DOCSLIB.ORG

Roadway System Needs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 1 of 10 Roadway System Needs The year 2020 transportation system deficiencies and needs in Washington County were evaluated based on selected performance measures. The 2020 travel forecasts considered the Regional Transportation Plan (priority scenario) as well as no-build scenario (including committed projects). The following section describes the analytical process and motor vehicles system results. Separate approaches were taken for evaluating urban and rural roadways to better address the characteristics of each type of facility. Performance Analysis in Urban Area Planning performance measures for the roadway system in the urban area include peak period travel demand, mobility, connectivity and accessibility. These performance measures were combined to refine the initial 2020 travel demand model forecasts using a three-tiered analysis. These measures represent a new paradigm for assessing roadway and highway travel performance for Washington County. The previous plan process (1985) used only the first step as described below. Since that time, further research in system performance has provided a broader array of planning tools. Step 1: Demand vs. Capacity — Demand to capacity (D/C) ratios1 were evaluated on roadway segments and conditions where the demand to capacity ratio exceeded 1.0 were identified. Model roadway networks are coded based on the general speed and throughput characteristics of similar facilities throughout the county. See the attached Committed System - Motor Vehicle Performance Deficiencies map (B-1). Step 2: Arterial Congested Speeds — The D/C ratio is taken from the above step, then further refined to consider specific traffic signal density and system coordination along the arterial segments in the county. Signal density (number of traffic signal per mile) has a significant influence on the average travel speeds, especially during peak periods. Urban Street Level of Service Criteria Typical free-flow 50 mph 40 mph 35 mph 30 mph speed Level of Service Average Travel Speeds (mph) A >42 >35 >30 >25 B >34-42 >28-35 >24-30 >19-25 C >27-34 >22-28 >18-24 >13-19 D >21-27 >17-22 >14-18 >9-13 E >16-21 >13-17 >10-14 >7-9 F ≤ 16 ≤ 13 ≤ 10 ≤ 7 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 15, Exhibit 15-2, 2000. 1 Demand to capacity ratio is similar to volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. The difference is that in the future, demand is being estimated and therefore the term demand is utilized. For existing conditions, volume refers to the actual traffic on the roadway. While a demand to capacity ratio can exceed 1.0, a volume to capacity ratio would never exceed 1.0. Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 2 of 10 Refined travel speed estimates were prepared based on forecasted peak period usage, traffic signal density, presence of signal coordination and free-flow travel speeds on arterial roads. The refined arterial speed calculation was based on Quantifying Congestion (NCHRP Report 398) research2. Future signal density (number of traffic signals per mile) was determined from the existing traffic signal inventory provided by county staff plus assumptions3 regarding new traffic signals that may be constructed with land development. Future traffic signal coordination was determined based on conversations with county staff regarding planned signal system upgrades. The resulting congested speed was related to the definition in the Highway Capacity Manual for Urban Streets4 to determine a facility level of service. Cases where a corridor segment dropped below Level of Service E were flagged for poor or unacceptable performance. Step 3: Intersection Performance — Intersection level data were developed for about 25 intersections in Washington County (based on staff input, for primarily arterial intersections). The 2020 model forecasts at these intersections were adjusted to correct minor calibration errors that may occur compared to current year traffic counts. This refinement step can significantly enhance the accuracy of the model forecasts and the resulting performance assessment. The intersections were selected because they are the most likely pressure points where system capacity could be exceeded. However, there may be other locations that may have capacity deficiencies/needs. Other county arterial intersections were investigated in separate studies for the various city transportation system plan updates. Any needs shown at these locations will be addressed in the county plan update. Capacity needs were identified where D/C ratios exceeded 1.0 or Level of Service (LOS) was at F or worse. The three-step approach was not applied to roadway facilities in the rural area. The influence of traffic signals and mid-block driveways is generally not significant in the rural area. An alternative method was developed to consider roadway terrain and limitation to passing zones, which are more significant to rural travel conditions. 2 Quantifying Congestion: Volumes 1 and 2, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 398, Transportation Research Board, 1997. 3 Future traffic signals were assumed to be added to the existing system within the urban area for the following cases: 1) where two arterial roads intersect, and 2) as in-fill along arterials with bordering commercial or industrial at least one-quarter mile from an arterial or other existing traffic signal. 4 Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 15 – Urban Streets, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 3 of 10 Refined Capacity Analysis Process for Urban Area Refinement Step Process /Purpose Threshold (acceptable performance indicator) 1- Link Demand Model volume divided by model D/C less than 1.00. to Capacity capacity. General link performance. 2 - Congested Arterial road performance based D/C Level of service E or better. Speed ratio (Step 1), traffic signal density and control systems, and speed reduction relative to free-flow. 3 - Intersection Arterial intersection average delay for Level of service E or better. Total Conditions all movements. Adjust model control delay less than 80 seconds forecast relative to counts. on average for all movements (source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000). The results of the urban area corridor evaluation are summarized on the next page for the Committed Project and Priority RTP scenarios. The table highlights roadway links that fall below the performance measures. All 37 of the links listed in the table have demand to capacity ratios over 1.00 for the Committed Base scenario (Step 1). The majority of these corridors also have average travel speeds in the peak direction below Level of Service E (Step 2). Cells that were grayed out do not have traffic signals installed or planned within the corridor limits. The node capacity analysis (Step 3) shows that the majority of the corridors also have major intersections that will perform below LOS E during the peak period. Cases where intersection traffic volume data was not readily available for analysis are shown as shaded. An important finding was that, in most cases where data were available, the Step 1 deficiency was confirmed by inadequate conditions based on travel speed and/or intersection LOS. The Priority scenario analysis showed 14 of the 37 links operating below capacity. The other 23 links would be adequate during peak periods with implementation of the additional system projects identified in the Priority scenario program. In a few cases, the corridor speed was the critical indicator instead of link capacity. These included Highway 99W and Cornell Road in sections where traffic signal spacing is very close, and the impact on travel speeds is significant. Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 4 of 10 Overview of 2020 Forecasted Corridor Deficiencies for RTP Scenarios No Build Priority Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 East-West Corridors (1) Link Speed Intersection Link Speed Intersection Germantown Road – Cornelius Pass to Kaiser Rd n n Springville Road – 185th Ave to Kaiser Road n n West Union Road – Cornelius Pass to 185th Ave nn n n Cornell Road – 185th Ave to US 26 nn n Cornell Road – 143rd Ave to Saltzman Road nn n US 26 – ORE 217 to Canyon Road n Walker Road – ORE 217 to Stucki Ave nn n Jenkins Road – Murray Blvd to 158th Ave nn Baseline Road – 185th to 231st Ave nn TV Highway – Hocken Ave to Cornelius Pass nn n Highway 8 – Cornelius/Schefflin to Hwy 47 nn n n Farmington Road – Hocken Ave to 185th Ave nn n Allen Boulevard – ORE 217 to Murray Blvd n Hart Road – Hall Blvd to Murray Blvd n Scholls Ferry Road – ORE 217 to 125th Ave nn n Tualatin-Sherwood Road – I-5 to Boones Ferry nn n n Road Tualatin-Sherwood Road – Avery Street to Hwy n 99W Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 North-South Corridors (1) Link Speed Intersection Link Speed Intersection Brookwood Avenue – TV Hwy to Cornell Road n n Cornelius Pass Road – TV Hwy to US 26 nn n Cornelius Pass Road – US 26 to Germantown nn n n Road 185th Avenue – Farmington Road to Springville nn n Road 170th Avenue – Bany Road to Merlo Road n Bethany Boulevard – US 26 to Kaiser Road nn Kaiser Road – Germantown Road to West Union n nn Road Beef Bend Road – Scholls Ferry Road to Elsner nn Road Highway 99W – Bell Road to Durham Road nn n n Highway 99W – Durham Road to ORE 217 nn n nn n Highway 99W – ORE 217 to I-5 n Murray Boulevard – Brockman Road to Jenkins nn n n Road Cedar Hills Boulevard – Hall Blvd to Walker Road n Hall Boulevard – Greenway to Oleson Road nn ORE 217 – Denney Road to BH Hwy n ORE 217 – I-5 to Greenburg Road n Scholls Ferry Road – Denney Road to US 26 nn Interstate 5 – Wilsonville Road to ORE 217 n n Boones Ferry Road – Elligsen Road to Avery nn n Street Baker Road – Westfall Road to Tualatin- n n Sherwood Road Technical Appendix B-1 Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan Page 5 of 10 The major intersections and interchanges were reviewed based on forecasted volumes to identify locations that are expected to exceed planned capacity.
Recommended publications

  • The Gibraltar Highway Code

    P ! CONTENTS Introduction Rules for pedestrians 3 Rules for users of powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters 10 Rules about animals 12 Rules for cyclists 13 Rules for motorcyclists 17 Rules for drivers and motorcyclists 19 General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders 25 Road users requiring extra care 60 Driving in adverse weather conditions 66 Waiting and parking 70 Motorways 74 Breakdowns and incidents 79 Road works, level crossings and tramways 85 Light signals controlling traffic 92 Signals by authorised persons 93 Signals to other road users 94 Traffic signs 96 Road markings 105 Vehicle markings 109 Annexes 1. You and your bicycle 112 2. Vehicle maintenance and safety 113 3. Vehicle security 116 4. First aid on the road 116 5. Safety code for new drivers 119 1 Introduction This Highway Code applies to Gibraltar. However it also focuses on Traffic Signs and Road Situations outside Gibraltar, that as a driver you will come across most often. The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of The Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders. Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/ MUST NOT’.
  • Existing Conditions

    Existing Conditions

    Hillsboro Transportation System Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Contents 3.1 Hillsboro Context.............................................................................................................. 3 3.2 Current Trends ................................................................................................................. 6 Increasing Population and Land Area .......................................................................................... 6 Increased Ethnic and Racial Diversity .......................................................................................... 8 Increasing Employment and Housing ........................................................................................ 11 Commute Patterns ..................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Roadways 20 Number of Lanes ........................................................................................................................ 23 Speed Zones ............................................................................................................................... 23 Creek and Rail Crossings ............................................................................................................ 24 Average Daily Traffic .................................................................................................................. 29 Signalized Intersections ............................................................................................................
  • A Study and Analysis of Existing Road Junction

    A Study and Analysis of Existing Road Junction

    Special Issue - 2016 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181 SNCIPCE - 2016 Conference Proceedings A Study and Analysis of Existing Road Junction Bavithran. R, Sasikumar. N Ms. G. Yamuna,.. Asst Professor Department of Civil Engg Department of Civil Engg V.R.S College of Engg & Tech, Araur, VPM Dst V.R.S College of Engg & Tech, Araur, VPM Dst Abstract - Road junction is the point at which more than are also three major groups of sedimentary rocks, layers of two roads are connecting at the point. The junction is particles that settled in different geological periods. analyzed by Volume Count Survey. The volume count survey Viluppuram's GPS location is 11° 56' N 79° 29' E. is one of the methods of finding out the Traffic volume. The Villupuram is the one of the most popular city in junction which is situated in Villupuram is taken as study tamilnadu. In this project, an existing road junction is area. In this junction, the volume count survey is taken for 15 days for determine the Passenger Car Unit and the Level Of studied and analyzed by using volume count survey.. Some Service for the junction is computed. To improve the information are to be carried before the project has started. junction, some suggestions are suggested. The greener time of the Traffic flow from Chennai, Trichy, thirukovillur, Pondicherry are 20 sec, 25 Keywords:- Volume count survey, Peak hour, Passenger sec, 15 sec, and 20 sec respectively. CCTV is provided car unit, Level of service from junction to junction near veeravaliamman temple.
  • US-60/Grand Avenue Corridor Optimization, Access Management, and System Study (COMPASS)

    US-60/Grand Avenue Corridor Optimization, Access Management, and System Study (COMPASS)

    US-60/Grand Avenue COMPASS Loop 303 to Interstate 10 TM 3 – National Case Study Review US-60/Grand Avenue Corridor Optimization, Access Management, and System Study (COMPASS) Loop 303 to Interstate 10 Technical Memorandum 3 National Case Study Review Prepared for: Prepared by: Wilson & Company, Inc. In Association With: Burgess & Niple, Inc. Partners for Strategic Action, Inc. Philip B. Demosthenes, LLC March 2013 3/25/2013 US-60/Grand Avenue COMPASS Loop 303 to Interstate 10 TM 3 – National Case Study Review Table of Contents List of Abbreviations 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Purpose of this Paper ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Michigan 1 (M-1)/Woodward Avenue – Detroit, Michigan ................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Access to Urban/Suburban Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Corridor Access Control ...........................................................................................................................................................
  • Road Network Selection for Small-Scale Maps Using an Improved Centrality-Based Algorithm

    Road Network Selection for Small-Scale Maps Using an Improved Centrality-Based Algorithm

    JOURNAL OF SPATIAL INFORMATION SCIENCE Number 9 (2014), pp. 71–99 doi:10.5311/JOSIS.2014.9.166 RESEARCH ARTICLE Road network selection for small-scale maps using an improved centrality-based algorithm Roy Weiss and Robert Weibel Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Received: January 31, 2014; returned: March 13, 2014; revised: July 29, 2014; accepted: August 18, 2014. Abstract: The road network is one of the key feature classes in topographic maps and databases. In the task of deriving road networks for products at smaller scales, road net- work selection forms a prerequisite for all other generalization operators, and is thus a fun- damental operation in the overall process of topographic map and database production. The objective of this work was to develop an algorithm for automated road network selec- tion from a large-scale (1:10,000) to a small-scale database (1:200,000). The project was pur- sued in collaboration with swisstopo, the national mapping agency of Switzerland, with generic mapping requirements in mind. Preliminary experiments suggested that a selec- tion algorithm based on betweenness centrality performed best for this purpose, yet also exposed problems. The main contribution of this paper thus consists of four extensions that address deficiencies of the basic centrality-based algorithm and lead to a significant improvement of the results. The first two extensions improve the formation of strokes concatenating the road segments, which is crucial since strokes provide the foundation upon which the network centrality measure is computed. Thus, the first extension en- sures that roundabouts are detected and collapsed, thus avoiding interruptions of strokes by roundabouts, while the second introduces additional semantics in the process of stroke formation, allowing longer and more plausible strokes to built.
  • 1.0 Introduction 2.0 General Observations

    1.0 Introduction 2.0 General Observations

    Core Bus Corridor 9: Greenhills - Preliminary Submission 1.0 Introduction Dublin Cycling Campaign is a registered charity that advocates for better cycling conditions in Dublin. Dublin Cycling Campaign is the leading member of Cyclist.ie, the Irish Cycling Advocacy Network (ICAN). We wants to make Dublin a safe and friendly place for everyone of all ages to cycle. There are many welcome segments to the Greenhills to City Centre route that have the potential to deliver a high-quality route. However, these good sections are let down by poorly managed detours for cyclists, gaps in the cycling provision and poor details. The proposals for Kildare Road in particular are both unsafe and a poor alternative to the Crumlin Road. There are some high-level issues with the current proposals. We understand that the NTA is currently at a preliminary concept design stage. This is reassuring as many of the details of the proposed cycling facilities need to be improved in order to enable safe cycling for people of all ages and abilities. We look forward to future engagement with the NTA to resolve the major issues and refine the details in later stages so that we can produce a high-quality result similar to the Fairview/North Strand cycle route. 2.0 General Observations 2.1 There are some clear improvements Though we are critical of parts of the concept design in many areas, there are already positive improvements proposed for pedestrians and cyclists within this concept design. These include: ● Extensive use of cycle track segregation throughout the corridor. 1 ● The redesign of the Walkinstown Roundabout to reduce the number of traffic lanes and to install safe crossing features, although we disagree with the proposal for ‘shared space’, as it will de-prioritise cyclists.
  • Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study

    Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study

    Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report May 2012 Prepared for the: Arizona Department of Transportation Prepared by: Jacobs 101 N. 1ST Ave. Suite 3100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 P: 602.253.1200 F: 602.253.1202 www.jacobs.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City of Apache Junction Council Members Mayor John S. Insalaco Robin Barker Doug Coleman Rick Dietz Jeff Serdy Clark Smithson Chip Wilson Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Charla Glendening, Project Manager, ADOT Multimodal Planning Division Giao Pham, P.E, City Engineer/Interim Director, Public Works, City of Apache Junction Steve Filipowicz, Director Economic Development, City of Apache Junction Nick Blake, Parks Superintendent, City of Apache Junction Brett Jackson , Police Lieutenant, Apache Junction Police Department Dan Campbell, Fire Chief, Apache Junction Fire District Dave Montgomery, Chief Fire Marshall, Apache Junction Chad Wilson, Superintendent, Apache Junction Unified School District Bill Leister, Transportation Director, Central Arizona Association of Governments Michelle Green, Project Manager, Arizona State Land Department Doug Hansen, Planning Section Chief, Pinal County Greg Stanley, P.E., Director / County Engineer, Pinal County Alan Sanderson, Deputy Transportation Director, City of Mesa Ken Hall, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Mesa Tim Oliver, Systems Planning Manager, Maricopa County Department of Transportation Felicia Terry, Regional Planning Director, Maricopa County Flood Control District Pat Brenner, Community Relations Manager, City of Apache Junction Angelita
  • Interchange of a New Generation Pinavia

    Interchange of a New Generation Pinavia

    1 INTERCHANGE OF A NEW GENERATION PINAVIA 2 3 StanislovasButeliauskas 4 The General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania 5 Šilo 5A, LT-10322, Vilnius, Lithuania 6 Phone: +370 212 103 553 7 Email: [email protected] 8 9 AušriusJuozapavi čius , corresponding author 10 The General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania 11 Šilo 5A, LT-10322, Vilnius, Lithuania 12 Phone: +370 212 103 555 13 Email: [email protected] 14 15 16 Word count: 3,110 words text + 7 tables/figures x 250 words each = 4,860 words 17 18 19 Submission date: June 15, 2014 Buteliauskas, Juozapavi čius 2 20 ABSTRACT 21 A new two-level interchange of a unique design called PINAVIA is presented. The new 22 interchange is functionally similar to a conventional four-level stacked interchange: transport flows do 23 not intersect, the driving speed in all directions can be equal to the speeds of the intersecting roads, and 24 the design allows arbitrary capacity in any direction. The PINAVIA design makes it possible to utilize the 25 center area of the junction making it unique in its class. As a consequence, it is a natural component of a 26 Park&Ride system, where private cars can be parked and public transport hubs created. Easy access 27 without intersections to the center area makes it possible to create additional infrastructure with new 28 working places. A new city transportation strategy can be implemented using several PINAVIA 29 interchanges around a city, which could substantially reduce traffic in the city center. Alternative 30 interchange designs are also possible based on the same principles of PINAVIA: designs for three or five 31 roads, elliptical versions, and mirrored versions.
  • Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Overview Oregonmetro.Gov/Mobility

    Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Overview Oregonmetro.Gov/Mobility

    Regional Mobility Policy Update Examples of Current Approaches | Overview oregonmetro.gov/mobility April 2021 This overview and the factsheets OC NOTGNIHSAW OOC OC HAMONTLUM OOC C Introduction C N that follow summarize current H O in BBlvl A Pla vd Metro and the Oregon T urth P M o G E¡¢ £F C¤¥¥ A¥¦¢ practices related to how the R NNEE Four O N I Department of Transportation N mobility policy in the RTP and H T L S U (ODOT) are working together A M the OHP are used in different M W d R N Marine Dr s to update the policy on s s s a planning applications and a P P s us P u N how mobility is defined and N VancouverVancouver i li identify opportunities for l W C e S o n t l measured in the Portland area r H u improvement in an updated o e m C C le b n ia U s B in the Regional Transportation W llv e C L A R K C O R v NNEE M N v ariinen D L ARK policy. The factsheets were d d e Dr A MUMULTNOMAH C CO O r LTNOMAH Plan (RTP), local transportation e v Camas d developed through document n d v v C e e l N l O B B D L D system plans (TSPs), and when oombm r b r review and interviews conducted aar J N rd N WWashougalashougal St g In I nng J evaluating the traffic impacts n i te with agency staff on 12 examples t K N e E r r ve r NNEE KKilliilling swo e s s rthth Airp t t 3 o h of local comprehensive plan A S rt d a NW Yeon Ave t t WWaa NE Ma r R of recent system plans, plan R y rinnee DD t u e e NE Sandy Blvd Y L s s eon Sandy s A n Luther K amendments.
  • Geometric Design of Junctions (Priority Junctions, Direct Accesses, Roundabouts, Grade Separated and Compact Grade Separated Junctions)

    Geometric Design of Junctions (Priority Junctions, Direct Accesses, Roundabouts, Grade Separated and Compact Grade Separated Junctions)

    Geometric Design of Junctions (priority junctions, direct accesses, roundabouts, grade separated and compact grade separated junctions) DN-GEO-03060 April 2017 SUPERSEDED TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IRELAND (TII) PUBLICATIONS About TII Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) is responsible for managing and improving the country’s national road and light rail networks. About TII Publications TII maintains an online suite of technical publications, which is managed through the TII Publications website. The contents of TII Publications is clearly split into ‘Standards’ and ‘Technical’ documentation. All documentation for implementation on TII schemes is collectively referred to as TII Publications (Standards), and all other documentation within the system is collectively referred to as TII Publications (Technical). Document Attributes Each document within TII Publications has a range of attributes associated with it, which allows for efficient access and retrieval of the document from the website. These attributes are also contained on the inside cover of each current document, for reference. TII Publication Title Geometric Design of Junctions (priority junctions, direct accesses, roundabouts, grade separated and compact grade separated junctions) TII Publication Number DN-GEO-03060 Activity Design (DN) Document Set Standards Stream Geometry (GEO) Publication Date April 2017 Document 03060 Historical N/A Number Reference TII Publications Website This document is part of the TII publications system all of which is available free of charge at http://www.tiipublications.ie. For more information on the TII Publications system or to access further TII Publications documentation, please refer to the TII Publications website. TII Authorisation and Contact Details This document has been authorised by the Director of Professional Services, Transport Infrastructure Ireland.
  • Agenda for Sub-Committee Meeting

    Agenda for Sub-Committee Meeting

    AGENDA FOR SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING PRECONSTRUCTION AND HUMAN RESOURCES – Commissioners Alexander, Dyson and Grimsley Monday, July 6, 2020 10:00 a.m. This Virtual Meeting will be held via video teleconference only pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, as amended by Senate Bill 661. 1. Item No. 78 - Programming of Federal Railroad Crossing Safety Funds - Section 130 Title 23 Funds - Mr. Schwennesen Hughes County – Commission District III In Wetumka, Construction funding for a Signal project which includes the installation of pedestal- mounted flashing light signals with gate arms and drainage improvements at the intersection of Wewoka Street and the BNSF mainline. Total cost is $665,278.00 2. Item No. 79 - Safety Improvement Projects - Mr. Pendley a). Commissioner Districts III, IV, V and VII We have received a request from the Divisions III, IV, V, and VII Engineers for the installation of centerline rumble strip and pavement markings at the following locations: 1. SH 76: District III - Beginning in McClain County at the SH 76 & SH 39 junction, extending northerly approximately 6.5 miles to near the US 62 & SH 76 junction west of Blanchard; 2. US 81: District IV - In Canadian County beginning at the Canadian & Grady County Line, extending northerly approximately 2.5 miles to near the US 81 & SH 152 junction in Union City; 3. US 70 & US 183: District V - In Tillman County beginning at the Oklahoma & Texas State Line, extending northerly approximately 13 miles to near the US 183 & CR E1820 Road south of Frederick; 4. US 283: District V - In Jackson County beginning near the US 283 & SH 5 junction, extending northerly approximately 8 to near County Road 165 (Ridgecrest Road) south of Altus; 5.
  • Draft Transportation Baseline Report

    Draft Transportation Baseline Report

    Transportation Baseline Report Oak Street Refinement Plan Forest Grove, Oregon DRAFT August 2020 Draft Transportation Baseline Report Project Information Project: Oak Street Refinement Plan Prepared for: 3J Consulting 9600 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite 100 Beaverton, Oregon 97008 Reviewing Agency Jurisdiction : Forest Grove 1924 Council Street Forest Grove, Oregon 97116 Project Representative Prepared by : SCJ Alliance 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 Lacey, WA 98516 360.352.1465 scjalliance.com Contact : Anne Sylvester, PTE [email protected] (360) 352-1465 Project Reference: SCJ 1902 .01 Path: N:\Projects\1902 3J Consulting, Inc\1902.01 Forest Grove Oak Street Area Land Use Refinement\04-Dels\01-Baseline\Transp\2020-0808 Draft Oak Street Area Transp Baseline.docx Oak Street Refinement Plan Draft Transportation Baseline Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 1-1 2. REVIEWED DOCUMENTS AND PLANS ....................................................................... 2-1 2.1 State Documents and Plans ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Regional Documents and Plans .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Forest Grove Documents and Plans ................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Washington County Documents and Plans .......................................................................