DOCSLIB.ORG

Roadway Design Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Roadway Design Manual Roadway Design Manual Adopted: November 3, 1993 Updated: August 2021 Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2901 W. Durango Street Phoenix, AZ 85009 MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Table of Contents Authorization Memorandum Summary of 2021 Roadway Design Manual Changes Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Transportation Planning Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis, Clearance and Mitigation Chapter 4 Design Procedure Chapter 5 Geometric Design Standards Chapter 6 Intersections Chapter 7 Access To Maricopa County Road System Chapter 8 Bicycle Facility Guidelines Chapter 9 Landscaping Chapter 10 Pavement Design Guide Summary of 2021 Roadway Design Manual Changes Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1.1 Purpose: 4th paragraph: Functional classifications shall determine RW requirements. 6th paragraph, 2nd bullet: Additional design exhibits may be required… 7th paragraph: added “... as described in the Project Development Manual (PDM), Section 2-2-4 Design Exceptions.” 8th paragraph: increased design exception decision from 3 weeks to 4 weeks. 9th paragraph: changed chairman to Engineering Division Manager 10th paragraph (NEW): Encouraging discussions with County staff prior to submitting a Design Exception. Minor updates and rewording. 1.2 Applicability Paragraph 3 - minor text change. Chapter 2 Transportation Planning 2.1 Functional Classifications 2nd paragraph: Added “and ultimate” and “Roadway” Planning “Level Traffic”. Roadway Planning Level Traffic Volumes as shown in Table 2.1. 2.1.1 Rural System: 2.1.1.1 Rural Parkway: added Divided roadway, wide median and Uncurbed. 2.1.1.3 Rural Minor Arterial: added Uncurbed. 2.1.1.4 Rural Major Collector: added, Undivided lanes and Uncurbed. 2.1.1.5 Rural Minor Collector: added Uncurbed. 2.1.1.6 Rural Local Road System (Residential): added Uncurbed. Table 2.1 – Urban Roadway Planning Level Traffic now precedes Rural Roadway Planning Level Traffic. 2.1.2 Urban System changes: 2.1.2.1 Urban Parkway: added Divided roadway. 2.1.2.2 Urban Principal Arterial: added Divided roadway. 2.1.2.3 Urban Minor Arterial: added Undivided roadway. 2.2 Design Hour Volumes 2.2.2 Adjustments to Design Year ADT Volumes: added approved by the MCDOT “Traffic Engineer”… 2.2.3 Design Hour Volume, 1st paragraph: added “DHV is from the Design Year, approved by MCDOT. 3rd paragraph: added approved by the MCDOT “Traffic Engineer”. 2.2.6 Capacity Analysis: added approved by the MCDOT “Traffic Engineer”. Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis, Clearance and Mitigation 3.2 Environmental Clearance and Mitigation Process Step 1.0: Changed “Pre Scoping” to “Project Work Plan”. Step 6.0: added Utility Coordinator and Engineering “Assistant” Division Manager 3.6 Noise: 1st paragraph: changed Noise Impact Abatement Policy to Noise Abatement for Roadway Projects Policy, 2019. Changed ADOT Noise Policy to ADOT Noise Abatement Requirements, May 2017. 3rd paragraph: changed Noise Impact Abatement Policy to Noise Abatement for Roadway Projects Policy, 2019. Chapter 4 Design Procedure 4.1 Basic Criteria 4.1.1 Road Classification. 1st paragraph: changed “Street Classification Atlas of the Maricopa County Major Streets and Routes Plan” to “Functional Classification Map of Transportation System Plan, 2040”. 4.1.5 Development of Plans and Specifications: added MCDOT Stormwater Compliance Requirements and Recommended Procedures, ADA Compliance Guidelines, MCDOT Earthwork Guidelines. 4.2 Submittal Requirements and Format 4.2.1 Submittal and Review: 3rd paragraph, added “Refer to the Project Development Manual…” 4.3.1 Cross Section Sheets: 2nd paragraph (NEW) – additional requirements for cross sections including entire RW, full pavement section, existing utilities, drainage ditches and utility conflicts. 4th, 5th & 6th paragraph(NEW) Example Cross Sections and links to cadd drawings and Earthwork Guidelines. 4.7.7 Assorted Drainage Design Requirements: 1st paragraph, added “at all locations… 30 inches or greater. “ 4.7.7.1 Culverts: 8th paragraph (NEW), HDPE pipe size limited to 8” trough 30”. 9th paragraph (NEW), Polypropylene Pipe shall not be used within Maricopa County RW without written approval. 4.7.7.2 Storm Drains: 5th paragraph (NEW), HDPE pipe size limited to 8” trough 30”. 6th paragraph (NEW), Polypropylene Pipe shall not be used within Maricopa County RW without written approval. 4.10 Right-Of-Way: 3rd paragraph (NEW). MCDOT capital projects shall include all RW and easements requirements on 60% plans. 4.11 Utilities and Irrigation 4.11.1 Irrigation Facilities: 2nd paragraph, added “Project Manager”. 4.11.2 Utilities: 2nd paragraph, added “utilities and culverts shall be shown…”cross sections, and other locations where a potential utility conflict may occur”. 4.11.3 Coordination with Utilities and Municipalities: 2nd paragraph, added Utility Coordinator. 3rd paragraph, added specifically where potholing results will be shown on construction plans. 4th paragraph (NEW), The Design Engineers specific responsibilities in determining utility conflicts, and showing both conflicts and new utility locations during various design stages. 4.13 Earthwork: added a link to the new Earthwork Guidelines. Chapter 5 Geometric Design Standards 5.5.1 Lane Widths: 1st paragraph, added … approval from MCDOT “Engineering Division”. TABLE 5:1 LANE WIDTHS – Increased Left Turn Preferred from 12 ft. to 14 ft. and Left Turn Minimum from 11 ft. to 12 ft. Increase Bike Lane to 6 ft. Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.14 – Various changes to the MCDOT typical cross sections. 5.11.3 Crest Vertical Curves: 1st paragraph, the assumed height of eye and height of object is 3.5 ft. and 2 ft. respectively for all roadway classifications. Table 5.8: Sight Distance Design Parameters for Crest Vertical Curve – Removed Road Classifications. Table 5.9: Design Controls for Crest Vertical Curve - Removed Road Classifications. 5.25.4 Clear Zone Width 5.25.4.2 Urban Conditions: 2nd paragraph, includes bike lane as part of the clear zone. 3rd paragraph (NEW), reduction to four feet clear zone with approval from MCDOT Engineering Division and a design memo detailing the request. 5.30 Guardrail 5:30.3 Placement: 3rd paragraph, removed graded area between traffic lanes and face of guardrail. Structural pavement will now extend to the face of the guardrail and asphalt surfacing extending 2’ beyond the back of posts. 5.36 Sidewalks 5.36.1 General: 2nd paragraph, Sidewalks width increased from 5’ to 6’. Less than 6’ sidewalk shall be approved by the MCDOT Engineering Division. Removed ADA reference. 3rd paragraph (NEW), Added shared use paths shall be 10’ in width. 5.36.3 Curb Ramps: 7th paragraph, Removed MCDOT Detail 2034 and replaced with MAG Detail 238-4. Chapter 6 Intersections 6.1 General Controls 6.1.13 Intersection Sight Distance: 1st paragraph (NEW), provide a 3.5 ft. offset for opposing left turn lanes. Chapter 7 Access to Maricopa County Roadway System 7.5 Driveways 7.5.3 Surface Requirements for Driveway and Roadway Connections 1st paragraph, replaced County Engineer with MCDOT Director or authorized representative. Chapter 8 Bicycle Facilities Guidelines 8.1 Basic Criteria 8.8.1 General: 1st paragraph, Added “Curbed” cross section. Changed arterial to collector. Added “facilitate the sharing of the road between bicyclists and motorists”. 8.2 Roadway Facility Design Guidelines 8.2.9 Bicycle Lanes: 3rd bullet, increases lane width from 4 ft. to 4.5 ft. and from 5 ft. to 6 ft. 4th bullet, increase lane width from 5’ to 6’. Chapter 9 Landscaping No changes at this time. Chapter 10 Pavement Design Guide No changes at this time. Chapter 1 Introduction MCDOT Roadway Design Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 APPLICABILITY ....................................................................................................... 1-3 2021 Update MCDOT Roadway Design Manual 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this manual is to standardize roadway design elements where necessary for consistency and to ensure, as far as is practical, that minimum requirements are met for safety, welfare, convenience, pleasant appearance, environmental sensitivity and economical maintenance. The standards outlined in this manual cannot apply to all situations. They are intended to assist the professional engineer's competent work but not to substitute for it. Professional engineers are expected to bring the best of their skills and abilities to each project so that it is designed accurately. Further, these standards are not intended to unreasonably limit any innovative or creative effort that might result in higher quality or increased cost savings for the public. Any proposed departure from these standards will be judged on the basis of whether such a variance will yield a compensating or comparable result that is fully adequate for road users and County residents. The future traffic characteristics (vehicle types and volumes), roadway functional classification, and topography of the area are the basic criteria used to determine the design standards to be used. The roadway functional classification is to be used to determine the right of way requirements. Any deviations from these published standards must be approved by the MCDOT (Maricopa County Department of Transportation) Director or an authorized representative before the project design will be considered for approval. All design elements which do not meet these design standards require an approved design exception. Design exception
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Maricopa County Department of Transportation MAJOR STREETS and ROUTES PLAN Policy Document and Street Classification Atlas
    Maricopa County Department of Transportation MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES PLAN Policy Document and Street Classification Atlas Adopted April 18, 2001 Revised September 2004 Revised June 2011 Preface to 2011 Revision This version of the Major Streets and Routes Plan (MSRP) revises the original plan and the 2004 revisions. Looking ahead to pending updates to the classification systems of towns and cities in Maricopa County, the original MSRP stipulated a periodic review and modification of the street functional classification portion of the plan. This revision incorporates the following changes: (1) as anticipated, many of the communities in the County have updated either their general or transportation plans in the time since the adoption of the first MSRP; (2) a new roadway classification, the Arizona Parkway, has been added to the Maricopa County street classification system and the expressway classification has been removed; and (3) a series of regional framework studies have been conducted by the Maricopa Association of Governments to establish comprehensive roadway networks in parts of the West Valley. Table of Contents 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................1 2. Functional Classification Categorization.............................................................................1 3. Geometric Design Standards..............................................................................................4 4. Street Classification Atlas..................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Transportation Mode Choice, Safety & Connections
    Chapter 7: Transportation Mode Choice, Safety & Connections Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-2 TRANSPORTATION City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Transportation Chapter is to guide development, maintenance, and improvement of the community’s transportation network. This Chapter incorporates and addresses the City’s future transportation needs based on the planned future land uses, development areas, housing, parks and trail systems. The City’s transportation network is comprised of several systems including roadways, transit services, trails, railroads and aviation that all work together to move people and goods throughout, and within, the City. This Chapter identifies the existing and proposed transportation system, examines potential deficiencies, and sets investment priorities. The following Chapter plans for an integrated transportation system that addresses each of the following topics in separate sections: • Roadway System 7-1 • Transit Facilities • Bikway & Trail System • Freight & Rail • Aviation The last section of this Chapter provides a summary and implementation section which addresses each of the components of the system, if any additional action within this planning period is expected. The Implementation Plan sets the groundwork for investment and improvements to the transportation network consistent with the goals, analyses, and conclusions of this Plan. As discussed in preceding Chapters of this Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Chapter is intended to be dynamic and responsive to the City’s planned land uses and development patterns. As the City’s conditions change and improvements occur, this Chapter should be reviewed for consistency with the Plan to ensure that the transportation systems support the City’s ultimate vision for the community through this planning period.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Consultants Memorandum
    CIVIL CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM TO: Town of York Planning Office FROM: Thomas W. Harmon, PE SUBJECT: Waiver Requests – Town of York Ordinance Section 6.3.3A.4, 7.3.1 D9.5.8.A, & 17.18.16 DATE: MAY 6, 2020 PROJECT: GULF HILL SUBDIVISION 1780 US ROUTE 1 (16-295.00) Town of York Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations: SECTION 6.3. Physical environment of property; 3.A 4. vegetation in general, specifically noting any trees larger than 24” in diameter in breast height; As part of the subdivision plan review process, we are requesting a waiver to locate any trees greater than 24” at breast height that are located within any proposed open space. This would be a large undertaking on a parcel of this size and the intent of the cluster subdivision is to leave a large portion of the property in its natural state. This will be turned over to the land trust to manage which should insure vegetative cover is properly managed. An extremely large portion of the property will be left untouched maintaining any large growth in those areas. SECTION 7.1.3 D New slopes established by re-grading a site shall not exceed 20%, except for the allowed 33% shoulder slope along proposed roads. To minimize disturbance, roadway ledge cuts occurring outside the required roadway right of way may have slopes up to a vertical face.a vertical face SECTION 9.5.8 Developments containing fifteen (15) residential units or more, or which generates average daily traffic of 150 trips per day or more, shall have at least two street connections either with existing public streets, or with streets on an approved Subdivision Plan for which a performance guarantee has been filed and accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Construction Standards Pavement Markings
    Design and Construction Standards Volume 8 Pavement Marking Posted to the City of Edmonton’s Website in April 2012 PAVEMENT MARKING Design and Construction Standards Index April 2012 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS VOLUME 8 PAVEMENT MARKING PAVEMENT MARKING GUIDELINES For a detailed list of contents refer to the front of the Guidelines SPECIFICATIONS Section Title Issued 02760 Plastic Pavement Markings April 2012 02761 Glass Beads April 2012 02762 Traffic Paint April 2012 02763 Water Borne Traffic Paint April 2012 02764 Crosswalk and Stopline Painting January 1996 02765 Lane Markings - Hot Applied Paint February 1997 02767 Prefabricated Roadmarking Material April 2012 02768 MMA Spray Plastic February 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 LONGITUDINAL MARKINGS 2 1.1 DIRECTIONAL DIVIDING LINES 2 1.2 LANE LINES 3 1.3 PAVEMENT EDGE LINES 4 1.4 RESERVED LANE PAVEMENT MARKINGS 4 1.5 GUIDE LINES 5 1.6 REVERSIBLE LANE PAVEMENT MARKINGS 6 1.7 TWO - WAY LEFT TURN LANES 6 FIGURE 1.1 LINE TYPES 7 FIGURE 1.2 LANE AND LEAD - IN LINES 8 FIGURE 1.3 PAVEMENT EDGE LINES AT YIELDS AND 9 MERGE ENTRANCES FIGURE 1.4 PAVEMENT EDGE LINES AT EXITS 10 FIGURE 1.5 PAVEMENT EDGE LINES AT ON - OFF 11 AUXILIARY LANES TABLE 1 RESERVED LANE PAVEMENT MARKINGS 12 FIGURE 1.6.0 ROAD MARKINGS FOR FULL TIME WITH - FLOW 13 AND CONTRA - FLOW RESERVED LANES FIGURE 1.6.1 ROAD MARKINGS FOR FULL TIME WITH - FLOW 14 RESERVED LANE FIGURE 1.6.2 ROAD MARKINGS FOR FULL TIME CONTRA-FLOW 15 RESERVED LANE FIGURE 1.6.3 ROAD MARKINGS FOR PART TIME WITH - FLOW 16 RESERVED LANE FIGURE
    [Show full text]
  • Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings Linemarking Part 1 Signs
    www.face MANUAL OF TRAFFIC SIGNS AND MARKINGS LINEMARKING PART 1 SIGNS June, 2018 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TA-8777 FIJI 1 VERSION 1 – APRIL 2018 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________SECTION 6 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TA-8777 FIJI 2 VERSION 1 – APRIL 2018 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Acknowledgement: FRA gratefully acknowledges the generosity of the Association of Australian and New Zealand Transport and Traffic Authorities(Austroads) in allowing FRA, an Austroads member) to use and reference much of the material used in this Guide. Unless specifically identified in the Guide, all diagrams and tables have been sourced from the various Austroads Design Guides. Permission for the use of such material for purposes other than this Guide must be sought directly from. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TA-8777 FIJI 3 VERSION 1 – APRIL 2018 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TA-8777 FIJI 4 VERSION 1
    [Show full text]
  • Road Standards
    P O L K C O U N T Y D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W O R K S R O A D S T A N D A R D S The Polk County Board of Commissioners Adopted These Standards on July 22, 1998 These standards prepared by and under the auspices of the staff of the Public Works Department TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. Introduction................................................................................................................1 II. Application.................................................................................................................1 III. Definitions..................................................................................................................1 IV. Functional Classification ...........................................................................................4 V. Project Types.............................................................................................................5 VI. Access To A County Road ........................................................................................6 VII. Public Use Roads.......................................................................................................10 VIII. Private Roads.............................................................................................................11 IX. Use Of County Right-of-Way By Others .................................................................13 X. Transportation Impact Analysis ................................................................................14 XI. Roadway Design
    [Show full text]
  • Public Road Standards
    PUBLIC ROAD STANDARDS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS March 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1 l.2 PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 EXCEPTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 2 GENERAL DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................2 2.1 GENERAL DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................. 2 2.2 OTHER DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 3 GENERAL POLICY .....................................................................................................6 3.1 PLANS TO BE APPROVED BY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ......... 6 3.2 WHERE NO STANDARD IS SPECIFIED .................................................................................... 6 3.3 PAYMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................... 6 3.4 WIDENING AND IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING
    [Show full text]
  • Former Article 8
    ARTICLE 8. SUBDIVISION DESIGN/IMPROVEMENTS 8.1. Applicability of article. 8.2. Streets. 8.3. Sewage disposal facilities, water supply and utilities. 8.4. Open space and recreational facilities. 8.5. Subdivision dedication requirements. 8.6. Improvement guarantees. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Article 8. Subdivision Design / Improvements Town of Garner Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) 8.1. Applicability of article. This article shall apply to all development within the Town's planning jurisdiction. 8.2. Streets. A. Street classification. 1. In all new subdivisions, streets that are dedicated to public use shall be classified as provided in paragraph 2. below. a. The classification shall be based upon the projected volume of traffic to be carried by the street, stated in terms of the number of trips per day or during the peak hour of the day; b. The number of dwelling units to be served by the street may be used as a useful indicator of the number of trips but is not conclusive; and c. Whenever a subdivision street continues on an existing street or it is expected that a subdivision street will be continued beyond the subdivision at some future time, the classification of the street will be based upon the street in its entirety, both within and outside of the subdivision. 2. Street types: a. Major thoroughfare. A street serving the principal network for high volumes of traffic or high speed traffic as shown on the Town of Garner Transportation Plan. This street type consists of at least two travel lanes in each direction. A major thoroughfare shall be designated where the anticipated average daily volume exceeds 10,000 vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Regionalized Urban-Suburban Collector Road Safety Performance Functions
    Regionalized Urban-suburban Collector Road Safety Performance Functions FINAL REPORT March 14, 2019 By Eric T. Donnell, Vikash Gayah, Lingyu Li and Houjun Tang The Pennsylvania State University COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT # 4400015622 WORK ORDER # PSU 007 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. PA-2019-001-511601 WO 007 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date March 14, 2019 Regionalized Urban-suburban Collector Road Safety Performance Functions 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. LTI 2019-03 Eric T. Donnell, Vikash V. Gayah, Lingyu Li and Houjun Tang 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute Pennsylvania State University 11. Contract or Grant No. 201 Transportation Research Building University Park, PA 16802 4400015622, PSU WO 007 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation June 14, 2018 - March 14, 2019 Bureau of Planning and Research Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 6th Floor 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Harrisburg, PA 17120-0064 15. Supplementary Notes Jason Hershock, Manager, Safety Engineering and Risk Management, served as the project technical advisor. Robert Ranieri, Crash Information Systems and Analysis Manager, supplied the data used for the project. Heather Heslop ([email protected]) was the research project manager. 16. Abstract The purpose of this project was to estimate regionalized safety performance functions (SPFs) for urban and suburban collector roads and at-grade intersections using roadway inventory and crash data from state-owned roadways in Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • FDM 4-1 Introduction and Definitions
    Facilities Development Manual Wisconsin Department of Transportation Chapter 4 Highway Systems Section 1 Introduction and Definitions FDM 4-1-1 Background July 2, 1979 From the early territorial days and through several decades of statehood, the development and improvement of highways was strictly a function of the local governments (towns and counties). With the enactment of the revised statutes of 1849, the Legislature had conferred sufficient authority on the counties and towns for the location, construction, and maintenance of all public highways deemed necessary. It was evident that then, as now, the development and upkeep of highways was a heavy financial obligation, and assistance from the state was sought. The state government, although it had always encouraged the development of good roads, could extend no assistance to the local governments because of a constitutional provision prohibiting the state from participating in works of internal improvement. The constitutional amendment of 1908 gave authority to the state government to participate in works of internal improvement. This was shortly followed in 1911 by the creation of the State Highway Commission. From that time to the present a modern network of highways, roads, and streets has evolved to accommodate the transportation needs of Wisconsin. The present system consists of the State Trunk Highway System, local roads (including county trunk highways and town roads), and city streets. These are all classified into the various functional categories in accordance with their traffic-handling and service characteristics. Upon the local road, city street, and state trunk highway systems are superimposed the various statutory categories and funding systems, all of which will be treated in this Chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Department of Transportation Highway Functional
    Ohio Department of Transportation Highway Functional Classification System Concepts, Procedures and Instructions Introduction This document provides recommended guidance for assigning functional classification to roadways and streets within Ohio. It is based on Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures, 2013 Edition published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which can be downloaded from the following link: www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications The Purpose for Classifying Highways Highway functional classification is used to determine which roads, streets and highways are eligible for federal transportation funds. It is used to establish design criteria for various roadway features, and also serves as a management tool to measure a route’s importance in project selection and program management. Highway Functional Classification Concepts Most vehicle travel occurs through a network of interdependent roadways, with each roadway segment moving traffic through the system towards destinations. The concept of functional classification defines the role a particular roadway segment plays in serving this flow of traffic. Roadways are assigned to one of the seven (7) classifications within a hierarchy, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 below, according to the character of travel service each roadway provides. Note in both the table and graphic each roadway classification is color-coded. These colors are used on ODOT highway functional classification maps for
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan
    Deschutes County Transportation System Plan 2010 - 2030 Adopted by Ordinance 2012-005 August 6, 2012 By The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 1 of 268 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 10 Chapter One Introduction ...................................................................................................................................30 1.1 Geographic Setting .......................................................................................................30 1.2 Transportation Planning ..............................................................................................31 Goal 12 .....................................................................................................................31 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) ..................................................................31 TPR Requirements for Deschutes County ......................................................33 1.3 Major Changes Since the Adoption of the 1998 Plan ...........................................35 Regional Growth and Destination Resorts ......................................................35 Urban Growth and County Coordination .......................................................36 Public Transportation ...........................................................................................36 Financial Impacts ....................................................................................................37
    [Show full text]