DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Overpass Road Route Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Overpass Road Route Study Final Overpass Road Route Study From Old Pasco Road to Fort King Road Pasco County Prepared for: Pasco County Engineering Services Department Work Order Number C6463.00 Work Order Number C6463.20 March 2005 URSCorporation Southern 7650 West CourtneyCampbell Caauseway Tampa, Florida 33607-14662 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2 Project Description...............................................................................................1-2 1.3 Coordination with Other Projects ........................................................................ 1-2 2.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS........................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Existing Roadway Characteristics ....................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Typical Sections.................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .......................................................... 2-1 2.1.3 Right-of-Way ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.4 Drainage................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.5 Floodplains............................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.6 Soil Data................................................................................................2-2 2.1.7 Traffic ................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.7.1 2003 Traffic Counts ............................................................ 2-2 2.1.7.2 Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis .............................. 2-3 2.1.8 Existing Crash Data .............................................................................. 2-5 2.1.9 Intersections and Signalization ............................................................. 2-6 2.1.10 Railroad Crossings................................................................................ 2-6 2.1.11 Utilities.................................................................................................. 2-6 2.1.12 Pavement Conditions............................................................................ 2-6 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Environmental Characteristics............................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Land Use Data....................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1.1 Existing Land Use............................................................... 3-1 3.1.1.2 Future Land Use.................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Natural Environment and Wildlife........................................................ 3-3 3.1.2.1 Existing Vegetative Communities ...................................... 3-3 3.1.2.2 Potential for Protected Species ........................................... 3-4 3.1.2.3 Protected Species................................................................ 3-8 3.1.2.4 Impacts to Natural Areas .................................................... 3-8 3.1.3 Cultural Resources.............................................................................. 3-10 3.1.3.1 Results of the Background and Field Research ................ 3-10 3.1.3.2 Conclusions....................................................................... 3-11 3.2 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 3-12 3.2.1 Potentially Contaminated Site Survey ................................................ 3-12 3.2.2 Noise Analysis.................................................................................... 3-14 4.0 LONG-RANGE PLANNING.......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Land Use.............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Future Land Use.................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Future Developments............................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Traffic Projections............................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Traffic Forecasts................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Year 2030 Capacity Analysis................................................................ 4-3 W:\12003847_Overpass Road\Final Route Study\TOC.doc/03/31/05 i Final Overpass Road Route Study TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 4.2.3 Traffic Analysis Summary.................................................................... 4-3 5.0 SAFETY/DESIGN CRITERIA....................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Safety Improvements ........................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Design Criteria..................................................................................................... 5-2 6.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS......................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 No-Build Concept................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Build Alternatives................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2.1 Project Segments................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.2 Typical Section Evaluation................................................................... 6-2 6.2.2.1 Urban Typical Section ........................................................ 6-3 6.2.3 Proposed Alternatives........................................................................... 6-4 6.2.3.1 Alternative O-1................................................................... 6-4 6.2.3.2 Alternative O-2................................................................... 6-4 6.2.3.3 Alternative O-3................................................................... 6-4 6.3 Alternative Evaluation......................................................................................... 6-5 6.3.1 Potential Business Relocations ............................................................. 6-5 6.3.2 Potential Residential Relocations ......................................................... 6-5 6.3.2.1 Alternative O-1................................................................... 6-5 6.3.2.2 Alternative O-2................................................................... 6-5 6.3.2.3 Alternative O-3................................................................... 6-7 6.3.3 Natural Environment Effects ................................................................ 6-7 6.3.3.1 Alternative O-1................................................................... 6-7 6.3.2.2 Alternative O-2................................................................... 6-7 6.3.3.3 Alternative O-3................................................................... 6-7 6.3.4 Potential Contamination Sites............................................................... 6-7 6.4 Other Alternatives Considered............................................................................. 6-7 7.0 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS........................................................................................ 7-1 8.0 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS ................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Right-of-Way Costs............................................................................................. 8-1 8.1.1 Alternative O-1..................................................................................... 8-2 8.1.2 Alternative O-2..................................................................................... 8-2 8.1.3 Alternative O-3..................................................................................... 8-2 8.2 Estimated Construction Costs.............................................................................. 8-2 8.2.1 Estimated Wetland Mitigation Costs .................................................... 8-5 9.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................. 9-1 9.1 Public Meeting Summary .................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.1 Public Workshop Overview.................................................................. 9-1 9.1.2 Written Comments................................................................................ 9-2 9.1.3 Second Public Workshop Overview ..................................................... 9-2 9.1.4 Written Comments................................................................................ 9-3 W:\12003847_Overpass Road\Final Route Study\TOC.doc/03/31/05 ii Final Overpass Road Route Study TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page
Load more

Recommended publications
  • High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing
    High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing Project #: RES2016-05 Final Report Submitted to Tennessee Department of Transportation Principal Investigator (PI) Deo Chimba, PhD., P.E., PTOE. Tennessee State University Phone: 615-963-5430 Email: [email protected] Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) Janey Camp, PhD., P.E., GISP, CFM Vanderbilt University Phone: 615-322-6013 Email: [email protected] July 10, 2018 DISCLAIMER This research was funded through the State Research and Planning (SPR) Program by the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration under RES2016-05: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Tennessee and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Tennessee Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. ii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. RES2016-05 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date: March 2018 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Deo Chimba and Janey Camp TDOT PROJECT # RES2016-05 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering; Tennessee State University 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Mainline & Streetscape
    EXISTING MAINLINE & STREETSCAPE Features Village of Hillside Village of Westchester Village of Bellwood Village of Broadview Village of Maywood Village of Forest Park Village of Oak Park City of Chicago www.eisenhowerexpressway.com HILLSIDE I-290 MAINLINE I-290 Looking West North Wolf Road I-290 East of Mannheim Road - Retaining Walls Underpass at I-290 - Noise Wall I-290 I-290 Looking West IHB R.R, Crossing I-290 Westbound approaching I-88 Interchange EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES I-290 Looking West I-290 East side of Mannheim Road Interchange 2 www.eisenhowerexpressway.com CROSS ROADS OTHER FEATURES HILLSIDE Mannheim Road Mannheim Road Bridge, sidewalk and fence over I-290 Hillside Welcome Signage Mannheim Road Mannheim Road Bridge, sidewalk and fence over I-290 Hillside Marker at I-290 Mannheim Road Northbound - Hillside Markers at I-290 EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES 3 www.eisenhowerexpressway.com WESTCHESTER I-290 MAINLINE I-290 EB CD Road I-290 EB CD Road Entrance I-290 Looking East - Westchester Boulevard Overpass Noise walls along Wedgewood Drive EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES 4 www.eisenhowerexpressway.com CROSSROADS/FRONTAGE ROADS WESTCHESTER Bellwood Avenue Westchester Boulevard Bridge, sidewalk, wall and fencing over I-290 Looking North towards I-290 overpass Westchester Boulevard Mannheim Road Looking South Looking Southeast EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Ramp Design Procedures for Facilities Without Frontage Roads
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-05/0-4538-3 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date RECOMMENDED RAMP DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR September 2004 FACILITIES WITHOUT FRONTAGE ROADS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. J. Bonneson, K. Zimmerman, C. Messer, and M. Wooldridge Report 0-4538-3 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 0-4538 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2002 - August 2004 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Ramp Design Considerations for Facilities without Frontage Roads 16. Abstract Based on a recent change in Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) policy, frontage roads are not to be included along controlled-access highways unless a study indicates that the frontage road improves safety, improves operations, lowers overall facility costs, or provides essential access. Interchange design options that do not include frontage roads are to be considered for all new freeway construction. Ramps in non- frontage-road settings can be more challenging to design than those in frontage-road settings for several reasons. Adequate ramp length, appropriate horizontal and vertical curvature, and flaring to increase storage area at the crossroad intersection should all be used to design safe and efficient ramps for non-frontage-road settings.
    [Show full text]
  • High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Evaluation Ii
    HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES EVALUATION II Traffic Impact, Safety Assessment, and Public Acceptance Dr. Peter T. Martin, Associate Professor University of Utah Dhruvajyoti Lahon, Aleksandar Stevanovic, Research Assistants University of Ut ah Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Utah Traffic Lab 122 South Central Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 November 2004 Acknowledgements The authors thank the Utah Department of Transportation employees for the data they furnished and their assistance with this study. The authors particularly thank the Technical Advisory Committee members for their invaluable input throughout the study. The authors are also thankful to the respondents who took the time to participate in the public opinion survey. The valuable contribution of those who helped collect data and conduct public opinion surveys is greatly appreciated. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 1.1 Background................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Green Infrastructure Design for Transport Projects: a Road Map To
    GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS A ROAD MAP TO PROTECTING ASIA’S WILDLIFE BIODIVERSITY DECEMBER 2019 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS A ROAD MAP TO PROTECTING ASIA’S WILDLIFE BIODIVERSITY DECEMBER 2019 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2019 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 8632 4444; Fax +63 2 8636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2019. ISBN 978-92-9261-991-6 (print), 978-92-9261-992-3 (electronic) Publication Stock No. TCS189222 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS189222 The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Design and Construction Terms
    Glossary of Road Design and Construction Terms Nebraska ◆Department ◆of ◆Roads 3-C Planning The continuing, cooperative, comprehensive planning process in an urbanized area as required by federal law. (e.g. Lincoln, Omaha, or Sioux City Area Planning) 3R Project 3R stands for resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation. These projects are designed to extend the life of an existing highway surface and to enhance highway safety. These projects usually overlay the existing surface and replace guardrails. 3R projects are generally constructed within the existing highway right-of-way. Abutment An abutment is made from concrete on piling and supports the end of a bridge deck. Access Control The extent to which the state, by law, regulates where vehicles may enter or leave the highway. Action Plan A set of general guidelines and procedures developed by each state to assure that adequate consideration is given to possible social, economic and environmental effects of proposed highway projects. All states were directed to develop this plan by the Federal Highway Administration. Adapted Grasses Grasses which are native to the area in which they are planted, but have adjusted to the conditions of the environment. Adverse Environmental Effects Those conditions which cause temporary or permanent damage to the environment. Aesthetics In the highway context, the considerations of landscaping, land use and structures to insure that the proposed highway is pleasing to the eye of the viewer from the roadway and to the viewer looking at the roadway. Aggregate Stone and gravel of various sizes which compose the major portion of the surfacing material. The sand or pebbles added to cement in making concrete.
    [Show full text]
  • North/South Kuna Corridor (Railroad Crossing in the City of Kuna)
    North/South Kuna Corridor Railroad crossing in the City of Kuna on Swan Falls Road Priority 20 Background A Union Pacific Railroad line runs through Kuna just south of downtown and parallel to Indian Creek. An average of 20 trains travels this route each day, according to Kuna Crossing: Feasibility and Implementation Plan;1 the total number can be as high as 39 trains a day. Train speeds range between 40 mph and 70 mph, and average train length is 88 cars. Trains have as many as 150 cars, up to two miles in total length, depending on the size of individual cars. Delays of up to 3½ minutes are observed at rail crossings in Kuna when trains travel through. The average time that crossing gates are down at the railroad crossings is 2½ minutes. The City of Kuna has requested a railroad overpass to alleviate emergency response delays, traffic delays, and north-south connectivity issues. Ada County Highway District (ACHD) completed the Kuna Crossing study to determine the most feasible alternative, and Swan Falls Road was selected as the preferred location.2 The Corridor at a Glance • Swan Falls Road/Linder Road corridor mostly rural and suburban: o Farms and a few large-lot subdivisions adjacent to road from I-84 south to Hubbard Road o Subdivisions, schools, and businesses along road from Hubbard to downtown Kuna and a short distance south of Indian Creek and the railroad o Farms and open brush from King Road south to Snake River/Swan Falls Dam • Road is two lanes wide, owned and maintained by ACHD o Combined with Linder Road, it is the longest north-south route in the Treasure Valley .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4. Road and Structure Design
    Preparatory Survey for Metropolitan Arterial Road Improvement Project Final Report CHAPTER 4. ROAD AND STRUCTURE DESIGN 4.1 Road and Intersection Design 4.1.1 Design Criteria (1) Applicable Design Standards “Standard Specifications for geometric design of urban roads” published by the Directorate General of Highways of the Ministry of Public Works (MPW) in March 1992 is used as the main design standards for the road design. (2) Road Classification Roads in urban areas shall be classified into two types according to the kind of access control as follows. All roads in this project are defined as Type II. Type I : full access control Type II: partial access control or no access control Type II roads are classified into 4 classes according to their functional classification and design traffic volume. The design classes of Type II are shown in Table 4.1.1. Table 4.1.1 Design Classes of Type II Function Design traffic volume (PCU/day) Class Primary Arterial I Collector 10,000 or more I Less than 10,000 II Secondary Arterial 20,000 or more I Less than 20,000 II Collector 6,000 or more II Less than 6,000 III Local 500 or more III Less than 500 IV Source: Standard specifications for geometric design of urban roads, DGH Class I :The highest standard streets of 4 or more lanes to serve inter-city or intra-city, high speed, through traffic with partial access control Class II :High standard streets of 2 or more lanes to serve inter-city or intra-city, high speed, through traffic with/without partial access control Class III :Intermediate standard streets of 2 or more lanes to serve inter-district, moderate speed, through or access traffic without access control Class IV :Low standard streets of 1 travel way to serve access to the road side land lots (3) Design Speed The design speed of Type II shall be the value according to the class as follows.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometric Overpass Extraction from Vector Road Data and Dsms
    Geometric Overpass Extraction from Vector Road Data and DSMs Joshua Schpok Google Inc. [email protected] ABSTRACT We present a method to extract elevated road structures, typically overpassing other roads, transit lines, and water- courses. The technique uses a digital surface model (DSM) and roughly aligned vector road data and outputs geome- try approximating the shape and elevation of the elevated road deck. Our method is robust against noise in DSM el- evations and can recover elevated roads partially obscured by trees and other overpasses. We demonstrate our method parallelized over city-wide DSMs, and formulate a confidence metric ranking the fidelity of the reconstruction. Categories and Subject Descriptors I.4.8 [Image Processing and Computer Vision]: Scene Figure 1: Realism is lost without overpass struc- Analysis|Object Recognition; I.4.6 [Image Processing and tures, and it is less clear if these roads intersect. Computer Vision]: Segmentation|Edge and feature de- tection; I.4.7 [Image Processing and Computer Vi- sion]: Feature Measurement|Feature representation of collecting new overpass-specific data. Our method recon- structs overpass structures from 2-meter resolution DSMs 1. INTRODUCTION and aligned vector road paths. Overpass structures are an important part of realistically and accurately representing roadways. Without overpass 2. RELATED WORK structures in a terrain model, roadways in bare digital ter- Several methods have been published to extract overpasses rain models (DTMs) such as in Figure 1 appear unrealistic from geospatial data. Using LIDAR instruments mounted to and do not clearly convey the absence of an intersection be- terrestrial vehicles [7], overpass structures can be detected.
    [Show full text]
  • Pineda Causeway Overpass One-Of-A-Kind Bridge to Be Named in Honor of Major General John Cleland
    New Fishing Covid-19 Assistance Indian River Solid Waste Regulations Available Lagoon Updates Collection News BUILDING CONFIDENCE THROUGH TRANSPARENCY THIRD QUARTER | 2020 Pineda Causeway Overpass One-of-a-Kind Bridge to be named in honor of Major General John Cleland www.brevardfl.gov/BrevardDelivers COASTAL AMBULANCE MAKING Connections for Life Coastal Health Systems of Brevard is a private, not-for-profit, non-emergency, advanced and basic life support interfacility ambulance provider. Since 1988 our staff of trained professionals has safely transported hundreds of thousands of patients to and from various healthcare providers, playing a key role in Brevard County’s medical transportation system. Providing Comfortable, Compassionate Patient Centered Care 486 Gus Hip Blvd. | Rockledge, FL 32955 | (321) 633-7050 | www.coastalhealth.org Serving Brevard County Since 1988 On the Cover: The Pineda Overpass, a one-of-a- kind span located between U.S. 1 and Wickham Road, will be named in honor of the late Major General John Cleland during a ceremony planned for Sept. 26. It will become the only railroad overpass in Brevard County. St. Johns Heritage Parkway .................................. 4 Space Coast Area Transit Holds Disinfectant Training .................................18 Pineda Causeway Overpass ........................... 6 – 8 Emergency Management Update ......................19 Lagoon Loyal Launches ................................ 10 – 11 Solid Waste Collection News..............................20 Indian River Lagoon Project
    [Show full text]
  • Claremore Railroad Overpass Feasibility Study 2003
    CLAREMORECLAREMORE RAILROADRAILROAD OVERPASSOVERPASS FEASIBILITYFEASIBILITY STUDYSTUDY City of Claremore, OK C.H. Guernsey & Company Tulsa Office 4870 South Lewis, Suite 203 Tulsa, OK 74105 918.744.4335 www.chguernsey.com with: Bridgefarmer and Associates, Inc., and Traffic Engineering Consultants, Inc. June, 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The citizens of the City of Claremore and the surrounding area have been inconvenienced and at times had their personal safety jeopardized by at- grade railroad crossings for many years. The purpose of this feasibility study is to investigate and analyze potential sites for grade separated railroad crossings in Claremore between Country Club Drive and Blue Starr Drive. An initial investigation of five potential sites was conducted at the following locations; Blue Starr Drive, Will Rogers Blvd., Dupont Ave., Archer Drive, and Holiday Lane Extension. Conceptual designs for three alternatives were evaluated further and developed to a level of detail appropriate to convey the design intent, the alternatives were reviewed for possible environmental constraints, and cost estimates were prepared for each alternative. The cost of the Blue Starr Drive alternative is estimated to be $4,300,000, Archer Drive is estimated to be $9,900,000, and the Holiday Lane Extension alternative is estimated to be $8,200,000. Based upon the conceptual designs developed and the operational, cost, traffic and environmental information assembled for this study, the Blue Starr Drive option appears to be the most appropriate solution. This report recommends the Blue Starr Drive option as the technically preferred alternative. The estimated cost of this option is significantly less than the other alternatives, and the location near the central business district and the ability to span both the UP and the BNSF railroads offer significant safety benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 LIMITED ACCESS STATE NUMBERED HIGHWAYS As of December 31, 2019
    2020 LIMITED ACCESS STATE NUMBERED HIGHWAYS As of December 31, 2019 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF Transportation BUREAU OF POLICY AND PLANNING Office of Roadway Information Systems Roadway INVENTORY SECTION INTRODUCTION Each year, the Roadway Inventory Section within the Office of Roadway Information Systems produces this document entitled "Limited Access - State Numbered Highways," which lists all the limited access state highways in Connecticut. Limited access highways are defined as those that the Commissioner, with the advice and consent of the Governor and the Attorney General, designates as limited access highways to allow access only at highway intersections or designated points. This is provided by Section 13b-27 of the Connecticut General Statutes. This document is distributed within the Department of Transportation and the Division Office of the Federal Highway Administration for information and use. The primary purpose to produce this document is to provide a certified copy to the Office of the State Traffic Administration (OSTA). The OSTA utilizes this annual listing to comply with Section 14-298 of the Connecticut General Statutes. This statute, among other directives, requires the OSTA to publish annually a list of limited access highways. In compliance with this statute, each year the OSTA publishes the listing on the Department of Transportation’s website (http://www.ct.gov/dot/osta). The following is a complete listing of all state numbered limited access highways in Connecticut and includes copies of Connecticut General Statute Section 13b-27 (Limited Access Highways) and Section 14-298 (Office of the State Traffic Administration). It should be noted that only those highways having a State Route Number, State Road Number, Interstate Route Number or United States Route Number are listed.
    [Show full text]