DOCSLIB.ORG

Safety Evaluation of Priority Techniques for High-Occupancy Vehicles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TE 662 iort No. FHWA-RD-79-59 .A3 no. FHWA- RD- — \FETY EVALUATION OF PRIORITY TECHNIQUES FOR HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JUN l 8 19/a February 1979 LIBRARY t Final Report TF^l m*\. Document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 Prepared for FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ? Offices of Research & Development Traffic Systems Division Washington, D.C. 20590 FOREWORD This report reviews the safety problems associated with the operations of priority techniques for high occupancy vehicles (HOV) . The report should be of interest to transportation planners, highway designers, traffic engineers, and legislators who are considering the implementation of preferential treatments for carpools and buses. From the review of the operations of 22 HOV projects, the researchers developed a set of design and operation recommendations for both freeway and arterial applications. These recommendations include highway geometries and traffic control devices needed to provide safe traffic flows on the HOV facilities and the adjacent roadways. Although the installation of an HOV lane may introduce new safety problems due to geometric restrictions, it may have the potential for reducing accident rates if the overall traffic operations are improved. One copy of this report is being sent to each FHWA regional office, FHWA division, and State highway agency. The division and State copies are being sent directly to the division office. Charles F. Schg^y Director, Office of Research NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document. *^ Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report Nc 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-RD-79-59 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Dot© February 1979 OF PRIORITY TECHNIQUES FOR SAFETY EVALUATION 6. Performing Organization Code HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLES 8. Performing Orgoni zation Report No. 7. Author(s) Craig Miller, Robert Deuser, Joseph Wattleworth and Charles Wallace 9. Performing Organiiation Name and Address 10. Work Unit No (TRAIS) 31A1-714 Beiswenger, Hoch and Associates 11. Contract or Grant N( P. O. Box 600028 1190 N.E. 163rd Street DOT-FH-1 1-9182 North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 13. Type of Report ond Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final Report U. S. Department of Transportation October, 1976 and December, 1978 Federal Highway Administration Office of Research and Development 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C. 20590 15. Supplementory Notes Tne University of Florida Transportation Research Center served as a subcontractor to Beiswenger, Hoch and Associates and provided major contributions to this research. Data compilation and analysis was conducted by Dean Bowman, Paul Allen and Robert Lassiter. The FHWA contract manager for this research was Howard Bissell (HRS-33). 16. Abstroct Priority treatments for high-occupancy vehicles (HOV) can introduce new safety problems due to operational or geometric modifications. At the same time, they can reduce the accident potential by improving overall traffic operations. The research focused on five major areas of HOV projects: 1) an examination of the pertinent accident rates, 2) an analysis of causative factors influencing safety, 3) an identification of difficult maneuvers and potential safety problems, 4) the development of recommendations to improve safety, and 5) a review of the legal authority and legal liability issues faced by HOV projects. Twenty-two HOV projects on 16 highway facilities were visited by the research fsaml These projects encompass virtually every type of preferential treatment strategy currently deployed in the United s|ateCtK^~o±rt freeways and I arterial facilities. For each HOV project, data on safety, operations and geometries were (|oll^e^^r))d(;^Ty^eSOtF!he|e data and qualitative information can be used to describe the current experience relating tq the HOV safety issue. JUN18'I9^ LIBRARY 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement HOV, High Occupancy Vehicle Bus/Carpool Document is available to the public through the Preferential Treatment National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Management Transportation Systems Virginia 22161. Traffic Safety 19. Security Clossif. (of this report) 20. Security Clossif. (of this page) 21. No. of Poges 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 190 (8-72) Form DOT F 1700.7 Reproduction of completed page authorized PREFACE The authors are sincerely appreciative of the extensive support given to this research project by numerous individuals. Mr. Howard Bissell (HRS-33), serving as the FHWA contract manager, provided the overall direc- tion and review of this research, which was well appreciated. Special thanks are extended to Diane Brown, Carol Gittleman and Jacque Lewis for their patience and excellent skills in typing and editing the many interim and draft reports as well as this final report. Lastly, the authors wish to express their gratitude to the many individuals and agencies who assisted in this research by providing insights and data on their particular HOV project. The principal individuals were: Shirley Highway, Fairfax County, Virginia John Nesselrodt, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Charles Abrams, JHK and Associates, Consulting Engineers Sargent H. D. Sargent, Virginia State Police San Bernardino Freeway, Los Angeles, California Robert Tomlinson, James Bell, Robert Noad, Hank Harada, Andrew Zeilman and Harry Kishineff, California Department of Transportation, District 7 Lt. William Russell, California Highway Patrol Moanalua Freeway, Honolulu, Hawaii Eiichi Tanaka, Hawaii Department of Transportation Amar Sappal, Honolulu Transportation Services Captain Harold Bradbury, Honolulu Police Department Morey Rothenburg, JHK and Associates, Consulting Engineers Dick Kaku, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Consulting Engineers Santa Monica Freeway, Los Angeles, California Robert Tomlinson, Gary Bork, Robert Cashin, Andrew Zeilman, Harry Kishineff, and Ms. Len Bedolla , California Department of Transportation, District 7 Lt. William Russell, California Highway Patrol Route 101, Marin County, California Leonard Newman, Edward Graham and James McCrank, California Department of Transporta- tion, District 4 Lt. Richard O'Brien, California Highway Patrol 1-95, Miami, Florida Stan Cann and Marc Lopatin, Florida Department of Transportation Lt. Ray Grimes, Florida Highway Patrol 1-495, Approach to Lincoln Tunnel, Hudson County, New Jersey Leon Goodman, Walter Colvin and Carl Selinger, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Long Island Expressway, New York City, New York Joseph Richter, Samuel Schwartz, R. P. McCarthy and Carl Sukowski, New York City Department of Transportation Carson Van Horn, New Jersey Department of Transportation Leonard Scheidt, Andrews and Clark, Inc., Consulting Engineers Ramp Metering Bypass Ramps, Los Angeles, California Robert Tomlinson, Gary Bork, Robert Cashin, Andrew Zeilman and Harry Kishineff, California Department of Transportation, District 7 Lt. William Russell, California Highway Patrol 1-5, Seattle, Washington Rod Williams, Washington Department of Highways Ben Gilberts, Seattle Metro Transit Lt. M. A. Daviduke, Washington State Patrol San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza, Oakland, California Leonard Newman, Edward Graham and Scott MacCalden, California Department of Transporta- tion, District 4 Captain Jack Hughes, California Highway Patrol Washington, P. C. CBD Streets Tom Durkin, Anthony Rachal, Ken Epstien and David Hammers, Washington, D.C. Department of Transportation Captain Brian Traynor, Washington, D.C. Police Department U. S. 1/South Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida Harry Rose and Ellen Casebeer, Dade County Office of Transportation Administration Stan Cann and Marc Lopatin, Florida Department of Transportation Bob Pearsall and Red Wooten, Dade County Metropolitan Transit Authority Captain Heller and Sgt. Bogolub, Dade County Public Safety Deparment Lt. Neil Garfield, Miami Police Department Kalanianaole Highway, Honolulu, Hawaii Eiichi Tanaka, Hawaii Department of Transportation Richard Masuta, Ken Abe and Amar Sappal, Honolulu Transportation Services Captain Harold Bradbury, Honolulu Police Department Morey Rothenberg, JHK and Associates, Consulting Engineers Dick Kaku, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Consulting Engineers N. W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida Stan Cann and Marc Lopatin, Florida Department of Transportation Kevin McNaughton, Dade County Department of Traffic and Transportation Bob Pearsall and Red Wooten, Dade County Metropolitan Transit Authority Lt. Neil Garfield, Miami Police Department Captain Irving Heller, Dade County Public Safety Department Ponce de Leon/Fernandez Juncos Avenues, San Juan, Puerto Rico Edwin Cuebas, Haydee Anton and Elvin Riuz, Department of Transportation and Public Works IV TABLE OF
Recommended publications
  • Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

    Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

    PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS BEST PRACTICES Presented by: Doug Enderson, P.E., PTOE Cody Salo, P.E. 1 PRESENTER INTRODUCTIONS Doug Enderson, P.E., PTOE Cody Salo, P.E. Ped Crossing Experience: Ped Crossing Experience: • ADA Design-Build • RRFB • ADA Inventory & Retrofit • HAWK • RRFB • Accessible Signal Upgrades • HAWK • ADA Transition Plans • Equestrian Signal Design • Pedestrian Bridges • Accessible Signal Upgrades • Bulb-Outs • Bulb-Outs • ADA Training • Shared Use Paths • Shared Use Paths 2 THE AGENDA 1. Regulations & Policies 2. Pedestrian Crossing Elements 3. Crossing Treatments 4. Funding Options 5. Questions DISCLAIMER IMAGES, PROJECTS, and EXAMPLES have been sourced from many various locations/entities. WE ARE NOT CLAIMING THESE AS OUR OWN! 3 REGULATIONS & POLICY Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) ! National standards governing all traffic control devices ! Two revisions accepted in 2012 ! Ensures uniformity of TC devices 4 REGULATIONS & POLICY Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990 ! Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities (Title II). ! All publicly-owned intersections/facilities must comply with: " Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) (Title III) Entities may choose to comply with… " Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) 5 REGULATIONS & POLICY A public entity shall: Evaluate its current services, policies,and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the“ requirements“ …Identify physical obstacles in the public
  • Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration, New York City

    Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration, New York City

    HE tV 18.5 U M T A-M A-06-0049-84-4 a A37 DOT-TSC-U MTA-84-18 no. DOT- Department SC- U.S T of Transportation UM! A— 84-18 Urban Mass Transportation Administration Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration - New York City j ™nsportat;on JUW 4 198/ Final Report May 1984 UMTA Technical Assistance Program Office of Management Research and Transit Service UMTA/TSC Project Evaluation Series NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. - POT- Technical Report Documentation Page TS . 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No. 'A'* tJMTA-MA-06-0049-84-4 'Z'i-I £ 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date MADISON AVENUE DUAL EXCLUSIVE BUS LANE DEMONSTRATION. May 1984 NEW YORK CITY 6. Performing Organization Code DTS-64 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) J. Richard^ Kuzmyak : DOT-TSC-UMTA-84-18 9^ Performing Organization Name ond Address DEPARTMENT OF 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) COMSIS Corporation* transportation UM427/R4620 11501 Georgia Avenue, Suite 312 11. Controct or Grant No. DOT-TSC-1753 Wheaton, MD 20902 JUN 4 1987 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Urban Mass Transportation Admi ni strati pg LIBRARY August 1980 - May 1982 Office of Technical Assistance 14.
  • Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations

    Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations

    Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations June 2014 Published By Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) Web: www.lrrb.org MnDOT Office of Maintenance MnDOT Research Services Section MS 330, 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone: 651-366-3780 Fax: 651-366-3789 E-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgements The financial and logistical support provided by the Minnesota Local DATA COLLECTION Road Research Board, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the Minnesota Local Technical Assistance Program John Hourdos and Stephen Zitzow, University of Minnesota (LTAP) at the Center for Transportation Studies (CTS), University of PRODUCTION Minnesota for this work is greatly acknowledged. Research, Development, and Writing: Bryan Nemeth, Ross Tillman, The procedures presented in this report were developed based on infor- Jeremy Melquist, and Ashley Hudson, Bolton & Menk, Inc. mation from previously published research studies and reports and newly collected field data. Editing: Christine Anderson, CTS The authors would also like to thank the following individuals and orga- Graphic Design: Abbey Kleinert and Cadie Wright Adikhary, CTS, and nizations for their contributions to this document. David Breiter, Bolton & Menk, Inc. TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS Tony Winiecki , Scott County Pete Lemke, Hennepin County Kate Miner, Carver County Tim Plath, City of Eagan Mitch Rasmussen, Scott County Jason Pieper, Hennepin County Mitch Bartelt, MnDOT This material was developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc., in coordination with the Minne- Melissa Barnes, MnDOT sota Local Road Research Board for use by practitioners. Under no circumstances shall Tim Mitchell, MnDOT this guidebook be sold by third parties for profit.
  • The Effects of Roundabouts on Pedestrian Safety

    The Effects of Roundabouts on Pedestrian Safety

    The Effects of Roundabouts on Pedestrian Safety Prepared for The Southeastern Transportation Center University of Tennessee – Knoxville Knoxville, Tennessee Prepared by John R. Stone, Ph.D KoSok Chae & Sirisha Pillalamarri Department of Civil Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7908 Funded by The Southeastern Transportation Center With a Grant from The University Transportation Centers Program U.S. Department of Transportation August 2002 NCSU Preface This project examines the safety aspects of modern roundabouts with respect to pedestrians. Since the emergence of modern roundabouts in the US, safety has been recognized as a major concern for the effectiveness of roundabout performance. Pedestrians may be more prone to unsafe crossings at roundabouts due to new geometries, signalization (or lack of it), right of way assignments for pedestrians and vehicles, and visual and auditory cues. This project documents case study, statistical, and simulation analyses regarding pedestrian safety at roundabouts. The results suggest that roundabouts are safe with respect to pedestrians. This report includes the following topics: • literature review summarizing international and US experience with roundabouts and pedestrians, • alternative research approaches, • case study analysis of a candidate roundabout intersection in Raleigh, NC, • statistical analysis for pedestrian crashes at the case study intersection, and • simulation of the case study intersection vehicle and pedestrian movements with the original intersection and with the candidate roundabout. Copies of the report are available from the Southeastern Transportation Center, University of Tennessee – Knoxville. We hope that the results of this research will continue to prove valuable to the roundabout community. i NCSU Acknowledgements The faculty and students who worked on this project gratefully appreciate the financial support of a “seed grant” from the Southeastern Transportation Center at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville under the auspices of the USDOT University Centers Program.
  • PLANNING and DESIGNING for PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents

    PLANNING and DESIGNING for PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents

    PLANNING AND DESIGNING FOR PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Guidelines.............................................................................. 2 1.2 How the Pedestrian-Oriented Design Guidelines Can be Used........ 5 1.3 How to Use the Chapters and Who Should Use Them ...................... 6 2. Pedestrian Primer ...................................................................9 2.1 What is Pedestrian-Oriented Design? ................................................. 9 2.2 Link Between Land Use and Transportation Decisions .................. 10 2.3 Elements of a Walkable Environment ............................................... 11 2.4 What Kind of Street Do You Have and What Kind Do You Want?... 12 2.4.1 "Linear" and "Nodal" Structures .......................................................................... 12 2.4.2 Interconnected or Isolated Streets ....................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Street Rhythm......................................................................................................... 15 2.4.4 "Seams" and "Dividers" ........................................................................................ 16 3. Community Structure and Transportation Planning.........17 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 17 3.2 Land Use Types and Organization..................................................... 18
  • Won't Crosswalks Make It Safer to Cross Streets?

    Won't Crosswalks Make It Safer to Cross Streets?

    About Cross Walks: Won’t Crosswalks make it safer to cross streets? A crosswalk is that area of a roadway where pedestrians have the right of way. Crosswalks may be “marked” or “unmarked”. A “marked crosswalk” is any crosswalk which is delineated by painted markings placed on the pavement. All other crosswalk locations are therefore “unmarked”. Under the Arizona Law, crosswalks exist at all intersections, extending across the street from the corner curbs, or on other parts of the street designated as pedestrian crossing locations by the painted lines, unless signed otherwise. Arizona State law states the following in ARS 28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway. B. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of- way to all vehicles on the roadway. C. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. Q: Are marked crosswalks safer than unmarked crosswalks? A: The City of San Diego conducted a study on the issue in the 1970's, and the report conclusions are often cited as the first comprehensive study of crosswalk safety. Investigators in San Diego observed over 400 intersections during a five-year study period. The results demonstrated that during the five- year period, 177 pedestrians were hit in 400 marked crosswalks compared to 31 pedestrians hit in 400 corresponding unmarked crosswalks.
  • On-Street Pedestrian Surveys of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

    On-Street Pedestrian Surveys of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

    Fitzpatrick, Ullman, Trout 1 On-Street Pedestrian Surveys of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Kay Fitzpatrick Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute, 3135 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-3135 phone: 979/845-7321, fax: 979/845-6481 email: [email protected] Brooke Ullman Associate Transportation Researcher Texas Transportation Institute, 3135 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-3135 phone: 979/ 862-6636, fax: 845-6001 email: [email protected] and Nada Trout Assistant Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute, 3135 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-3135 phone: 979/845-5690, fax: 979/ 845-6006 email: [email protected] Prepared For Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Words: 5199 + 3*250 (tables) + 6*250 (figures) = 7449 words November 2003 TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal. Fitzpatrick, Ullman, Trout 2 ABSTRACT On-street pedestrian surveys were used to obtain the perspectives of pedestrians with regards to their experiences and needs at pedestrian crossing locations. Seven sites with five different treatments were ultimately selected for study. These treatments consisted of two marked crosswalk treatments, an in-roadway warning light treatment, a Hawk treatment, two Split Midblock Signal treatments, and a countdown pedestrian signal treatment at a signalized intersection. The survey was administered at the selected locations where pedestrians could be approached after they crossed at the study site. It was found through this study that as the control at a pedestrian crossing increases through the addition of signs, flashing lights, and/or signals, the pedestrians’ perception of safety also increases. Based on the responses of the survey participants, the factors that have the greatest influence on the pedestrian responses were: traffic volume, turning traffic, presence of disabled pedestrians, traffic speed, and the availability of an alternate crossing.
  • Concrete Pavementspavements N a a T T I I O O N N a a L L

    Concrete Pavementspavements N a a T T I I O O N N a a L L

    N N a a t t i i o o n n a a Technical Services l l , R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o Vail, Colorado u u t t May 22-25, 2005 Steve Waalkes, P.E. C C o o n n f f e e r r e e Managing Director n n c American Concrete Pavement Association c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 TRB National Roundabouts Conference D D Concrete Roundabouts R R Concrete Roundabouts A A F F T T N N a a Flexible Uses liquid asphalt as binder Pro: usually lower cost Con: requires frequent maintenance & rehabilitation t t i i Asphalt o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C Terminology Terminology o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Rigid Uses cement as binder Pro: longer lasting Con: higher cost Concrete F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o s n n c f f e i e r r t e e n n e y c c t e h e t 2 2 e 0 0 f s 0 0 aterials onstructability a e conomics 5 erformance (future maintenance) 5 Why Concrete Roundabouts? Why Concrete Roundabouts? D D E C P M R R • • • • •S •A A A F F T T Realize there is a choice N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 What performance characteristics of Where do we typically use concrete pavement? (situations, traffic conditions, applications, etc.) concrete pavement make it the best choice for roundabouts? 5 5 Why Concrete Roundabouts? Why Concrete Roundabouts? D D R R 1.
  • Role of High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lanes Highway Construction Management In

    Role of High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lanes Highway Construction Management In

    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1280 131 Role of High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lanes In• Highway Construction Management ALLAN E. PINT, CHARLEEN A. ZIMMER, AND FRANCIS E. LOETTERLE The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is con­ 3. How has construction affected use of the HOV lane? structing 1-394 along the portion of US-12 that extends from 4. What was the role of the HOV lane in traffic management do\\lntown MinneapolL5 to the suburb of Wayzata. When com­ during construction? pleted, I-394 will have high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes. 5. How has the HOV lane affected the highway construction Mn/DOT builr a temporary HOV lane along US-12 before con­ structing 1-394 to introduce th , HOV lane concept to commuters project? and to improve capacity during construction. Mn/DOT and the FHW A have been conducting an evaluation of this temporary HOV lane. Phase I evaluated operation in an arterial highway FUTURE 1-394 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM environment before construction. Phase II evaluated operation and use of the HOV lane during highway construction. Five key When completed, 1-394 will have two mixed traffic lanes in issues were addressed in the Phase II evaluation: (a) what can each direction and two lanes for high-occupancy vehicles (3 be learned about the design and operation of HOV lanes, (b) mi of separated reversible lanes and 8 mi of concurrent flow who uses HOV lanes and what factors cause people to choose diamond lanes). I-394 is being built along the alignment of carpooling or the bus over driving alone, (c) how has con truction existing US-12, from downtown Minneapolis to the third-ring affected use of the HOV lane, (d) what was the role of the HOV lane in construction traffic management, and (e) how has the suburban municipality of Wayzata, 11 mi to the west.
  • PBOT Traffic Design Manual Volume 1

    PBOT Traffic Design Manual Volume 1

    Traffic Design Manual Volume 1: Permanent Traffic Control and Design CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON January 2020 Updated June 2021 0 of 135 Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 1 Permanent Traffic Control Signs ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Regulatory Signs ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Warning Signs .................................................................................................................................. 17 1.3 Guide Signs....................................................................................................................................... 21 2 Pavement Markings ................................................................................................................................. 31 2.1 Centerlines ........................................................................................................................................ 31 2.2 Lane Widths ...................................................................................................................................... 33 2.3 Turn
  • Mn Mutcd-2B 2014

    Mn Mutcd-2B 2014

    Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 2B. Regulatory Signs Page Section 2B.1 Application of Regulatory Signs . 2B-1 2B.2 Design of Regulatory Signs . 2B-1 2B.3 Size of Regulatory Signs . 2B-1 2B.4 Right-of-Way at Intersections . 2B-7 2B.5 STOP Sign (R1-1) and ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P) . 2B-8 2B.6 STOP Sign Applications . 2B-9 2B.7 Multi-Way Stop Applications . 2B-9 2B.8 YIELD Sign (R1-2) . 2B-10 2B.9 YIELD Sign Applications . 2B-10 2B.10 STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement . 2B-10 2B.11 Stop Here For Pedestrian Signs (R1-5 Series) . 2B-11 2B.12 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6a, R1-6b,R1-9a, and R1-9b) . 2B-12 6 . v e R 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1) . 2B-14 N 2B.13.1 Bridge Speed Limit Sign (R2-X5) . 2B-16 M 6 . v e 2B.14 Truck Speed Limit Sign (R2-2P) . 2B-16 R N 2B.15 Night Speed Limit Sign (R2-3P) . 2B-16 M 2B.16 Minimum Speed Limit Sign (R2-4P) . 2B-17 2B.16.1 This section has been eliminated 3 . 2B.16.2 End Work Speed Zone Sign (R2-6c) . 2B-17 v e R N 2B.17 Higher Fines Signs and Plaque (R2-6P, R2-10, and R2-11) . 2B-17 M 2B.18 Movement Prohibition Signs (R3-1 through R3-4, R3-18, and R3-27) . 2B-18 2B.19 Intersection Lane Control Signs (R3-5 through R3-8) .
  • 2006 Highway Sufficiency Ratings

    2006 Highway Sufficiency Ratings

    4 Pavement Data 1 Report New York State Department of Transportation 20 CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................ i Location / Identification ........................................................... ii Physical Characteristics ......................................................... iii Traffic Information .................................................................. v Condition Information ............................................................. v Other Data .............................................................................. ix Glossary ................................................................................. xi Region/County Abbreviations ................................................. xii New York State Parkways by Jurisdiction .............................. xiii Notes for the New York State Thruway .................................. xiv Pavement Data Report ........................................................... 1 This report was prepared by Pavement Data Services, New York State Department of Transportation. Inquiries or requests for information should be directed to: Pavement Data Services, NYSDOT, 50 Wolf Road POD 42, Albany, New York 12232 (518-457-1965). A pdf file of this report is available for download from the Pavement Management page of the Department’s website at www.nysdot.gov. Hard copies of the report are no longer created. 2014 Pavement Data Report for New York State Highways INTRODUCTION The New York State Department of