DOCSLIB.ORG

Transportation Improvement Corridors in This Plan Utilized the Following Method

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS 7.0 DEFINITIONS Three types of transportation corridors are identified in the 2005-2030 Oklahoma Statewide Intermodal Transportation Plan: • Transportation Improvement Corridors: These are highway corridors where projected traffic volumes indicate additional capacity will be needed by 2030. • National High Priority Corridors: These are Congressionally-identified corridors of national significance. There are four such corridors in Oklahoma: (1) US 287 [Ports-to-Plains Corridor] from Texas to Colorado in Cimarron County; (2) US 54 [TransAmerica Corridor] from Texas to Kansas in Texas County; (3) I-35 from Texas to Kansas; and, (4) US 412 from Tulsa to Memphis, Tennessee. These corridors are eligible for special discretionary funding from the National Corridor Planning and Development (NCPD) program. • Freight Operational Improvement Corridor: These corridors represent highways with high truck traffic but do not indicate capacity needs by 2030. However, the efficiency of the these corridors is compromised by conditions such as stops in towns and cities, bridge deficiencies, geometrics, urban speed zones, school zones, at grade rail crossings, or other operating conditions that reduce the efficiency of freight movements. These corridors can benefit from corridor studies and improvements from a menu of improvements such as bypasses; intelligent transportation systems for driver information on traffic flows, weather conditions, etc.; bridge upgrades; rail grade separations; signal timing; and, geometric roadway improvements. 7.1 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT CORRIDORS 7.1.1 Definition The Transportation Improvement Corridors are highway corridors needing capacity upgrades by 2030. Transportation Improvement Corridors were first identified in the 1995 Oklahoma Statewide Intermodal Transportation Plan and resulted in the policy “To provide for continued safe and efficient movement, the plan includes the development from two to four lanes along the corridors”. The 2005 – 2025 Statewide Intermodal Transportation Plan continued this policy. This policy is continued in this version of the plan with additional consideration of upgrading four-lane facilities to six-lane facilities or to obtain right-of-way for the ultimate Corridor configuration. Delineation of Transportation Improvement Corridors in this plan utilized the following method: • Files of current traffic volumes (2003) by highway control section were used along with historical traffic growth factors to calculate future traffic volumes (2030). 177 • Level-of-Service (LOS) C capacities were determined for each existing highway (2 lane, 4 lane, 4 lane divided) by terrain type (level, rolling, or mountainous) for each highway control section. • Calculated 2030 volumes were compared to the LOS C capacities for each existing highway control section. This resulted in a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. • LOS C has a v/c ratio of 1 and results in a satisfactory LOS. Highway sections exceeding LOS C (greater than 1.0) were considered as candidates for Transportation Improvement Corridors. • Final delineation of corridors also considered the following factors: o judgment that congestion is resulting from a genuine capacity problem that would require more lanes rather than a capacity problem that could be alleviated by reconstruction and improvement of existing lanes with better geometrics and traffic handling characteristics. o judgment for logical termini: corridors defined with lengths that could demonstrate independent utility, not result in a mixture of highway segments with differing lanes and transition points; connect from highway junction to highway junction or city to city. Thus, some non-congested segments are included in defined corridors. o judgment on constructability: some congested areas are scenic highways or have some other factor that would preclude addition of capacity. o judgment that some capacity problems could be alleviated with “spot” or localized capacity additions and definition of a corridor was not needed. 7.1.2 2005-2030 Transportation Improvement Corridors Seventeen corridors have been identified as Transportation Improvement Corridors based on the above process. These Corridors may coincide with National High Priority Corridors (such as I-35) but generally are separate. When they coincide, description and analysis is contained under ANational High Priority Corridors@. Most of the corridors selected are projected to be four-lane highway facilities; however some facilities, such as I-40 or I-35 may need six or more lanes to adequately handle projected traffic. The State Transportation Improvement Corridors for the 2005 - 2030 Oklahoma Statewide Intermodal Transportation Plan, totaling 17 and shown in Figure 7.1 are the following: 1. US 270 / SH 3 from the junction with SH 34 in Woodward, Woodward County southeast to Watonga, Blaine County and continuing southeast on US 281 and US 281 Spur to the junction with Interstate 40 in Canadian County, a total of 95 miles. 2. Interstate 40 from the junction with US 81 Spur in Canadian County east to the 178 junction with SH 18 in Pottawatomie County, a total of 82 miles. 3. US 81 from the junction with SH 9 in Chickasha, Grady County north to the junction with Interstate 40 in Canadian County, a total of 31 miles. 4. SH 9 from the junction with Interstate 35 in Norman, Cleveland County east to the junction with SH 99 in Seminole, Seminole County, a total of 48 miles. 5. US 270 from the junction with SH 9 in Seminole, Seminole County southeast to the east junction with US 270 Bus. in Holdenville, Hughes County, a total of 23 miles. 6. SH 33 from the junction with Interstate 35 in Guthrie, Logan County east to the junction with SH 18 in Cushing, Payne County, a total of 29 miles. 7. US 177 from the junction with SH 9 in Tecumseh, Pottawatomie County south to the junction with SH 3W in Pontotoc County and continuing southeast on SH 3W to the junction with SH 19 in Pontotoc County, a total of 39 miles. 8. SH 99 from the junction with SH 1 in Ada, Pontotoc County north to the junction with US 62 in Prague, Lincoln County, a total of 49 miles. 9. US 70 from the junction with Interstate 35 in Carter County east to the Arkansas State Line in McCurtain County, a total of 173 miles. 10. SH 20 from the junction with US 75 in Tulsa County east to the junction with SH 88 in Claremore, Rogers County, a total of 12 miles. 11. SH 88 from the junction with SH 20 in Claremore, Rogers County north to the junction with US 169 and continuing north on US 169 to the Kansas State Line in Nowata County, a total of 52 miles. 12. US 59 from the junction with US 412 in Delaware County north to the junction with Interstate 44 in Ottawa County, a total of 47 miles. 13. US 59 from the junction with SH51 in Stilwell, Adair County north to the junction with US 412 in Delaware County, a total of 26 miles. 14. SH 51 from the junction with SH 72 in Coweta, Wagoner County east to the Arkansas State Line in Adair County, a total of 75 miles. 15. SH 9 from the junction with SH 2 in Haskell County east to the junction with US 59 in LeFlore County, a total of 28 miles. 16. US 59 from the junction with SH 128 in Heavener, LeFlore County north to the junction with Interstate 40 in Sallisaw, Sequoyah County, a total of 47 miles. 179 17. SH 112 from the junction with US 59 in Poteau, LeFlore County northeast to the junction with US 271 in LeFlore County, a total of 17 miles. 7.1.3 Transportation Improvement Corridor Funding Table 7.1 presents data for each Transportation Improvement Corridor such as miles, miles built, and estimated construction costs. Summary statistics for the Transportation Improvement Corridors are the following: $ Total Estimated Cost for all Transportation Improvement Corridors: $2,304,620,000 $ Historical funding and project funding contained in the FFY 2005 - FFY 2012 Construction Work Plan have provided and will provide approximately 38% of Transportation Improvement Corridor estimated construction needs. $ Historical funding and Construction Work Plan funding has generally scheduled the highest cost projects in the Corridors first and generally in urban and/or high average daily traffic locations. 7.1.4 Transportation Improvement Corridor Mileage $ Total Transportation Improvement Corridor Mileage: 829 miles $ Historical funding and Construction Work Plan funding has completed and will complete, respectively, approximately 40 per cent of total Corridor mileage. 7. 2 NATIONAL HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS 7.2.1 Definition Congress has specified some 45 routes on the National Highway System (NHS) as AHigh Priority Corridors@. These designations were made on the importance of the route in serving regional, national, and international freight and vehicle movements. Designation of these routes began with the ISTEA transportation bill from 1992 to 1997 and continued with the TEA-21 transportation bill. The significance of designation as a NHS High Priority Corridor is that it allows National Corridor Planning and Development Funds, a discretionary fund administered by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation in cooperation with Congress, to be spent to plan, construct, or maintain these corridors. The Corridors can also ultimately be designated Interstate routes if built to Interstate standards. Designation and improvements may prove useful in economic development and safety improvements for the movement of freight and other vehicles. 180 7.2.2 Oklahoma=s NHS High Priority Corridors Oklahoma has four routes designated as NHS High Priority Corridors. These corridors locations are the following and are depicted on the NHS High Priority Corridor Map in Figure 7.1: NHS High Priority Corridor #3: The East-West Transamerica Corridor which extends from the Atlantic Coast in the Hampton Roads area in Virginia extending westward to California across West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California. In Oklahoma, US 54 in Texas County from the Kansas Stateline southwest to the Texas Stateline is included.
Recommended publications
  • Historic Route 66 Auto Tour — Williams to Flagstaff, Arizona Williams Ranger District Kaibab National Forest

    Historic Route 66 Auto Tour — Williams to Flagstaff, Arizona Williams Ranger District Kaibab National Forest

    Southwestern Region United States Department of Agriculture RG-3-07-07 Forest Service July 2013 Historic Route 66 Auto Tour — Williams to Flagstaff, Arizona Williams Ranger District Kaibab National Forest Points of Interest Take a trip back in time, to a day when driving across America meant finding adventure and freedom on the open road. Imagine what it was like when Arizona’s first tourists saw scenic wonders like the Navajo Indian Reservation, Petrified Forest, Grand Canyon National Park, and pine-laden Kaibab National Forest. Cruise down memory lane and discover the past on Historic Route 66. Williams served travelers on Route 66 as part of the “Main Street of America.” Now called Bill Williams Avenue in this picturesque western town, the historic road is still lined with businesses dating from the highway’s heyday. In 1984, Williams became the last Route 66 town in America to be bypassed by Interstate 40. The tour winds through beautiful scenery toward Bill Williams Mountain. Interstate 40 now covers this section of Route 66 at Davenport Lake. Pittman Valley was first settled by ranchers in the 1870s. Tourists found guest cabins and a gas station along the road here. Historic Route 66 Auto Tour ― Williams to Flagstaff, AZ 1 Garland Prairie Vista has a beautiful view of the San Francisco Peaks, the highest mountains in Arizona. A favorite with photographers, this view appeared on many Route 66 postcards. Parks is a small community that started out as a railroad stop in the 1880s and later became a wayside for highway tourists. When the highway was thriving, the area had a Forest Service campground, several motels, gas stations, curio shops, and a road that led north to the Grand Canyon.
  • Proposed Project – I-35 Improvements

    Proposed Project – I-35 Improvements

    I‐35 ROADWAY Proposed Project – I‐35 Improvements Existing Facility The majority of existing I‐35 between the Williamson/Bell County Line and Hillsboro is four lanes, with six‐lane sections in Waco, Temple, and the southern part of Bell County. Project Purpose The purpose of the proposed project is to increase capacity and improve mobility on I‐35. Project Proposed by Corridor Segment 2 Committee The I‐35 Corridor Segment 2 Committee is considering improvements to I‐35, which would involve widening I‐35 to eight lanes from Hillsboro to the Williamso n/Bell County Line for a distance of approximately 93 miles. Conceptual Project Cost Estimate According to the TxDOT Waco District Improvement Plan, the cost for expanding I‐35 to six lanes through this area is estimated at approximately $1.5 billion. The six‐lane expansion of I‐35 is currently underway. The estimated cost for expanding I‐35 from six to eight lanes is between $2.25 billion and $3.25 billion, including design and construction. This cost, in 2010 dollars, does not include the purchase of right of way. The estimated project costs could increase due to right of way purchases and potential impacts to properties. I‐35 Corridor Segment 2 Committee www.MY35.org September 2010 I‐35 ROADWAY Proposed Project – I‐35E from I‐20 to Hillsboro Existing Facility The existing I‐35E facility is four lanes from Hillsboro to approximately ten miles south of I‐20, where it transitions to six and then eight lanes. Project Purpose The purpose of the proposed project is to increase capacity and improve overall mobility on I‐35E.
  • Sb1098 Int.Pdf

    Sb1098 Int.Pdf

    STATE OF OKLAHOMA 2nd Session of the 47th Legislature (2000) SENATE BILL 1098 By: Helton AS INTRODUCED An Act relating to roads, bridges and ferries; amending 69 O.S. 1991, Section 1705, as last amended by Section 414, Chapter 5, 1st Extraordinary Session, O.S.L. 1999 (69 O.S. Supp. 1999, Section 1705), which relates to the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority; requiring the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority to construct an off ramp on the H.E. Bailey Turnpike at Fletcher, Oklahoma in the vicinity of the Interstate 44 and State Highway 277 intersection; prohibiting the removal and requiring maintenance of certain on or off ramp; and providing an effective date. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA: SECTION 1. AMENDATORY 69 O.S. 1991, Section 1705, as last amended by Section 414, Chapter 5, 1st Extraordinary Session, O.S.L. 1999 (69 O.S. Supp. 1999, Section 1705), is amended to read as follows: Section 1705. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is hereby authorized and empowered: (a) To adopt bylaws for the regulation of its affairs and conduct of its business. (b) To adopt an official seal and alter the same at pleasure. (c) To maintain an office at such place or places within the state as it may designate. (d) To sue and be sued in contract, reverse condemnation, equity, mandamus and similar actions in its own name, plead and be impleaded; provided, that any and all actions at law or in equity against the Authority shall be brought in the county in which the principal office of the Authority shall be located, or in the county of the residence of the plaintiff, or the county where the cause of action arose.
  • Greater OKLAHOMA CITY at a Glance

    Greater OKLAHOMA CITY at a Glance

    Greater OKLAHOMA CITY at a glance 123 Park Avenue | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 | 405.297.8900 | www.greateroklahomacity.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Location ................................................4 Economy .............................................14 Tax Rates .............................................24 Climate ..................................................7 Education ...........................................17 Utilities ................................................25 Population............................................8 Income ................................................21 Incentives ...........................................26 Transportation ..................................10 Labor Analysis ...................................22 Available Services ............................30 Housing ...............................................13 Commercial Real Estate .................23 Ranked No. 1 for Best Large Cities to Start a Business. -WalletHub 2 GREATER OKLAHOMA CITY: One of the fastest-growing cities is integral to our success. Our in America and among the top ten low costs, diverse economy and places for fastest median wage business-friendly environment growth, job creation and to start a have kept the economic doldrums business. A top two small business at bay, and provided value, ranking. One of the most popular stability and profitability to our places for millennials and one of companies – and now we’re the top 10 cities for young adults. poised to do even more. The list of reasons you should Let us introduce
  • The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway and the Central North American Trade Corridor

    The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway and the Central North American Trade Corridor

    The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway and the Central North American Trade Corridor Prepared by Esther Tumuhairwe Mark Berwick Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University Fargo, ND October 2008 Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the work of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Mountain-Plains Consortium in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. North Dakota State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, Vietnam Era Veterans status, sexual orientation, marital status or public assistance status. Direct inquiries to the Executive Director and Chief Diversity Officer, 202 Old Main, (701) 231-7708. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Corridor analysis has been completed for many different designations since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991. These studies have been conducted without a clear understanding or blueprint of what should be analyzed. Differences exist in corridor analysis between rural and urban, passengers and freight, the reason for the corridor analysis, and whether the corridor is recognized by all states, provinces, and counties it passes through. The steps necessary to establish a freight corridor are ambiguous therefore, a document that describes the analysis/study process would be beneficial. A review of other corridor studies is provided. The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway and the Central North American Trade Corridors are described, including how they connect to other corridors. This paper provides some demographic and geographic information, but does not address highway capacity needs, right of way needs, restricted speed policy, processes for determining future access, evaluation of current access right of way needs for future frontage roads, and bypass opportunities in and around communities.
  • Revised Application Prop Designation of I-840.Pdf

    Revised Application Prop Designation of I-840.Pdf

    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials An Application from the State Highway or Transportation Department of Tennessee for: Elimination of a U.S. (Interstate) Route AASHTO Use Only Establishment of a U.S. (Interstate) Route I-840 Action taken by SCOH: Extension of a U.S. (Interstate)Route Relocation of a U.S. (Interstate) Route Establishment of a U.S. Alternate Route Establishment of a Temporary U.S. Route **Recognition of a Business Route on U.S. (Interstate) Route **Recognition of a By-Pass Route on U.S. Route Between Interstate 40 exit 176 and Interstate 40 exit 235 The following states or states are involved: Tennessee • **“Recognition of…”A local vicinity map needed on page 3. On page 6 a short statement to the effect that there are no deficiencies on proposed routing, if true, will suffice. • If there are deficiencies, they should be indicated in accordance with page 5 instructions. • All applications requesting Interstate establishment or changes are subject to concurrence and approval by the FHWA DATE SUBMITTED: SUBMIT APPLICATION ELECTRONICALLY TO [email protected] • *Bike Routes: this form is not applicable for US Bicycle Route System The purpose of the United States (U.S.) Numbered Highway System is to facilitate travel on the main interstate highways, over the shortest routes and the best available roads. A route should form continuity of available facilities through two or more states that accommodate the most important and heaviest motor traffic flow in the area. The routes comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways will be marked with its own distinctive route marker shield and will have a numbering system that is separate and apart from the U.S.
  • Interstate 40 Median Regrade Project Initial Study

    Interstate 40 Median Regrade Project Initial Study

    Interstate 40 Median Regrade Project San Bernardino County, California District 08-SBd-40 (PM R100.0/R125.0) EA 08-0R141/PN 0815000200 Initial Study [with Proposed] Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation September 2020 This page intentionally left blank. General Information About This Document What’s in this document: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has prepared this Initial Study, which examines the potential environmental impacts of alternatives being considered for the proposed project in San Bernardino County, California. The project is to regrade the existing median cross slope which vary from 2:1 to 6:1 or steeper gradient to 10:1 or flatter on Interstate 40 (I-40) from Post Mile (PM) R100.0 to PM R125.0. The document describes the project, the existing environment that could be affected by the project, potential impacts from the project, and proposed measures. What you should do: • Please read this document. • Additional copies of this document are available for review during regular business hours at the Needles Branch Library, 1111 Bailey Avenue, Needles, CA 92363, and at Caltrans District 8, 464 West 4th Street, San Bernardino, 92401. • We welcome your comments. If you have any comments about the proposed project, please send your written comments to Caltrans by the deadline below. • Submit comments via U.S. mail to Caltrans at the following address: Gabrielle Duff, Senior Environmental Planner California Department of Transportation, District 8 464 West 4th Street San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 • Submit comments via email to: [email protected] • Submit comments by the deadline: October 26, 2020.
  • Oklahoma Statutes Title 69. Roads, Bridges, and Ferries

    Oklahoma Statutes Title 69. Roads, Bridges, and Ferries

    OKLAHOMA STATUTES TITLE 69. ROADS, BRIDGES, AND FERRIES §69-101. Declaration of legislative intent.............................................................................................19 §69-113a. Successful bidders - Return of executed contract................................................................20 §69-201. Definitions of words and phrases..........................................................................................21 §69-202. Abandonment........................................................................................................................21 §69-203. Acquisition or taking..............................................................................................................21 §69-204. Arterial highway.....................................................................................................................21 §69-205. Authority................................................................................................................................21 §69-206. Auxiliary service highway.......................................................................................................21 §69-207. Board......................................................................................................................................21 §69-208. Bureau of Public Roads..........................................................................................................21 §69-209. Commission............................................................................................................................21
  • Interview with Robert Mandeville # IST-A-L-2013-103 Interview # 1: December 6, 2013 Interviewer: Mike Czaplicki

    Interview with Robert Mandeville # IST-A-L-2013-103 Interview # 1: December 6, 2013 Interviewer: Mike Czaplicki

    Interview with Robert Mandeville # IST-A-L-2013-103 Interview # 1: December 6, 2013 Interviewer: Mike Czaplicki COPYRIGHT The following material can be used for educational and other non-commercial purposes without the written permission of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. “Fair use” criteria of Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 must be followed. These materials are not to be deposited in other repositories, nor used for resale or commercial purposes without the authorization from the Audio-Visual Curator at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, 112 N. 6th Street, Springfield, Illinois 62701. Telephone (217) 785-7955 Czaplicki: Today is Friday, December 6, 2013. My name is Mike Czaplicki. I'm the project historian for the Governor Thompson Oral History Project here at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. I'm with Dr. Robert Mandeville, who was Governor Thompson's budget director for most of his tenure. He's been gracious enough to come in on a very cold day and sit down and chat with us. Thank you, Bob. Mandeville: You're welcome. Czaplicki: We always like to start at the beginning with these things and ask, when and where were you born? Mandeville: Nineteen thirty-one, April 29, in Jacksonville, Illinois. Czaplicki: What is this document we're looking at here? Is this a scrapbook of yours? An autobiography?1 Mandeville: Yes, written about three years ago. Czaplicki: Unpublished? Mandeville: Unpublished, yes. I wrote it for my kids and my grandkids. Czaplicki: Oh, excellent. I'd like to take a look at that at some point in some more detail.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000

    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.
  • La Entrada Al Pacifico Planning Study-TTI-12-7-04

    La Entrada Al Pacifico Planning Study-TTI-12-7-04

    LA ENTRADA AL PACIFICO TRADE CORRIDOR PLANNING STUDY Prepared for: Midland-Odessa Metropolitan Planning Organization and Texas Department of Transportation – Odessa District Prepared by: Texas Transportation Institute December 2004 LA ENTRADA AL PACIFICO TRADE CORRIDOR PLANNING STUDY by by William E. Frawley, AICP Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute John Overman, AICP Associate Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute Juan Villa Associate Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute and Ajay Shakyaver, P.E. Advanced Transportation Planning Engineer Texas Department of Transportation Project Title: Provide Technical Assistance Related to a Future National Corridor Planning and Development Study for the “La Entrada al Pacifico” Trade Corridor for the Midland-Odessa MPO December 2004 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the project director, Robert Cox, of the Midland-Odessa Metropolitan Planning Organization. The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the following individuals for their valuable assistance and input: Lauren Garduno – Texas Department of Transportation James Beauchamp – Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge Claire Fazio of the Texas Transportation Insitute (TTI) for her work on maps and graphics, Edd Sepulveda of TTI for his statistical work, Lisa Day of TTI for her work on graphics, and Carol Court for her editorial work.
  • State of Oklahoma

    State of Oklahoma

    STATE OF OKLAHOMA 2nd Session of the 48th Legislature (2002) SENATE BILL 1623 By: Shurden AS INTRODUCED An Act relating to roads, bridges and ferries; amending 69 O.S. 2001, Section 1705, which relates to powers and duties of the Transportation Authority; modifying powers and duties of the Authority; designating a portion of State Highway 9 east of Eufaula to Stigler, Oklahoma, as the “Harold Pinney Memorial Highway” for his honorary service in World War II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars; The Department of Transportation shall cause suitable permanent markers to be placed upon the highway bearing his name; providing for codification; and declaring an emergency. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA: SECTION 1. AMENDATORY 69 O.S. 2001, Section 1705, is amended to read as follows: Section 1705. The Oklahoma Transportation Authority is hereby authorized and empowered: (a) To adopt bylaws for the regulation of its affairs and conduct of its business. (b) To adopt an official seal and alter the same at pleasure. (c) To maintain an office at such place or places within the state as it may designate. (d) To sue and be sued in contract, reverse condemnation, equity, mandamus and similar actions in its own name, plead and be impleaded; provided, that any and all actions at law or in equity against the Authority shall be brought in the county in which the principal office of the Authority shall be located, or in the county of the residence of the plaintiff, or the county where the cause of action arose.