative that reflects the overall best value in terms of specific performance-based criteria • Serves as agreed upon Decision Document • GDOT precedent of developing tool for consistent analysis GDOT Roundabout Analysis Tool INTERSECTION CONTROL TYPE DESCRIPTIONS Click on intersection images for additional resource publications ICE Version 2.1 | Revised 12/13/2017 Unsignalized At-Grade Intersections Signalized At-Grade Intersections Conventional Minor Street or All-Way Stop: At minor- street stop (2-way stop) intersections, vehicles on minor Signalized Intersection: The most common type of street stop and give right-of-way to major street. At all-way signalized intersection with high driver familiarity. Signal stop (AWS) intersections, all vehicles must stop and take could be simple two-phase or more complex 8-phase to turns entering the intersection. Both (4-leg) intersection serve vehicular demand. Left turns can be permitted or types have 32 baseline conflict points and have limited protected (or combination of both). At a conventional 4-leg operational and safety benefits as traffic volumes become intersection there are 32 baseline conflict points. significant. Mini Roundabouts: Roundabout type characterized by a Median U-Turn: Left turn movements otherwise occurring small diameter and traversable central island; offers most of at the main intersection are made via U-turns in the median, the benefits of single-lane roundabouts with added benefit of preceding or following right turns. U-turns may be only on a smaller footprint; best suited to lower-speed environments major roadway or on both major and minor roadways. A and where environmental constraints preclude use of a conventional MUT has 16 baseline conflict points and has larger roundabout with a raised central island. Mini- shown significant operational and safety benefits. roundabouts are emerging in U.S. in states including MD, Also known as: Indirect Left, Michigan Left, MUT MI and GA. Single-Lane Roundabouts: Form of circular intersection Signalized RCUT: Similar
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attachment 1 Concept Intersection Designs
    ATTACHMENT 1 CONCEPT INTERSECTION DESIGNS Ruakaka Service Centre Traffic Impact Assessment Issue E – Draft Ref: 17101 SH 1 Prescott Road Project Title Designed P Kelly Drawn A Zhong Project No - (Sheet No) Scales 1:1000 (A3) Ruakaka Service Centre 17101 - G - (7) TRAFFIC PLANNING CONSULTANTS LTD Checked P Kelly Approved T Langwell Date 27.08.19 Sheet Title Level 1, 400 Titirangi Rd, Titirangi, P.O Box 60-255, Auckland 0604 This drawing is the property of Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd. It is an instrument of service, and as such is a confidential document. It Phone: 09 817-2500 www.trafficplanning.co.nz Overall Plan therefore cannot be traced, scanned, copied, reproduced, used or exhibited by any third party without the express permission in writing of Rev Revisions By Date Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd SH 1 Prescott Road Project Title Designed P Kelly Drawn A Zhong Project No - (Sheet No) Scales 1:1000 (A3) Ruakaka Service Centre 17101 - G - (8) TRAFFIC PLANNING CONSULTANTS LTD Checked P Kelly Approved T Langwell Date 27.08.19 Sheet Title Level 1, 400 Titirangi Rd, Titirangi, P.O Box 60-255, Auckland 0604 This drawing is the property of Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd. It is an instrument of service, and as such is a confidential document. It Phone: 09 817-2500 www.trafficplanning.co.nz Overall Plan therefore cannot be traced, scanned, copied, reproduced, used or exhibited by any third party without the express permission in writing of Rev Revisions By Date Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd 42.2m 275m 5.3m Guide To RoadTable Design
    [Show full text]
  • Public Involvement/Education on Alternative Intersection/Interchange Designs
    GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 17-26 FINAL REPORT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/EDUCATION ON ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION/INTERCHANGE DESIGNS OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH 600 WEST PEACHTREE NW ATLANTA, GA 30308 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-GA-20-1726 N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Public Involvement/Education on Alternative Intersection/Interchange September 2020 Designs 6. Performing Organization Code N/A 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Michael O. Rodgers, Ph.D. (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6608-9333); N/A Franklin Gbologah, Ph.D. (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0235-4278); Kameria E. Abdella; Torrey Bodiford 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Georgia Tech Research Corporation N/A School of Civil and Environmental Engineering 11. Contract or Grant No. 790 Atlantic Dr. NW, Atlanta, GA 30332 RP17-26 Phone: (404) 385-0569 Email: [email protected] 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Georgia Department of Transportation Final Report (March 2018 – September 2020) Office of Performance-based Management and Research 600 West Peachtree St. NW 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Atlanta, GA 30308 N/A 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Given the recent introduction of many innovative designs, still relatively limited material exists that explains the concepts, tradeoffs, and benefits underlying such innovative intersection designs in a form accessible to the general public. This project was designed to both test the effectiveness of existing GDOT public information materials and to develop a library of additional presentation materials to support and supplement these existing communications materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Transport Infrastructure
    14 Transport Infrastructure Transport Infrastructure SECTION 14 14 Transport Infrastructure Summary Road The Queensland Coke and Power Plant Project (the Project) will primarily generate private vehicle traffic relating to operation and construction, with low volumes of heavy vehicle traffic during the operational stages of the facility. All vehicle access to the project site will be via Power Station Road. Project traffic generation has been conservatively estimated based on the expected construction and operation of the plant. Light vehicle traffic has been assumed to be proportional to anticipated staff numbers at the plant and has been distributed and assigned to the network in accordance to the probable residence of plant employees during construction and operation. Construction is scheduled to proceed from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm six days a week, and therefore, the transport of construction workers to and from the site by bus is unlikely to coincide with the operation of school bus services. The Gladstone Road/Port Curtis Road/Lower Dawson Road intersection will exceed the desirable Degree of Saturation (DOS) under background growth. The Project will not add traffic to the critical movement at the intersection. The addition of project-related traffic to the roundabout located at the intersection of the Bruce Highway and Capricorn Highway will cause an increase in the DOS of the intersection. Additional project traffic will bring forward the year at which the intersection would exceed the desirable DOS. In terms of pavement impact, the Project will increase the annual Equivalent Standard Axle (ESA) loading on a number of links between Power Station Road and the Bruce Highway.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic and Transport
    GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY UPGRADE, MOUNT VICTORIA TO LITHGOW ALLIANCE FORTY BENDS UPGRADE – REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS TECHNICAL PAPER 8 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT OCTOBER 2012 Great Western Highway Upgrade, Mount Victoria to Lithgow Alliance Forty Bends Upgrade REF Technical Paper 8: Traffic and Transport Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Proposal description 1 1.2. Proposal objectives 3 1.3. Scope of this report 4 1.4. Methodology 4 1.5. Proposal study area 4 1.6. Report structure 6 2. Existing condition assessment 7 2.1. Road network 7 2.2. Traffic volumes and vehicle composition 9 2.3. Road network performance 10 2.4. Intersection layouts 12 2.5. Intersection performance 15 2.6. Local resident access 18 2.7. Land uses 18 2.8. Pedestrian and cycle access 21 2.9. Public transport services 21 2.10. Vehicle rest areas 22 2.11. Emergency services access 22 2.12. Historical crash data 23 2.13. Road safety 25 3. Future condition assessment 27 3.1. Without upgrade 27 3.2. With upgrade 28 3.3. Intersection performance 36 3.4. Access management principles 40 3.5. Potential impacts to access 41 3.6. Future development in the local area 41 3.7. Future strategic transport considerations 42 4. General road safety assessment 43 4.1. Managed access 43 4.2. Intersection upgrades 43 4.3. Improved road geometry and sight distance 43 4.4. Black ice 44 5. Construction traffic and staging 45 5.1. Working hours and duration of work 45 5.2. Construction workforce 45 5.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Priority Intersection This Fact Sheet Provides Guidance and Information Regarding Priority Intersections (Those Controlled by a Give Way Or Stop Sign)
    FACT SHEET FACT 7 Intersection Form – Priority Intersection This fact sheet provides guidance and information regarding priority intersections (those controlled by a give way or stop sign). Pros Cons • Low cost • Can be poor for cyclist and pedestrian safety • Low space requirements • On busy roads, pedestrian delays for crossing the road • No delays for major road through traffic may be excessive • When volumes on main road are high, can result in excessive delays and poorer safety outcomes for side road traffic Best Practice Considerations: • Crossing distances for pedestrians should be minimised • If cycle lanes are provided between blocks, these should be marked across the intersections • Where cycle lanes are provided on the major leg, the minor leg should be controlled by a give way or stop • Sight distances can dictate whether the intersection is uncontrolled, a give way or a stop • Some traffic turning movements can be banned to improve safety Basic A basic priority intersection treatment is where no right turning facilities are provided on the main road. In these layouts, turning traffic on the main road briefly blocks through traffic. These intersections are low cost due to the limited space required but can create safety issues if the traffic flows are heavy. Appropriate Locations • Intersections where the traffic volumes on the side road(s) are low • Low volume of right turning vehicles on the main road Limitations • Right turning vehicles on the main road impede through traffic • Vehicles turning out of the side street must find gaps in both directions of traffic. No turning bay Local examples: Roberts Street / Titiraupenga Street Flush Median A flush median is a painted area between traffic lanes which motorists can take refuge in while waiting to turn in/out of side roads or local accessways and where pedestrians can wait to cross the road.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Innovative Alternative Intersection Designs in the Development of Safety Performance Functions and Crash Modification Factors
    Final Report Contract BDV24-977-27 Evaluation of Innovative Alternative Intersection Designs in the Development of Safety Performance Functions and Crash Modification Factors Mohamed A. Abdel-Aty, Ph.D., P.E. Jaeyoung Lee, Ph.D. Jinghui Yuan, Ph.D. Lishengsa Yue, Ph.D. Ma’en Al-Omari, Ph.D. Student Ahmed Abdelrahman, Ph.D. Student University of Central Florida Department of Civil, Environmental & Construction Engineering Orlando, FL 32816-2450 May 2020 DISCLAIMER “The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation.” ii UNITS CONVERSION APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL SYMBOL VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg iii T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or Mg (or "t") "metric ton") SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW
    [Show full text]
  • Mona Vale Road West Upgrade Mccarrs Creek Road, Terrey Hills to Powder Works Road, Ingleside Review of Environmental Factors & Appendices A–C, Volume 1 February 2017
    Mona Vale Road West Upgrade McCarrs Creek Road, Terrey Hills to Powder Works Road, Ingleside Review of Environmental Factors & Appendices A–C, Volume 1 February 2017 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK rms.nsw.gov.au 13 22 13 Customer feedback Roads and Maritime February 2017 Locked Bag 928, RMS 17.026 North Sydney NSW 2059 ISBN: 978-1-925582-48-2 Document tracking Revision Details Date Reviewed by 1 First Draft 18 Jan 2016 C. McCallig 2 Final Draft REF 21 Apr 2016 A. Louis 3 Revised Final Draft 30 Nov 2016 C Masters 4 REF for Exhibition 30 Jan 2017 C Masters Executive summary Mona Vale Road is the main east-west link between the Pacific Highway, Pymble and Pittwater Road at Mona Vale totalling about 20 kilometres in length. Traffic surveys carried out in December 2013 near the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Tumburra Street indicated the volume of traffic to be about 37,000 vehicles per day, counting both directions. Roads and Maritime Services proposes to upgrade and widen about 3.4 kilometres of Mona Vale Road between McCarrs Creek Road, Terrey Hills and Powder Works Road, Ingleside, from a two lane (one in each direction) undivided road to a four lane (two lanes in each direction) divided road. The proposal generally comprises: Widening to provide four lanes (two in each direction) on Mona Vale Road between McCarrs Creek Road and Powder Works Road by: Widening on the southern side of the existing carriageway between McCarrs Creek Road and Kimbriki Road Deviation of the entire four lane road from the current road to the north of a rock outcrop having cultural heritage significance between Kimbriki Road and Tumburra Street Widening on the northern side of the existing carriageway from about 700 metres west of Tumburra Street to Addison Road Widening on both sides of the existing carriageway between Addison Road and Powder Works Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Traffic Management Part 6: Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings Management
    Guide to Traffic Management Part 6: Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings Management Sydney 2020 Guide to Traffic Management Part 6: Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings Management Edition 4.0 prepared by: David Green and Kenneth Lewis, Ann-Marie Head, Publisher Jeanette Ward and Cameron Munro Austroads Ltd. Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street Edition 4.0 project manager: Richard Delplace and Robyn Davies Sydney NSW 2000 Australia Abstract Phone: +61 2 8265 3300 The Austroads Guide to Traffic Management consists of 13 Parts. It provides [email protected] a comprehensive coverage of traffic management guidance for practitioners www.austroads.com.au involved in traffic engineering, road design and road safety. About Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 6: Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings Management is concerned with traffic management at all types of Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian intersections where road users must join or cross another stream of traffic. It road transport and traffic agencies. focuses on traffic management issues and treatments related to intersections, Austroads’ purpose is to support our member interchanges and crossings. It does not provide information on the geometric organisations to deliver an improved Australasian design of the treatment as this is provided in the Austroads Guide to Road road transport network. To succeed in this task, we Design Part 4, 4A, 4B and 4C. Guidance on the management of road sections undertake leading-edge road and transport which are not part of the intersection or interchange is provided in the research which underpins our input to policy Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 5: Link Management.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 06. Infrastructure and Transport
    Contents 6. Infrastructure and Transport 6-1 6.1 Infrastructure Ownership and Management 6-1 6.1.1 Swimming Enclosure 6-1 6.2 Linear Infrastructure 6-1 6.3 Power Supply 6-2 6.4 Boating Infrastructure 6-2 6.4.1 Management of Boating Infrastructure 6-2 6.4.2 Boat Queuing Facilities 6-2 6.4.3 Standard of Boat Launching Facilities 6-6 6.4.4 Dredging of Estuaries 6-6 6.4.5 Accessibility 6-6 6.4.6 Vegetation Clearing 6-6 6.4.7 Public Wharf 6-6 6.5 Air Infrastructure 6-7 6.6 Road Infrastructure 6-7 6.6.1 Road Infrastructure and Fauna Movement 6-7 6.7 Transportation 6-8 6.7.1 Link Road to Agnes Water 6-8 6.7.2 Turkey Beach Road and Foreshores Road 6-8 6.7.3 Bruce Highway and Turkey Beach Road 6-9 6.7.4 Foreshores Road and Clarks Road 6-12 6.7.5 Hummock Hill Island Trunk Road 6-12 6.7.6 Movement Planning 6-13 6.7.7 Land Use Patterns 6-13 6.7.8 Commitment to Public Transport 6-14 6.8 Public Access 6-14 PAGE i Tables Table 6-1 SIDRA Intersection Results for Hummock Hill Island Development for Existing Intersection Layout 6-9 Table 6-2 SIDRA Intersection Results for Hummock Hill Island Development for Seagull Intersection Layout 6-10 Figures Figure 6-1 Preliminary Design of Colosseum Inlet Boating Facilities 6-4 Figure 6-2 Preliminary Design of Boyne Creek Boating Facilities 6-5 PAGE ii 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncorrected Proof Issue
    UNCORRECTED PROOF ISSUE Thursday 31 May 2012 - Estimates Committee A (David O'Byrne) - Part 1 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A Thursday 31 May 2012 MEMBERS Mrs Armitage Ms Forrest Mr Hall Mr Harriss (Chair) Mr Mulder Mr Valentine MrWilkinson IN ATTENDANCE Hon. David O'Byrne MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology, Minister for Police and Emergency Management, Minister for Workplace Relations Ministerial Office Josh Bradshaw, Head of Office Peta Sugden, Adviser for Economic Development Neale Tomlin, Adviser for Infrastructure Astrid Wootton, Adviser for Economic Development Simon Monk, Adviser for Infrastructure Wayne Johnson, Adviser for Workplace Relations Department of Justice Michael Stevens, Deputy Secretary (Corporate) Chris Jacoora, Departmental Liaison Officer Roy Ormerod, General Manager, Workplace Standards Tasmania Martin Shirley, Director Stephen Morrison, Director, Finance Thursday 31 May 2012 - Part 1 1 Estimates A - D.O'Byrne UNCORRECTED PROOF ISSUE Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Norm McIlfatrick, Secretary Amanda Russell, General Manager Corporate Services Simon Hiscock, Manager, Corporate Affairs Marnie Peebles, Executive Assistant Nell Butcher, Executive Assistant David Spence, General Manager, Infrastructure Policy Strategy Craig Hoey, AG Manager Rail Safety Colin Finch, Chief Executive, Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST) Simon Buxton, Director, Traffic and Infrastructure Phil Cantilon, Director, Operations (Roads
    [Show full text]
  • Estella West Traffic Management 621.7 KB Download
    Wagga Wagga City Council Report for Wagga Wagga Planning Studies Traffic Management - Estella West September 2008 Contents 1. Estella West 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Existing Conditions 1 1.3 Proposed Development 2 1.4 Construction Cost Estimate 5 Table Index Table 1: Analysis Results 4 Table 2: Performance Criteria for Intersections 4 Table 3: Proposed Improvement Works 5 Figure Index Figure 1: Conceptual Layout for Estella West 3 Appendices A Existing Conditions and Road Hierarchies B Post Development Access Arrangements 23/12229/45337 Wagga Wagga Planning Studies i Traffic Management - West Estella 1. Estella West 1.1 Introduction Estella West is a relatively large area on the northern side of Old Narrandera Road and extends to the existing development at Estella. Its western extent is just east of the Harris Road and Old Narrandera Road intersection and it extends to about 800 metres north of Harris Road. No traffic reports were available for the Estella West area. 1.2 Existing Conditions 1.2.1 Road and Intersection Layouts The existing conditions and road hierarchies are shown in Appendix A. Old Narrandera Road is a two lane sealed road that runs generally along the northern side of the river connecting villages such as Millwood and Euberta to Wagga Wagga via Olympic Way. It has a posted speed limit of 100 km/hr. It intersects Olympic Way as a priority controlled seagull intersection. Pine Gully Road runs parallel to and west of Boorooma Street and provides access to the western portion of Charles Sturt University. Pine Gully Road and Old Narrandera Road intersect at a T-junction where Pine Gully Road traffic is controlled by a stop sign.
    [Show full text]
  • Maitland Bay Drive and Picnic Parade, Ettalong Beach
    Maitland Bay Drive / Picnic Parade, Ettalong Beach - Intersection Upgrade Traffic and Transportation Assessment Maitland Bay Drive / Picnic Parade, Ettalong Beach - Intersection Upgrade Traffic and Transportation Assessment 80019096 Prepared for Beca Pty Ltd 24 October 2019 24 October 2019 Cardno i Maitland Bay Drive / Picnic Parade, Ettalong Beach - Intersection Upgrade Traffic and Transportation Assessment Contact Information Document Information Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd Prepared for Beca Pty Ltd ABN 95 001 145 035 Project Name Traffic and Transportation Assessment Level 9 - The Forum 203 Pacific Highway File Reference 80019096_Maitland Bay St Leonards NSW 2065 Drive_Traffic and Australia Transportation_Final.docx Job Reference 80019096 www.cardno.com Phone +61 2 9496 7700 Date 24 October 2019 Fax +61 2 9439 5170 Version Number 5 Document History Version Effective Date Description of Revision Prepared by Reviewed by 1 14 June 2019 Draft report Dean Rance, Nathan Edmund Cheung English, Isabella Kim 2 28 June 2019 Draft report with Beca’s Dean Rance, Isabella Edmund Cheung comment Kim 3 22 August 2019 Final Report Rusiru Wanasinghe, Edmund Cheung / Isabella Kim Hayden Calvey 4 23 August 2019 Final Report – address Rusiru Wanasinghe, Edmund Cheung / comments Isabella Kim Hayden Calvey 5 24 October 2019 Final Report Sabal Sharma Ivo Pais / Hayden Calvey © Cardno. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno. This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement.
    [Show full text]