DOCSLIB.ORG

An Analysis of the Puget Sound In-Vehicle Traffic Map Demonstration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Analysis of the Puget Sound In-Vehicle Traffic Map Demonstration An Analysis of the Puget Sound In-Vehicle Traffic Map Demonstration WA-RD 737.1 Peter M. Briglia Jr. April 2010 Emily Fishkin Mark E. Hallenbeck Yao-Jan Wu WSDOT Research Report Office of Research & Library Services Research Report Agreement T4118, Task 01 Congestion Map Test AN ANALYSIS OF THE PUGET SOUND IN-VEHICLE TRAFFIC MAP DEMONSTRATION by Peter M. Briglia, Jr. Emily Fishkin Research Engineer Principal Research Engineer Mark E. Hallenbeck Yao-Jan Wu Director Ph.D. Candidate TRAC-UW Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) University of Washington, Box 354802 University District Building 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Seattle, Washington 98105-4631 Washington State Department of Transportation Technical Monitor Ted Trepanier WSDOT State Traffic Engineer Headquarters Traffic Office Prepared for The State of Washington Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, Secretary April 2010 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. WA-RD 737.1 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE An Analysis of the Puget Sound In-Vehicle April 2010 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Traffic Map Demonstration 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Peter M. Briglia Jr., Emily Fishkin, Mark E. Hallenbeck, and Yao-Jan Wu 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) University of Washington, Box 354802 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Agreement T4118, Task 01 University District Building; 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Seattle, Washington 98105-4631 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED Research Office Research Report Washington State Department of Transportation 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE Transportation Building, MS 47372 Olympia, Washington 98504-7372 Project Manager: Doug Brodin, 360-705-7972 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES This study was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 16. ABSTRACT: The purposes of this project were to gain a better understanding of the benefits of providing in-vehicle congestion informa- tion and to determine whether any detectable congestion level changes resulted from providing this information. The project tested an in-vehicle traffic map device (TrafficGauge) using 2,215 participants from the Puget Sound region. Three rounds of surveys (Entry, Daily and Exit) took place between November 2007 and May 2008 in which participants used the TrafficGauge for six months. The project also analyzed a roadway corridor to determine, in instances of unusual freeway congestion, how traveler’s behavior affects congestion on alternative roadways. The analysis looked for correlations between the performance of the study corridor’s three freeways and four arterials using conditional probability tables. Most of the survey participants were young to middle-age males, well educated with middle or high incomes. The entry survey demographic data indicated that the participants were not representative of the general population but they were proba- bly representative of those most likely to seek and pay for traveler information, particularly information delivered by an in- vehicle congestion map device. On half the occasions when participants reported changing routines in the daily surveys, they reported not receiving any benefits. For the entire study, 25 percent of participants reported not benefiting at all from the device. Participants who changed routines saved time a mean number of 1.6 times. The mean amount of time saved on those instances was a little over 30 min- utes. Thirty-two percent of participants indicated that they did not save any time by using the device. Over 59 percent of the participants indicated that the information provided by the device reduced their level of stress. The study participants could be divided into three groups. One (about 20 percent) thought highly of the device, were con- fident that it had saved them considerable time and stress, and would purchase the device. Another (between 21 percent and 26 percent) saw little value in either the device or the information that it conveyed and would not purchase the device. The third, and largest, group saw value in the device and occasionally benefited from the information it provided. They did not, however, think that these benefits warranted purchasing the device. The corridor analysis indicated that even without arterial performance information, some travelers seek alternative routes when the freeway becomes congested. The corridor analysis confirmed that many travelers diverted either on the basis of what they see on the roadway or what they get from en-route traffic information sources. Even the modest levels of diversion observed in this study increased arterial congestion, especially near freeway ramps. This visible arterial congestion near the freeway discouraged diversion. Consequently, providing arterial performance information on the entire arterial via in-vehicle devices is likely to increase initial diversion, thereby degrading arterial performance. Roadway agencies will, therefore, need to make traffic management of the ramps and arterial segments that connect the alternate routes a priority. 17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22616 19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this report) 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this page) 21. NO. OF PAGES 22. PRICE None None DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Washington State Department of Transportation or Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... xi INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 4 I. IN-VEHICLE TRAFFIC MAP STUDY ........................................................... 7 The Study Group ............................................................................................ 7 General Characteristics ...................................................................... 7 Familiarity with Technology.............................................................. 10 Commuting Behavior ......................................................................... 10 Use of Traveler Information .............................................................. 15 The Daily Surveys.......................................................................................... 20 Usage.................................................................................................. 20 Travel Changes .................................................................................. 22 Benefits .............................................................................................. 22 Change in Travel Routine ...................................................... 22 Time Savings ......................................................................... 23 The Exit Surveys ............................................................................................ 26 Perceived Benefits and Disadvantages in the Exit Survey ................ 27 Utility ................................................................................................. 28 Reliability ........................................................................................... 31 Trip Duration ..................................................................................... 32 Willingness to Pay ............................................................................. 34 Additional Taxpayer Support ............................................................. 37 Time Savings and Purchase Decisions .............................................. 38 Peace of Mind .................................................................................... 41 Location of Participants ..................................................................... 43 Arterial Information ........................................................................... 44 Effects of Earlier Access to Traveler Information Services .............. 45 Exit Survey Summary ........................................................................ 49 Conclusions: In-Vehicle Traffic Map Study ................................................. 50 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page II. CHANGES IN ROADWAY PERFORMANCE AS A RESULT OF TRAVELER BEHAVIOR DUE IN PART TO TRAVELER INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 53 Study Location ............................................................................................... 53 Data Sources .................................................................................................. 56 Analysis Methodology ................................................................................... 57 Diversion Rate Calculation ................................................................ 61 Determining Congestion Scenarios...................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oregon Historic Trails Report Book (1998)
    i ,' o () (\ ô OnBcox HrsroRrc Tnans Rpponr ô o o o. o o o o (--) -,J arJ-- ö o {" , ã. |¡ t I o t o I I r- L L L L L (- Presented by the Oregon Trails Coordinating Council L , May,I998 U (- Compiled by Karen Bassett, Jim Renner, and Joyce White. Copyright @ 1998 Oregon Trails Coordinating Council Salem, Oregon All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Oregon Historic Trails Report Table of Contents Executive summary 1 Project history 3 Introduction to Oregon's Historic Trails 7 Oregon's National Historic Trails 11 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail I3 Oregon National Historic Trail. 27 Applegate National Historic Trail .41 Nez Perce National Historic Trail .63 Oregon's Historic Trails 75 Klamath Trail, 19th Century 17 Jedediah Smith Route, 1828 81 Nathaniel Wyeth Route, t83211834 99 Benjamin Bonneville Route, 1 833/1 834 .. 115 Ewing Young Route, 1834/1837 .. t29 V/hitman Mission Route, 184l-1847 . .. t4t Upper Columbia River Route, 1841-1851 .. 167 John Fremont Route, 1843 .. 183 Meek Cutoff, 1845 .. 199 Cutoff to the Barlow Road, 1848-1884 217 Free Emigrant Road, 1853 225 Santiam Wagon Road, 1865-1939 233 General recommendations . 241 Product development guidelines 243 Acknowledgements 241 Lewis & Clark OREGON National Historic Trail, 1804-1806 I I t . .....¡.. ,r la RivaÌ ï L (t ¡ ...--."f Pðiräldton r,i " 'f Route description I (_-- tt |".
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Constructing Local Roads in New York's Adirondack Park Edward J
    5 Guidelines for Constructing Local Roads in New York's Adirondack Park Edward J. Kearney, New York state Department of Transportation, Albany The Adirondack Park in upstate New York contains more than 23 000 phasize that aesthetics and engineering are mutually km2 (9000 rniles2) of public and private lands. Most stote·owned land is dependent and that roads can be built that will be designated by the state constitution to remain "forever wild", and de­ operationally safe and efficient and easier and cheaper velopment of private land is closely controlled by the Adirondack Park to maintain and yet will blend attractively into the sur­ Agency, which is part of the executive branch of the state government and also has jurisdiction over construction of new municipal roads and rounding landscape. Figures 1 and 2 show examples of expansions of existing ones. Guidelines that have been developed for use good construction practices in the park, a11d Figure 3 in lieu of review of individual local road projects by the Adirondack Park shows an example of what should be avoided. Agency are presented and discussed. The guidelines are presented in Many researchers have questioned the applicability seven categories: (a) planning, (b), alignment, (c) cross section, (d) road­ of the American Association of state Highway and bed construction, (e) riding surface, (f) bridges and culverts, and (g) gen­ Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design eral construction. Their objective is to ensure that local roads are con­ Guide for Local Roads and streets (!) and Highway De­ structed or reconstructed so that they fit harmoniously into the natural surroundings and impart the feeling of being in a park.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Sir: I Have Lived for 15 Years in Dolphin Cove with the Ever Growing Disaster That Is Greenwich Avenue and Southfield Avenue
    To: Rosenson, Valerie Subject: The promised roundabout Date: Monday, December 02, 2019 3:22:46 PM Dear Sir: I have lived for 15 years in Dolphin Cove with the ever growing disaster that is Greenwich Avenue and Southfield Avenue. My husband and I have been to several meetings with various city employees who told us Waterside people that we were eventually going to get a roundabout at the intersection of Pulaski, Greenwich and Davenport. Greenwich would become one way south and Davenport one way north. The roundabout would be speedier than the triangle 3 stop signs are today. We were told to be patient. Over and over. Still, you approved, over our objections, 700 new apartments with nary a change in our favor-just far more traffic than could possibly be reasonably handled on top of an already impossible traffic situation. You did not widen Southfield as far as promised, but you did enlarge the corner at Selleck so a turn to Davenport could avoid the still 2direction Greenwich. We felt hope, but since Davenport still hits the Greenwich northbound traffic before the triangle, it really was of no help. But it gave us a glimmer of hope that the plan was progressing. It was planned that with the roundabout both those roads would be merging out of/into the new roundabout which should slightly improve throughput. Now you have stopped the project in its tracks by not allowing Pulaski to be widened so it can be both an entrance and an exit from the roundabout out! So the congestion at Washington will just back up into the triangle or roundabout.
    [Show full text]
  • Great River Road Tennessee
    Great River Road Tennessee Corridor Management Plan Corridor Management Plan Recognitions Mayor AC Wharton Shelby County Byway Consultant Mayor Jeff Huffman Tipton County David L. Dahlquist Mayor Rod Schuh Lauderdale County Governor Phil Bredesen President Mayor Richard Hill Dyer County State of Tennessee David L. Dahlquist Associates, L.L.C. Mayor Macie Roberson Lake County State Capitol 5204 Shriver Avenue Mayor Benny McGuire Obion County Nashville, TN 37243 Des Moines, IA 50312 Commissioner Susan Whitaker Pickering Firm, Inc Department of Tourist Development Byway Planning Team Architecture – Engineering – Planning – Surveying Wm. Snodgrass/Tennessee Tower 312 8th Avenue North, 25th Floor Bob Pitts, PE Nashville, TN 37243 Mississippi River Corridor – Tennessee, Inc. Principal Owner Board of Directors Director, Civil Engineering Services Ms. Marty Marbry 6775 Lenox Center Court – Suite 300 West Tennessee – Tourist Development Memphis, TN 38115 Regional Marketing & Public Relations John Sheahan Chairman/CEO John Threadgill Secretary Historical Consultant Commissioner Gerald Nicely Dr. Carroll Van West Tennessee Department of Transportation Jim Bondurant Chair – Obion - Task Force Committe Director 505 Deaderick St. Rosemary Bridges Chair – Tipton - Task Force Committee Center for Historic Preservation James K. Polk Bldg. – 7th Floor Peter Brown Chair – Dyer - Task Force Committee Middle Tennessee State University Nashville, TN 37243 Laura Holder Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area P.O. Box 80 – MTSU Pamela Marshall Public Affairs
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Better Backroads Guidebook
    Great Lakes Better Backroads Guidebook Clean Water by Design Great Lakes Drainage Basin September 2007, 3rd Edition Prepared by: 501 Norway Street Grayling, MI 49738 Huron Pines www.huronpines.org Conserving the Forests, Lakes and Streams of Northeast Michigan Good design and maintenance will save $$$ by decreasing road problems and untimely repairs. Great Lakes Better Backroads Guidebook Clean Water by Design September 2007, 3rd Edition Prepared by: 501 Norway Street Grayling, MI 49738 www.huronpines.org Huron Pines Conserving the Forests, Lakes and Streams of Northeast Michigan Huron Pines is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization and an equal opportunity employer. The Great Lakes Commission and the USDA provided partial funding for this project. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to the Windham Regional Commission, Brattleboro, Vermont and the George D. Aiken & Northern Vermont Resource Conservation and Development Councils for permission to reproduce portions of the Vermont Better Backroads Manual. Special thanks to Melissa M. Reichert, Senior Planner/Landscape Architect, Windham Regional Commission, Brattleboro, Vermont for providing illustrations from the Vermont Better Backroads Manual. Steering Committee for the 3rd Edition: Amy Beyer, Conservation Resource Alliance, Traverse City, MI Duke Domke, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Land & Water Management Division, Gaylord, MI Howard Haselschwardt, Northwest Design Group, Petoskey, MI Steve Holden, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Water Bureau, Lansing, MI Tyler Kitchel, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Water Bureau, Lansing, MI Steve Largent, Grand Traverse Conservation District, Traverse City, MI Keith Noble, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Water Bureau, Lansing, MI Daniel Pearson, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Natural Rivers Program, Gaylord, MI Heather Rawlings, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 20 Discovery Road and SR 20 Kearney Street Roundabouts Pre-Design Study
    SR 20 Discovery Road and SR 20 Kearney Street Roundabouts Pre-Design Study December 2020 Prepared by WSDOT’s Olympic Region Multimodal Planning Office P. O. Box 47440 Olympia, WA 98504-7440 Title VI Notice to Public It is the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) policy to ensure no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated, may file a complaint with WSDOT's Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For additional information regarding Title VI complaint procedures and/or information regarding our non-discrimination obligations, please contact OEO's Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7090. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information Materials can be made available in an alternate format by emailing the Office of Equal Opportunity at [email protected] or by calling toll free, 855-362-4232. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may make a request by calling the Washington State Relay at 711. Under 23 U.S. Code § 409, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Region Road and Trail Bicycling Guide
    LEGEND BEFORE YOU USE THIS MAP BICYCLING TIPS AND BEST PRACTICES WHERE TO RIDE SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN TRAILS SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN TRAILS Multi-Use Linear Mountain Biking This guide has been developed by the Southwest Rights and Responsibilities On the Road Description Description Southwest Michigan Planning Commission as an aid to bicyclists In general, bicyclists on public roadways have the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicle drivers and are subject to Bicycles are permitted on all Michigan highways and roads EXCEPT limited Trails Trails and is not intended to be a substitute for a person’s the same state laws and local ordinances. For everyone’s safety, observe these bicycling rules and safety tips. access freeways or unless otherwise posted. Bicycles are allowed on all road More than 26 miles of paved pathway wind through systems including those in state forests, state parks, national forests and Battle Creek Al Sabo Land Seven miles of mountain bike trails go through this land use of reasonable care. The user of this map bears wooded areas, open fields, parks, and some commercial Region Check your Bike Always Wear an Approved Helmet national parks. Linear Trail Preserve preserve. Located near Kalamazoo Valley Community College. full responsibility for his or her safety. The Southwest areas. Historical, cultural, and point of interest signs are www.texastownship.org/about-texas-township/parks- Be sure your brakes work and tires are inflated properly. Always have your helmet fitted and adjusted properly. Helmets Battle Creek Kalamazoo Michigan Planning Commission makes no express or also found along the trail. 269-375-1591 facilities/ Road and Trail Bicycling Guide Use a bell Wear a helmet should fit snugly so they do not move around while riding.
    [Show full text]
  • Deerfoot Trail Study
    Phase 1 June 2016 Deerfoot Trail Online Mapping Tool What We Heard Study Report Table of Contents What we heard and what we asked ............................................................................................ 2 Verbatim Comments .................................................................................................................. 4 Stoney Trail North .................................................................................................................. 4 Country Hills Boulevard .......................................................................................................... 6 96 Avenue N.E. / Airport Trail ................................................................................................. 7 Beddington Trail N.E. ............................................................................................................10 64 Avenue N.E. .....................................................................................................................16 McKnight Boulevard N.E........................................................................................................20 32 Avenue N.E. .....................................................................................................................36 16 Avenue N.E. / Highway 1 ..................................................................................................44 Memorial Drive N.E. ..............................................................................................................49 Blackfoot
    [Show full text]
  • Section J Shorebird Monitoring & Management
    Section J Shorebird Monitoring & Management Duxbury Beach, Duxbury, MA 2017 Beach Nesting Bird Summary Report Prepared by Gabrielle Gareau and Autumn Jorgensen, Mass Audubon Coastal Waterbird Program Photo by Autumn Jorgensen For further information, please contact: Katherine Parsons, Director Sue MacCallum, Director Coastal Waterbird Program South Shore Sanctuaries PO Box 275 2000 Main Street Cummaquid, MA 02637 Marshfield, MA 02050 (503) 362-7475 x9351 (781) 837-9400 [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Monitoring of Duxbury Beach for nesting Piping Plover and Least Tern began on March 21 and continued through August 31, 2017. There were 28 pairs of Piping Plover that had territories at the site but only 27 of these nested. There were a total of 46 nest attempts. Ten nests hatched 28 chicks total and 11 chicks survived to 25 days, the age at which they are considered fledged, for an overall productivity of 0.41. One chick died after 25 days but before fully fledging, so in reality only 10 chicks actually fledged. Least Terns settled into four colonies by late May and there were 113 pairs at the beginning of June. High tides and storm overwash on June 5 caused many pairs to abandon the site; by mid-June only 75 remained and by July fewer than 40. Only a single tern nest survived to hatch, but the 2 chicks were lost within a week. Most egg and chick losses for both species are from predation and overwash, although some Piping Plover chick losses may have been due to exposure during cool, wet weather.
    [Show full text]
  • Select Bd Agenda 08 09 2021
    Littleton Board of Selectmen AGENDA ACTION REQUEST 1 August 9, 2021 Executive Session MGL C.30A,§21(a)(6) - Lease of Real Property – Nagog Orchard Requested by: Town Administrator Action Sought: Discussion/Direction Proposed Motion(s) MOVE that the Select Board vote to enter into Executive Session, pursuant to MGL C.30A,§21(a), clause (6), consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, since an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the Board, and to convene in open session thereafter. [Roll call vote] Additional Information Board will adjourn from Executive Session to Regular Session to continue with remainder of agenda. Board Action Motion Second In favor Opposed Disposition Littleton Select Board AGENDA ACTION REQUEST 2 August 9, 2021 MAIL Requested by: Town Administrator / Assistant Town Administrator Action Sought: None anticipated Proposed Motion(s) None anticipated at this time. Additional Information 1. Letter dated July 14, 2021 from Comcast informing Littleton of new Senior Manager of Government Affairs who will serve as representative to the Town. 2. Letter dated July 16, 2021 from Comcast informing Town of Emergency Connectivity Fund. 3. Letter dated July 21, 2021 from Comcast informing Town of changes to service. 4. Email dated July 30, 2021 from Interim Fire Chief Thomas Clancy regarding new Department of Public Health Mask Advisory. Board Action Motion Second In favor Opposed Disposition {?4 COMCAST July 74, 2021 Board of Selectmen Town of Littleton 37 Shattuck Street Littleton, MA 01460 Re: Comcast Government Alfoits - Contod Chonge Dear Chairman and Members of the Board I am writing to share with you we have welcomed Patrick J.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveymonkey Analyze
    Traffic Relief Pilot Program Feedback Survey - March 2019 SurveyMonkey Q1 Since the start of the Traffic Relief Pilot Program, how much do you support or oppose the Program? Answered: 808 Skipped: 0 60% 50% 49..6% 40% 49.6% 30% 118..3% 115..6% 20% 18.3% 9..9% 6..6% 15.6% 10% 9.9% 6.6% 0% Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly support support support nor oppose oppose oppose ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly support 49.6% 401 Somewhat support 18.3% 148 Neither support nor oppose 6.6% 53 Somewhat oppose 9.9% 80 Strongly oppose 15.6% 126 TOTAL 808 1 / 111 Traffic Relief Pilot Program Feedback Survey - March 2019 SurveyMonkey Q2 In your opinion, has the Traffic Relief Pilot Program reduced cut- through traffic in Foster City? Answered: 794 Skipped: 14 70% 58..11% 60% 58.1% 50% 411..9% 40% 41.9% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 58.1% 461 No 41.9% 333 TOTAL 794 2 / 111 Traffic Relief Pilot Program Feedback Survey - March 2019 SurveyMonkey Q3 Would you like to see the Traffic Relief Pilot Program (or left-turn restrictions) continued on a long-term basis? Answered: 804 Skipped: 4 60% 50% 55..7% 55.7% 40% 30% 23..8% 20..5% 23.8% 20% 20.5% 10% 0% Yes No Unsure. Please explain why: ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 55.7% 448 No 20.5% 165 Unsure. Please explain why: 23.8% 191 TOTAL 804 # UNSURE. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY: DATE 1 Left turn congestion moves towards Safeway parking lot area and into a Foster City Boulevard.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Effectiveness of Best Management Practices on Rural Backroads of Vermont: a Retrospective Assessment and Cost Analysis Joanne S
    University of Vermont ScholarWorks @ UVM Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Rubenstein School Masters Project Publications Resources 2015 Master's Project: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Best Management Practices on Rural Backroads of Vermont: A Retrospective Assessment and Cost Analysis Joanne S. Garton University of Vermont Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/rsmpp Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Garton, Joanne S., "Master's Project: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Best Management Practices on Rural Backroads of Vermont: A Retrospective Assessment and Cost Analysis" (2015). Rubenstein School Masters Project Publications. 3. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/rsmpp/3 This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at ScholarWorks @ UVM. It has been accepted for inclusion in Rubenstein School Masters Project Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Best Management Practices on Rural Backroads of Vermont: A Retrospective Assessment and Cost Analysis Final Project Report Prepared for The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Ecosystem Restoration Program by Joanne Garton, M.Sc. candidate Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources The University of Vermont Updated April 8, 2015 Abstract Repeated erosion of over 7,000 miles of unpaved roads in Vermont is degrading water quality and draining limited town budgets. Best Management Practices (BMPs), including stone-lined ditches, turn outs, check dams, revetments, culverts and vegetative controls, are recommended by the Vermont Department of Transportation as low cost means of reducing the sediment and phosphorous run- off from backroads.
    [Show full text]