DOCSLIB.ORG

MANAGED LANES SCREENING STUDY 2020 Massdot | Managed Lanes Screening Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MANAGED LANES SCREENING STUDY 2020 Massdot | Managed Lanes Screening Study CONGESTION IN THE COMMONWEALTH MANAGED LANES SCREENING STUDY 2020 MassDOT | Managed Lanes Screening Study Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... i 1. Introduction/Background .................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Managed Lanes Initiatives ................................................................................... 2 2.1. I-93 SB HOV Lane (North of Boston) ............................................................................................ 2 2.2. I-93 SB HOV Lane from Kneeland Street/Lincoln Street to the Airport and I-93 SB .................... 3 2.3. I-93 HOV Zipper Lanes (NB and SB) (South of Boston) ............................................................... 4 2.4. I-93 NB HOV/Express Lane from Southeast Expressway to TWT ............................................... 5 2.5. Bus on Shoulder Pilot(s) ............................................................................................................... 6 3. Important Factors for Implementing Managed Lanes ...................................................... 7 3.1. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 7 3.2. DOT Interviews/Case Studies ....................................................................................................... 8 3.3. Planning Considerations for Managed Lanes ............................................................................. 11 3.3.1. Maximizing Person and Vehicle Throughput .......................................................................................... 11 3.3.2. Generating and Sharing Revenue .......................................................................................................... 12 3.3.3. Improving Transit and Increasing Ridership ........................................................................................... 12 3.3.4. Increasing the Use of Carpooling, Vanpooling, and Ride Sharing .......................................................... 12 3.3.5. Vehicle Eligibility to Use Managed Lane ................................................................................................ 13 3.3.6. Pricing Algorithms .................................................................................................................................. 14 3.3.7. Supporting Community Land Use Goals ................................................................................................ 14 3.3.8. Equity ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 3.3.9. Project Champions and Public Support .................................................................................................. 16 3.4. Design Considerations for Managed Lanes ................................................................................ 18 3.4.1. Traffic Modeling ...................................................................................................................................... 18 3.4.2. Civil Design Features ............................................................................................................................. 18 3.4.3. Continuous Access Lane(s) ................................................................................................................... 18 3.4.4. Buffer Separated Lane(s) ....................................................................................................................... 19 3.4.5. Barrier Separated ................................................................................................................................... 19 3.4.6. Ingress and Egress ................................................................................................................................ 20 3.5. Operations & Maintenance Considerations for Managed Lanes ................................................ 24 3.5.1. Back Office Establishment ..................................................................................................................... 24 3.5.2. Managed Lanes Enforcement ................................................................................................................ 25 3.5.3. Automated Toll Enforcement .................................................................................................................. 25 3.5.4. HOV Enforcement .................................................................................................................................. 25 3.5.5. Incident Management ............................................................................................................................. 26 3.5.6. Operations and Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 27 3.5.7. Additional Infrastructure/Toll Equipment Considerations ........................................................................ 27 3.5.8. Toll Pricing and Revenue ....................................................................................................................... 28 MassDOT | Managed Lanes Screening Study 3.6. Top Three Key Success Factors to Consider from Sister Agencies ........................................... 29 4. Initial Assessment of Candidate Corridors ..................................................................... 31 4.1. Tier 1 Screening .......................................................................................................................... 32 4.1.1. Access Control ....................................................................................................................................... 32 4.1.2. Baseline Congestion .............................................................................................................................. 33 4.2. Tier 2 Screening .......................................................................................................................... 38 4.2.1. Network Connectivity .............................................................................................................................. 38 4.2.2. Level of Congestion ................................................................................................................................ 38 4.2.3. Travel Time Variability ............................................................................................................................ 38 4.2.4. Person Throughput ................................................................................................................................. 39 4.2.5. Traffic Growth ......................................................................................................................................... 39 4.2.6. Bus Service ............................................................................................................................................ 39 4.3. Scoring Methodology and Results .............................................................................................. 39 5. Managed Lane Treatment Options for Candidate Corridors ......................................... 44 5.1. Managed Lane Typical Section Considerations .......................................................................... 47 5.2. HOV to HOT Lane Conversion .................................................................................................... 50 5.2.1. Existing and Available Capacity ............................................................................................................. 51 5.2.3. Feasibility ............................................................................................................................................... 53 5.3. Repurposing Existing Shoulder ................................................................................................... 54 5.4. Conversion of General Purpose Lane to Managed Lane ........................................................... 59 5.5. Major Widening for Additional Managed Lane ............................................................................ 63 5.6. Corridor Treatment Feasibility Summary .................................................................................... 67 6. Conclusions and Next Steps ............................................................................................ 70 Figures Figure 1 - I-93 SB HOV Lane Location (North of Boston) .............................................................................2 Figure 2 - I-93 SB HOV Lane entrance (North of Boston) ............................................................................ 2 Figure 3 - I-93 SB Carpool Lane terminus at Zakim Bridge .......................................................................... 3 Figure 4 - I-93 SB HOV Lane at Kneeland Street to Logan Airport .............................................................. 3 Figure 5 - I-93 SB HOV Lane at Kneeland Street ......................................................................................... 3 Figure 6 - I-93 NB/SB HOV Zipper Lane Location ........................................................................................ 4 Figure 7 - Southeast Expressway HOV Zipper Barrier Deployed ................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preferential and Managed Lane Signs and General Information Signs
    2009 Edition Page 253 CHAPTER 2G. PREFERENTIAL AND MANAGED LANE SIGNS Section 2G.01 Scope Support: 01 Preferential lanes are lanes designated for special traffic uses such as high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), light rail, buses, taxis, or bicycles. Preferential lane treatments might be as simple as restricting a turning lane to a certain class of vehicles during peak periods, or as sophisticated as providing a separate roadway system within a highway corridor for certain vehicles. 02 Preferential lanes might be barrier-separated (on a separate alignment or physically separated from the other travel lanes by a barrier or median), buffer-separated (separated from the adjacent general-purpose lanes only by a narrow buffer area created with longitudinal pavement markings), or contiguous (separated from the adjacent general-purpose lanes only by a lane line). Preferential lanes might allow continuous access with the adjacent general-purpose lanes or restrict access only to designated locations. Preferential lanes might be operated in a constant direction or operated as reversible lanes. Some reversible preferential lanes on a divided highway might be operated counter-flow to the direction of traffic on the immediately adjacent general-purpose lanes. 03 Preferential lanes might be operated on a 24-hour basis, for extended periods of the day, during peak travel periods only, during special events, or during other activities. 04 Open-road tolling lanes and toll plaza lanes that segregate traffic based on payment method are not considered preferential lanes. Chapter 2F contains information regarding signing of open-road tolling lanes and toll plaza lanes. 05 Managed lanes typically restrict access with the adjacent general-purpose lanes to designated locations only.
    [Show full text]
  • Cycling Infrastructure Policy June 2017
    Cycling Infrastructure Policy June 2017 Department of Transport and Main Roads Creative Commons information © State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) 2015 http://creativecommons.org.licences/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence. You are free to copy, communicate and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the authors. The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of information. However, copyright protects this publication. The State of Queensland has no objection to this material being reproduced, made available online or electronically but only if its recognised as the owner of the copyright and this material remains unaltered. The Queensland Government is committed to providing accessible services to Queenslanders of all cultural and linguistic backgrounds. If you have difficulty understanding this publication and need a translator, please call the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) on 13 14 50 and ask them to telephone the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads on 13 74 68. Disclaimer: While every care has been taken in preparing this publication, the State of Queensland accepts no responsibility for decisions or actions taken as a result of any data, information, statement or advice, expressed or implied, contained within. To the best of our knowledge, the content was correct at the time of publishing. Cycling Infrastructure Policy June 2017 - i - Document control options Departmental approvals Refer to the
    [Show full text]
  • ||||IHHHHHHHHHHH USOO512772A United States Patent (19) 11) Patent Number: 5,127,172 Lund Et Al
    ||||IHHHHHHHHHHH USOO512772A United States Patent (19) 11) Patent Number: 5,127,172 Lund et al. 45 Date of Patent: Jul. 7, 1992 4,779,363 10/1988 Boutralis et al. .............. 37/118 RX (54) GUARD RAIL CLEANOUT DEVICE 4,843,743 7/1989. Durieux ................................ 37/103 76) Inventors: Kenneth Lund, 21429 Lofton Ave. 4,945,662 8/1990 Kreye ...... ... 37/17.5 X N.; Thomas W. Boesel, 16360-209th 4,946,392 6/1990 Kitchin .......................... 37/117.5 X St., N., both of Scandia, Minn. 55073 OTHER PUBLICATIONS 21) Appl. No.: 766,980 “Men See Money in Sand, Clean Up," Chris J. Bohrer, 22 Filed: Sep. 27, 1991 Washington County (Minn.) Washline, p. 2, Jun-Jul. 1990. Related U.S. Application Data "Innovative employees Win Awards," Kay Bruchu, 63 Continuation of Ser. No. 575,373, Aug. 28, 1991, aban Washington County (Minn.) Washline, p. 1, May-Jun. doned. 1991. 51) Int. Cl. ................................................ E02F 3/76 Primary Examiner-Randolph A. Reese 52 U.S. C. ................................ 37/117.5; 37/141 R; Assistant Examiner-J. Russell McBee 37/DIG. 12 Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Jacobson & Johnson 58) Field of Search .............. 37/117.5, 118 R, 141 R, 37/103, DIG.3, DIG.12; 172/445. 1, 817 (57) ABSTRACT A device including a set of blades for removing dirt . (56) References Cited from underneath guard rails, with blades extending U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS outward from the guard rail clean-out device in a canti 1,735,297 11/1929 Pardue . levered fashion to allow a user to extend the blades 2,186,081 1/1940 Slavin .
    [Show full text]
  • Bridging the Gaps in Bicycling Networks an Advocate’S Guide to Getting Bikes on Bridges
    Bridging the Gaps in Bicycling Networks An advocate’s guide to getting bikes on bridges Bridges are important. Whether over rivers, lakes, or built obstacles such as freeways, bridges are critical to bicyclists. Inaccessible bridges can force substantial detours or sever routes entirely, effectively discouraging or eliminating bike travel. As veteran Seattle bike and pedestrian planner Peter Lagerwey says: "If you can't get across the bridges, nothing else matters." In addition to their practical worth, bridges are also often high‐profile, large‐scale projects; the inclusion of bicycle facilities is an important symbolic recognition of the role of bicycling and walking in transportation networks. Bicyclists can expect to see more and more bridges under construction in the coming months and years, creating opportunities (and risks) for bicyclists. According to the Government Accountability Office, one quarter of the 602,977 bridges on the country’s roadways is either structurally deficient and in need of repair, or functionally obsolete and is not adequate for today’s traffic needs. Seventy‐one thousand of them are considered structurally deficient, with a major defect in structure or deck. In some states, more than 20 percent of the bridges fit this description. A 2010 report by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund observes that, “Generally, engineers build bridges in the United States for a useful life of 50 years. The average age of America’s bridges is now 43 years, with 185,000 over 50 years old. By 2030, that number could double.” These overdue bridge repair or replacement projects mean more chances to open up bridges to biking and walking than ever before.
    [Show full text]
  • Ottawa County Road Commission Standards and Specifications for PLAT CONDOMINIUM and PUBLIC ROAD DEVELOPMENT BOARD of COUNTY ROAD
    Ottawa County Road Commission Standards and Specifications For PLAT CONDOMINIUM And PUBLIC ROAD DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF OTTAWA 1 Regulations pertain to the subdivision of lands located outside the corporate limits of any city or village in the County of Ottawa and to the lands within incorporated areas when such lands are adjacent to public highways under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Ottawa. The following Standards and Specifications were adopted by the Board of County Road Commissioners on January 12, 2006 2 CONTENTS I. PURPOSE 1 II. DEFINITIONS 1 lll. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2 A. Preliminary Plans 2 1. Preparation of Plans 2 2. Road Names 2 3. Submission of Preliminary Plans 2 4. Approval of Preliminary Plans 3 B. Right-Of-Way Requirements 3 1. General Requirements 3 2. Width Requirements 3 C. Conformity 3 IV. CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND IMPROVEMENTS 5 A. Road and Drainage Plans 5 B. Drainage Easements 5 C. Drainage Structures 5 1. Crossroad Culverts and Bridges 5 2. Driveway Culverts 5 3. Storm Sewer 6 4. Under drains 6 5. Storm Sewer Accessibility 6 D. Utilities 7 E. Guard Posts, Guard Rail and Barricades 7 F. Clearing, Removal of Trees, Brush, Roots and Topsoil 7 G. Road Improvements 7 1. Typical Road Sections 7 2. Turnaround Section 7 3. Boulevard Section 9 4. Grades and Sight Distance 10 5. Traffic Impact Study 10 6. Intersecting Roadway Improvements 10 7. Existing Road Cleanup 10 8. Material Requirements and Specifications 11 9. Concrete Curb & Gutter 11 10.
    [Show full text]
  • DE MUTCD Page 3A-1 DRAFT Revision 3, October 2017
    DE MUTCD Page 3A-1 CHAPTER 3A. GENERAL Section 3A.01 Functions and Limitations Support: 01 Markings on highways and on private roads open to public travel have important functions in providing guidance and information for the road user. Major marking types include pavement and curb markings, delineators, colored pavements, channelizing devices, and islands. In some cases, markings are used to supplement other traffic control devices such as signs, signals, and other markings. In other instances, markings are used alone to effectively convey regulations, guidance, or warnings in ways not obtainable by the use of other devices. 02 Markings have limitations. Visibility of the markings can be limited by snow, debris, and water on or adjacent to the markings. Marking durability is affected by material characteristics, traffic volumes, weather, and location. However, under most highway conditions, markings provide important information while allowing minimal diversion of attention from the roadway. Section 3A.02 Standardization of Application Standard: 01 Each standard marking shall be used only to convey the meaning prescribed for that marking in this Manual. When used for applications not described in this Manual, markings shall conform in all respects to the principles and standards set forth in this Manual. Guidance: 02 Before any new highway, private road open to public travel (see definition in Section 1A.13), paved detour, or temporary route is opened to public travel, all necessary markings should be in place. Standard: 03 Markings that must be visible at night shall be retroreflective unless ambient illumination assures that the markings are adequately visible. All markings on Interstate highways shall be retroreflective.
    [Show full text]
  • Facts About the Interstate 15 Managed Lanes Project Segment Description Cost Funding Constr
    LEGEND (Million$) Facts About the Interstate 15 Managed Lanes Project Segment Description Cost Funding Constr. North Centre City Pkwy TRANSNET Freeway to SR-78 $249 CMAQ 2008-2011 RSTP SHOPP Middle TRANSNET TCRP STIP-IIP 2003- SR-56 to STIP-RIP Freeway $430 2008 Centre City Pkwy SHOPP RSTP CMAQ GARVEE-RIP GARVEE-IIP DEMO COOP South SR-163 to Freeway $481 TRANSNET 2008-2012 SR-56 CMAQ CMIA TRANSNET TCRP Transit Escondido to $122 2008-2012 Downtown CMAQ Federal Bus FileName:1-15MngLanes(5/04) April 2008 Interstate 15 Managed Lanes GOALS The I-15 Managed Lanes Project will manage traffic An integral part of the Managed Lanes is the Bus Rapid congestion and reduce delays on Interstate 15 (I-15), Transit (BRT) System -- a system of transit routes between State Route 163 (SR-163) and State Route 78 connecting residential areas with major employment (SR-78) by optimizing and increasing freeway capacity centers along the corridor. Preferential access to the and transportation alternatives in the corridor. Managed Lanes will allow buses to provide high-speed, "rapid" service. Bus Rapid Transit Centers (BRTCs) are planned adjacent to the freeway in Mira Mesa, Sabre PURPOSE AND NEED Springs/Rancho Penasquitos, Rancho Bernardo, near I-15 has serious traffic congestion problems affecting North County Fair and in Escondido. commuters, businesses, and regional goods movers. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on the corridor today In addition, the stations will have "Park & Ride" lots for ranges from 170,000 to 290,000 vehicles, with daily carpools and will be connected to the managed lanes by commute delays ranging from 30-45 minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation
    Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation BDK85 977-21 Final Report December 2011 i Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation BDK85 977-21 Final Report Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation Research Center 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Project Manager: Amy Datz Prepared by: Victoria A. Perk Joseph S. DeSalvo, Ph.D. Tara A. Rodrigues Nina M. Verzosa Steven C. Bovino Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT-100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 December 2011 i DRAFT October 2011 ii DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. iii iv Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More December 2011 Effective Transportation Project Evaluation 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Victoria A. Perk, Joseph S. DeSalvo, Tara A. Rodrigues, Nina M. Verzosa, Steven C. Bovino 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT-100 11. Contract or Grant No. Tampa, FL 33620 BDK85 977-21 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Florida Department of Transportation Final Report Research Center March 2010 – December 2011 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices: Separation Devices Between Toll Lanes and Free Lanes
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-07/0-5426-1 Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Best Practices: Separation Devices between Toll Lanes and October 2006; Revised February 2007 Free Lanes 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Ian Hlavacek, Mike Vitek, and Randy B. Machemehl 0-5426-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Austin 0-5426 3208 Red River, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78705-2650 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2005–August 2006 P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Transportation agencies around the nation find themselves pushing the envelope of innovation to keep up with congestion caused by exploding demand for limited roadway space. Managed lanes provide a mechanism for harnessing the potential of the current infrastructure. Special-purpose lanes, including high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) and high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, allow engineers to manipulate roadway parameters to achieve varying levels of service. Managed lanes are controlled access facilities, and must somehow
    [Show full text]
  • Planned Residential District Rezoning for Preston Row” Rezoning Package Dated January 3, 2017, Prepared by Gay and Neel, Inc
    PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REZONING FOR PRESTON ROW BLACKSBURG , VIRGINIA January 3, 2017 Prepared For: Broadstreet Partners LLC 148 River Street, Suite 205 Greenville, SC 29601 Prepared by: Job No. 2720.0 Table of Contents APPLICATION .................................................................................................................................. 3-11 PROFFER STATEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 12-14 TRAFFIC IMPACT APPLICATION ..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..15-17 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ....................................................................................................... 18-23 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 24-27 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................... 29-51 A. DEED B. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS C. TOWN OF BLACKSBURG EMAIL REGARDING SEWER CAPACITY SERVICE D. EXISTING ZONING MAP & EXISTING LAND USE MAP E. FUTURE LAND USE MAP & MIXED USE AREA C MAP F. UDA AREA MAP G. BT TRANSIT STOPS H. EXISTING SURVEY I. SITE PLAN J. ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND ELEVATIONS 2 Preston Row APPLICATION 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 059E2474-F8CC-42F9-9DF8-058DF4F362BA Kattrin Kinder,
    [Show full text]
  • Guardrail and Bridge Rail Recommendations for Very Low-Volume Local Roads in Kansas
    Report No. KS-14-16 ▪ FINAL REPORT▪ December 2014 Guardrail and Bridge Rail Recommendations for Very Low-Volume Local Roads in Kansas Ronald J. Seitz, P.E. Tod Salfrank Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Local Projects Division of Operations Bureau of Research This page intentionally left blank. 1 Report No. 2 Government Accession No. 3 Recipient Catalog No. KS-14-16 4 Title and Subtitle 5 Report Date Guardrail and Bridge Rail Recommendations for Very Low-Volume December 2014 Local Roads in Kansas 6 Performing Organization Code 7 Author(s) 7 Performing Organization Report Ronald J. Seitz, P.E., and Tod Salfrank No. 9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10 Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Local Projects 11 Contract or Grant No. 700 SW Harrison Street 3rd Floor West Topeka, Kansas 66603-3745 12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13 Type of Report and Period Kansas Department of Transportation Covered Bureau of Research Final Report 2300 SW Van Buren Topeka, Kansas 66611-1195 14 Sponsoring Agency Code 15 Supplementary Notes For more information write to address in block 9. The determination of warrants for bridge railing and approach guardrails is a fundamental roadside safety issue. These are specialized roadside safety barriers that are intended to capture and smoothly redirect errant vehicles that leave the roadway either on the bridge itself or on the approach to the bridge. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires tested bridge rails and approach guardrails on all National Highway System (NHS) Roadways. However, states are given the discretion to develop their own policies for non-NHS roads.
    [Show full text]
  • NCMUG Fall 2015: Potential Updates to North Carolina Travel Demand Models
    NCMUG Fall 2015: Potential Updates to North Carolina Travel Demand Models Brian Wert, P.E. November 19, 2015 Agenda • Goals and Outcomes • Impetus for Change • Potential Issues • Managed Lanes • Superstreets • What can be done? 2 Goals and Outcomes 3 Goals • Share recent findings • Alert model custodians to recent rulings • Help determine path forward 4 Outcomes Make some decision soon • Deciding to decide later is acceptable • Deciding sufficient data does not exist is also acceptable • Choosing not to decide may no longer be acceptable Document decisions 5 Impetus for Change 6 Impetus for Change Recent best practice updates • NCHRP 716 • NCHRP 765 Recent court rulings • Yadkin Riverkeeper v NCDOT et al (Monroe Bypass) • Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation v NCDOT (Garden Parkway) • Midewin Heritage Association v Illinois DOT et al (Illiana Tollway) • 1000 Friends of Wisconsin v USDOT et al 7 Impetus for Change Recent best practice updates • NCHRP 716 • NCHRP 765 Recent court rulings • Yadkin Riverkeeper v NCDOT et al (Monroe Bypass) • Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation v NCDOT (Garden Parkway) – Documentation and SE Data • Midewin Heritage Association v Illinois DOT et al (Illiana Tollway) • 1000 Friends of Wisconsin v USDOT et al 8 Impetus for Change Recent best practice updates • NCHRP 716 • NCHRP 765 Recent court rulings • Yadkin Riverkeeper v NCDOT et al (Monroe Bypass) • Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation v NCDOT (Garden Parkway) • Midewin Heritage Association v Illinois DOT et al (Illiana Tollway) – Rationality and SE Data • 1000 Friends of
    [Show full text]