DOCSLIB.ORG

Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Area Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Area Management Plan Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Area Management Plan Prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation January 2009 Prepared by KUEBLER BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Area Management Plan Project Technical Team: Project Management Team: Oregon Department of Transportation Lisa Ansell, Oregon Department of Transportation Dan Fricke, Project Manager Dave Baltz, City of Salem City of Salem Kent Belleque, Oregon Department of Transportation Julie Warncke Anthony Boesen, Federal Highway Administration Jamie Damon, JLA Public Involvement CH2M HILL Donna Kilber-Kennedy, Consultant Cecilia DeSantis Urbani, City of Salem Project Manager Dan Fricke, Oregon Department of Transportation Andrew Barash Randa Gahin, JLA Public Involvement Theresa Carr Glen Hadley, Salem-Keizer Transit Tung Le Jamie Hollenbeak, Oregon Department of Transportation Bill Love Kevin Hottmann, City of Salem Sumi Malik Mike Jaffe, Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments Darren Muldoon Dan Jordan, Oregon Department of Transportation Jimmy Wong Donna Kilber-Kennedy, CH2M HILL Terry Yuen Tung Le, CH2M HILL JLA Public Involvement John Lucas, Oregon Department of Transportation Jamie Damon Mac Lynde, Oregon Department of Transportation Randa Gahin Mike McCarthy, Marion County Taundra Mortensen, Oregon Department of Transportation Karen Odenthal, Marion County David Parisi, Parisi Associates Tim Potter, Oregon Department of Transportation Dick Reynolds, Oregon Department of Transportation Les Sasaki, Marion County Dorothy Upton, Oregon Department of Transportation Julie Warncke, City of Salem Dave Warrick, Oregon Department of Transportation Jerilyn Wen, Marion County KUEBLER BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN iii Contents Section Page Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................................................vii Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 IAMP Purpose and Intent ................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1 Mill Creek Corporate Center Project .................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Existing and Future Traffic Demand .................................................... 1-2 1.2.3 Substandard Interchange Design.......................................................... 1-3 1.3 Interchange Function ........................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 IAMP Goals and Objectives ................................................................................ 1-4 1.5 Interchange Management Area.......................................................................... 1-6 2 IAMP Decisions................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Future-Year (2030) Operational Analysis ......................................................... 2-2 2.1.1 Future Baseline Scenario ........................................................................ 2-2 2.1.2 Future Baseline with Moderate Improvements Scenario .................. 2-3 2.1.3 Future Baseline with Major Improvements Scenario......................... 2-5 2.2 Preferred Alternative Agreement ...................................................................... 2-6 2.3 Access Management............................................................................................. 2-8 2.4 Interchange Area Management.......................................................................... 2-9 2.4.1 Trip Monitoring Program....................................................................... 2-9 2.4.2 Coordination .......................................................................................... 2-10 2.4.3 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments ..................... 2-10 2.5 IAMP Adoption and Implementation ............................................................. 2-10 2.5.1 ODOT/State of Oregon Implementing Actions................................ 2-11 2.5.2 City of Salem Implementing Actions.................................................. 2-12 2.5.3 Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Implementing Actions .................................................................................................... 2-13 Appendices A Existing Conditions Inventory and Data Analysis B Plan and Policy Review C Future Conditions Analysis D Alternatives Development Analysis E Public Involvement F City of Salem Comprehensive Plan Consistency Determination KUEBLER BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN v CONTENTS, CONTINUED Page Tables ES-1 Physical Improvements....................................................................................................ES-4 1 2030 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios at Study Intersections – Future Baseline Scenario ................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2 Future Baseline with Moderate Improvements Scenario Physical Improvements ... 2-3 3 2030 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios at Study Intersections – Future Baseline with Moderate Improvements Scenario ................................................................................... 2-5 4 2030 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios at Study Intersections – Future Baseline with Major Improvements Scenario................................................................................. 2-6 5 Minimum Spacing Standards Applicable to Freeway Interchanges ........................... 2-8 Figures ES-1 IAMP Management Area ES-2 Preferred Alternative – Kuebler Boulevard Interchange 1 Vicinity Map 2 Comprehensive Plan Designations 3 IAMP Management Area 4 Preferred Alternative – Kuebler Boulevard Interchange vi KUEBLER BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN Abbreviations and Acronyms AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ATR automatic traffic recorder CARTS Chemeketa Area Regional Transportation System CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMS Congestion Management System CO carbon monoxide DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DLCD Department of Land Conservation and Development ECSI Environmental Cleanup Site Information (DEQ database) FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FMU Fairview Mixed-Use Zone HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCS Highway Capacity Software HDM Highway Design Manual I-5 Interstate 5 (Pacific Highway) IAMP Interchange Area Management Plan ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 LOS level of service mph miles per hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MWVCOG Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHS National Highway System North Santiam Highway Oregon 22 NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory OAR Oregon Administrative Rule ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation KUEBLER BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN vii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS OHP Oregon Highway Plan OR 22 Oregon 22 (North Santiam Highway) OSHPO Oregon State Historic Preservation Office OTC Oregon Transportation Commission OTP Oregon Transportation Plan OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department Pacific Highway Interstate 5 Parclo A partial-cloverleaf in advance PHF peak-hour factor PMT Project Management Team RTSP Regional Transportation System Plan SAC State Agency Coordination SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users Salem TSP Salem Transportation System Plan (City of Salem, OR, 2007) SESATS Southeast Salem Area Transportation Study SKATS Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study SPIS Safety Priority Index System SPUI Single Point Urban Interchange SRC Salem Revised Code STA Special Transportation Area STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program TDM Transportation Demand Management TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TIP Transportation Improvement Program TPAU Traffic Planning and Analysis Unit TPR Transportation Planning Rule TSP Transportation System Plan TWSC Two-way stop controlled intersection UGB urban growth boundary UP Union Pacific UT Urban Transition V/C volume-to-capacity vph vehicles per hour XPA Expanded Preliminary Assessment viii KUEBLER BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN Executive Summary The Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) has been prepared for the proposed interchange modification on Interstate 5 (I-5) (Pacific Highway) at Kuebler Boulevard (milepost 251.53), approximately 2.3 miles south of the I-5/Oregon 22 (OR 22) (North Santiam Highway) interchange in the City of Salem and unincorporated Marion County, Oregon. The IAMP was prepared in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the City of Salem, Marion County, and the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments (MWVCOG). Currently, some limited modifications and improvements are planned for the Kuebler Boulevard interchange. Oregon’s 2008-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic
    MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration for Streets and Highways Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic Dotted line indicates edge of binder spine. MM UU TT CC DD U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2003 Edition Page i The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard in accordance with Title 23 U.S. Code, Sections 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a), 23 CFR 655, and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(8), 1.48(b)(33), and 1.48(c)(2). Addresses for Publications Referenced in the MUTCD American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 www.transportation.org American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) 8201 Corporate Drive, Suite 1125 Landover, MD 20785-2230 www.arema.org Federal Highway Administration Report Center Facsimile number: 301.577.1421 [email protected] Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) 120 Wall Street, Floor 17 New York, NY 10005 www.iesna.org Institute of Makers of Explosives 1120 19th Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-3605 www.ime.org Institute of Transportation Engineers
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10 Grade Separations and Interchanges
    2005 Grade Separations and Interchanges CHAPTER 10 GRADE SEPARATIONS AND INTERCHANGES 10.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL TYPES OF INTERCHANGES The ability to accommodate high volumes of traffic safely and efficiently through intersections depends largely on the arrangement that is provided for handling intersecting traffic. The greatest efficiency, safety, and capacity, and least amount of air pollution are attained when the intersecting through traffic lanes are grade separated. An interchange is a system of interconnecting roadways in conjunction with one or more grade separations that provide for the movement of traffic between two or more roadways or highways on different levels. Interchange design is the most specialized and highly developed form of intersection design. The designer should be thoroughly familiar with the material in Chapter 9 before starting the design of an interchange. Relevant portions of the following material covered in Chapter 9 also apply to interchange design: • general factors affecting design • basic data required • principles of channelization • design procedure • design standards Material previously covered is not repeated. The discussion which follows covers modifications in the above-mentioned material and additional material pertaining exclusively to interchanges. The economic effect on abutting properties resulting from the design of an intersection at-grade is usually confined to the area in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. An interchange or series of interchanges on a freeway or expressway through a community may affect large contiguous areas or even the entire community. For this reason, consideration should be given to an active public process to encourage context sensitive solutions. Interchanges must be located and designed to provide the most desirable overall plan of access, traffic service, and community development.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 92-82 Interchange Improvement Project
    SR 92-82 Interchange Improvement Project SAN MATEO (SM) COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 4 – SM – 92-82(Post Miles 11.0/10.3, 11.5 /10.7) Expenditure Authorization 23552/Project ID 0412000496 Initial Study with Negative Declaration Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation May 2014 General Information About This Document For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in Braille, in large print, on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to Department of Transportation, District 4 Office of Public Affairs, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623; (510) 286-4444 (Voice), or use the California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice) or 711. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables 4 SUMMARY 7 CHAPTER 1- Proposed Project 12 Introduction 12 Purpose and Need 13 CHAPTER 2 - Project Alternatives 14 Alternatives 14 Build Alternative Partial Cloverleaf 14 No Build Alternative 19 Alternatives Discussed But Eliminated From Further Analysis: 19 CHAPTER 3 - Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 19 UTILITIES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 21 Affected Environment 21 Environmental Consequences 21 Avoidance Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 21 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 22 Regulatory Setting 56 Affected Environment 56 Project Alternatives 56 Environmental Consequences 56 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Measures 56 VISUAL/AESTHETICS
    [Show full text]
  • South Portland Smart Corridor Plan
    Portland – South Portland Smart Corridor Plan June 2018 revised October 2018 PACTS – City of Portland – City of South Portland – MaineDOT 3.2.3 Public Transit .................................................................................... 33 CONTENTS 3.2.4 Pedestrian ......................................................................................... 37 3.2.5 Bicycle ................................................................................................ 40 3.2.6 Corridor Safety Record ................................................................. 41 3.3 FOREST AVENUE NORTH – MORRILL’S CORNER TO WOODFORDS CORNER ...... 44 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1 3.3.1 Land Use and Urban Design ......................................................... 44 STUDY GOALS ................................................................................................................. 1 3.3.2 Roadway and Traffic ..................................................................... 45 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 4 3.3.3 Public Transit .................................................................................... 49 SMART CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 6 3.3.4 Pedestrian ......................................................................................... 49 Intersection and
    [Show full text]
  • View Preliminary Design Report
    Preliminary Design Report I-494/I-35W Interchange Preliminary Design Project Bloomington, MN S.P. No. 2785-350 SEH No. MNTCO 107371 March 30, 2010 I-494/I-35W Interchange Preliminary Design Project Preliminary Design Report Bloomington, MN S.P. NO. 2785-350 SEH No. MNTCO 107371 March 30, 2010 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Jeff Rhoda, PE Date: Lic. No.: 26377 Reviewed by: Date Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302 952.912.2600 Executive Summary • Develop an alternative that incorporates the provisions of an In-Line BRT station located at or between American Boulevard and 82nd Street. Background Information The interchange alternative developed from the project would be considered for further evaluation leading into the The I-494 and I-35W corridors are major transportation corridors in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The ability to development of a Level 1 Layout Approval by Mn/DOT and possible reevaluation of the 2001 FEIS. effectively move the users of these transportation corridors to their destinations with reduced congestion and improved safety continues to be a challenge today and in the foreseeable future. The I-494 and I-35W interchange area Existing Conditions and Prioritized Deficiencies consistently remains as one of the higher ranked locations for congestion and safety deficiencies in the metro area and the country; a 2010 study, based on Travel Time Index (TTI), ranked I-494 17th worst commute in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Interchange and Intersection Designs for Use in Spot On!Ine
    INTERCHANGE AND INTERSECTION DESIGNS FOR USE IN SPOT ON!INE October 22, 2013 This document contains examples of 31 different interchange and intersection designs with for use in SPOT On!ine, NCDOT’s GIS- based Web Application for providing automated, near real-time prioritization scores and project costs. The designs shown provide a variety of configurations for users to choose from when entering an existing or proposed (project) interchange or intersection type for a new project in the application. The designs selected are used to calculate quantitative scores for the Prioritization process, as well as calculate a planning-level cost estimate for the project. The interchange and intersections designs used in SPOT On!ine were developed by a team from the Strategic Prioritization Office (SPOT), Roadway Design Unit, Preliminary Estimates Section, and the Transportation Planning Branch. Please contact the Strategic Prioritization Office with any questions. INTERCHANGE AND INTERSECTION DESIGNS FOR USE IN SPOT ON!INE Table of Contents Diamond Interchange ................................................................. 3 Directional Interchange with 2 Flyover Ramps and 2 Loops – Diamond Interchange with 1 Loop ............................................. 4 Example 2 ............................................................................... 19 Diamond Interchange with 2 Loops ............................................ 5 Directional Interchange with 3 Flyover Ramps and 1 Loop ..... 20 Tight Urban Diamond Interchange ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Study of a Highly Effective and Affordable Highway Interchange - ITL Interchange
    Available online at www.CivileJournal.org Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 4, April, 2020 Technical Note Study of a Highly Effective and Affordable Highway Interchange - ITL Interchange Goran Jovanović a*, Rafko Atelšek b* a MSc, Civil Engineer, Appia Company for Design, Research and Engineering d.o.o. (Appia d.o.o), Ljubljana, Slovenia. b BSc, EE, Appia Company for Design, Research and Engineering d.o.o. (Appia d.o.o.), Ljubljana, Slovenia. Received 26 December 2019; Accepted 01 March 2020 Abstract In this paper we present a new solution for the highway interchange, which represents the best compromise between the traffic capacity, the land area used and construction cost. The difference between the known and the new design solution is in the implementation of the opposite directional ramps which are widely separated in the area of the interchange. In the middle, between the directional ramps, some space is created for the left directional ramps. Interchange should be used for four-way highway interchanges or other heavy traffic roads junction in order to increase the capacity and traffic safety at the crossing point. It has no conflict points. ITL Interchange left directional ramps is much shorter than all other known solutions for interchanges. The interchange is built in two levels. These two facts significantly lower the cost of construction. The study compares different types of interchanges. We made a geometric comparison and performance measures. In geometric comparison, the greatest advantages of the ITL interchange are the shortest overall roadway length and the shortest overpasses length. Therefore, such an interchange is advantageous in terms of construction and maintenance costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Massdot News Home > Information Center > Weekly Newsletters > Massdot News 02/19/2016
    Home | About Us | Employment | Contact Us | Site Policies The Official Website of The Massachusetts Department of Transportation MassDOT News Home > Information Center > Weekly Newsletters > MassDOT News 02/19/2016 February 19 MBTA GM: Orange Line Train Exterior Checks MBTA General Manager Frank DePaola issued a statement following Tuesday’s Orange Line incident in which a train body panel near the bottom edge of one of its cars fell onto the tracks: "The MBTA is immediately incorporating a more thorough exterior check of body panel hardware as part of regular maintenance work on Orange Line cars. Bolts and rivets of body panels will now be MassDOT March examined every 12 thousand miles, which is approximately every 8 or 9 weeks, when Orange Line cars Board Meeting are taken into a garage for scheduled comprehensive maintenance. This maintenance already includes checks of the safety system, evacuation equipment, propulsion system, brake system, suspension March 16 system, communication system, doors, wheels, lights, seating, and other interior compartment items." Transportation Building 10 Park Plaza Read the full statement on the MBTA website Suite 3830 Boston, MA 02150 Route 2/I­95 Bridge Replacement: Major East­West Connector Gets Upgrade The cloverleaf interchange of Route 2 and I­95 in Lexington is undergoing major upgrades for the Route Full Meeting Schedule 2/I­95 Bridge Replacement Project. On the MassDOT Blog The bridges that carry Route 2 East and West over I­95 are Route 79/Braga Bridge structurally deficient and their vertical clearance is substandard. Project Reconnects City to MassDOT is replacing the two bridges to address these Historic Battleship deficiencies, upgrade their capacity, meet current seismic criteria, improve safety, protect the environment, and reduce annual maintenance costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Single Point Urban Interchange and Diverging
    COMPARISON OF SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AND DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE THROUGH SIMULATION Thesis Submitted to The School of Engineering of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering By Rawan Ramadhan Dayton, Ohio May 2019 COMPARISON OF SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AND DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE THROUGH SIMULATION Name: Ramadhan, Rawan APPROVED BY: _____________________________ ____________________________ Deogratias Eustace, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE Philip Appiah-Kubi, Ph.D. Advisory Committee Chairperson, Committee Member, Associate Professor, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Department of Engineering Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Management, Systems, and Technology _____________________________ Paul Goodhue, P.E., PTOE Committee Member, Traffic Key Services Leader, LJB, Inc. _____________________________ _____________________________ Robert J. Wilkens, Ph.D., P.E. Eddy M. Rojas, Ph.D., M.A., P.E. Associate Dean for Research & Innovation Dean, School of Engineering Professor School of Engineering ii © Copyright by Rawan Ramadhan All rights reserved 2019 iii ABSTRACT COMPARISON OF SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AND DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE THROUGH SIMULATION Name: Ramadhan, Rawan University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. Deogratias, Eustace In 1960, there were 74,431,800 vehicles registered in the United States. Looking at the most recent data currently available shows that in 2016 there were 268,799,083 registered vehicles in the United States. Roadway facilities constructed in the 1960s were not designed to handle vehicular traffic of these proportions. The ever increasing volumes of motor vehicle traffic at heavily traveled interchanges and intersections heighten the risk of single or multiple vehicle crashes particularly when they are not designed to manage high volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Interchange Design in North America
    Evolution of Interchange Design in North America Joel P. Leisch, P.Eng., Transportation Consultant John Morrall, P.Eng., President, Canadian Highway Institute, Ltd. PAPER ID: 10415 Paper prepared for presentation At the Geometric Design-Learning from the Past Session of the 2014 Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada Montreal, Quebec 1 Abstract – Evolution of Interchange Design in North America There has been a significant evolution in interchange forms and interchange geometric design criteria since the first interchange (cloverleaf) was constructed in Woodbridge, NJ in 1928. The first cloverleaf interchange in Canada was the Port Credit interchange completed in 1937 on the QEW between Toronto and Niagara Falls which was the first freeway in Canada. This presentation will chronicle the following: - Evolution of interchange forms from the cloverleaf to the double crossover diamond (diverging diamond). - Evolution of interchange geometric design criteria from the 1930’s to the present. - Application of driver characteristics and expectations in interchange design, operations and signing guidelines in the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design policies and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The interchange forms to be presented include 17 diamond interchange forms, 10 partial cloverleaf forms and 16 system (freeway to freeway) interchange forms with their design and operational characteristics. The early interchanges (1928-1955) in the US and Canada will provide the base from which the multitude of interchanges have evolved. Geometric design of ramp exit and entrance design, geometric design of ramps, and basic design criteria for freeways will be presented demonstrating the evolution of design criteria from the 1940’s to present day based on TAC and AASHTO criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • 100Projectsand Counting... Transportation Uniform Mitigation
    Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program 100 Projects and Counting... “100 Projects and Counting” provides an updated listing (in order of completion) of each of the 100 transportation and transit projects built since WRCOG’s Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program was launched in 2003. Completing 100 projects is no small Bridges feat considering the amount of time it takes (usually years) to get projects like the ones listed in this booklet on the ground. TUMF is slated to provide nearly $3 billion towards improving Western Riverside County’s Grade Separations mobility by building critical transportation infrastructure needed to keep pace with the region’s rapid growth. In addition to improving our mobility, TUMF is also providing jobs for thousands of workers in the private sector who are and will be needed to plan, engineer, and build these facilities. A 2014 Duke University Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness report indicates that more than 21,000 jobs are created per each Interchanges $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure. That translates to the creation of approximately 80,000 new jobs through TUMF. The same report also found that every $1 invested in transportation infrastructure creates more than $3.5 dollars in economic return, which tells us that there’s an even broader positive impact to Western Riverside’s Roadway Improvements economy that goes way beyond the direct TUMF investment. 100 completed projects is a great start when it comes to improving the region’s mobility and economy, and there are hundreds of projects to come. To see which projects are included in TUMF, and to get other background information about the Program, visit Transit Improvements WRCOG’s website at wrcog.us.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interchange Is a Grade-Separated Intersection (One Road Passes Over Another) with Ramps to Connect Them
    Interchange Justification Studies/Interchange Modification Studies (IJS/IMS) What is an Interchange? An interchange is a grade-separated intersection (one road passes over another) with ramps to connect them. For busy roads this is a necessity to keep traffic moving. Traffic signals are sometimes needed to help traffic move through and between the two facilities. Within these pages, we are going to depict and describe some of the various interchanges used to date. There might be some not used in Ohio. All interchanges are designed for the projected traffic for the region. This will make some designs more beneficial than others with respect to operation, right-way impacts, etc. Purpose of an IJS/IMS Control of access on the Interstate and other freeway systems is considered critical to providing the highest quality of service in terms of safety and mobility. Sometimes referred to as an Access Point Request, these studies are needed on Interstate and other freeway systems in accordance to Federal Code 23 U.S.C. 111 and FHWA Policy - Additional Interchanges to the Interstate System (Federal Register: February 11, 1998, Volume 63, Number 28). The documentation required depends on the type of change requested - new or revised. New Access is the addition of a point of access where none previously existed. This includes the construction of an entirely new interchange such that it will result in additional points of access or additional ramps to existing interchanges. As an example, the reconstruction of an existing diamond interchange to a full cloverleaf interchange would add four new points of access.
    [Show full text]