DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report December 31, 2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report December 31, 2006 Better Management of Speed Control in Work Zones Sponsored by the South Carolina Department of Transportation Final Report December 31, 2006 Research Contacts: Wayne Sarasua, Ph.D., P.E., Jennifer Ogle, Ph.D. and Mashrur Chowdhury, Ph.D., P.E. Transportation Systems Laboratory Department of Civil Engineering Lowry Hall, Box 340911 (864) 656-3318 William J. Davis, Ph.D., P.E. The Citadel The Citadel Department of Civil Engineering College of Engineering and Science Clemson University Clemson, South Carolina USA Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-SC-06-10 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Better Management for Speed Control in Work Zones December 31, 2006 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Wayne A. Sarasua, Jennifer H. Ogle, William J. Davis, and Mashrur Chowdhury 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Clemson University Transportation Systems Laboratory Department of Civil Engineering, Lowry Hall, Box 340911 11. Contract or Grant No. Clemson, South Carolina 29634-0911 SPR 658 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered South Carolina Department of Transportation Final Report P. O. Box 191 April 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006 Columbia, SC 29202-0191 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Statistics from the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) for incidents between 1998 and 2002 reveal that a leading cause of crashes in work zones is driving too fast for conditions. In April 2005, a team of researchers led by Clemson University’s Transportation Systems Laboratory embarked on research to better manage speed control in work zones. The research tasks included a literature review and survey of states. Based on the literature review and meetings with the project steering committee, a number of devices and strategies were selected for field evaluation. The devices selected were drone radar, changeable message sign with radar (CMR), a speed monitoring display (SMD) with CMS, portable rumble strips, and a novel speed activated sign designed by the researchers. Each of the devices had to be acquired and/or developed for this project and preliminary testing was conducted to identify an acceptable configuration for actual field data collection. After the initial testing, field surveillance of the speed management devices at a variety of different work zone sites on Interstate and State Route highways in South Carolina was done to collect the empirical data needed for evaluation. A statistical analysis of the empirical data was done to quantitatively evaluate the devices. A qualitative evaluation was done as well. Some of the devices were also studied in combination with police enforcement. The results of the analysis show that all of the speed control devices studied during this project has the capability of lowering speeds. This report summarizes the findings of this research and provides several recommendations in choosing a speed control device for a particular work zone application. 17. Key Word 18. Distribution Statement Work Zone Speed Control 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 110 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ vii CHAPTER CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1-1 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................2-1 Traffic Calming by Reducing Lane Width ..................................................................2-1 Drone Radar.................................................................................................................2-1 Northern Kentucky Study ........................................................................................2-3 Texas Study..............................................................................................................2-3 South Dakota DOT Study ........................................................................................2-4 Champaign, Illinois Study .......................................................................................2-4 Maryland Study........................................................................................................2-5 Missouri Study .........................................................................................................2-6 New Mexico Study ..................................................................................................2-7 University of Michigan Study..................................................................................2-7 Ohio Study ...............................................................................................................2-8 Virginia Tech Study................................................................................................2-8 Georgia Tech Study .................................................................................................2-9 Midwest Smart Work Zone Deployment Initiative Study .......................................2-9 Summary of Drone Radar ......................................................................................2-10 Determining Radar Detector Usage...........................................................................2-10 Insurance Institute of Highway Safety...................................................................2-11 Georgia Institute of Technology Research Institute ..............................................2-12 Changeable Message Signs........................................................................................2-13 Speed Monitoring Display.........................................................................................2-13 South Dakota Study ...............................................................................................2-14 Nebraska Study ......................................................................................................2-14 Kansas Study..........................................................................................................2-14 Changeable Message Signs with Radar.....................................................................2-15 Virginia Study, 1995..............................................................................................2-15 Virginia Study, 1998..............................................................................................2-16 South Dakota Study ...............................................................................................2-16 Georgia Study ........................................................................................................2-17 Vehicle Activated-Signs ............................................................................................2-17 i England Studies .....................................................................................................2-18 Wizard CB Alert System ...........................................................................................2-18 Iowa Study .............................................................................................................2-19 Texas Study............................................................................................................2-19 Temporary Rumble Strips..........................................................................................2-20 Texas Study............................................................................................................2-20 Additional Studies..................................................................................................2-21 Optical Speed Bars.....................................................................................................2-21 Scotland Study .......................................................................................................2-21 England Study........................................................................................................2-21 New Brunswick Study ...........................................................................................2-22 Police Enforcement....................................................................................................2-22 Summary of Literature Review..................................................................................2-23 CHAPTER 3 SPEED REDUCTION DEVICES AND FIELD CONFIGURATION..........................3-1 Drone Radar.................................................................................................................3-1 Changeable Message Sign with Radar.........................................................................3-2 Novel Speed-Activated Sign........................................................................................3-3 Speed Monitoring Display with CMS .........................................................................3-4 Portable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Consortium Meeting Agenda
    Preliminary Agenda: NSF I/UCRC for EMC Meeting November 9 – 10, 2010 Greenville, SC CU-ICAR Campbell Graduate Engineering Center, 4 Research Drive, Greenville, SC Tuesday, November 9 Wednesday, November 10 8:00 am Continental breakfast 8:00 am Continental breakfast 8:30 am Welcome, introductions, and meeting NSF I/UCRC Business Meeting overview – T. Hubing (Clemson) 8:30 am Review of Agenda and New Business 8:45 am NSF Presentation – L. Hornak (NSF) Budget presentations from each university Power Inverter Noise - Missouri S&T 9:15 am Application of imbalance difference model to - Clemson circuit board and cable geometries - H. Kwak (Clemson) - Houston 9:40 am Active cancellation of common-mode - Oklahoma currents on cables - A. McDowell (Clemson) New Business 10:05 am Estimation of maximum radiation from 10:00 am Break heatsinks – X. He (Clemson) Modeling 10:30 am Break 10:30 am Chamber modeling - J. Chen (Houston) Signal Integrity, Power Integrity 11:00 am Maximum emission calculator update – 11:00 am A tool environment for SI, PI, and EMC, T. Hubing (Clemson) with causality and passivity checking, and 11:30 pm Modeling EM coupling from an ESD gun to RLGC cross-sectional analysis as the first an IC– J. Zhang (S&T) functionalities – A. Razmadze (S&T) 11:30 am Crosstalk among multiple stripline traces 12:00 pm Lunch at CU-ICAR crossing a split - S. Wu (S&T) 12:45 pm Full-vehicle modeling – H. Zeng (Clemson) 12:00 pm Lunch at CU-ICAR 1:15 pm Model segmentation for radiated immunity simulation – J. Zhang (S&T) 1:00 pm Modeling dense via arrays in multilayer printed circuit boards with a generalized LIFE Form Review multiple scattering method - Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Parkside at Butler Apartments
    Market Feasibility Analysis Parkside at Butler Apartments Greenville, Greenville County, South Carolina Prepared for: NHE, Inc. Site Inspection: February 21, 2020 Effective Date: February 21, 2020 Parkside at Butler | Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. I TABLES, FIGURES AND MAPS ................................................................................................ III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8 Overview of Subject .....................................................................................................................................8 Purpose of Report ........................................................................................................................................8 Format of Report..........................................................................................................................................8 Client, Intended User, and Intended Use.....................................................................................................8 Applicable Requirements .............................................................................................................................8 Scope of Work..............................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • For Greenville County 2018 Average Daily Traffic
    2018 Average Daily Traffic For Greenville County Page 1 of 16 CountyStation Route Route Location Est. AADT AADT Year GREENVILLE 100 US 176 State Line - NORTH CAROLINA TO County Line - 5200 2018 SPARTANBURG GREENVILLE 101 US 25 County Line - LAURENS TO SC 8 (8 HWY), SC 418 9000 2018 GREENVILLE 103 US 25 SC 8 (8 HWY), SC 418 TO SC 86 (BESSIE RD), L- 2673 16800 2018 GREENVILLE 104 US 25 SC 86 (BESSIE RD), L- 2673 TO SC 291 (AUGUSTA RD), S- 18 20800 2018 GREENVILLE 105 US 25 SC 291 (AUGUSTA RD), S- 18 TO I- 85 (INTERSTATE 85) 20600 2018 GREENVILLE 107 US 25 I- 85 (INTERSTATE 85) TO SC 81 (ANDERSON RD) 37900 2018 GREENVILLE 109 US 25 SC 81 (ANDERSON RD) TO S- 149 (N WASHINGTON AVE) 35400 2018 GREENVILLE 111 US 25 S- 149 (N WASHINGTON AVE) TO SC 183 (FARRS BRIDGE RD) 33500 2018 GREENVILLE 113 US 25 SC 183 (FARRS BRIDGE RD) TO S- 199 (OLD WHITE HORSE 21900 2018 RD) GREENVILLE 114 US 25 S- 199 (OLD WHITE HORSE RD) TO US 276 (S MAIN ST) 19500 2018 GREENVILLE 115 US 25 US 276 (S MAIN ST) TO US 25 CON 23700 2018 GREENVILLE 116 US 25 US 25 CON TO SC 414 (N 25 HWY) 16500 2018 GREENVILLE 117 US 25 SC 414 (N 25 HWY) TO SC 11 (11 HWY) 9700 2018 GREENVILLE 119 US 25 SC 11 (11 HWY) TO State Line - NORTH CAROLINA 16200 2018 GREENVILLE 120 SC 183 SC 183 MLC (COLLEGE ST) TO US 123 (N ACADEMY ST) 12300 2018 GREENVILLE 121 US 25 CON US 276 (S MAIN ST) TO US 25 (N POINSETT HWY) 7200 2018 GREENVILLE 129 SC 20 S- 201 (AUGUSTA ST) TO L- 10 (S MAIN ST) 19200 2018 GREENVILLE 131 US 123 L- 79 (WARDLAW ST) TO SC 183 (BUNCOMBE ST) 28400 2018 GREENVILLE 133 US 276 S-
    [Show full text]
  • Burger King Toccoa, Georgia
    BURGER KING TOCCOA, GEORGIA CONFIDENTIAL OFFERING MEMORANDUM REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO CONTENTS PRESENTED BY NEAL PRINGLE 3 Director of Investment Sales EXECUTIVE P 770.955.2434 SUMMARY [email protected] ADAM BIRNBREY Senior Investment Sales Advisor 10 P 770.955.2434 LOCATION [email protected] OVERVIEW 16 DEMOGRAPHICS REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION SITE PLAN TENANT PROFILES LEASE ABSTRACTS FINANCIAL ANALYSIS REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO EAST CURRAHEE CORNERS STEPHENS COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL STEPHENS COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL (1,145 STUDENTS) (884 STUDENTS) TOCCOA RACEWAY BIG A ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (495 STUDENTS) SOUTH STATE BANK STEPHENS COUNTY EYE CLINIC SOUTHERN WAVE EXPRESS WASH R UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1ST FRANKLIN BROTHER JOHN’S FINANCIAL SUB & SANDWICH BIG A ROAD (24,300 AADT) TOCCOA INN & SUITES NORTHEAST GEORGIA BANK INTRODUCTION HOME EXECUTIVE LONG TERM, IDEAL INVESTMENT COMPELLING REAL ESTATE FUNDAMENTALS EXCEPTIONAL BRAND AND GROWING FRANCHISEE SUMMARY • Brand New Construction | Built in 2019 reflecting • Signalized Access | Property is located at the • 2nd Largest Fast Food Burger Chain by Locations | Burger King’s latest prototype with a double drive signalized corner of Big A Rd and Harris Street on 7,200+ units in the US and 17,800+ across the thru an outparcel to a Tractor Supply, Bealls Outlet and world Dollar Tree anchored center • Absolute NNN Lease Structure | Landlord has zero • Promising Same–Store Sales Increase | 2.2% OVERVIEW LOCATION responsibilities – Tenant cares care of all expenses • Strong Traffic Counts
    [Show full text]
  • 20102010 Yearyear Endend Boardboard Meetingmeeting
    20102010 YearYear EndEnd BoardBoard MeetingMeeting DecemberDecember 5-6,5-6, 20102010 Lexington,Lexington, KentuckyKentucky SDITE 2010 YEAR END BOARD MEETING HILTON LEXINGTON/DOWNTOWN 369 WEST VINE STREET, LEXINGTON, KY AGENDA DECEMBER 5-6, 2010 Sunday, December 5, 2010 (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) I. Call to Order (4:00 PM) (Triple Crown Room) II. Agenda Review and Self Introductions III. Section Reports (from District Reps. - 3 minutes each – cover top 3 items) A. Alabama (Reeves) * B. Deep South (Fulton) * C. Georgia (Long/Strickland) * D. Kentucky (Walker) * E. North Carolina (McDonald/Privette/Lacy) * F. South Carolina (Davis) * G. Tennessee (Bottoms/Dougherty) * H. Virginia (Cashman/Brown) * IV. Future Annual Meetings A. 2011 in Lafayette, LA (4/10/11 – 4/13/11 – Hilton Lafayette – Smith/Tramel)* B. 2012 in Lexington, KY (4/15/12 – 4/18/12 – Hilton Lexington Downtown – Scott Walker)* C. 2013 in Charlotte, NC (Danny Pleasant)* D. 2014 in Georgia (Long/Strickland) * E. 2015 in Mississippi (Fulton) * F. 2016 in Tennessee (Bottoms/Dougherty) * V. Dinner (6:30 PM) Monday, December 6, 2010 (7:00 AM – 1 PM) I. Breakfast (7:00 – 7:45 AM) (Triple Crown Room) II. Call to Order (8:00 AM) (Triple Crown Room) III. Agenda Review and Self Introductions IV. Approval of Minutes from 2010 Annual Board Meeting (B. White) * V. District Officer Reports A. President Westmoreland * D. Past President Mohammadi * B. Vice-President T. White * E. International Director Stammer * C. Secretary-Treasurer B. White* (Financial Report) VI. District Committee Reports A. District Administrator Report (Hanchey) * B. 2011 Annual Meeting / Local Arrangements Update (Smith/Tramel)* C.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Connector Toll Rate Study
    Southern Connector Toll Rate Study Prepared for: Connector 2000 Association, Inc. Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. November 20, 2015 Sign-off Sheet This document entitled Southern Connector Toll Rate Study was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Connector 2000 Association, Inc. (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Fleur Hartmann, PE Reviewed by (signature) Thomas Harknett, PE SOUTHERN CONNECTOR TOLL RATE STUDY Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1 1.1 DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Notes to Parents.Pub
    Greengs Vising Parents Welcome to Greenville! Below is some helpful informaon on Bring the Heat. Start Times for Bring the Heat Warmup Day of Meet Session A Session B Session C Session Start Friday Evening* 4:30 PM 4:50 PM 5:10 PM 5:30 PM Saturday Morning 12 & U Girls* 7:15 AM 7:35 AM 8:05 AM Saturday Morning 12 & U Boys* 11:05 AM 11:30 AM Saturday Aernoon 13 ‐ 14* 1:35 PM 2:05 PM Saturday Evening 15 & Over* 5:30 PM 6:00 PM Sunday Morning 12 & U Girls* 7:15 AM 7:35 AM 8:05 AM Sunday Morning 12 & U Boys* 11:15 AM 11:45 AM Sunday Aernoon 13 ‐ 14* 2:05 PM 2:30 PM Sunday Evening 15 & Over* 5:20 PM 5:45 PM * Change from Meet Informaon. COVID‐19 Noce COVID‐19 is an extremely contagious disease that can lead to severe illness or death. According to the Centers for Dis‐ ease Control and Prevenon (CDC), senior cizens and individuals with underlying medical condions are especially vulnerable. Although Team Greenville Swim Club and the Greenville County Aquac Center have taken enhanced health and safety measures for all aending this event as outlined in the official meet informaon, we cannot guaran‐ tee that you or your swimmers in the meet will not be exposed to and become infected with COVID‐19 – an inherent risk of exposure exists in any public place where people are present. You must follow all posted instrucons while vising Greenville County Aquac Center.
    [Show full text]
  • James H. Mattox, III, P.E., DBIA
    James H. Mattox, III, P.E., DBIA South Carolina Certified Public Manager Class of 2019 0 1.0 Problem Statement 1.1 Design‐Build Project Delivery Design‐Build is one of the fastest growing project delivery methods in the United States. According to research conducted by the Design‐Build Institute of America (DBIA), design‐build spending in transportation projects is anticipated to grow 28% from 2017 to 2021 [1]. Its rising popularity is driven by cost and time savings as well as increased quality gained through design and construction innovations resulting from collaboration between the owner, lead contractor, and lead designer. The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) has used the design‐build project delivery method since 1998. Between 1998 and 2010, SCDOT utilized design‐build sporadically with inconsistent results. In 2010, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) implemented an initiative knows as “Every Day Counts” to encourage improvements in timing of overall processes including project delivery. Design‐Build was identified as an innovation under this program and FHWA provided tools and resources for states to rapidly deploy this initiative [2]. SCDOT embraced this concept and incorporated a renewed vision for design‐build into its Strategic Plan [3]. SCDOT’s design‐build program has grown significantly since the refocused efforts nearly a decade ago. For the SCDOT 2018 budget year, approximately 18% of the $1.6 billion capital construction budget was delivered via design‐build. Looking ahead over the next 10 years, with the influx of funding due to the increased motor fuel tax in South Carolina [4], SCDOT has estimated that well over $3 billion of infrastructure improvement projects will be delivered utilizing design‐build.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Roadway Network
    2 Roadway Network 2.1 Existing Conditions The rural ACOG region is served by a two primary interstates and a large network of state and federal highways. Table 7 contains a list of primary highways and interstates in the region, as well as the average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume for 2015. The counts are taken from the stations with the highest volume for the given road. Maps 3-8 show the locations of these roads by county. Interstates provide access to and from neighboring cities, regions, and ports. They are essential to transportation and the economic vitality of the Upstate. • Interstate 85 is the most important route in the Upstate. It provides the impetus for much of the economic development in the region, and provides a direct link to neighboring Charlotte, NC and Atlanta, GA. Most of the highway exists in urbanized areas that are not part of the rural ACOG area. Cherokee County contains the most of rural I-85. I-85 is six lanes wide through most of the urban areas of Greenville, Spartanburg, and Anderson, and it is four lanes wide in the rest of the region. Plans currently exist to widen the remaining sections of I-85 to six lanes in Anderson and Cherokee Counties. • Interstate 26 is the other major interstate in the region. It links the Upstate to the rest of South Carolina and to the Port of Charleston to the south. It also connects the Upstate to Asheville, to the north. A recent extension of I-26 from Asheville, NC created a new terminus in the Tri-Cities area of Tennessee at I-81.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena
    Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena Time Path Path Number of Estimated March 1996 Local/ Length Width Persons Damage Location Date Standard (Miles) (Yards) Killed Injured Property Crops Character of Storm ALABAMA, North Central Pickens County Aliceville05 1718CST 0 0 8K Thunderstorm Wind (G50) Strong wind with a thunderstorm downed several trees and caused a number of power outages in the Aliceville area. Walker County Parrish05 1830CST 0 0 10K Hail (1.00) Quarter size hail was reported by the Parrish Police Department. Morgan County Decatur05 2100CST 0 1 2K Lightning A man talking on the telephone sustained minor injury when lightning struck two trees outside his home in southwest Decatur. Time of the event was reported as Tuesday night so the exact hour is estimated. Marion County 4 N Hamilton to 05 2125CST 0 0 2K 1K Hail (0.75) Hamilton Three-quarter inch hail was reported just north of Hamilton. Marion County Shiloh 05 2128CST 0 0 2K 2K Hail Nickel size hail was reported by the Marion County Sheriff's Department near Shiloh. Marion County Hackleburg 05 2130CST 0 0 15K 10K Hail (1.75) Golf ball size hail was reported near Hackleburg in the northern portion of Marion County. Marion County 4 N Hamilton to05 2135CST 0 0 8K Thunderstorm Wind Hamilton A carport was reported damaged by the wind just north of Hamilton. Winston County Haleyville 05 2145CST 0 0 5K 2K Hail (0.88) Nickel-sized hail was reported at Haleyville in northwest Winston County. Franklin County Hodges05 2155CST 0 0 75K Thunderstorm Wind (G50) 2203CST Several chicken houses were damaged and a few destroyed in the south central part of Franklin County along with trees and power lines downed along Highway 187 at Hodges.
    [Show full text]
  • TAB 19 Market Study
    TAB 19 Market Study Market Study Report – Exhibit S2 Included-full • report can be found in the electronic submission Overall Vacancy Rate of Less than 5%: 1 point Market Feasibility Analysis Laurens Terrace Apartments 700 Laurens Terrace Drive Laurens, Laurens County, South Carolina 29360 Prepared For Mr. John Marra Millennia Housing Development, Ltd. 4000 Key Towers | 127 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Effective Date February 27, 2019 Job Reference Number 19-116 JP 155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Phone: (614) 833-9300 Bowennational.com Table of Contents A. Primary Market Area Analysis Summary (Exhibit S-2) B. Project Description C. Site Description and Evaluation D. Primary Market Area Delineation E. Market Area Economy F. Community Demographic Data G. Project-Specific Demand Analysis H. Rental Housing Analysis (Supply) I. Interviews J. Recommendations K. Signed Statement Requirement L. Qualifications M. Methodologies, Disclaimers & Sources Addendum A – Field Survey of Conventional Rentals Addendum B – NCHMA Member Certification & Checklist Addendum C – Rent Roll 12/16/18 2019 EXHIBIT S – 2 SCSHFDA PRIMARY MARKET AREA ANALYSIS SUMMARY (WITH SUBSIDY): Development Name: Laurens Terrace Apartments Total # Units: 60 Location: 700 Laurens Terrace Drive, Laurens, SC 29360 # LIHTC Units: 60 Gray Court town limits and Interstate 385 to the north; the Laurens County line to the east; the PMA Boundary: Laurens County line to the south; and the Laurens County line and State Route 101 to the west. Development Type: __X__Family ____Older Persons Farthest Boundary Distance to Subject: 17.1 miles RENTAL HOUSING STOCK (found on page H-1 & 11; Addendum A) Type # Properties Total Units Vacant Units Average Occupancy All Rental Housing 23 1,094 5 99.5% Market-Rate Housing*** 8 143 3 97.9% Assisted/Subsidized Housing not to include LIHTC *** 15 348 0 0.0% LIHTC (All that are stabilized)* 14 603 2 99.6% Stabilized Comps** 4 194 2 99.0% Non-stabilized Comps 0 - - - * Stabilized occupancy of at least 93% (Excludes projects still in initial lease up).
    [Show full text]
  • East Washington Square a Mixedusecommunity
    EAST WASHINGTON SQUARE A MIXED USE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTUS Purpose The intent of this academic exercise is to evaluate and present a feasible development project. The data, conclusions, and recom- mendations are stated assumptions to be interpreted as speculation. Images & Characters All characters, logos or images have been either altered or taken from original sources and are not intended for proprietary use. Characters, logos and images used are properly sourced with the purpose of providing the overall development design. These are not intended to depict actual development designs, but to be used solely in this academic exercise. Confidentiality Notice & Disclaimer This report is the property of Clemson University’s Master of Real Estate Development Program (known herein as CU-MRED) and may be used only by parties to whom CU-MRED has delivered the report to whom CU-MRED has approved such delivery. By ac- cepting a copy of this report, the party who has possession thereof agrees to return it to CU-MRED immediately upon CU-MRED’s request. No copies of this Report may be made without CU-MRED’s prior written consent and no excerpts or summaries hereof may be distributed, reproduced or included in any document without such consent. This Report has been prepared based on assumptions reflected therein believed to be reasonable under existing circumstances and conditions. Nevertheless there can be no assurance that the project will be constructed or operated in accordance with the Report. WASHINGTON DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS WASHINGTON
    [Show full text]