DOCSLIB.ORG

Operational Design Guidelines for High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Operational Design Guidelines for High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes On Operational Design Guidelines U.S Department of Transportaton for High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Arterial Roadways November 1994 ITI TOOLBOX Orginally Published by Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Canada 101625 TDFO-94-04 OPERATIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HOV LANES ON ARTERIAL ROADWAYS INCLUDING PLANNING STRATEGIES AND SUPPORTING MEASURES MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL HOV/TDM COMMITTEE DEMAND MANAGEMENT AND FORECASTING OFFICE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION OF ONTARIO McCormick Rankin November 1994 OPERATIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HOV LANES ON ARTERIAL ROADWAYS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE . i SECTION I:HOVs AS PART OF THE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STRATEGY......................... I-1 I-l INTRODUCTION............................................. I-1 l-2 WHY HOV? COSTS, BENEFITS AND EXPERIENCE..................... I-1 l-3 HOV INITIATIVES IN ONTARIO TO DATE........................... l-4 l-3.1 Reserved Bus Lanes.................................... I-4 l-3.2 HOV Lanes.......................................... l-5 l-3.3 HOV Priority Programs and Initiatives........................ l-6 l-3.4 Provincial Policy....................................... l-8 l-3.5 Municipal Policy....................................... l-9 l-3.6 Funding Practice ..................................... l-11 l-3.6.1 HOV Lane Construction........................... I-11 l-3.6.2 Operational and Supporting Measures................. l-11 l-3.7 Documentation and Resources............................ I-12 l-4 HOV NETWORKS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING...................... l-13 l-4.1 The Transportation - Land Use Link ........................ l-13 l-4.2 Managing the Transportation System....................... l-14 I-4.3 HOV Strategic Planning at the Municipal Level ................ I-16 l-4.3.1 Municipal HOV Strategy .......................... I-16 l-4.3.2 Planning Steps................................. l-17 l-4.3.3 HOV Facility Principles and Preconditions .............. l-19 l-4.3.4 Justification Criteria for HOV Facilities ................ l-22 l-4.4 HOV Networks ...................................... l-23 l-4.4.1 HOV Network Planning........................... l-23 l-4.4.2 HOV Network Implementation ...................... l-24 l-4.4.3 Network Consistency ............................ l-26 l-4.5 Individual HOV Lanes.................................. l-28 l-4.5.1 Indicators of Suitable Corridors...................... l-28 l-4.5.2 Vehicle Eligibility and Related Issues.................. l-31 l-4.5.2.1 Vehicle Occupancy Criteria ................ l-31 l-4.5.2.2 HOV or RBL?.......................... l-32 l-4.5.2.3 HOV 2+ or HOV 3+? ................... l-37 l-4.5.3 Changing the Rules.............................. l-41 l-4.5.3.1 Modifying Use of an Existing HOV Lane .......l-41 l-4.5.3.2 Conversion of a General Purpose Lane to HOV Use................................. l-42 l-4.5.3.3 Dealing with HOV Lane Underutilization .......l-43 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D) Page l-4.5.4 HOV Lane Implementation: Leading up to Opening Day.....l-44 l-4.5.5 Environmental Assessment Requirements for HOV Lanes....l-45 l-4.6 HOV Priority and Support Programs........................ l-45 l-4.7 Demand Modelling for HOVs............................. l-45 l-4.7.1 Modelling Techniques............................ l-45 l-4.7.2 Information Requirements......................... l-46 l-4.8 Costs and Benefits.................................... l-48 l-4.8.1 Capital Cost................................... l-48 l-4.8.2 Related Costs................................... l-48 l-4.9 An Administrative Challenge............................. l-50 SECTION II: HOV LANE OPERATIONAL PLANNING GUIDELINES . II-1 II-I ELIGIBLE VEHICLES . , . II-1 II-1.1 Buses............................................. II-1 II-1.2 Taxis............................................. II-1 II-1.3 Carpools, Vanpools and Motorcycles....................... II-2 II-1.4 Trucks............................................ II-2 II-1.5 Bicycles ........................................... II-2 II-2 VEHICLE OCCUPANCY........................................ II-3 II-3 TIME OF HOV DESIGNATION . II-4 II-3.1 Time of Day ........................................ II-4 II-3.2 Day of Week........................................ II-7 II-4 HOV LANE USAGE CRITERIA . II-7 II-4.1 Maximum Vehicular Capacity ............................ II-9 II-4.2 Minimum Volume for Viability............................ II-13 II-4.3 Non-Users, Turning Vehicles, and Violators................... II-15 II-4.4 Net HOV Lane Usage .................................. II-16 II-5 ENFORCEMENT . II-17 II-5.1 Legislation ......................................... II-17 II-5.2 Stationary Violations .................................. II-18 II-5.3 Moving Violations .................................... II-18 II-5.4 Occupancy Rate Violations ............................. II-18 II-5.5 Enforcement Facilities.................................. II-20 II-5.6 Other Enforcement Techniques........................... II-21 II-5.7 Public Involvement in HOV Lane Enforcement [“HERO” Program).... II-22 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D) Page SECTION Ill: OPERATIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ARTERIAL HOV LANES ............................. Ill-1 Ill-1 ROADWAY TYPES.......................................... Ill-1 Ill-2 HOV LANES ON ROADWAY SEGMENTS .......................... Ill-1 Ill-3 QUEUEBY PASSES.......................................... III-5 Ill-4 INTERSECTION TREATMENTS.................................. Ill-6 III-4.1 Four Lane Approach................................... Ill-6 III-4.2 Six Lane Approach................................... III-10 III-4.3 Signal Phasing...................................... Ill-14 III-4.4 Signal Priority...................................... Ill-14 Ill-5 SIGNAGE ............................................... III-20 III-5.1 Experience ........................................ Ill-20 III-5.2 Pavement Markings.................................. Ill-20 III-5.3 Overhead / Roadside Signage ........................... Ill-21 Ill-6 TRANSITIONS............................................ Ill-27 Ill-7 ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES .................................. Ill-34 Ill-8 TRANSIT PROVISIONS...................................... Ill-36 III-8.1 Bus Bays.......................................... Ill-36 III-8.1.1 Intersections.............................. Ill-37 III-8.1.2 Mid-block ................................ Ill-37 III-8.2 Platforms / Shelters.................................. Ill-37 Ill-9 NON-HOV CONSIDERATIONS................................. Ill-39 III-9.1 On-Street Parking.................................... Ill-39 Ill-9.3 Snow Removal ..................................... Ill-40 Ill-9.4 Construction / Maintenance ............................ Ill-42 SECTION IV: HOV PRIORITY PROGRAMS - AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE PACKAGE ........................... IV-1 IV-1 INTRODUCTION............................................ IV-1 IV-2 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT............................... IV-1 . III TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D) Page IV-3 HOV-SUPPORTIVE PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES . IV-5 IV-3.1 Transportation Management Associations.................... IV-5 IV-3.2 Ride Matching Service ................................. IV-5 IV-3.3 Vanpools .......................................... IV-8 IV-3.4 Guaranteed Ride Home................................ IV-10 IV-3.5 Fuel Pricing and Road Tolls............................. IV-10 IV-4 PARKING PRIORITY . IV-11 IV-4.1 Policy............................................ IV-11 IV-4.2 Park and Ride Lots................................... IV-11 IV-4.3 Carpool Lots....................................... IV-13 IV-4.4 Trip-End Parking .................................... IV-15 IV-4.5 Parking Fees....................................... IV-16 IV-4.6 Private Parking ..................................... IV-18 IV-5 TRANSIT OPERATION . IV-18 IV-5.1 Intermodal Coordination............................... IV-18 IV-5.2 Express Services.................................... IV-18 IV-5.3 Technological Advances............................... IV-20 IV-5.4 “People-Moving Companies”............................ IV-20 IV-6 MARKETING . , . IV-20 IV-6.1 Nomenclature...................................... IV-22 IV-6.2 Public Education .................................... IV-22 APPENDICES APPENDIX A MTO HOV AGENDA APPENDIX B HOV SIGNAGE (MUTCD) APPENDIX C SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY iv LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit I-1 Planning and Design Process for Municipal Road Projects........ l-18 Exhibit I-2 HOV Decision-Making Flow Chart ......................... l-20 Exhibit l-3 Rapid Transit Access Patterns by Mode ..................... l-34 Exhibit II-1 Time of Tripmaking by Mode............................. II-5 Exhibit II-2 Hourly Variation of Auto Occupancy Characteristics ............ II-8 Exhibit II-3 HOV Lane Capacity (I) (650 veh/lane/h arterial)................ II-10 Exhibit II-4 HOV Lane Capacity (II) (800 veh/lane/h arterial) ............... II-11 Exhibit II-5 HOV Lane Capacity (III) (900 veh/lane/h arterial)............... II-12 Exhibit Ill-1 Arterial Street HOV Lane Cross-Section Alternatives ............ Ill-3 Exhibit Ill-2 Design Issues for Arterial HOV Lane Alternatives............... Ill-4 Exhibit Ill-3 Urban Intersection Treatment (1).......................... Ill-7 Exhibit Ill-4 Urban Intersection Treatment (2).......................... Ill-8 Exhibit Ill-5 Urban Intersection Treatment (3).......................... Ill-9 Exhibit Ill-6 Suburban Intersection Treatment (1) .....................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Sustaining the KCMO Boulevard and Parkway System
    KCMO Boulevard and Parkway System The “Three Legs” Sustaining the KCMO Boulevard and Parkway System KCMO Boulevard and Parkway System History Geometry Land Use Questions What was the purpose of the parks and boulevard system in Kansas City, Missouri? History What are the defining characteristics of a boulevard and a parkway? Geometry What makes them different from an ordinary street or each other? Land Use Perspective History, geometry, and land use are the three things that set our Boulevards & Parkways apart from being “any other street”. The changes requested to the zoning code are a necessary and vital part to the preservation of Kansas City’s Neighborhoods and the Boulevard & Parkway system! History The answers can be found in: a) the 1893 Report of the Board of Park Commissioners; “The Kansas City Park System and Its Effect on the City Plan” by George E. Kessler; b) various Annual Reports to the Board of Commissioners; c) the 1920 booklet “Souvenir” The Park and Boulevard System of Kansas City, Missouri; d) the historic surveys that were completed in 1989 and 1991 and e) the Boulevard and Parkway Standards adopted by Board of Park Commissioners August 28, 2010 History In 1917 Kessler stated: “The boulevards and parkways of Kansas City have accomplished the real purpose outlined by Mr. Meyer in the first report 1893, namely, the tying together all sections and the uniting of Kansas City as a whole into a community whose purposes and actions are for the benefit of the city as a whole at all times.” History Purpose of the Historic Parks, Boulevard & Parkway System Make communication between the different sections of the city, commercial, residential and to some extent industrial direct and distinctive.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapibus Un Système Rapide De Transport En Commun Pour L’Outaouais Étude De Faisabilité Détaillée - Rapport Final
    Rapibus Un système rapide de transport en commun pour l’Outaouais Étude de faisabilité détaillée - Rapport final Marc Blanchet, ing., M.Sc.A. Chargé de projet du Consortium Roche-Deluc / Tecsult Martin Choinière, ing., M.G.P. Coordonnateur technique du Consortium Roche-Deluc / Tecsult Nathalie Martel, ing., M.Sc.A. Coordonnatrice, équipe Tecsult Sylvain Chapdelaine, ing., M.Sc.A. Coordonnateur, équipe Roche-Deluc Février 2004 Remerciements L’équipe de réalisation tient à remercier les membres du comité directeur; les membres du comité technique; les membres et invités du comité consultatif; l’équipe de la STO (communication, exploitation, etc.); les participants à l’atelier technique du 7 mai 2003 qui s’est tenu au siège social de la STO, au 111, rue Jean-Proulx à Gatineau; l’équipe de la firme Régis Côté et associés, architectes; l’équipe de la firme In Situ Simulation ainsi que les résidents et les représentants des organismes publics locaux (Ville de Gatineau, Ministère des transports du Québec, Commission de la capitale nationale, Ville d’Ottawa, OC Transpo, etc.) qui ont participé aux séances portes ouvertes du 29 avril 2003 (Agora de la Maison du Citoyen), du 30 septembre 2003 (promenades de l’Outaouais) et du 15 octobre 2003 (salle communautaire de l’Association récréative de Gatineau). Équipe de réalisation Société de transport de l’Outaouais : • Salah Barj • Céline Gauthier • Hugues Charron • Georges O. Gratton • Carmel Dufour • Diane Martin Roche-Deluc : • Jordan Belovski • Philippe Mytofir • Lamiaa Boujemaoui • Christopher
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
    PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS BEST PRACTICES Presented by: Doug Enderson, P.E., PTOE Cody Salo, P.E. 1 PRESENTER INTRODUCTIONS Doug Enderson, P.E., PTOE Cody Salo, P.E. Ped Crossing Experience: Ped Crossing Experience: • ADA Design-Build • RRFB • ADA Inventory & Retrofit • HAWK • RRFB • Accessible Signal Upgrades • HAWK • ADA Transition Plans • Equestrian Signal Design • Pedestrian Bridges • Accessible Signal Upgrades • Bulb-Outs • Bulb-Outs • ADA Training • Shared Use Paths • Shared Use Paths 2 THE AGENDA 1. Regulations & Policies 2. Pedestrian Crossing Elements 3. Crossing Treatments 4. Funding Options 5. Questions DISCLAIMER IMAGES, PROJECTS, and EXAMPLES have been sourced from many various locations/entities. WE ARE NOT CLAIMING THESE AS OUR OWN! 3 REGULATIONS & POLICY Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) ! National standards governing all traffic control devices ! Two revisions accepted in 2012 ! Ensures uniformity of TC devices 4 REGULATIONS & POLICY Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990 ! Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities (Title II). ! All publicly-owned intersections/facilities must comply with: " Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) (Title III) Entities may choose to comply with… " Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) 5 REGULATIONS & POLICY A public entity shall: Evaluate its current services, policies,and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the“ requirements“ …Identify physical obstacles in the public
    [Show full text]
  • Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration, New York City
    HE tV 18.5 U M T A-M A-06-0049-84-4 a A37 DOT-TSC-U MTA-84-18 no. DOT- Department SC- U.S T of Transportation UM! A— 84-18 Urban Mass Transportation Administration Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane Demonstration - New York City j ™nsportat;on JUW 4 198/ Final Report May 1984 UMTA Technical Assistance Program Office of Management Research and Transit Service UMTA/TSC Project Evaluation Series NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. - POT- Technical Report Documentation Page TS . 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No. 'A'* tJMTA-MA-06-0049-84-4 'Z'i-I £ 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date MADISON AVENUE DUAL EXCLUSIVE BUS LANE DEMONSTRATION. May 1984 NEW YORK CITY 6. Performing Organization Code DTS-64 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) J. Richard^ Kuzmyak : DOT-TSC-UMTA-84-18 9^ Performing Organization Name ond Address DEPARTMENT OF 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) COMSIS Corporation* transportation UM427/R4620 11501 Georgia Avenue, Suite 312 11. Controct or Grant No. DOT-TSC-1753 Wheaton, MD 20902 JUN 4 1987 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Urban Mass Transportation Admi ni strati pg LIBRARY August 1980 - May 1982 Office of Technical Assistance 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual
    Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual December 2015 Alabama Department of Transportation ROUNDABOUT PLANNING, DESIGN, AND OPERATIONS MANUAL December 2015 Prepared by: The University Transportation Center for of Alabama Steven L. Jones, Ph.D. Abdulai Abdul Majeed Steering Committee Tim Barnett, P.E., ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Stuart Manson, P.E., ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Sonya Baker, ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Stacey Glass, P.E., ALDOT Maintenance Stan Biddick, ALDOT Design Bryan Fair, ALDOT Planning Steve Walker, P.E., ALDOT R.O.W. Vince Calametti, P.E., ALDOT 9th Division James Brown, P.E., ALDOT 2nd Division James Foster, P.E., Mobile County Clint Andrews, Federal Highway Administration Blair Perry, P.E., Gresham Smith & Partners Howard McCulloch, P.E., NE Roundabouts DISCLAIMER This manual provides guidelines and recommended practices for planning and designing roundabouts in the State of Alabama. This manual cannot address or anticipate all possible field conditions that will affect a roundabout design. It remains the ultimate responsibility of the design engineer to ensure that a design is appropriate for prevailing traffic and field conditions. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1-5 1.2. Scope and Organization ............................................................................... 1-7 1.3. Limitations ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Module 6. Hov Treatments
    Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Module 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS MODULE 6. HOV TREATMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 6-5 TREATMENTS ..................................................... 6-6 MODULE OBJECTIVES ............................................. 6-6 MODULE SCOPE ................................................... 6-7 6.2 DESIGN PROCESS .......................................... 6-7 IDENTIFY PROBLEMS/NEEDS ....................................... 6-7 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTNERS .................................... 6-8 CONSENSUS BUILDING ........................................... 6-10 ESTABLISH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................... 6-10 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA / MOES ....................... 6-10 DEFINE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................. 6-11 IDENTIFY AND SCREEN TECHNOLOGY ............................. 6-11 System Planning ................................................. 6-13 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 6-15 EVALUATION .................................................... 6-16 6.3 TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES .................. 6-18 HOV FACILITIES ................................................. 6-18 Operational Considerations ......................................... 6-18 HOV Roadway Operations ...................................... 6-20 Operating Efficiency .......................................... 6-20 Considerations for 2+ Versus 3+ Occupancy Requirement ............. 6-20 Hours of Operations ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Design Guidelines for the Use of Curbs and Curb/Guardrail
    DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF CURBS AND CURB/GUARDRAIL COMBINATIONS ALONG HIGH-SPEED ROADWAYS by Chuck Aldon Plaxico A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering by September 2002 APPROVED: Dr. Malcolm Ray, Major Advisor Civil and Environmental Engineering Dr. Leonard D. Albano, Committee Member Civil and Environmental Engineering Dr. Tahar El-Korchi, Committee Member Civil and Environmental Engineering Dr. John F. Carney, Committee Member Provost and Vice President, Academic Affairs Dr. Joseph R. Rencis, Committee Member Mechanical Engineering ABSTRACT The potential hazard of using curbs on high-speed roadways has been a concern for highway designers for almost half a century. Curbs extend 75-200 mm above the road surface for appreciable distances and are located very near the edge of the traveled way, thus, they constitute a continuous hazard for motorist. Curbs are sometimes used in combination with guardrails or other roadside safety barriers. Full-scale crash testing has demonstrated that inadequate design and placement of these systems can result in vehicles vaulting, underriding or rupturing a strong-post guardrail system though the mechanisms for these failures are not well understood. For these reasons, the use of curbs has generally been discouraged on high-speed roadways. Curbs are often essential, however, because of restricted right-of-way, drainage considerations, access control, delineation and other curb functions. Thus, there is a need for nationally recognized guidelines for the design and use of curbs. The primary purpose of this study was to develop design guidelines for the use of curbs and curb-barrier combinations on roadways with operating speeds greater than 60 km/hr.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuous Flow Intersection, Parallel Flow Intersection, and Upstream Signalized Crossover
    Comparison of Three Unconventional Arterial Intersection Designs: Continuous Flow Intersection, Parallel Flow Intersection, and Upstream Signalized Crossover Seonyeong Cheong, Saed Rahwanji, and Gang-Len Chang Abstract— This research is aimed to evaluate and world have adopted many conventional measures, including compare the operational performance of three signal planning and double left-turn lanes, for alleviating this unconventional intersections: Continuous Flow problem [1]. The using of these conventional measures are Intersection (CFI), Parallel Flow Intersection (PFI) and limited as the modifications of intersection design, such as Upstream Signalized Crossover (USC). For this purpose, widening interchanges and building bypasses, are expensive various experimental designs, including traffic conditions, and disruptive [1]. In contrast, the unconventional arterial geometric features and signal plans, were set and the intersection design (UAID) is one of the methods that can average delays were compared for movements of efficiently reduce the congestion with less cost as compare through-only traffic and left-turn-only traffic. From the with the conventional measures. General principles of results of analysis, all three unconventional intersections operation and management strategies of the UAID include: 1) outperformed conventional one and among the emphasis on through traffic movements along the arterial; 2) unconventional intersections, CFI outperformed the reduction in the number of signal phases (e.g. left-turn arrow others except for some traffic conditions. In the balanced phase); and 3) reduction in the number of intersection conflict traffic condition scenario, at the low traffic volume level, points [2]. These principles allow the UAID to reduce the the average delays of through traffic for PFI were smaller traffic congestion at the intersection and improve the traffic than that of CFI and very similar at the moderate traffic safety.
    [Show full text]
  • City Maintained Street Inventory
    City Maintained Streets Inventory DATE APPROX. AVG. STREET NAME ACCEPTED BEGINNING AT ENDING AT LENGTH WIDTH ACADEMYText0: ST Text6: HENDERSONVLText8: RD BROOKSHIREText10: ST T0.13 Tex20 ACADEMYText0: ST EXT Text6: FERNText8: ST MARIETTAText10: ST T0.06 Tex17 ACTONText0: WOODS RD Text6:9/1/1994 ACTONText8: CIRCLE DEADText10: END T0.24 Tex19 ADAMSText0: HILL RD Text6: BINGHAMText8: RD LOUISANAText10: AVE T0.17 Tex18 ADAMSText0: ST Text6: BARTLETText8: ST CHOCTAWText10: ST T0.16 Tex27 ADAMSWOODText0: RD Text6: CARIBOUText8: RD ENDText10: OF PAVEMENT T0.16 Tex26 AIKENText0: ALLEY Text6: TACOMAText8: CIR WESTOVERText10: ALLEY T0.05 Tex12 ALABAMAText0: AVE Text6: HANOVERText8: ST SWANNANOAText10: AVE T0.33 Tex24 ALBEMARLEText0: PL Text6: BAIRDText8: ST ENDText10: MAINT T0.09 Tex18 ALBEMARLEText0: RD Text6: BAIRDText8: ST ORCHARDText10: RD T0.2 Tex20 ALCLAREText0: CT Text6: ENDText8: C&G ENDText10: PVMT T0.06 Tex22 ALCLAREText0: DR Text6: CHANGEText8: IN WIDTH ENDText10: C&G T0.17 Tex18 ALCLAREText0: DR Text6: SAREVAText8: AVE CHANGEText10: IN WIDTH T0.18 Tex26 ALEXANDERText0: DR Text6: ARDIMONText8: PK WINDSWEPTText10: DR T0.37 Tex24 ALEXANDERText0: DR Text6: MARTINText8: LUTHER KING WEAVERText10: ST T0.02 Tex33 ALEXANDERText0: DR Text6: CURVEText8: ST ARDMIONText10: PK T0.42 Tex24 ALLENText0: AVE 0Text6:/18/1988 U.S.Text8: 25 ENDText10: PAV'T T0.23 Tex19 ALLENText0: ST Text6: STATEText8: ST HAYWOODText10: RD T0.19 Tex23 ALLESARNText0: RD Text6: ELKWOODText8: AVE ENDText10: PVMT T0.11 Tex22 ALLIANCEText0: CT 4Text6:/14/2009 RIDGEFIELDText8:
    [Show full text]
  • Fec Railroad Grade Separation Feasibility Study
    FEC RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION FEASIBILITY STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Martin Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) initiated this feasibility study to identify, evaluate and plan for potential roadway and non-motorized pedestrian/bicycle grade separations along the Florida East Coast Rail Line (FEC) through Martin County. The study has been performed in phases including: Tier 1: Perform an initial assessment of all the mainline rail at grade crossings (25) in Martin County and identify 10 roadway candidate crossings for potential grade separation. Review adjacent land uses between crossings and known areas of pedestrian trespassing on the rail corridor to identify 5 candidate locations for non-motorized crossings. Tier 2: Perform detailed evaluation and rank the roadway and non-motorized candidates for the need and justification to implement grade separations. Tier 3: Prepare concepts and assess the feasibility and impacts of grade separations at 4 potential crossing locations: o Conceptual plans for up to 2 crossings for roadway grade separation, and o Conceptual plans for up to 2 crossings for non-motorized uses Assess the impacts and cost-benefit of the concepts developed for this study. The final results include concepts, costs and benefits developed for an Indian Street/Dixie Highway elevated roadway crossing, a Monterey Road/Dixie Highway depressed roadway crossing, a Railroad Avenue to Commerce Boulevard elevated pedestrian/bicycle grade separation and a Downtown Stuart elevated pedestrian/bicycle grade crossing. Each concept is provided below from south to north by roadway and non-motorized category. Note 11x17 sheets are provided in Chapter 4, Figures 18 to 21. Potential Indian Street / Dixie Highway Elevated Roadway Grade Crossing over the FEC Railroad E - 1 FEC RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Potential Monterey Rd/Dixie Highway Depressed Roadway Grade Crossing over the FEC RR Potential Railroad Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations
    Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations June 2014 Published By Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) Web: www.lrrb.org MnDOT Office of Maintenance MnDOT Research Services Section MS 330, 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone: 651-366-3780 Fax: 651-366-3789 E-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgements The financial and logistical support provided by the Minnesota Local DATA COLLECTION Road Research Board, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the Minnesota Local Technical Assistance Program John Hourdos and Stephen Zitzow, University of Minnesota (LTAP) at the Center for Transportation Studies (CTS), University of PRODUCTION Minnesota for this work is greatly acknowledged. Research, Development, and Writing: Bryan Nemeth, Ross Tillman, The procedures presented in this report were developed based on infor- Jeremy Melquist, and Ashley Hudson, Bolton & Menk, Inc. mation from previously published research studies and reports and newly collected field data. Editing: Christine Anderson, CTS The authors would also like to thank the following individuals and orga- Graphic Design: Abbey Kleinert and Cadie Wright Adikhary, CTS, and nizations for their contributions to this document. David Breiter, Bolton & Menk, Inc. TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS Tony Winiecki , Scott County Pete Lemke, Hennepin County Kate Miner, Carver County Tim Plath, City of Eagan Mitch Rasmussen, Scott County Jason Pieper, Hennepin County Mitch Bartelt, MnDOT This material was developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc., in coordination with the Minne- Melissa Barnes, MnDOT sota Local Road Research Board for use by practitioners. Under no circumstances shall Tim Mitchell, MnDOT this guidebook be sold by third parties for profit.
    [Show full text]