Maricopa County Department of Transportation MAJOR STREETS and ROUTES PLAN Policy Document and Street Classification Atlas

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Maricopa County Department of Transportation MAJOR STREETS and ROUTES PLAN Policy Document and Street Classification Atlas Maricopa County Department of Transportation MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES PLAN Policy Document and Street Classification Atlas Adopted April 18, 2001 Revised September 2004 Revised June 2011 Preface to 2011 Revision This version of the Major Streets and Routes Plan (MSRP) revises the original plan and the 2004 revisions. Looking ahead to pending updates to the classification systems of towns and cities in Maricopa County, the original MSRP stipulated a periodic review and modification of the street functional classification portion of the plan. This revision incorporates the following changes: (1) as anticipated, many of the communities in the County have updated either their general or transportation plans in the time since the adoption of the first MSRP; (2) a new roadway classification, the Arizona Parkway, has been added to the Maricopa County street classification system and the expressway classification has been removed; and (3) a series of regional framework studies have been conducted by the Maricopa Association of Governments to establish comprehensive roadway networks in parts of the West Valley. Table of Contents 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................1 2. Functional Classification Categorization.............................................................................1 3. Geometric Design Standards..............................................................................................4 4. Street Classification Atlas..................................................................................................5 Roadway Cross-Section Schematics......................................................................................10 Map Index.............................................................................................................................13 Maricopa County Major Streets 1. INTRODUCTION systems are classified based on the trips served and Routes Plan and the operational characteristics of the streets The Board of Supervisors adopted the latest or highways. Distinctions are made between rural edition of the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and urban classifications, as discussed below and for Maricopa County on February 7, 2007. The illustrated in Figures 1 through 9 on pages 10 to TSP is the implementation component of the 12. For more detailed information please see the transportation element of the Maricopa County MCDOT Roadway Design Manual. Comprehensive Plan. Earlier editions of the TSP identified the need for a Maricopa County Major Level of Service and Roadway Streets and Routes Plan (MSRP). Classifications The MSRP is an important tool for planning future Definitions of the desired Level of Service (LOS) development along County roads. It insures designations for each roadway section referenced in adequate visibility and access, protects property the roadway function classifications is as follows: values and the neighborhood character, and enhances the unique qualities of County areas. A: Free flow, with low volumes and high speeds It also minimizes unnecessary costs and impact B: Reasonably free flow, speeds beginning to be to property owners and the public as designated restricted by traffic conditions roadways are improved. C: Stable flow zone, most drivers restricted in The Maricopa County Department of Transportation freedom to select their own speed (MCDOT) Roadway Design Manual is the controlling document for all roadway specifications and D: Approaching unstable flow, drivers have little requirements. Any references herein to the MCDOT freedom to maneuver Roadway Design Manual are to the edition adopted E: Unstable flow, may be short stoppages November 3, 1993 and revised April 2004. It is currently available online at: http://www.mcdot. F: Forced or breakdown flow maricopa.gov/manuals/eng_manuals/roadDesign/ Table 2.1: Urban and Rural Roadway Planning Level RoadwayCover_2004.pdf Traffic Volumes in Chapter 2 of the MCDOT Roadway Design Manual provides general ranges of traffic 2. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION volumes that can be expected for various roadway types. Please consult the latest edition of the CATEGORIZATION Roadway Design Manual for current traffic volumes. Also, please note that volumes shown in the above Functional classification is the process by which mentioned Table 2.1 are not used to determine roads are grouped into classes according to the roadway classifications in the MSRP. Roadway kind of service they provide. The basic functional classifications are determined primarily by definition classifications used in the MSRP are Arizona and supported by traffic analysis indicating the Parkway, Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major desired LOS. Collector, and Minor Collector. Local Streets are included for reference only and are not part of the MSRP. Using national classification criteria, these MCDOT Major Streets and Routes Plan Page 1 2. Functional Classification Categorization Rural Principal Arterial • Development may front directly on the road A rural principal arterial road includes the following • Controlled intersection spacing of 2 miles or service characteristics: greater • Striped for one lane in each direction with a • Traffic movements with trip length and density continuous left turn lane suitable for substantial statewide travel • Desired LOS C • Traffic movements between urban areas with populations over 25,000 Rural Minor Collector • Traffic movements at high speeds A rural minor collector road includes the following • Divided four-lane roads service characteristics: • Desired LOS C • Traffic movements between local roads and Rural Minor Arterial collector roads • Traffic movements between smaller A rural minor arterial road includes the following communities and developed areas service characteristics: • Traffic movements between locally important • Traffic movements with trip length and density traffic generators within their remote regions suitable for integrated interstate or inter-county • Two-lane undivided roads with intersections service at grade, and designed to take a minimum • Traffic movements between urban areas or interference of traffic from driveways other traffic generators with populations less appropriate to a rural setting than 25,000 • Striped for one lane in each direction • Traffic movements at high speeds • Desired LOS B • Undivided four-lane roads • Striped for one or two lanes in each direction Rural Local Road with auxiliary lanes at intersections as required A rural local road includes the following service by traffic volumes characteristics: • Desired LOS C • Two-lane undivided roads with intersections at Rural Major Collector grade • Traffic movements between collectors and A rural major collector road includes the following adjacent lands service characteristics: • Traffic movements involving relatively short • Traffic movements with trip length and density distances suitable for inter-county service • Desired LOS A • Traffic movements between traffic generators, between traffic generators and larger cities, Urban Principal Arterial and between traffic generators and routes of a An urban principal arterial road includes the higher classification following service characteristics: • Traffic movements subject to a low level of side friction • Traffic movements in urban areas consisting MCDOT Major Streets and Routes Plan Page 2 2. Functional Classification Categorization of through movements and major circulation • Local areas include residential neighborhoods, movements in these areas commercial, and industrial areas • Traffic movements involving a large portion of • Traffic capacity for an urban major collector the total urban area travel on a minimum of road is limited not by the typical capacity of the mileage road section, but instead by the desirability of • Posted speeds less than or equal to 45 mph maintaining acceptable traffic levels by the use • Divided four-lane or six-lane roads of continuous center left turn lanes rather than • Striped for two or three lanes in each direction intermittent left-turn lanes with a median and exclusive turn lanes where • An urban minor collector road maintains applicable acceptable traffic levels that will not affect • Desired LOS D residential neighborhoods adversely • Urban “major” or “minor” classifications shall Urban Minor Arterial be made at MCDOT’s discretion • Desired LOS C (major collector) and LOS B An urban minor arterial road includes the following (minor collector) service characteristics: • Traffic movements in urban areas consisting Urban Local Road of major circulation movements within these An urban local road includes the following service areas, with more emphasis on land access than characteristics: major roads • Traffic movements do not penetrate residential • Two-lane undivided roads with intersections at neighborhoods grade with frequent driveway access • Traffic movements at moderate speeds with • Traffic movements between adjacent lands and partially controlled access facilities collectors or other roads of higher classification • Undivided four-lane with intersections at grade • Traffic movements over relatively short • Striped for two lanes in each direction with a distances, less than 8 blocks long in most cases center left turn lane • Desired LOS A • Desired LOS C Arizona Parkway Urban Major and Minor Collector An Arizona Parkway includes the following service Urban major and minor collector roads include the characteristics: following
Recommended publications
  • Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual
    Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual December 2015 Alabama Department of Transportation ROUNDABOUT PLANNING, DESIGN, AND OPERATIONS MANUAL December 2015 Prepared by: The University Transportation Center for of Alabama Steven L. Jones, Ph.D. Abdulai Abdul Majeed Steering Committee Tim Barnett, P.E., ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Stuart Manson, P.E., ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Sonya Baker, ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Stacey Glass, P.E., ALDOT Maintenance Stan Biddick, ALDOT Design Bryan Fair, ALDOT Planning Steve Walker, P.E., ALDOT R.O.W. Vince Calametti, P.E., ALDOT 9th Division James Brown, P.E., ALDOT 2nd Division James Foster, P.E., Mobile County Clint Andrews, Federal Highway Administration Blair Perry, P.E., Gresham Smith & Partners Howard McCulloch, P.E., NE Roundabouts DISCLAIMER This manual provides guidelines and recommended practices for planning and designing roundabouts in the State of Alabama. This manual cannot address or anticipate all possible field conditions that will affect a roundabout design. It remains the ultimate responsibility of the design engineer to ensure that a design is appropriate for prevailing traffic and field conditions. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1-5 1.2. Scope and Organization ............................................................................... 1-7 1.3. Limitations ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Continuous Flow Intersection, Parallel Flow Intersection, and Upstream Signalized Crossover
    Comparison of Three Unconventional Arterial Intersection Designs: Continuous Flow Intersection, Parallel Flow Intersection, and Upstream Signalized Crossover Seonyeong Cheong, Saed Rahwanji, and Gang-Len Chang Abstract— This research is aimed to evaluate and world have adopted many conventional measures, including compare the operational performance of three signal planning and double left-turn lanes, for alleviating this unconventional intersections: Continuous Flow problem [1]. The using of these conventional measures are Intersection (CFI), Parallel Flow Intersection (PFI) and limited as the modifications of intersection design, such as Upstream Signalized Crossover (USC). For this purpose, widening interchanges and building bypasses, are expensive various experimental designs, including traffic conditions, and disruptive [1]. In contrast, the unconventional arterial geometric features and signal plans, were set and the intersection design (UAID) is one of the methods that can average delays were compared for movements of efficiently reduce the congestion with less cost as compare through-only traffic and left-turn-only traffic. From the with the conventional measures. General principles of results of analysis, all three unconventional intersections operation and management strategies of the UAID include: 1) outperformed conventional one and among the emphasis on through traffic movements along the arterial; 2) unconventional intersections, CFI outperformed the reduction in the number of signal phases (e.g. left-turn arrow others except for some traffic conditions. In the balanced phase); and 3) reduction in the number of intersection conflict traffic condition scenario, at the low traffic volume level, points [2]. These principles allow the UAID to reduce the the average delays of through traffic for PFI were smaller traffic congestion at the intersection and improve the traffic than that of CFI and very similar at the moderate traffic safety.
    [Show full text]
  • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide
    BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE FEBRUARY 2019 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED February 2019 Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. FUNDING NUMBERS Bikeway Selection Guide NA 6. AUTHORS 5b. CONTRACT NUMBER Schultheiss, Bill; Goodman, Dan; Blackburn, Lauren; DTFH61-16-D-00005 Wood, Adam; Reed, Dan; Elbech, Mary 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION VHB, 940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500 REPORT NUMBER Raleigh, NC 27606 NA Toole Design Group, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Mobycon - North America, Durham, NC 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AND ADDRESS(ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Tamara Redmon FHWA-SA-18-077 Project Manager, Office of Safety Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at: NA https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike 13. ABSTRACT This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions about trade- offs relating to the selection of bikeway types. This report highlights linkages between the bikeway selection process and the transportation planning process. This guide presents these factors and considerations in a practical process- oriented way. It draws on research where available and emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility, documentation, and experimentation. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Bike, bicycle, bikeway, multimodal, networks, 52 active transportation, low stress networks 16. PRICE CODE NA 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning and Design Guideline for Cycle Infrastructure
    Planning and Design Guideline for Cycle Infrastructure Planning and Design Guideline for Cycle Infrastructure Cover Photo: Rajendra Ravi, Institute for Democracy & Sustainability. Acknowledgements This Planning and Design guideline has been produced as part of the Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation (SSEF) sponsored project on Non-motorised Transport by the Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. The project team at TRIPP, IIT Delhi, has worked closely with researchers from Innovative Transport Solutions (iTrans) Pvt. Ltd. and SGArchitects during the course of this project. We are thankful to all our project partners for detailed discussions on planning and design issues involving non-motorised transport: The Manual for Cycling Inclusive Urban Infrastructure Design in the Indian Subcontinent’ (2009) supported by Interface for Cycling Embassy under Bicycle Partnership Program which was funded by Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia. The second document is Public Transport Accessibility Toolkit (2012) and the third one is the Urban Road Safety Audit (URSA) Toolkit supported by Institute of Urban Transport (IUT) provided the necessary background information for this document. We are thankful to Prof. Madhav Badami, Tom Godefrooij, Prof. Talat Munshi, Rajinder Ravi, Pradeep Sachdeva, Prasanna Desai, Ranjit Gadgil, Parth Shah and Dr. Girish Agrawal for reviewing an earlier version of this document and providing valuable comments. We thank all our colleagues at the Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme for cooperation provided during the course of this study. Finally we would like to thank the transport team at Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation (SSEF) for providing the necessary support required for the completion of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Transportation Mode Choice, Safety & Connections
    Chapter 7: Transportation Mode Choice, Safety & Connections Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-2 TRANSPORTATION City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Transportation Chapter is to guide development, maintenance, and improvement of the community’s transportation network. This Chapter incorporates and addresses the City’s future transportation needs based on the planned future land uses, development areas, housing, parks and trail systems. The City’s transportation network is comprised of several systems including roadways, transit services, trails, railroads and aviation that all work together to move people and goods throughout, and within, the City. This Chapter identifies the existing and proposed transportation system, examines potential deficiencies, and sets investment priorities. The following Chapter plans for an integrated transportation system that addresses each of the following topics in separate sections: • Roadway System 7-1 • Transit Facilities • Bikway & Trail System • Freight & Rail • Aviation The last section of this Chapter provides a summary and implementation section which addresses each of the components of the system, if any additional action within this planning period is expected. The Implementation Plan sets the groundwork for investment and improvements to the transportation network consistent with the goals, analyses, and conclusions of this Plan. As discussed in preceding Chapters of this Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Chapter is intended to be dynamic and responsive to the City’s planned land uses and development patterns. As the City’s conditions change and improvements occur, this Chapter should be reviewed for consistency with the Plan to ensure that the transportation systems support the City’s ultimate vision for the community through this planning period.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Consultants Memorandum
    CIVIL CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM TO: Town of York Planning Office FROM: Thomas W. Harmon, PE SUBJECT: Waiver Requests – Town of York Ordinance Section 6.3.3A.4, 7.3.1 D9.5.8.A, & 17.18.16 DATE: MAY 6, 2020 PROJECT: GULF HILL SUBDIVISION 1780 US ROUTE 1 (16-295.00) Town of York Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations: SECTION 6.3. Physical environment of property; 3.A 4. vegetation in general, specifically noting any trees larger than 24” in diameter in breast height; As part of the subdivision plan review process, we are requesting a waiver to locate any trees greater than 24” at breast height that are located within any proposed open space. This would be a large undertaking on a parcel of this size and the intent of the cluster subdivision is to leave a large portion of the property in its natural state. This will be turned over to the land trust to manage which should insure vegetative cover is properly managed. An extremely large portion of the property will be left untouched maintaining any large growth in those areas. SECTION 7.1.3 D New slopes established by re-grading a site shall not exceed 20%, except for the allowed 33% shoulder slope along proposed roads. To minimize disturbance, roadway ledge cuts occurring outside the required roadway right of way may have slopes up to a vertical face.a vertical face SECTION 9.5.8 Developments containing fifteen (15) residential units or more, or which generates average daily traffic of 150 trips per day or more, shall have at least two street connections either with existing public streets, or with streets on an approved Subdivision Plan for which a performance guarantee has been filed and accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadway Design Manual
    Roadway Design Manual Adopted: November 3, 1993 Updated: August 2021 Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2901 W. Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009 MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Table of Contents Authorization Memorandum Summary of 2021 Roadway Design Manual Changes Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Transportation Planning Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis, Clearance and Mitigation Chapter 4 Design Procedure Chapter 5 Geometric Design Standards Chapter 6 Intersections Chapter 7 Access To Maricopa County Road System Chapter 8 Bicycle Facility Guidelines Chapter 9 Landscaping Chapter 10 Pavement Design Guide Summary of 2021 Roadway Design Manual Changes Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1.1 Purpose: 4th paragraph: Functional classifications shall determine RW requirements. 6th paragraph, 2nd bullet: Additional design exhibits may be required… 7th paragraph: added “... as described in the Project Development Manual (PDM), Section 2-2-4 Design Exceptions.” 8th paragraph: increased design exception decision from 3 weeks to 4 weeks. 9th paragraph: changed chairman to Engineering Division Manager 10th paragraph (NEW): Encouraging discussions with County staff prior to submitting a Design Exception. Minor updates and rewording. 1.2 Applicability Paragraph 3 - minor text change. Chapter 2 Transportation Planning 2.1 Functional Classifications 2nd paragraph: Added “and ultimate” and “Roadway” Planning “Level Traffic”. Roadway Planning Level Traffic Volumes as shown in Table 2.1. 2.1.1 Rural System: 2.1.1.1 Rural Parkway: added Divided roadway, wide median and Uncurbed. 2.1.1.3 Rural Minor Arterial: added Uncurbed. 2.1.1.4 Rural Major Collector: added, Undivided lanes and Uncurbed. 2.1.1.5 Rural Minor Collector: added Uncurbed. 2.1.1.6 Rural Local Road System (Residential): added Uncurbed.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Mixed Traffic Flow Behavior on Arterial Road
    Special Issue - 2018 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181 RTCEC - 2018 Conference Proceedings Study on Mixed Traffic Flow Behavior on Arterial Road Lilesh Gautama Jinendra Kumar Jainb a Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, b Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, MNIT Jaipur, Rajasthan, India MNIT Jaipur, Rajasthan, India Abstract- Arterials in metropolitan cities are expected to dynamics using macroscopic functions (such as a speed- provide flexibility to the high volume of traffic. A realistic density relationship). understanding of traffic flow behaviour for such essential urban roads is necessary for traffic operation planning and The relationships among traffic flow characteristics (flow management for ensuring the desired level of service. Metro (q), speed (v), and density (k)) are typically represented politan cities in India carry different types of vehicles with different static and dynamic characteristics with a majority of graphically and referred to as fundamental diagram. The two wheelers. In the present study, the traffic characterization fundamental diagram plays an effective role in traffic flow on a dynamic scale is carried out by considering two-wheeler theory and transportation engineering [3,4]. Among the and car as reference vehicles. Speed, flow, density relationships three pair-wise‟ relationships” (e.g., speed-density, flow- are developed. density, and speed-flow), the speed-density relationship appears to be fundamental. Some of the popular The present case study is an examination of the behaviour of macroscopic models are Green shield's Model, Greenberg’s mixed traffic flow speed and flow rate on an access controlled Model, Drake Model, Underwood Model, Pipe's generalized in six-lane divided Jaipur city in Rajasthan state of India.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Construction Standards Pavement Markings
    Design and Construction Standards Volume 8 Pavement Marking Posted to the City of Edmonton’s Website in April 2012 PAVEMENT MARKING Design and Construction Standards Index April 2012 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS VOLUME 8 PAVEMENT MARKING PAVEMENT MARKING GUIDELINES For a detailed list of contents refer to the front of the Guidelines SPECIFICATIONS Section Title Issued 02760 Plastic Pavement Markings April 2012 02761 Glass Beads April 2012 02762 Traffic Paint April 2012 02763 Water Borne Traffic Paint April 2012 02764 Crosswalk and Stopline Painting January 1996 02765 Lane Markings - Hot Applied Paint February 1997 02767 Prefabricated Roadmarking Material April 2012 02768 MMA Spray Plastic February 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 LONGITUDINAL MARKINGS 2 1.1 DIRECTIONAL DIVIDING LINES 2 1.2 LANE LINES 3 1.3 PAVEMENT EDGE LINES 4 1.4 RESERVED LANE PAVEMENT MARKINGS 4 1.5 GUIDE LINES 5 1.6 REVERSIBLE LANE PAVEMENT MARKINGS 6 1.7 TWO - WAY LEFT TURN LANES 6 FIGURE 1.1 LINE TYPES 7 FIGURE 1.2 LANE AND LEAD - IN LINES 8 FIGURE 1.3 PAVEMENT EDGE LINES AT YIELDS AND 9 MERGE ENTRANCES FIGURE 1.4 PAVEMENT EDGE LINES AT EXITS 10 FIGURE 1.5 PAVEMENT EDGE LINES AT ON - OFF 11 AUXILIARY LANES TABLE 1 RESERVED LANE PAVEMENT MARKINGS 12 FIGURE 1.6.0 ROAD MARKINGS FOR FULL TIME WITH - FLOW 13 AND CONTRA - FLOW RESERVED LANES FIGURE 1.6.1 ROAD MARKINGS FOR FULL TIME WITH - FLOW 14 RESERVED LANE FIGURE 1.6.2 ROAD MARKINGS FOR FULL TIME CONTRA-FLOW 15 RESERVED LANE FIGURE 1.6.3 ROAD MARKINGS FOR PART TIME WITH - FLOW 16 RESERVED LANE FIGURE
    [Show full text]
  • Arterial Road
    Glossary of Terms Arterial Road – a high capacity urban road. The primary function of an arterial Improvement Alternative – a transportation alternative that addresses the road is to deliver tra!c from collector and local roads to freeways. needs along the I-70 corridor. These alternatives include roadway improvements, wider shoulders, interchange con#guration improvements, Auxiliary Lane – an extra lane constructed between on and o" ramps interchange consolidations, etc. which allows drivers a safe way to merge into tra!c while also preventing bottlenecks caused by drivers attempting to enter or exit the freeway. Interchange Spacing – the distance between two grade-separated interchanges. Guidelines call for having them at least one mile apart within Bottleneck – section of road that experiences congestion at a speci#c point; urban areas. it can be caused by curves, reduced number of lanes, merging tra!c, or areas where the number of vehicles exceeds the capacity of the roadway. Kansas City Scout – a system used to monitor and respond to tra!c incidents and provide roadway information to motorists in the metropolitan area. This is primarily done with changeable message boards that provide real-time information to the motorists along major facilities. Congestion along I-70 at the Jackson Curve Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – a document required by NEPA for certain actions “signi#cantly a"ecting the quality of the human environment” that describes the positive and negative impacts of a proposed action. First Tier EIS – covered a large corridor area and addressed overall corridor strategies that was divided into subsequent Second Tier environmental studies. The limits of this First Tier EIS were approximately Changable Message Board 18 miles along I-70 just east of the Future of I-70 of Future Missouri/Kansas state line to east of Lane Balance – number of through lanes at an exit ramp is equal to the the I-470 interchange.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Arterial Road Optimization and Design Combined with HOV Carpooling Under Connected Vehicle Environment
    Hindawi Journal of Advanced Transportation Volume 2019, Article ID 6895239, 11 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6895239 Research Article Urban Arterial Road Optimization and Design Combined with HOV Carpooling under Connected Vehicle Environment Lina Mao ,1 Wenquan Li ,1 Pengsen Hu,1 Guiliang Zhou ,2,3 Huiting Zhang,2 and Xuanyu Zhou2 1School of Transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China 2Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Trac and Transportation Security, Huaiyin Institute of Technology, Huaian 223003, China 3School of Automotive and Trac Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China Correspondence should be addressed to Wenquan Li; [email protected] and Guiliang Zhou; [email protected] Received 3 February 2019; Accepted 16 August 2019; Published 19 December 2019 Academic Editor: Jose E. Naranjo Copyright © 2019 Lina Mao et al. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. e HOV carpooling lane oers a feasible approach to alleviate trac congestion. e connected vehicle environment is able to provide accurate trac data, which could optimize the design of HOV carpooling schemes. In this paper, signicant tidal trac ow phenomenon with severe trac congestion was identied on North Beijing road (bidirectional four‐lane) and South Huaihai road (bidirectional six‐lane) in Huai’an, Jiangsu Province. e historical trac data of the road segments were collected through the connected vehicle environment facilities. e purpose of this study is to investigate the eect of adopting two HOV schemes (regular HOV scheme and reversible HOV carpooling scheme) on the urban arterial road under connected vehicle environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Iii Roads and Streets Chapter Contents
    CHAPTER III ROADS AND STREETS TOC-III-3 of 3 CHAPTER III ROADS AND STREETS CHAPTER CONTENTS Page No.I...........................................................................................................GENERAL 1 A. Introduction............................................................................................................1 B. Definitions .............................................................................................................1 C. Authorization, Permits ...........................................................................................3 D. Abbreviations.........................................................................................................4 II. DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................................................4 A. Pre-Design Meeting ...............................................................................................4 B. Preliminary Considerations....................................................................................4 1. Factors to be Considered in Trafficway Design ........................................4 2. Survey Requirements.................................................................................5 3. Right-of-Way Requirements......................................................................6 4. General Development Plan ........................................................................7 5. Preliminary Studies....................................................................................7
    [Show full text]