DOCSLIB.ORG

Interchange Modification Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interchange Modification Report INTERSTATE 75 AND STATE ROAD 884 (COLONIAL BOULEVARD) INTERCHANGE LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION REPORT Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation – District One February 2015 Interchange Modification Report Interstate 75 and State Road 884 (Colonial Boulevard), Lee County, Florida I, Akram M. Hussein, Florida P.E. Number 58069, have prepared or reviewed/supervised the traffic analysis contained in this study. The study has been prepared in accordance and following guidelines and methodologies consistent with FHWA, FDOT and Lee County policies and technical standards. Based on traffic count information, general data sources, and other pertinent information, I certify that this traffic analysis has been prepared using current and acceptable traffic engineering and transportation planning practices and procedures. ______________________________ Akram M. Hussein, P.E. #58069 ______________________________ Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1-1 SECTION 2 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................. 2-1 SECTION 3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 3-1 SECTION 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 4-1 4.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 4-5 4.2 TRAFFIC FACTORS .......................................................................................................... 4-7 4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING TRAFFIC ..................................................................... 4-9 4.4 EXISTING YEAR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ................................................................. 4-9 4.5 CRASH ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 4-13 SECTION 5 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES ......................................... 5-1 5.1 ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE ..................................................................................... 5-2 5.2 ANALYSIS YEARS ........................................................................................................... 5-2 SECTION 6 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION ................................... 6-1 6.1 MODEL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 MODEL CALIBRATION ................................................................................................... 6-6 SECTION 7 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING (2012) CONDITIONS ................................... 7-1 7.1 EXISTING YEAR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .................................................................... 7-1 7.2 EXISTING YEAR OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ............................................................. 7-1 7.2.1 Existing Year Freeway and Ramp Merge/Diverge Analysis ............................... 7-1 7.2.2 Existing Year Ramp Terminal and Cross-Street Intersection Analysis ............... 7-2 SECTION 8 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 8-1 SECTION 9 FUTURE CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 9-1 SECTION 10 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING .................................................... 10-1 10.1 DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE TRAFFIC ...................................................................... 10-1 SECTION 11 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 11-1 11.1 DESIGN YEAR (2038) ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 11-1 11.1.1 Design Year Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 11-1 11.1.2 Design Year No-Build Operational Analysis ..................................................... 11-1 11.1.3 Design Year Build Operational Analysis ........................................................... 11-3 11.2 OPENING YEAR (2018) ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 11-32 11.2.1 Opening Year Physical Conditions .................................................................. 11-32 11.2.2 Opening Year Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 11-32 11.2.3 Opening Year No-Build Operational Analysis ................................................ 11-32 11.2.4 Opening Year Build Operational Analysis ....................................................... 11-34 11.3 INTERIM YEAR (2028) ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 11-38 11.3.1 Interim Year 2028 Physical Conditions ........................................................... 11-38 11.3.2 Interim Year 2028 Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 11-38 11.3.3 Interim Year No-Build Operational Analysis .................................................. 11-39 11.3.4 Interim Year Build Operational Analysis ......................................................... 11-41 SECTION 12 IMPROVEMENT COSTS AND FUNDING COMMITMENTS ............. 12-1 I-75 and Colonial Boulevard (SR 884) Interchange Interchange Modification Report i SECTION 13 ENVIRONMENT CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. 13-1 SECTION 14 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 14-1 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1-1 Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) Configuration .................................................. 1-3 Figure 1-2 Superstreet Intersection (SS) Configuration .............................................................. 1-3 Figure 2-1 Interchange Project Location Map ............................................................................ 2-1 Figure 4-1 Area of Influence and Interchanges ........................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2 Existing Year 2012 AADT ...................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-3 Existing Year 2012 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-4 Existing Intersection Lane Geometry ...................................................................... 4-12 Figure 6-1 VISSIM Desired Speed Distribution on Colonial Boulevard .................................... 6-8 Figure 6-2 Intersection Routing Decision ................................................................................... 6-9 Figure 6-3 Combined Network Routing Decision .................................................................... 6-10 Figure 10-1 Future No-Build and Build AADT .......................................................................... 10-3 Figure 10-2 Opening Year 2018 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................... 10-4 Figure 10-3 Interim Year 2028 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 10-5 Figure 10-4 Design Year 2038 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................... 10-6 Figure 11-1 Design Year 2038 Lane Geometry for Build Alternative 1: Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) at I-75 and Colonial Boulevard ............................................... 11-8 Figure 11-2 Design Year 2038 Lane Geometry for Build Alternative 2: Enhanced Eastbound to Northbound Loop at I-75 and Colonial Boulevard ................................................ 11-13 Figure 11-3 Design Year 2038 Lane Geometry for Build Alternative 3: Tight Urban Diamond Interchange (TUDI) at I-75 and Colonial Boulevard ............................................ 11-16 Figure 11-4 Design Year 2038 Lane Geometry for Build Alternative 4: Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) at I-75 and Colonial Boulevard ............................................... 11-20 Figure 11-5 Design Year 2038 Lane Geometry for Build Alternative 4 Improved: Diverging Diamond Interchange (CFI-DDI-SS) at I-75 and Colonial Boulevard .................. 11-26 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1-1 Year 2038 Alternative Screening Matrix .................................................................. 1-7 Table 4-1 Approved K, D, T Factors ......................................................................................... 4-8 Table 6-1 Maximum Weaving Distance Calculation along I-75 ............................................... 6-4 Table 6-2 Checklist of Calibration Criteria per FHWA Toolbox Volume III – I-75 AM ................................................................................................................ 6-14 Table 6-3 Checklist of Calibration Criteria per FHWA Toolbox Volume III – I-75 PM ................................................................................................................ 6-15 Table 6-4 Checklist of Calibration Criteria per FHWA Toolbox Volume III – Colonial Boulevard AM ....................................................................................... 6-16 Table 6-5 Checklist of Calibration Criteria per FHWA Toolbox Volume III – Colonial Boulevard PM ........................................................................................ 6-17 Table 7-1 Existing Year (2012) AM/PM HCS Freeway and Ramp Merge/Diverge Area Summary ..................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 10 Grade Separations and Interchanges
    2005 Grade Separations and Interchanges CHAPTER 10 GRADE SEPARATIONS AND INTERCHANGES 10.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL TYPES OF INTERCHANGES The ability to accommodate high volumes of traffic safely and efficiently through intersections depends largely on the arrangement that is provided for handling intersecting traffic. The greatest efficiency, safety, and capacity, and least amount of air pollution are attained when the intersecting through traffic lanes are grade separated. An interchange is a system of interconnecting roadways in conjunction with one or more grade separations that provide for the movement of traffic between two or more roadways or highways on different levels. Interchange design is the most specialized and highly developed form of intersection design. The designer should be thoroughly familiar with the material in Chapter 9 before starting the design of an interchange. Relevant portions of the following material covered in Chapter 9 also apply to interchange design: • general factors affecting design • basic data required • principles of channelization • design procedure • design standards Material previously covered is not repeated. The discussion which follows covers modifications in the above-mentioned material and additional material pertaining exclusively to interchanges. The economic effect on abutting properties resulting from the design of an intersection at-grade is usually confined to the area in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. An interchange or series of interchanges on a freeway or expressway through a community may affect large contiguous areas or even the entire community. For this reason, consideration should be given to an active public process to encourage context sensitive solutions. Interchanges must be located and designed to provide the most desirable overall plan of access, traffic service, and community development.
    [Show full text]
  • SIMULATION of DIFFERENT INTERSECTION DESIGN for IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW with FACTORS CONSIDERING LOCATION, POPULATION and DRIVER EXPECTANCY Sourabh Kumar Singh Dr
    Science, Technology and Development ISSN : 0950-0707 SIMULATION OF DIFFERENT INTERSECTION DESIGN FOR IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW WITH FACTORS CONSIDERING LOCATION, POPULATION AND DRIVER EXPECTANCY Sourabh Kumar Singh Dr. Anil kunte Associate Professor, Research Scholar, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Department of Civil Department of Civil Engineering Engineering, Shri JJT Engineering, Shri JJT Noida International University University University Dr. Paritosh Srivastava Abstract: In today’s economic growth the vehicular traffic is increasing day by day, which leads to failure of intersections before their time period. To increase the efficiency of these failed intersections the engineers added lanes to the existing major and minor roads, but this method do not give results which it used to deliver in the past, hence other methods were adopted. So to increase the efficiency and fulfil the criteria for successful intersection ,to cape with it several intersection are designed which are unconventional in nature like jug handle, bow tie, continuous flow intersection and median u turn which are very effective in increasing green time on highway and minor roads. The software used in this study is Auto- cad for planning and drawing purpose which can be used in sim-traffic software which will be used for simulation purpose of the traffic flow on different designs of intersections. The factors which are considered in this study are -location of town centre, population of the zone and driver expectancy. The final conclusion of this study is that continuous flow intersection provides the best results when the traffic is increased. The construction cost is least in median u turn and giving maximum result than all other intersections.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDELINES for TIMING and COORDINATING DIAMOND November 2000 INTERCHANGES with ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. TX-00/4913-2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date GUIDELINES FOR TIMING AND COORDINATING DIAMOND November 2000 INTERCHANGES WITH ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Nadeem A. Chaudhary and Chi-Leung Chu Report 4913-2 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. 7-4913 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research: Construction Division September 1998 – August 2000 Research and Technology Transfer Section 14. Sponsoring Agency Code P. O. Box 5080 Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation. Research Project Title: Operational Strategies for Arterial Congestion at Interchanges 16. Abstract This report contains guidelines for timing diamond interchanges and for coordinating diamond interchanges with closely spaced adjacent signals on the arterial. Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) researchers developed these guidelines during a two-year project funded by the Texas Department of Transportation. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Diamond Interchanges, Capacity Analysis, Traffic No restrictions. This document is available to the Signal Coordination, Traffic Congestion, Signalized public through NTIS: Arterials National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 50 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized GUIDELINES FOR TIMING AND COORDINATING DIAMOND INTERCHANGES WITH ADJACENT TRAFFIC SIGNALS by Nadeem A.
    [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]
  • Median U-Turn Intersections Cost
    System Modification Innovative Intersections MEDIAN U-TURN INTERSECTIONS COST TIME MODERATE STATE MINOR STREET MINOR STREET O REGI NAL IMPACT LOCAL RID OR OR MAJOR STREET MAJOR STREET C PT HO HURDES MAJOR STREET MOVEMENTS MINOR STREET MOVEMENTS CITSTATE RIHT-O-A PUIC ACCEPTANCE More Information: tti.tamu.edu/policy/how-to-fix-congestion SUCCESS STORIES Description How Will This Help? Plano, Texas. In 2011, the City Median U-turn intersections (also called • Costs less and is faster to of Plano installed the state’s only a thruturn or Michigan left) guide all traf- deploy than other innovative median U-turn intersection at fic, except left-turning vehicles, through intersection designs. Legacy Drive and Preston Road. the main intersection. Left-turning vehi- • Simplifies the traffic signal cles turn through U-turn openings in the The intersection timings for the intersection and dramatically improved median beyond the main intersection. whole corridor by eliminating the congestion by reducing Eliminating the left turn at the main need for a left-turn arrow. intersection wait intersection simplifies signal timings and times by 65%. provides more green time and less con- • Increases safety at the gestion to the major direction. intersection by eliminating traffic However, the design conflicts caused by left turns. was abandoned in 2014 Median U-turn intersections are similar due to a lack of public to superstreets but differ in that medi- Implementation Issues understanding and an U-turns allow minor street traffic to This intersection design can require acceptance. pass straight through the intersection. additional right-of-way to accommodate Superstreet intersections require all the U-turn turning radius in the median.
    [Show full text]
  • In Safe Hands How the Fia Is Enlisting Support for Road Safety at the Highest Levels
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE FIA: Q1 2016 ISSUE #14 HEAD FIRST RACING TO EXTREMES How racing driver head From icy wastes to baking protection could be deserts, AUTO examines how revolutionised thanks to motor sport conquers all pioneering FIA research P22 climates and conditions P54 THE HARD WAY WINNING WAYS Double FIA World Touring Car Formula One legend Sir Jackie champion José Maria Lopez on Stewart reveals his secrets for his long road to glory and the continued success on and off challenges ahead P36 the race track P66 P32 IN SAFE HANDS HOW THE FIA IS ENLISTING SUPPORT FOR ROAD SAFETY AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS ISSUE #14 THE FIA The Fédération Internationale ALLIED FOR SAFETY de l’Automobile is the governing body of world motor sport and the federation of the world’s One of the keys to bringing the fight leading motoring organisations. Founded in 1904, it brings for road safety to global attention is INTERNATIONAL together 236 national motoring JOURNAL OF THE FIA and sporting organisations from enlisting support at the highest levels. over 135 countries, representing Editorial Board: millions of motorists worldwide. In this regard, I recently had the opportunity In motor sport, it administers JEAN TODT, OLIVIER FISCH the rules and regulations for all to engage with some of the world’s most GERARD SAILLANT, international four-wheel sport, influential decision-makers, making them SAUL BILLINGSLEY including the FIA Formula One Editor-in-chief: LUCA COLAJANNI World Championship and FIA aware of the pressing need to tackle the World Rally Championship. Executive Editor: MARC CUTLER global road safety pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • SPOT Pre-6 Division 6
    SPOT Online Specific Improvement Local comments (from Design notes from Coordination SpotID Project Category ROUTE Cross Street To Street First MPO/RPO First Division TTS Notes Description provided by Requestor Analysis Team Recommendation Design Comments Response to Requestor Submitter Type SPOT online) calls with MPOs/RPOs/DOT US 74/76 BUS @ SR 1005 ‐ Construct a US 76 BUS, US 74 BUS, NC SR 1005 (Peacock 10 ‐ Improve Will analyze and report H184044 Cape Fear RPO Regional Impact Cape Fear RPO Division 6 ‐19000 roundabout on US 74/64 BUS/NC 130 As requested 1 Lane Roundabout 130 (Chadbourn Hwy) Rd) Intersection travel time savings (Chadbourn Hwy) at SR 1005 (Peacock Hwy). What is different this time? H170193 analyzed from 701 to Pireway. This request is from Pireway to 5th Street (NC 410). They also US 701 BYP ‐ Widen US 701 Bypass to a 4‐lane US 701 Superstreet for intersections of US requested H184206 that goes to Joe Brown Hwy. R‐5952 only for Directional Cross‐Over Superstreet at Pireway and 5th SR 1305 4 ‐ Upgrade Arterial superstreet from R‐5952 at SR 1503 (Complex Will analyze and report H184205 Cape Fear RPO Regional Impact US 701 BYP BUS/NC 410 Cape Fear RPO Division 6 68000 701 with 5th and Pireway (R‐5952 Complex and 701? Have model Have counts. Expand Complex St OD. with 1‐Lane Bulb Outs Street. Discuss further with (Complex St) to Superstreet St) to US 701 Business/NC 410 (E 5th St) in travel time savings (E 5th St) was just for 701 and Complex) Take H170193 model, extend model to include NC 410 Bus (5th Street).
    [Show full text]
  • Intersection and Interchange Geometrics PROJECT CASE STUDY
    Intersection and Interchange Geometrics PROJECT CASE STUDY For North Carolina, Implementation of Superstreets Means Travel Time Improvement, Reduction in Collisions, and Fewer Injuries and Fatalities Increasing traffic delays at intersections are a common problem faced by Departments of Transportation (DOTs) across the nation. North Carolina is making strides in tackling delays in suburban, high-volume arterial areas through the implementation of “superstreets,” also known as restricted crossing U-turns (RCUTs). These arterial surface roads can move high-traffic volumes with less delay by re-routing left-hand turns and crossing maneuvers coming from the side streets. Instead, at an RCUT, drivers make a right turn onto the major highway and then make a U-turn through a median. While this may seem time-consuming, studies show it can result in significant time savings. At signalized intersections, the overall time savings efficiencies are due to the ability of the major highway to have a greater percentage of green time to allow the heavy through volumes of traffic to proceed. At unsignalized intersections, traffic from the minor street may actually save time since drivers are not stuck waiting for the long traffic gaps needed to go across the bust thoroughfare or make the left-hand turn. North Carolina has deployed the superstreet concept at intersections across the state, including a corridor of signalized intersections along U.S. Route 17 near Wilmington. BENEFITS OF SUPERSTREETS Safety Travel Time Economic Development Fewer conflict
    [Show full text]
  • Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)
    What Why How CFI - SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Intersection Control Evaluation A performance-based approach to objectively screen alternatives by focusing on the safety related benefits of each. Traditional Intersections SR 11 @ SR 124, Jackson County, GA Johnson Rd @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Dogwood Trail @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Roundabout SR 138 @ Hembree Rd, Fulton County, GA Roundabout • 215+ Existing • 50+ On System/or GDOT $$ • 165+ Off System • 20+ Currently Under Construction • 155+ Planned/programmed RBTs 6 Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) I-95 @ SR 21, Port Wentworth, Chatham County, GA Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) • 6 Existing • 2 Design/under construction • 10+ Under consideration Total: 18+ Continuous Green T SR 120 @ John Ward Rd SW, Cobb County, GA Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) SR 400 @ Lenox Rd NE, Fulton County, GA Reduced Conflict U-Turn (RCUT) SR 20 @ Nail Rd, Henry County, GA Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Unsignalized Signalized • Minor Stop • Signal • All-Way Stop • Median U-Turn • Mini Roundabout • RCUT • Single Lane Roundabout • Displaced Left Turn (CFI) • Multilane Roundabout • Continuous Green-T • RCUT • Jughandle • RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn • Diamond Interchange (signal) • High-T (unsignalized) • Quadrant Roadway • Offset-T Intersections • Diverging Diamond • Diamond Interchange (Stop) • Single Point Interchange • Diamond Interchange (RAB) • Turn Lane Improvements • Turn Lane Improvements • Other Intersection Control Evaluation Deliver a transportation
    [Show full text]
  • Diverging Diamond Interchange Agenda
    Diverging Diamond Interchange Agenda . DDI Design . DDI vs. SPUI . SPUI Lessons Learned . DDI Retrofit Design . DDI – I-15/Pioneer Crossing What is a DDI? A DDI is a concept that requires drivers to briefly cross to the left, or opposite side of the road at carefully designed crossover intersections, to eliminate a signal phase. Primary Goal: Better accommodate left turns and eliminate a phase in the signal cycle. What is a DDI? Advantages Disadvantages . Reduces Signal Phases; . Lower Speed Through Improves Operations Interchange . Reduces Conflict Points; . Requires Longer Footprint Improves Safety Between Intersections . Reduces Bridge Area; . Not Practical with a One-way Lowers Costs Frontage Road DDI Design Signal Phasing Alternating Progression Left Turn Progression DDI Design Safety . About 50% Fewer Points of Conflict . Conflict Comes From Only One Direction . Lower Speed Conflicts (less severity, fewer accidents) DDI Design . When is a DDI a possible solution? • Heavily Congested Locations • Intersections Spacing of Approximately 500 Feet or More • Skewed Intersections Work Well Interchange Design DDI Intersection DDI Facts: First 5 Constructed in 3 States DDI Facts: Currently 34 Locations in 14 States SPUI Facts: First 3 Constructed in 3 States SPUI Facts: Currently over 250 in 35 States SPUI’s in Arizona: First Constructed . University Dr/Hohokam Expwy (SR-143) . I-10/7th Street and 7th Avenue . SR-51 (Squaw Peak Parkway) SPUI’s in Arizona: ADOT Comments . Early Designs Work Well . Tight Footprint is Most Effective . Right Turns can be an Issue . Pedestrian Crossings need more research . Left Turn Design is Critical University/Hohokam, Phoenix, AZ DDI Retrofit Design - St George, Utah DDI Retrofit Design - St George, Utah DDI Retrofit Design - SR 210/Baseline DDI Retrofit Design - SR 210/Baseline DDI Retrofit Design - Graves Mill Rd/US 501 DDI Retrofit Design - Graves Mill Rd/US 501 CPHX Examples I-10/University Drive CPHX Examples SR 101/Thunderbird Selection of DDI - I-15/Pioneer Crossing .
    [Show full text]
  • Upgrade U.S. 30 Whitley County
    Upgrade U.S. 30 Whitley County A Concept for a U.S. 30 Freeway across Whitley County, Indiana Whitley County U.S. 30 Planning Committee January 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Public Participation ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 The Concept for U.S. 30 ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Improvement Examples .............................................................................................................................................. 37 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................................................ 41 WHITLEY COUNTY U.S. 30 PLANNING COMMITTEE Ryan Daniel, Mayor Mark Hisey, Vice President of Facilities Design City of Columbia City Parkview Health George Schrumpf, Commissioner Jon Myers,
    [Show full text]
  • GRE-35-4.40 Superstreets
    GRE-35-4.40 Superstreets Keith Smith, P.E. District 8 Environmental Engineer Project Manager John R. Kasich, Jerry Wray, Ohio Governor ODOT Director Project Background • 2004 Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission and ODOT completed the Greene 35 Corridor Study • Replace last 3 intersections on US 35 between Dayton and West Virginia carrying 40,000 vpd with 10% trucks • 2007 ODOT begins Preliminary Engineering studies on the configuration of interchanges to meet the needs of the traveling public while addressing local accessibility concerns • $120M solution is not obtainable it this time • In recognition of the importance of this corridor and the associated safety and congestion issues we are proposing an interim solution – conversion of the existing signalized intersections into signalized “Superstreets”. Freight Impact • 23,700 Tons of Freight per day • $71.75 Million per day • 20 hours of delay per peak hour for trucks • 100 hours of delay of commerce per day Recent Activities • TRAC Presentation – October 2015 Request for funding • Preliminary Development of Superstreet as an Interim Solution • Determine funding sources • Where do we go from here?? Interim Solution – Superstreets • Meets Project Purpose and Need • Improve Congestion & Safety • Fundable Solution • Approximately $5M per intersection • Project could potentially be funded through ODOT, Local and MVRPC funding sources • Provides Solution Commensurate with Cost • 1/10 th of ultimate project and will perform better than the existing signals for many years while interchange development and construction funding is pursued. What is a Superstreet • It is a non-traditional signalized intersection that can provide more capacity than a traditional traffic signal (like the one at Factory Road).
    [Show full text]