DOCSLIB.ORG

Improving the Traffic Operations and Safety of Full Cloverleaf Interchanges

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

fopoj-t No. FHWA-RD-75-J2G m«M THE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS NO SAFETY OF FULL CLOVERLEAF INTERCHANGE T.J.Foody and l.Wny -« Of T«* h *4r£ s o» December 1975 final Report cn n,ca Service. ' '"formation Spr/nofielH \/ . -p'ingrieicl, Virginia 22161 Prepared for mUl HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Offices of Research & Development Washington, D.C. 20590 . 13 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 7. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-RD-75-126 - : . !£-&(* 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Improving the Traffic Operations and Safety August 1975 of Full Cloverleaf Interchanges 6. Performing Organization Code " 7. Author(s) ,8. Performing Organization Report No. Foody, Thomas J. and Wray, Jerry H. 9. Performing Orgoni ration Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Ohio Department of Transportation 31J2022 P. 0. Box 899 11. Controcf or Grant No. Columbus, Ohio 43216 DOT-FH-11-8277 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Addres* Department of Transportation Final Report Federal Highway Administration Washington, D. C. 20418 14. Sponsoring Agency Code L - ,.._ &0 3<3-< / 15. Supplementary Notes - — FHWA Contract Manager: Mrs. Julie A. Fee (HRS-41) " ' ~ 16. Abstroct ; criteria for altering existing full imnrn^rlhET^?- cloverleaf interchanges" 9 to ,C 0P ratl S and safet of thi " Particular . * configuratio Only SlSnS^He nar r?«vcloverleafi J ? configuration with a loop ramp and an outer connection in neach quadrant was considered in this study. The data Base from the Interstate C1 nt Ch S Udy U Pr0ject wa used t0 descHbe - l * the spat ad s w£Si£ ? CC1"f?nTS W thln the interchan 9 e and ^s relationship to increasing traffic volumeCn?™ Highway2 h VCapacity Manual procedures were used to describe the capacity characteristics of the various junction points within the standard clover- * hese *wo analyses were combined ?u to describe the range of traffic .ftn^nnc that could cause p a breakdown in operations on any standard cloverleafc L A survey of ten major states having experience operating full clover- 9 t0 th d of * 1 «*1««t1on two P^oblem situations thai are the mostmo t likely?kel v totn leadil J1to operatic ^1 breakdowns on a standard cloverleaf interchange. P roblem situation identified ^rflnn till dealt with the operation of the weaving it approached capacity. The second It III/ situation dealt with the operation e ramp terminals onto a multi-lane, c + ? non-access-controlled crossroad 1with strip ldevelopment in close proximity to the terminals. Solutions that re- tained, modified or eliminated the standard cloverleaf flow pattern were examined. ine results indicated that solutions involving the redesign and reconstruction of the interchange (modify or eliminate rather than retain) provide the only accep- table level of effectiveness. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement No Cloverleaf interchange operation restrictions. This document is available Cloverleaf interchange accident rate to the public through the Weaving section capacity National Technical Information Services Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Clossif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 119 Form DOT F 1700.7 (e-esi : NOTICE -^A^tt*^^ eei : The 3 te ent s 0t endorse Manufacturers TrL°rr ?* " P rod "«s or as ;=•>•-• ksksSuTs k,s IMPROVING THE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND SAFETY OF FULL CLOVERLEAF INTERCHANGES Final Report Prepared for: Federal Highway Administration Contract No. DOT-FH-11-8277 Submitted by: The Bureau of ^esearcnResearrh andan n DeveloDmpntn , nu-Ohio n Department of Transportation Prepared by: Thomas J. Foody, P E En e e Traff1C ^ S&fety Rations Rese a rch Jerry H. Wray, P.E. AS ta En neer Traffic nnf J- 9i ' and Safetyy Operations Research TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No, Table of Contents ii List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Chapter I - Introduction Background 1 Purpose and Scope 2 Chapter II - Problem Identification Safety Characteristics 3 Operational Characteristics 15 Survey Results 22 Summary 27 Chapter III - Solution Identification Weaving Problem 30 Crossroad Problem 36 Summary 39 Chapter IV - Summary and Conclusions Summary 41 Conclusions and Recommendations 42 List of References 44 Appendix A - Accident Data Base Preparation 49 Appendix B - Weaving Analysis Results 73 Appendix C - Expanded Interview Summaries ^4 n LIST OF TABLES Page No, TABLE 1. Correlation Coefficient (R) Between the Number of Accidents for Each Design Element and the Accident and ADT Variables for Other Design Elements , 14 TABLE 2. Tabulation of Best-Fit Equations for Mainline Design Elements 16 TABLE 3. Summary of Interviews Held with Selected State Representatives 24 TABLE 4. Equivalency Table for Converting Accident Location form Ohio Code System to FHWA Code System used in ISAR-Study II , 52 TABLE 5. Statistics for ISAR Data Base as Received from FHWA (N=224) with Annual Accidents (A), Average Length (V), Number of Units (N) and Peak Length Provided for the Mainline Study Units 54 TABLE 6, Summary Statistics for ODOT Data Base (N=169) with Annual Accidents Distributed Among the Mainline (and ramps), the Crossroad, and Beyond the Interchange , 59 TABLE 7, Identification of 32 Individual Interchanges in ODOT Data Base (N=169) 63 m LIST OF FIGURES Page No, FIGURE 1. Effect of Mainline ADT on Interchange Accident Rate 4 FIGURE 2. Interchange Schematic Denoting Design Elements 6 FIGURE 3. Distribution of the Total Number of Accidents in ISAR Data Base by Location Within the Full Cloverleaf Interchange (N=169) 7 FIGURE 4. Percentage Distribution of Accidents by Location Within Interchange (N=169) 9 FIGURE 5. Distribution of the Total Number of Accidents by Location Within the Full Cloverleaf Interchange (ADT 16,000 and N=128) 10 FIGURE 6. Distribution of the Total Number of Accidents by Location Within the Full Cloverleaf Interchange (ADT 16,000 and N=41 ) 11 FIGURE 7. Average Number of Accidents on Mainline Design Elements for High vs Low Volume Interchanges. 12 FIGURE 8. Average Number of Accidents on Interchange Ramps for High vs Low Volume Interchanges 12 FIGURE 9. Effect of Merging Volume on the Level of Service of a Two-Lane, One-Way Roadway 18 FIGURE 10. Effect of Weaving Length and Balanced Weaving Volume on the Level of Service of a Two-Lane, One-Way Roadway 20 FIGURE 11. Effect of Weaving Length and Unbalanced Weaving Volume on the Level of Service of a Two-Lane, One-Way Roadway 21 FIGURE 12. Effect of Diverging Volume on the Level of Service of a Two-Lane, One-Way Roadway 22 IV LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) Page No, FIGURE 13. Description of a Treatment for Improving the Traffic Flow and Safety in the Weaving Section of a Cloverleaf Interchange 33 FIGURE 14. Effect of Weaving Length and Weaving Volume on the Level of Service on a C-D Roadway. ... 34 FIGURE 15. Effect of Number of Turning Lanes and Turning Volume on Crossroad Service Volume 38 FIGURE 16. Record Layout for ISAR Data Base as Received from FHWA 50 FIGURE 17. Schematic of Full Cloverleaf Interchange Showing the Location Codes Used in ISAR-Study II. 51 FIGURE 18. Annual Number of Accidents on Accel and Decel Lanes of the Outerconnection Versus Mainline Volume 64 FIGURE 19. Annual Number of Accidents on Weave Section Versus Mainline Volume 65 FIGURE 20. Annual Number of Accidents on Weave Section and Loop Ramps Versus Mainline Volume 66 FIGURE 21. Annual Number of Accidents on Accel and Decel Lanes and Outerconnection Ramps Versus Mainline Volume 67 FIGURE 22. Annual Number of Accidents on the Mainline Versus Mainline Volume 68 FIGURE 23. Annual Number of Accidents on the Mainline and Ramp Versus Mainline Volume 69 FIGURE 24. Annual Number of Accidents on the Crossroad Versus Mainline Volume 70 FIGURE 25. Annual Number of Accidents Beyond the Inter- change Versus the Mainline Volume 71 LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) Page No, FIGURE 26. Annual Number of Accidents Within and Beyond the Interchange Versus Mainline Volume 72 FIGURE 27. Description of a Treatment for Improving Traffic Flow and Safety in the Weaving Section of a Cloverleaf Interchange 74 VI CHAPTER I The full cloverleaf interchange is a common interchange normally occuring at high speed and/or high traffic volume locations. Its frequency of use is due to the fact that the cloverleaf is the only four-leg, single grade separation pattern without at-grade, left turns. It is also the least expensive of the free-flow interchange patterns. However, there are some serious drawbacks to the use of the full cloverleaf interchange. Research results by Cirillo et al (1969) indicated that two- thirds of all accidents on a freeway system occur at or near inter- changes and that the accident rate on full cloverleaf interchanges without C-D roadways is greater than the rate on all other standard types of interchanges studied. Those results also demonstrated that variation in the mainline traffic volume accounted for almost all of the variability in the accident rate. Large traffic volumes also result in serious operational prob- lems in the full cloverleaf interchange without C-D roadways. Large volume weaving movements result in considerable friction and reduc- tion in the speed of the traffic. The AASHTO Blue Book and the Highway Capacity Manual contain discussions of the limit to the amount of traffic that can be moved through a given weaving section without congestion. Mulinazzi (1973) indicates that most state highway design engineers accept the analysis of Pinnel and Buhr (1966) giving the capacity of a weaving section to be 1,000 vph without a C-D roadway and 1,500 vph with one. Another limiting factor in the operation of the full cloverleaf interchange is the inclusion of loop ramps.
Recommended publications
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic

    Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic

    MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration for Streets and Highways Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic Dotted line indicates edge of binder spine. MM UU TT CC DD U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2003 Edition Page i The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard in accordance with Title 23 U.S. Code, Sections 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a), 23 CFR 655, and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(8), 1.48(b)(33), and 1.48(c)(2). Addresses for Publications Referenced in the MUTCD American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 www.transportation.org American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) 8201 Corporate Drive, Suite 1125 Landover, MD 20785-2230 www.arema.org Federal Highway Administration Report Center Facsimile number: 301.577.1421 [email protected] Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) 120 Wall Street, Floor 17 New York, NY 10005 www.iesna.org Institute of Makers of Explosives 1120 19th Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-3605 www.ime.org Institute of Transportation Engineers
  • Chapter 10 Grade Separations and Interchanges

    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.
  • SR 92-82 Interchange Improvement Project

    SR 92-82 Interchange Improvement Project

    SR 92-82 Interchange Improvement Project SAN MATEO (SM) COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 4 – SM – 92-82(Post Miles 11.0/10.3, 11.5 /10.7) Expenditure Authorization 23552/Project ID 0412000496 Initial Study with Negative Declaration Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation May 2014 General Information About This Document For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in Braille, in large print, on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to Department of Transportation, District 4 Office of Public Affairs, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623; (510) 286-4444 (Voice), or use the California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice) or 711. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables 4 SUMMARY 7 CHAPTER 1- Proposed Project 12 Introduction 12 Purpose and Need 13 CHAPTER 2 - Project Alternatives 14 Alternatives 14 Build Alternative Partial Cloverleaf 14 No Build Alternative 19 Alternatives Discussed But Eliminated From Further Analysis: 19 CHAPTER 3 - Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 19 UTILITIES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 21 Affected Environment 21 Environmental Consequences 21 Avoidance Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures 21 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 22 Regulatory Setting 56 Affected Environment 56 Project Alternatives 56 Environmental Consequences 56 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Measures 56 VISUAL/AESTHETICS
  • South Portland Smart Corridor Plan

    South Portland Smart Corridor Plan

    Portland – South Portland Smart Corridor Plan June 2018 revised October 2018 PACTS – City of Portland – City of South Portland – MaineDOT 3.2.3 Public Transit .................................................................................... 33 CONTENTS 3.2.4 Pedestrian ......................................................................................... 37 3.2.5 Bicycle ................................................................................................ 40 3.2.6 Corridor Safety Record ................................................................. 41 3.3 FOREST AVENUE NORTH – MORRILL’S CORNER TO WOODFORDS CORNER ...... 44 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1 3.3.1 Land Use and Urban Design ......................................................... 44 STUDY GOALS ................................................................................................................. 1 3.3.2 Roadway and Traffic ..................................................................... 45 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 4 3.3.3 Public Transit .................................................................................... 49 SMART CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 6 3.3.4 Pedestrian ......................................................................................... 49 Intersection and
  • View Preliminary Design Report

    View Preliminary Design Report

    Preliminary Design Report I-494/I-35W Interchange Preliminary Design Project Bloomington, MN S.P. No. 2785-350 SEH No. MNTCO 107371 March 30, 2010 I-494/I-35W Interchange Preliminary Design Project Preliminary Design Report Bloomington, MN S.P. NO. 2785-350 SEH No. MNTCO 107371 March 30, 2010 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Jeff Rhoda, PE Date: Lic. No.: 26377 Reviewed by: Date Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302 952.912.2600 Executive Summary • Develop an alternative that incorporates the provisions of an In-Line BRT station located at or between American Boulevard and 82nd Street. Background Information The interchange alternative developed from the project would be considered for further evaluation leading into the The I-494 and I-35W corridors are major transportation corridors in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The ability to development of a Level 1 Layout Approval by Mn/DOT and possible reevaluation of the 2001 FEIS. effectively move the users of these transportation corridors to their destinations with reduced congestion and improved safety continues to be a challenge today and in the foreseeable future. The I-494 and I-35W interchange area Existing Conditions and Prioritized Deficiencies consistently remains as one of the higher ranked locations for congestion and safety deficiencies in the metro area and the country; a 2010 study, based on Travel Time Index (TTI), ranked I-494 17th worst commute in the nation.
  • Interchange and Intersection Designs for Use in Spot On!Ine

    Interchange and Intersection Designs for Use in Spot On!Ine

    INTERCHANGE AND INTERSECTION DESIGNS FOR USE IN SPOT ON!INE October 22, 2013 This document contains examples of 31 different interchange and intersection designs with for use in SPOT On!ine, NCDOT’s GIS- based Web Application for providing automated, near real-time prioritization scores and project costs. The designs shown provide a variety of configurations for users to choose from when entering an existing or proposed (project) interchange or intersection type for a new project in the application. The designs selected are used to calculate quantitative scores for the Prioritization process, as well as calculate a planning-level cost estimate for the project. The interchange and intersections designs used in SPOT On!ine were developed by a team from the Strategic Prioritization Office (SPOT), Roadway Design Unit, Preliminary Estimates Section, and the Transportation Planning Branch. Please contact the Strategic Prioritization Office with any questions. INTERCHANGE AND INTERSECTION DESIGNS FOR USE IN SPOT ON!INE Table of Contents Diamond Interchange ................................................................. 3 Directional Interchange with 2 Flyover Ramps and 2 Loops – Diamond Interchange with 1 Loop ............................................. 4 Example 2 ............................................................................... 19 Diamond Interchange with 2 Loops ............................................ 5 Directional Interchange with 3 Flyover Ramps and 1 Loop ..... 20 Tight Urban Diamond Interchange ............................................
  • Study of a Highly Effective and Affordable Highway Interchange - ITL Interchange

    Study of a Highly Effective and Affordable Highway Interchange - ITL Interchange

    Available online at www.CivileJournal.org Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 4, April, 2020 Technical Note Study of a Highly Effective and Affordable Highway Interchange - ITL Interchange Goran Jovanović a*, Rafko Atelšek b* a MSc, Civil Engineer, Appia Company for Design, Research and Engineering d.o.o. (Appia d.o.o), Ljubljana, Slovenia. b BSc, EE, Appia Company for Design, Research and Engineering d.o.o. (Appia d.o.o.), Ljubljana, Slovenia. Received 26 December 2019; Accepted 01 March 2020 Abstract In this paper we present a new solution for the highway interchange, which represents the best compromise between the traffic capacity, the land area used and construction cost. The difference between the known and the new design solution is in the implementation of the opposite directional ramps which are widely separated in the area of the interchange. In the middle, between the directional ramps, some space is created for the left directional ramps. Interchange should be used for four-way highway interchanges or other heavy traffic roads junction in order to increase the capacity and traffic safety at the crossing point. It has no conflict points. ITL Interchange left directional ramps is much shorter than all other known solutions for interchanges. The interchange is built in two levels. These two facts significantly lower the cost of construction. The study compares different types of interchanges. We made a geometric comparison and performance measures. In geometric comparison, the greatest advantages of the ITL interchange are the shortest overall roadway length and the shortest overpasses length. Therefore, such an interchange is advantageous in terms of construction and maintenance costs.
  • Massdot News Home > Information Center > Weekly Newsletters > Massdot News 02/19/2016

    Massdot News Home > Information Center > Weekly Newsletters > Massdot News 02/19/2016

    Home | About Us | Employment | Contact Us | Site Policies The Official Website of The Massachusetts Department of Transportation MassDOT News Home > Information Center > Weekly Newsletters > MassDOT News 02/19/2016 February 19 MBTA GM: Orange Line Train Exterior Checks MBTA General Manager Frank DePaola issued a statement following Tuesday’s Orange Line incident in which a train body panel near the bottom edge of one of its cars fell onto the tracks: "The MBTA is immediately incorporating a more thorough exterior check of body panel hardware as part of regular maintenance work on Orange Line cars. Bolts and rivets of body panels will now be MassDOT March examined every 12 thousand miles, which is approximately every 8 or 9 weeks, when Orange Line cars Board Meeting are taken into a garage for scheduled comprehensive maintenance. This maintenance already includes checks of the safety system, evacuation equipment, propulsion system, brake system, suspension March 16 system, communication system, doors, wheels, lights, seating, and other interior compartment items." Transportation Building 10 Park Plaza Read the full statement on the MBTA website Suite 3830 Boston, MA 02150 Route 2/I­95 Bridge Replacement: Major East­West Connector Gets Upgrade The cloverleaf interchange of Route 2 and I­95 in Lexington is undergoing major upgrades for the Route Full Meeting Schedule 2/I­95 Bridge Replacement Project. On the MassDOT Blog The bridges that carry Route 2 East and West over I­95 are Route 79/Braga Bridge structurally deficient and their vertical clearance is substandard. Project Reconnects City to MassDOT is replacing the two bridges to address these Historic Battleship deficiencies, upgrade their capacity, meet current seismic criteria, improve safety, protect the environment, and reduce annual maintenance costs.
  • Comparison of Single Point Urban Interchange and Diverging

    Comparison of Single Point Urban Interchange and Diverging

    COMPARISON OF SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AND DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE THROUGH SIMULATION Thesis Submitted to The School of Engineering of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering By Rawan Ramadhan Dayton, Ohio May 2019 COMPARISON OF SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AND DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE THROUGH SIMULATION Name: Ramadhan, Rawan APPROVED BY: _____________________________ ____________________________ Deogratias Eustace, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE Philip Appiah-Kubi, Ph.D. Advisory Committee Chairperson, Committee Member, Associate Professor, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Department of Engineering Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Management, Systems, and Technology _____________________________ Paul Goodhue, P.E., PTOE Committee Member, Traffic Key Services Leader, LJB, Inc. _____________________________ _____________________________ Robert J. Wilkens, Ph.D., P.E. Eddy M. Rojas, Ph.D., M.A., P.E. Associate Dean for Research & Innovation Dean, School of Engineering Professor School of Engineering ii © Copyright by Rawan Ramadhan All rights reserved 2019 iii ABSTRACT COMPARISON OF SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE AND DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE THROUGH SIMULATION Name: Ramadhan, Rawan University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. Deogratias, Eustace In 1960, there were 74,431,800 vehicles registered in the United States. Looking at the most recent data currently available shows that in 2016 there were 268,799,083 registered vehicles in the United States. Roadway facilities constructed in the 1960s were not designed to handle vehicular traffic of these proportions. The ever increasing volumes of motor vehicle traffic at heavily traveled interchanges and intersections heighten the risk of single or multiple vehicle crashes particularly when they are not designed to manage high volumes.
  • AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT for P.I.N. 4531.07 ROUTE 531

    AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT for P.I.N. 4531.07 ROUTE 531

    AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT for P.I.N. 4531.07 ROUTE 531 TERMINUS IMPROVEMENTS TOWNS OF SWEDEN and OGDEN MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK MARCH 2013 Prepared For: STANTEC 61 COMMERCIAL STREET ROCHESTER NY 14614 For Submission To: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION FOUR 1530 JEFFERSON ROAD ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14623 95 Perry Street, Suite 300 Buffalo, New York 14203 p: 716.206.5100 f: 716.206.5199 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope ...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Project Location ........................................................................................ 2 2.2 Project Description .................................................................................... 2 2.3 Existing Air Quality .................................................................................... 3 2.3.1 Regional Priority Pollutants ............................................................. 3 2.3.2 Attainment Classification ................................................................. 6 2.4 Conformity ............................................................................................... 6 3.0 MESOSCALE EMISSION ANALYSIS
  • Evolution of Interchange Design in North America

    Evolution of Interchange Design in North America

    Evolution of Interchange Design in North America Joel P. Leisch, P.Eng., Transportation Consultant John Morrall, P.Eng., President, Canadian Highway Institute, Ltd. PAPER ID: 10415 Paper prepared for presentation At the Geometric Design-Learning from the Past Session of the 2014 Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada Montreal, Quebec 1 Abstract – Evolution of Interchange Design in North America There has been a significant evolution in interchange forms and interchange geometric design criteria since the first interchange (cloverleaf) was constructed in Woodbridge, NJ in 1928. The first cloverleaf interchange in Canada was the Port Credit interchange completed in 1937 on the QEW between Toronto and Niagara Falls which was the first freeway in Canada. This presentation will chronicle the following: - Evolution of interchange forms from the cloverleaf to the double crossover diamond (diverging diamond). - Evolution of interchange geometric design criteria from the 1930’s to the present. - Application of driver characteristics and expectations in interchange design, operations and signing guidelines in the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design policies and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The interchange forms to be presented include 17 diamond interchange forms, 10 partial cloverleaf forms and 16 system (freeway to freeway) interchange forms with their design and operational characteristics. The early interchanges (1928-1955) in the US and Canada will provide the base from which the multitude of interchanges have evolved. Geometric design of ramp exit and entrance design, geometric design of ramps, and basic design criteria for freeways will be presented demonstrating the evolution of design criteria from the 1940’s to present day based on TAC and AASHTO criteria.
  • 100Projectsand Counting... Transportation Uniform Mitigation

    100Projectsand Counting... Transportation Uniform Mitigation

    Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program 100 Projects and Counting... “100 Projects and Counting” provides an updated listing (in order of completion) of each of the 100 transportation and transit projects built since WRCOG’s Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program was launched in 2003. Completing 100 projects is no small Bridges feat considering the amount of time it takes (usually years) to get projects like the ones listed in this booklet on the ground. TUMF is slated to provide nearly $3 billion towards improving Western Riverside County’s Grade Separations mobility by building critical transportation infrastructure needed to keep pace with the region’s rapid growth. In addition to improving our mobility, TUMF is also providing jobs for thousands of workers in the private sector who are and will be needed to plan, engineer, and build these facilities. A 2014 Duke University Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness report indicates that more than 21,000 jobs are created per each Interchanges $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure. That translates to the creation of approximately 80,000 new jobs through TUMF. The same report also found that every $1 invested in transportation infrastructure creates more than $3.5 dollars in economic return, which tells us that there’s an even broader positive impact to Western Riverside’s Roadway Improvements economy that goes way beyond the direct TUMF investment. 100 completed projects is a great start when it comes to improving the region’s mobility and economy, and there are hundreds of projects to come. To see which projects are included in TUMF, and to get other background information about the Program, visit Transit Improvements WRCOG’s website at wrcog.us.