A Roundabout Way of Reducing Accidents

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

A Roundabout Way of Reducing Accidents 38 D+D FEBRUARY 2015 Q+ Got a concrete problem? Concrete A Ask the experts: [email protected]. By Todd Scharich, American Society of Concrete Contractors hen the Winnipeg Sun ran a page-three article in 2013 stat- A Roundabout Way of Reducing Accidents ing that the city, in Manitoba, Canada, planned to institute a Decorative concrete plays a ‘roundabout’ role series of roundabouts, reader in making America’s roads safer. reaction was immediate and W vociferous. mize delay and maximize traffic safety — problem because they don’t force drivers to “If you want to drive just like they do in and they do. slow down, as modern roundabouts do. London, move there!” one reader wrote. According to the Insurance Institute for They often have landscape or water fea- Another reader was concerned that Highway Safety, studies have found reduc- tures that can distract drivers. snowy conditions would create huge pile- tions in injury crashes of 72-80 percent and Another major difference is that in some ups as vehicles slipped while navigating reductions in all crashes of 35-47 percent at traffic circles, right-of-way priority is given the circles. “Those circles are in cities with U.S. intersections converted to roundabouts to vehicles entering the circles, while mod- warmer climates, what moron decided to from traffic signals or stop signs. ern roundabouts give that priority to vehi- initiate this farce!” the reader wrote online. One study of 19 rural roundabouts con- cles already in circulation. The newspaper article turned out to be verted from intersections with speed limits Because of these features, older traffic an April Fools’ Day prank, but it illustrates of 40 mph or higher, that originally had stop circles are prone to congestion and other common attitudes toward this relatively re- signs on the minor approaches, found a 62- problems absent from modern roundabouts. cent development in highway safety — at percent reduction in all crashes and an 85- Confusion between the two may play a part least before people experience them. percent reduction in injury crashes.1 in public attitudes concerning roundabouts, The U.S. has seen a dramatic increase in attitudes that usually change as drivers be- the use of roundabouts since 2000, and the Not Your Grandpa’s Traffic Circle come familiar with them.2 use of decorative concrete is a primary de- Modern roundabouts differ from old-style sign feature in them. traffic circles or rotaries in both design and Anatomy of a Roundabout Modern roundabouts are engineered to function. Older traffic circles have bigger Modern roundabouts are composed of a accommodate high volumes of traffic, mini- inner radiuses of 300 to 600 feet. That’s a circulating roadway surrounding a central 39 Concrete Q+A island with radiuses of 100-150 feet. The rel- atively small radius helps slow traffic. Island design increasingly features decorative con- crete flatwork as an aesthetically pleasing and structurally sound element. The is- land’s outer edge in particular, known as the truck apron, features decorative con- crete to distinguish it as a correctional buffer between the road and the island. The truck apron is so named because, while it separates most vehicles from the central island, it provides extra turning- room for the back-ends of large trucks as they maneuver through the roundabout. In addition to being decorative, the truck apron must be built to withstand heavy truck traffic. Colored, or colored and textured “split- A truck hauling two trailers enters a roundabout in Marquette, Mich., in the state’s Upper Peninsula. If it ter” concrete islands increase safety by continues around in the left lane, the rear trailer will take advantage of the extra turning room afforded by using contrasting colors that alert drivers to the decorative concrete truck apron. Photo courtesy of DLZ Architects. slow down as they approach the round- (Left) Splitter islands help guide a driver into the circulation path of a newly built roundabout in northern abouts. They also help direct traffic flow. Michigan. Photo courtesy of DLZ Architects. Decorative concrete also directs pedes- (Top) This roundabout in Carmel, Ind., sometimes called the “Roundabout Capital of America,” features trian traffic across splitter islands and adja- stamped red concrete in a brick herringbone design, one of the most popular looks for decorative concrete in roundabouts. Photo courtesy of DLZ Architects. cent walkways. 40 D+D FEBRUARY 2015 A vehicle navigates the circulation path of a two- lane roundabout in South Bend, Ind. While most roundabouts are designed with matching truck aprons and splitter islands, this one uses turf on its splitter islands. Photo courtesy of DLZ Architects. systems, the U.S. 23 and Lee Road inter- change corridor handles approximately 8,000 vehicles per hour. Traditional signal alternatives were found to have inadequate capacity, resulting in ex- cessive delays and potentially dangerous backups on freeway ramps, according to Mark Johnson, P.E. of MTJ Roundabout Engi- neering, the project’s design engineer. A double roundabout configuration at the southbound ramp terminals accommodates six entries and exits with minimal circulating flow, increasing intersection entry capacity and reducing crash potential. Such complex- ity renders the visual cues supplied by deco- rative concrete even more important. The decorative concrete elements help increase driver awareness by making center and split- ter islands more visible and by focusing driver attention on the system’s navigational Decorative Concrete Design The combination of safety, aesthetics and cues. in Roundabouts cost has increased the use of etched sur- From basic colored concrete, to etched fin- Red stamped concrete in running bond or faces in all types of municipal applications ishes, to stamped surfaces, the combination herringbone patterns have been popular de- and pedestrian traffic areas, including of colors, finishes and textures allow for signs for roundabout truck aprons and walk- roundabouts. nearly unlimited design options. ways for many years. Alternative colors, such Many recent round- as browns and tans, and new patterns and about designs combine finishes like flagstone are also taking their decorative concrete styles. places alongside popular red stamped brick. A project by Michigan’s One of decorative concrete’s biggest Washtenaw County Road trends has recently found its way into round- Commission used a brown about design. Washed or etched “sand- flagstone and red brick scape” finishes enhance safety by creating a pattern on the four round- higher coefficient of friction that increases abouts at the U.S. 23 and slip-resistance compared to other decorative Lee Road interchange. finishes. The combination creates Color in etched surfaces appears more nat- a traffic flow that has been ural than in stamped surfaces because of the proven to keep traffic mov- exposure of sand or other aggregate in the ing even with the proxim- mix design. Engineers and architects may ity of a heavily traveled This close-up of the decorative concrete truck apron on a roundabout near also appreciate the fact that the etched sur- highway and a popular the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana, shows the popular red stamped faces cost only slightly more than colored outlet mall. brick design. Such aprons are usually 10-15 feet wide and serve as an concrete alone, and significantly less than One of the country’s extra emergency vehicle lane, most commonly for large trucks needing stamped concrete. most complex roundabout extra turning room. Photo courtesy of DLZ Architects. 41 Concrete Q+A This double roundabout at U.S. 23 and Lee Road near Ann Arbor, Mich., is one of the most complex in the nation, as it handles 8,000 vehicles per hour from two major roads and an interstate highway. Multiple colors and patterns of decorative concrete feature prominently in the design. Photo courtesy of MTJ Roundabout Engineering. Low-Cost Alternatives This expanding population has and will 3 U.S. and World Population Clock, Attempts to lower installation costs have continue to place extreme demands on the census.gov. led some designers to try brick pavers and U.S. road system. Modern roundabouts are 4 Our Growing Population, GP 60-1, p.1, U.S. stamped asphalt as alternatives to decora- one method of handling the ever-increasing Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, tive concrete. volume of traffic. As the number of round- 1961. Brick pavers without a concrete base abouts grows — and a quick Internet search 5 U.S. and World Population Clock, can’t withstand high traffic volumes, while shows that nearly every state in the U.S. is census.gov. paver installations with concrete bases tend studying how to incorporate them — deco- to cost more than most decorative concrete rative concrete will continue to play an im- About the Author installations. portant part in roundabout design. The role Todd A. Scharich is the decorative concrete Stamped asphalt is not much cheaper of the decorative concrete industry is to specialist for the American Society of Con- than stamped concrete but must be coated continue to provide a durable end-product crete Contractors. He provides support to to achieve its color, which wears away with that engineers and architects can trust and their membership through the Decorative any traffic volume. will be proud to feature in their projects — Concrete Hotline, educational opportunities projects that reduce accidents and injuries and technical documents. Scharich has pre- More People Means More Traffic on American roads. sented at 11 straight World of Concrete con- Between births, deaths and immigration, ferences on both business and technical the U.S. population is growing by one per- Notes topics related to decorative concrete. D+D son every 16 seconds according the U.S. 1 “Roundabouts,” iihs.org, February 2014.
Recommended publications
  • The Effect of Road Narrowings on Cyclists
    The effect of road narrowings on cyclists Prepared for Charging and Local Transport Division, Department for Transport A Gibbard, S Reid, J Mitchell, B Lawton, E Brown and H Harper TRL Report TRL621 First Published 2004 ISSN 0968-4107 Copyright TRL Limited 2004. This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of a contract placed by the Department for Transport. Any views expressed in it are not necessarily those of the Department. This report focuses on highway infrastructure as installed by a highway authority. Some illustrations may depict non- prescribed and unauthorised signing and road markings, which may be unlawful. Unless specifically referred to and explained in the report, the inclusion of non-standard signing in illustrations does not imply endorsement of its use by the Department for Transport. All prescribed signs are set out in Regulations (the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and the Pedestrian Crossings Regulations) made under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act and published by the Stationery Office. TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process. ii CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Study objectives 3 2 Current guidance 3 3 Consultation exercise 5 3.1 Consultation results 5 4 Questionnaire survey 7 4.1 Survey results 8 4.2
    [Show full text]
  • Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual
    Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual December 2015 Alabama Department of Transportation ROUNDABOUT PLANNING, DESIGN, AND OPERATIONS MANUAL December 2015 Prepared by: The University Transportation Center for of Alabama Steven L. Jones, Ph.D. Abdulai Abdul Majeed Steering Committee Tim Barnett, P.E., ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Stuart Manson, P.E., ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Sonya Baker, ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Stacey Glass, P.E., ALDOT Maintenance Stan Biddick, ALDOT Design Bryan Fair, ALDOT Planning Steve Walker, P.E., ALDOT R.O.W. Vince Calametti, P.E., ALDOT 9th Division James Brown, P.E., ALDOT 2nd Division James Foster, P.E., Mobile County Clint Andrews, Federal Highway Administration Blair Perry, P.E., Gresham Smith & Partners Howard McCulloch, P.E., NE Roundabouts DISCLAIMER This manual provides guidelines and recommended practices for planning and designing roundabouts in the State of Alabama. This manual cannot address or anticipate all possible field conditions that will affect a roundabout design. It remains the ultimate responsibility of the design engineer to ensure that a design is appropriate for prevailing traffic and field conditions. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1-5 1.2. Scope and Organization ............................................................................... 1-7 1.3. Limitations ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Module 6. Hov Treatments
    Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Module 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS MODULE 6. HOV TREATMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 6-5 TREATMENTS ..................................................... 6-6 MODULE OBJECTIVES ............................................. 6-6 MODULE SCOPE ................................................... 6-7 6.2 DESIGN PROCESS .......................................... 6-7 IDENTIFY PROBLEMS/NEEDS ....................................... 6-7 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTNERS .................................... 6-8 CONSENSUS BUILDING ........................................... 6-10 ESTABLISH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................... 6-10 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA / MOES ....................... 6-10 DEFINE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................. 6-11 IDENTIFY AND SCREEN TECHNOLOGY ............................. 6-11 System Planning ................................................. 6-13 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 6-15 EVALUATION .................................................... 6-16 6.3 TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES .................. 6-18 HOV FACILITIES ................................................. 6-18 Operational Considerations ......................................... 6-18 HOV Roadway Operations ...................................... 6-20 Operating Efficiency .......................................... 6-20 Considerations for 2+ Versus 3+ Occupancy Requirement ............. 6-20 Hours of Operations ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • City Maintained Street Inventory
    City Maintained Streets Inventory DATE APPROX. AVG. STREET NAME ACCEPTED BEGINNING AT ENDING AT LENGTH WIDTH ACADEMYText0: ST Text6: HENDERSONVLText8: RD BROOKSHIREText10: ST T0.13 Tex20 ACADEMYText0: ST EXT Text6: FERNText8: ST MARIETTAText10: ST T0.06 Tex17 ACTONText0: WOODS RD Text6:9/1/1994 ACTONText8: CIRCLE DEADText10: END T0.24 Tex19 ADAMSText0: HILL RD Text6: BINGHAMText8: RD LOUISANAText10: AVE T0.17 Tex18 ADAMSText0: ST Text6: BARTLETText8: ST CHOCTAWText10: ST T0.16 Tex27 ADAMSWOODText0: RD Text6: CARIBOUText8: RD ENDText10: OF PAVEMENT T0.16 Tex26 AIKENText0: ALLEY Text6: TACOMAText8: CIR WESTOVERText10: ALLEY T0.05 Tex12 ALABAMAText0: AVE Text6: HANOVERText8: ST SWANNANOAText10: AVE T0.33 Tex24 ALBEMARLEText0: PL Text6: BAIRDText8: ST ENDText10: MAINT T0.09 Tex18 ALBEMARLEText0: RD Text6: BAIRDText8: ST ORCHARDText10: RD T0.2 Tex20 ALCLAREText0: CT Text6: ENDText8: C&G ENDText10: PVMT T0.06 Tex22 ALCLAREText0: DR Text6: CHANGEText8: IN WIDTH ENDText10: C&G T0.17 Tex18 ALCLAREText0: DR Text6: SAREVAText8: AVE CHANGEText10: IN WIDTH T0.18 Tex26 ALEXANDERText0: DR Text6: ARDIMONText8: PK WINDSWEPTText10: DR T0.37 Tex24 ALEXANDERText0: DR Text6: MARTINText8: LUTHER KING WEAVERText10: ST T0.02 Tex33 ALEXANDERText0: DR Text6: CURVEText8: ST ARDMIONText10: PK T0.42 Tex24 ALLENText0: AVE 0Text6:/18/1988 U.S.Text8: 25 ENDText10: PAV'T T0.23 Tex19 ALLENText0: ST Text6: STATEText8: ST HAYWOODText10: RD T0.19 Tex23 ALLESARNText0: RD Text6: ELKWOODText8: AVE ENDText10: PVMT T0.11 Tex22 ALLIANCEText0: CT 4Text6:/14/2009 RIDGEFIELDText8:
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Glastonbury Bid No. Gl-2020-07
    TOWN OF GLASTONBURY BID NO. GL-2020-07 MAIN STREET RAISED TRAFFIC ISLAND ADDENDUM NO. 1 SEPTEMBER 16, 2019 BID DUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 11:00 A.M. The attention of bidders submitting proposals for the above-referenced project is called to the following Addendum to the specifications. The items set forth herein, whether of omission, addition, substitution or other change, are all to be included in and form a part of the proposed Contract Documents for the work. Bidders shall acknowledge this Addendum in the Bid Proposal by inserting its number on Page BP-1. Make the following modifications to the Contract Documents: BID PROPOSAL FORM: The bid proposal form is hereby replaced with the attached. ALL BIDDERS MUST USE THE REVISED BID PROPOSAL FORM. CONSTRUCTION PLANS: Sheets 1 of the plan set titled “PLAN DEPICTING PROPOSED TRAFFIC ISLAND IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AND MAIN STREET AND HEBRON AVENUE, GLASTONBURY CONNECTICUT” is hereby replaced with the attached plan. Changes shown on Sheet 1 include notes depicting removal and resetting of existing brick pavers in the vicinity of the existing town-owned locus tree which is to be completed as described in the special provision listed below. SPECIAL PROVISIONS: The following Special Provisions are hereby added to the contract: ITEM 0992093A REMOVE AND RESET BRICK PAVERS This Addendum Contains 6 Pages including the above text and 1 Plan Sheet. MAIN STREET RAISED TRAFFIC ISLAND ADDENDUM 1 BID PROPOSAL – REVISED BID #GL-2020-07 TOWN OF GLASTONBURY * 2155 MAIN STREET * GLASTONURY * CT BID / PROPOSAL NO: GL-2020-07 DATE DUE: September 19, 2019 DATE ADVERTISED: September 6, 2019 TIME DUE: 11:00 AM NAME OF PROJECT: Main Street Raised Traffic Island In compliance with this Invitation to Bid, the Bidder hereby proposes to provide goods and/or services as per this solicitation in strict accordance with the Bid Documents, within the time set forth therein, and at the prices submitted with their bid response.
    [Show full text]
  • Pavements and Surface Materials
    N O N P O I N T E D U C A T I O N F O R M U N I C I P A L O F F I C I A L S TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 8 Pavements and Surface Materials By Jim Gibbons, UConn Extension Land Use Educator, 1999 Introduction Traffic Class Type of Road Pavements are composite materials that bear the weight of 1 Parking Lots, Driveways, Rural pedestrian and vehicular loads. Pavement thickness, width and Roads type should vary based on the intended function of the paved area. 2 Residential Streets 3 Collector Roads Pavement Thickness 4 Arterial roads 5 Freeways, Expressways, Interstates Pavement thickness is determined by four factors: environment, traffic, base characteristics and the pavement material used. Based on the above classes, pavement thickness ranges from 3" for a Class 1 parking lot, to 10" or more for Class 5 freeways. Environmental factors such as moisture and temperature significantly affect pavement. For example, as soil moisture Sub grade strength has the greatest effect in determining increases the load bearing capacity of the soil decreases and the pavement thickness. As a general rule, weaker sub grades require soil can heave and swell. Temperature also effects the load thicker asphalt layers to adequately bear different loads associated bearing capacity of pavements. When the moisture in pavement with different uses. The bearing capacity and permeability of the freezes and thaws, it creates stress leading to pavement heaving. sub grade influences total pavement thickness. There are actually The detrimental effects of moisture can be reduced or eliminated two or three separate layers or courses below the paved wearing by: keeping it from entering the pavement base, removing it before surface including: the sub grade, sub base and base.
    [Show full text]
  • Brick Streets Plan
    BRICK STREETS PLAN City of Rock Island Community & Economic Development Department Planning & Redevelopment Division Rock Island Preservation Commission Adopted 1988 by Rock Island City Council Amended: January 23, 2012 August 22, 2011 March 28, 2005 April 10, 2000 May 12, 1997 September 14, 1992 Rock Solid. Rock Island. 1899 - The first brick pavement was laid in the Tri-Cities on the corner of Twentieth Street and Second Avenue, Rock Island. The first brick was placed by Mayor William McConochie. Civil Engineer for the project was H.G. Paddock. -- From Historical Souvenir of Moline and Vicinity, 1909 TABLE of CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 3 Prioritization List ........................................................................................... 5 Map of Brick Streets ..................................................................................... 6 Methodology ................................................................................................ 9 History of Brick Street Construction in Rock Island ...................................... 10 Condition of Brick Streets ............................................................................. 13 Utilities and Brick Streets ............................................................................. 17 Street Standards .......................................................................................... 18 Owner-Occupancy Along Brick Streets .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Access Management Manual, September 5, 2019 TABLE of CONTENTS
    AccessAccess ManagementManagement ManualManual T E X A S Prepared by the City of Irving Public Works/Traffic and Transportation Department Adopted September 5, 2019 Access Management Manual, September 5, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction Page 1.0 Purpose 1 1.1 Scope 1 1.2 Definitions 3 1.3 Authority 10 Section 2 Principles of Access Management 2.1 Relationship between Access and Mobility 11 2.2 Integration of Land Use and Transportation 11 2.3 Relationship between Access and Roadway Efficiency 12 2.4 Relationship between Access and Traffic Safety 12 Section 3 Access Management Programs and Policies 3.1 Identifying Functional Hierarchy of Roadways 14 3.1.1 Sub-Classifications of Roadways 14 3.1.1.1 Revising the “Master Thoroughfare Plan” 15 3.1.2 Comprehensive Plan 15 3.1.3 Discretionary Treatment by the Director 15 3.2 Land Use 15 3.3 Unified Access Planning Policy 16 3.4 Granting Access 16 3.4.1 General Mutual Access 17 3.4.2 Expiration of Access Permission 17 3.4.3 “Grandfathered” Access and Non-Conforming Access 17 3.4.4 Illegal Access 19 3.4.4.1 Stealth Connection 19 3.4.5 Temporary Access 19 3.4.6 Emergency Access 19 3.4.7 Abandoned Access 20 3.4.8 Field Access 20 3.4.9 Provision for Special Case Access 20 3.4.10 Appeals, Variances and Administrative Remedies 20 3.5 Parking and Access Policy 20 3.6 Access vs Accessibility 21 3.7 Precedence of Access Rights Policy 21 3.8 Right to Access A Specific Roadway 22 3.9 Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA’s) 22 3.9.1 Level of Service (LOS) 22 3.9.2 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Requirements
    [Show full text]
  • Town Standards Index (Select to View) • Collector Street Cross Section
    Town Standards Index (select to view) • Collector Street Cross Section - Standard #3.00 • Collector Street Cross Section w/ Bike Lanes - Standard #3.01 • Local Street Cross Section - Standard #3.02 • Local Street Cross Section (No Curb) - Standard #3.03 • Industrial Street Cross Section - Standard #3.04 • 4-Lane Divided Street Cross Section - Standard #3.05 • Alley Cross Section - Standard #3.06 • Greenway Asphalt Path Cross Section - Standard #3.07 • Utility Trench Pavement Repair - Standard #3.08 • Typical Pavement Repair - Standard #3.09 • Standard Driveway Turnout - Standard #3.12 • Standard Curb & Gutter - Standard #3.13 • Median Curb - Standard #3.14 • Rolled Curb - Standard #3.15 • Residential Cul-de-sac - Standard #3.16 • Barricade for Dead End Streets - Standard #3.17 • Standard Concrete Drop Inlet - Standard #4.10 • Standard Brick Drop Inlet - Standard #4.11 • Standard Drop Inlet Grates - Standard #4.12 • Standard Concrete Catch Basin - Standard #4.13A • Standard Concrete Catch Basin - Standard #4.13B • Standard Brick Catch Basin - Standard #4.14A • Standard Brick Catch Basin - Standard #4.14B • HDPE Pipe - Standard #4.16 • Trench Installation for HDPE - Standard #4.16A • Polypropylene Pipe - Standard #4.17 • Trench Installation for Polypropylene - Standard #4.17A • Dissimilar Pipe Connections to RCP - Standard #4.18 • Curb Ramps - Standard #5.00 • Curb Ramps - New Development - Standard #5.01 • Curb Ramps - New Development - Standard #5.02 • Curb Ramps - New Development - Standard #5.03 • Curb Ramps - Retrofit - Standard #5.04
    [Show full text]
  • Replacement of Davis Avenue Bridge Over Indian Harbor Bridge No
    REPLACEMENT OF DAVIS AVENUE BRIDGE OVER INDIAN HARBOR BRIDGE NO. 05012 November 19, 2019 1 MEETING AGENDA • Project Team • Project Overview • Existing Conditions • Alternatives Considered • Traffic Impacts • Proposed Alternative • Railing Options • Construction Cost / Schedule • Contact Information • Questions 2 PROJECT TEAM Town of Greenwich Owner Alfred Benesch & Company Prime Consultant, Structural, Highway, Hydraulic, Drainage Design GZA GeoEnvironmantal Inc. Environmental Permitting Didona Associates Landscape Architects, LLC Landscaping Services, Planning 3 LOCATION MAP EXIT 4 EXIT 3 BRIDGE LOCATION 4 AERIAL VIEW BRIDGE LOCATION 5 PROJECT TIMELINE CURRENT PROJECT STATUS INVESTIGATION ALTERNATIVES PRELIMINARY FINAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE ASSESSMENT DESIGN DESIGN Spring to Fall 2020 February 2018 to June 2018 to January 2019 to May 2019 to May 2018 January 2019 April 2019 December 2019 6 PROJECT GOALS • Correct Existing Deficiencies of the Bridge (Structural and Functional) • Improve Multimodal Traffic Flow at Bridge Crossing (Vehicles / Bicycles / Pedestrians) • Maintain / Enhance Safety at Bridge Crossing • Meet Local, State, and Federal Requirements 7 EXISTING BRIDGE – BRIDGE PLAN 8 EXISTING BRIDGE – CURRENT PLAN VIEW 9 EXISTING BRIDGE Existing Bridge Data • Construction Year: 1934 • Structure Type: Concrete Slab Supported on Stone Masonry Abutments and Pier • Structure Length: 37’‐3” (17’‐1” Span Lengths) • Bridge Width: 43’+ (Outside to Outside) • Lane Configuration: Two Lanes, Two 4’ Sidewalks • Existing Utilities: Water, Gas (Supported
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 - Intersections Publication 13M (DM-2) Change #1 – Revised 12/12 CHAPTER 3
    Chapter 3 - Intersections Publication 13M (DM-2) Change #1 – Revised 12/12 CHAPTER 3 INTERSECTIONS 3.0 INTRODUCTION By definition, an intersection is the general area where two or more highways join or cross including the roadway and roadside facilities for traffic movements within the area. The efficiency, safety, speed, cost of operation and capacity of an intersection depends upon its design. Since each intersection involves innumerable vehicle movements, these movements may be facilitated by various geometric design and traffic control depending on the type of intersection. The three general types of highway crossings are: (1) at-grade intersections, (2) grade separations without ramps and (3) interchanges. The most important design considerations for intersections fall into two major categories: (1) the geometric design including a capacity analysis and (2) the location and type of traffic control devices. For the most part, these considerations are applicable to both new and existing intersections, although on existing intersections in built-up areas, heavy development may make extensive design changes impractical. The design elements, capacity analysis and traffic control concepts presented in this Chapter apply to intersections and their appurtenant features. Additional sources of information and criteria to supplement the concepts presented in this Chapter are contained in the 2004 AASHTO Green Book, Chapter 9 and the MUTCD. 3.1 OBJECTIVES AND FACTORS FOR DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The main objective of intersection design is to facilitate the convenience, ease and comfort of people traversing the intersection while enhancing the efficient movement of motor vehicles, buses, trucks, bicycles, and pedestrians. Refer to the section "General Design Considerations and Objectives" in the 2004 AASHTO Green Book, Chapter 9, for details about the five basic elements that should be considered in intersection design: human factors, traffic considerations, physical elements, economic factors, and functional intersection area.
    [Show full text]
  • California Transportation Plan 2050 - Comments
    December 20, 2018 Sent via email and FedEx (if applicable) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Transportation Planning California Transportation Plan Office of State Planning 1120 N Street, MS 32 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 654-2852 [email protected] Re: California Transportation Plan 2050 - Comments Dear California Transportation Plan 2050 Planners: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) regarding the California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2050. The Center is encouraged by Caltrans’ commitment to increase safety and security on bridges, highways, and roads and create a low-carbon transportation system that protects human and environmental health. To achieve these goals, it is imperative that Caltrans integrate wildlife connectivity into the design and implementation of California’s transportation infrastructure. The Center urges Caltrans to improve driver safety and minimize the impact of roads and traffic on wildlife movement and habitat connectivity with the following actions: 1. Collect and analyze standardized roadkill and wildlife vehicle collision data. 2. Build climate-wise wildlife crossing infrastructure in high priority areas. 3. Prioritize wildlife movement and habitat connectivity on ALL transportation projects. 4. Designate an expert unit dedicated to address wildlife connectivity issues. This unit should form strategic collaborations and partnerships with other connectivity experts. 5. Evaluate the effectiveness of wildlife crossing infrastructure to inform future mitigation. 6. Upgrade existing culverts to facilitate wildlife connectivity as part of routine maintenance. 7. Provide up-to-date guidance for best practices for climate-wise connectivity. 8. Engage with volunteer and community scientists and platforms. 9. Improve multimodal transportation design.
    [Show full text]