DOCSLIB.ORG

Houston North Freeway Contraflow Lane Demonstration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2 HE 1 8.5 U M T A-M A -06-0049-82-1 7' . A3 DOT-TSC-U MTA-82-56 no. DOT- U.S. Department TSC- of Transportation U MTA- 82-56 Urban Mass Transportation Administration V Houston North Freeway Contraflow Lane Demonstration Final Report December 1982 UMTA/TSC Project Evaluation Series Service and Management Demonstrations Program ' NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse prod- ucts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers namfes appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of this report. rt.l Technical Report Documentation Page , 437 1 . Report No. 2. Government Accession Nc 3. Recipient's Catalog No. T>cTT~ UMTA-MA-0 6-00 49-82-12 Tsc- OMTh ‘ 4. Title and Subti tie 5. Report Date HOUSTON NORTH FREEWAY CONTRAFLOW LAN! December 1982 *f2- 'S"% 6. Performing Code DEMONSTRATION DEPARTMENT Organization of DTS-6 4 TR A NSPOPTATION 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) JU L ' JQTl DOT-TSC-UMTA- 82-56 Terry J. ALherton, Ellyn S. Eder 9. Performing Organization Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (T R A I S) library UM227 /R2676 Cambridge Systematics, 1 Inc.* r 1 Contrac o' Grant No. 238 Main Street DOT-TSC-l 40 5 Cambridge, MA 02142 13 Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Nome ond Address Final Repor t U.S. Department of Transportation 1/75 - 12/81 Urban16. Mass Transportation Administration Office of Technical Assistance Office of Service and Management Demonstrations 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington DC 20590 URT-30 15. Supp I ementory Notes U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration *Under contract to: Transportation Systems Center Cambridge MA 02142 Abstract This report presents an evaluation of the impacts associated with contraflow operation of Houston's North Freeway under UMTA's Service and Management Demonstra- tions Program. In the Houston demonstration, a 9.6 mile contraflow lane was available for use by buses and vanpools during the morning and afternoon peak periods. In addition to the contraflow lane, a number of other transportation improvements were also implemented in the North Freeway corridor. In particular, bus service was expanded considerably and two park-and-ride lots were built and a third leased from a church. 17. The evaluation focuses on the feasibility18. (in terms of adverse impacts on non- priority users, safety, enforcement, public acceptance, etc.) and effectiveness (in terms of utilization, increased bus and vanpool ridership, etc.) of the contraflow lane. Contraflow operation resulted in an average round-trip travel- time savings of 40 minutes for bus riders and vanpoolers using the contraflow lane during the peak hour. As a result, bus ridership and, to a lesser extent, vanpooling increased considerably. The feasibility of contraflow operation as an HOV priority measure was also demonstrated by this project. Key Words Distribution Statement Contraflow Lane, Demonstration Project, DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE THROUGH HOV, Transit Ridership, Vanpooling SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON DC 20402 21- No. of P ages 22. Price 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 308 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 9 PREFACE This document was prepared under Task Directive D0T-TSC-1405-23 as part of the Service and Management Demonstrations Program sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Office of Service and Management Demonstrations. This report presents the final evaluation of the impacts associated with the implementation of a contraflow lane on the North Freeway in Houston, Texas, on August 28, 1979. The evaluation focuses primarily on the feasibility and effectiveness of contraflow operation as a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) priority measure. Cambridge Systematics had primary responsibility for the evaluation of the demonstration project. Ellyn Eder, Cambridge Systematics' project manager for most of the evaluation effort, and Terry Atherton are the principal authors of this report. John Suhrbier, also with Cambridge Systematics, and Fred Wagner of Wagner-McGee Associates also contributed to the evaluation effort. The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO), assisted by its data collection contractors, Beiswenger, Hoch and Associates, Inc., and the Texas Transportation Institute, was responsible for administering the surveys used to obtain the travel data supporting the evaluation effort. In particular, the efforts of METRO's project manager, Charles A. Fuhs, in coordinating the data collection effort are greatly appreciated. Valuable suggestions and guidance for this evaluation were provided by David Damm and Carla Heaton of the Transportation Systems Center, and Joseph Goodman, the UMTA project manager. iii FACTORS CONVERSION METRIC xv TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Contraflow Concept 1-1 1.2 Demonstration Description and Objectives 1-2 1.3 Organizational Roles 1-5 1.4 Evaluation Design 1-8 1.4.1 Person and Vehicle Utilization 1-8 1.4.2 Characteristics of Users and Non-Priority Travellers ... 1-9 1.4.3 Impact on Non-Priority Freeway Users 1-10 1.4.4 Influence of Contraflow Lane Relative to Other Corridor Improvements 1-11 1.4.5 Safety and Enforcement 1-11 1.4.6 Public Acceptance 1-12 1.4.7 Vehicle Miles of Travel, Fuel Consumption, and Emissions 1-12 1.4.8 Cost s 1-13 2. DEMONSTRATION SETTING 2-1 2.1 Houston Region 2-1 2.1.1 Population 2-1 2.1.2 Employment 2-2 2.1.3 Highway System 2-5 2.1.4 Transit Service in Houston 2-6 2.2 North Freeway Corridor 2-8 2.3 Need for Corridor Improvements 2-10 3. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS 3-1 3.1 History of Project Planning and Implementation 3-1 3.2 Costs and Financing 3-3 3.2.1 Costs 3-3 3.2.2 SMD Grant Funding 3~5 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 3.3 Promotion and Marketing 3-5 3.4 Public Acceptance 3-12 3.5 Future Plans 3-13 4. FREEWAY MODIFICATIONS AND CONTRAFLOW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 4-1 4.1 Freeway Modifications 4-1 4.1.1 Contraflow Lane Access 4-2 4.1.2 Lane Separation 4-11 4.1.3 Ramp Control 4~14 4.2 Contraflow Lane Operations 4-17 4.2.1 Set-Up and Take-Down Procedure 4~17 4.2.2 Bus and Vanpool Certification Requirements 4-21 4.2.3 Enforcement 4-23 4.3 Concurrent Flow Lane 4-23 4.4 Costs 4-29 5. NORTH FREEWAY OPERATING CONDITIONS 5-1 5.1 Traffic Volumes 5-1 5.1.1 Non-Priority Lanes 5~1 5.1.2 Contraflow Lane 5-5 5.1.3 Person Throughput— All Lanes 5-10 5.2 Travel Speeds 5-10 5.2.1 Peak Direction 5-13 5.2.2 Off-Peak Direction 5-13 5.2.3 Contraflow Lane 5-16 5.2.4 Travel Time 5-17 5.3 Accidents 5-19 5.3.1 Non-Priority Lanes 5~19 5.3.2 Contraflow Lane 5-21 5.4 Contraflow Lane Violation Rates 5-24 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 5.5 Key Findings 5~26 5.5.1 Travel Time Savings for Contraflow Lane Users 5-26 5.5.2 Utilization 5-27 5.5.3 Impacts on Non-Priority Travellers 5-27 5.5.4 Accidents 5-28 5.5.5 Enforcement 5-28 6. BUS OPERATIONS AND RIDERSHIP 6-1 6.1 North Freeway Corridor Park-and-Ride and Bus Services 6-1 6.1.1 Park-and-Ride Lots 6-1 6.1.2 Bus Service 6-5 6.1.3 Fares 6-8 6.1.4 Costs 6-9 6.2 Growth of Bus Ridership and Park-and-Ride Lot Utilization .... 6-9 6.2.1 Bus Ridership 6-9 6.2.2 Park-and-Ride Lot Utilization 6-15 6.3 Key Findings 6-18 6.3.1 Improved Transit Service 6-18 6.3.2 Increased Ridership 6-18 6.3.3 Influence of Contraflow Lane 6-18 7. VANPOOL OPERATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS 7-1 7.1 Vanpooling in Houston 7-1 7.1.1 Employer-Sponsored 7-1 7.1.2 VanShare 7-1 7.1.3 Owner-Operated 7-3 7.1.4 Community-Based 7-3 7.2 Growth in Contraflow Lane Van Use 7-3 7.3 Characteristics of Vanpools 7-11 7.3.1 Formation 7-11 7.3.2 Vanpool Fares and Parking Costs 7-14 Vll TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 7.3.3 Driver Responsibilities and Incentives 7-16 7.3.4 Vanpool Reliability 7-18 7.4 Key Findings 7-20 7.4.1 Increase in Vanpooling 7-20 7.4.2 Relationship Between Vanpooling and Bus Ridership 7-20 8. CHARACTERISTICS OF NORTH FREEWAY TRAVELLERS 8-1 8.1 Trip Characteristics 8-1 8.1.1 Purpose, Length, Origin, and Destination 8-1 8.1.2 Frequency of Bus Use 8-3 8.1.3 Former Mode of Bus Riders and Vanpoolers 8-5 8.1.4 Access Mode and Distance (Bus and Vanpool) 8-7 8.2 Traveller Characteristics 8-12 8.2.1 Socioeconomic 8-12 8.2.1 Time at Present Residence and Employment Location 8-17 8.2.3 Auto Availability 8-20 8.2.4 Perceptions of Contraflow Lane 8-26 8.3 Key Findings 8-30 8.3.1 Trips Served by Contraflow Lane 8-30 8.3.2 Former Modes of Bus Riders and Vanpoolers 8-30 8.3.3 Importance of Park-and-Ride Facilities 8-30 8.3.4 Soc ioeconomic Characteristics 8-31 8.3.5 Influence of Population Growth 8-31 9.
Recommended publications
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic

    Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic

    MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration for Streets and Highways Control Devices Manual on Uniform Traffic Dotted line indicates edge of binder spine. MM UU TT CC DD U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration MManualanual onon UUniformniform TTrafficraffic CControlontrol DDevicesevices forfor StreetsStreets andand HighwaysHighways U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2003 Edition Page i The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard in accordance with Title 23 U.S. Code, Sections 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a), 23 CFR 655, and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(8), 1.48(b)(33), and 1.48(c)(2). Addresses for Publications Referenced in the MUTCD American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 www.transportation.org American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) 8201 Corporate Drive, Suite 1125 Landover, MD 20785-2230 www.arema.org Federal Highway Administration Report Center Facsimile number: 301.577.1421 [email protected] Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) 120 Wall Street, Floor 17 New York, NY 10005 www.iesna.org Institute of Makers of Explosives 1120 19th Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-3605 www.ime.org Institute of Transportation Engineers
  • Module 6. Hov Treatments

    Module 6. Hov Treatments

    Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Module 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS MODULE 6. HOV TREATMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 6-5 TREATMENTS ..................................................... 6-6 MODULE OBJECTIVES ............................................. 6-6 MODULE SCOPE ................................................... 6-7 6.2 DESIGN PROCESS .......................................... 6-7 IDENTIFY PROBLEMS/NEEDS ....................................... 6-7 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTNERS .................................... 6-8 CONSENSUS BUILDING ........................................... 6-10 ESTABLISH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................... 6-10 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA / MOES ....................... 6-10 DEFINE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................. 6-11 IDENTIFY AND SCREEN TECHNOLOGY ............................. 6-11 System Planning ................................................. 6-13 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................... 6-15 EVALUATION .................................................... 6-16 6.3 TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES .................. 6-18 HOV FACILITIES ................................................. 6-18 Operational Considerations ......................................... 6-18 HOV Roadway Operations ...................................... 6-20 Operating Efficiency .......................................... 6-20 Considerations for 2+ Versus 3+ Occupancy Requirement ............. 6-20 Hours of Operations ..........................................
  • Potential Managed Lane Alternatives

    Potential Managed Lane Alternatives

    Potential Managed Lane Alternatives 10/13/2017 Typical Section Between Junctions Existing Typical Section Looking North* *NLSD between Grand and Montrose Avenues is depicted. 1 Managed Lanes Managed Lanes (Options that convert one or more existing general purpose lanes to a managed lane to provide high mobility for buses and some autos) Potential managed lane roadway designs: • Option A – Three‐plus‐One Managed Lane (Bus‐only or Bus & Auto) • Option B –Two‐plus‐Two Managed Lanes • Option C – Three‐plus‐Two Reversible Managed Lanes • Option D – Four‐plus‐One Moveable Contraflow Lane (NB and SB, or SB Only) 2 1 10/13/2017 Option A – 3+1 Bus‐Only Managed Lane* Proposed Typical Section Looking North Between Junctions** *Converts one general purpose lane in each direction to a Bus‐Only Managed Lane. **NLSD between Grand and Montrose Avenues is depicted. 3 3+1 Bus‐Only Managed Lane • Benefits o Bus travel speeds would be unencumbered by vehicle speeds in adjacent travel lanes (same transit performance as Dedicated Transitway on Left Side) o Bus lanes would be available at all times and would not be affected by police or disabled vehicles o Bus lanes combined with exclusive bus‐only queue‐jump lanes at junctions would minimize bus travel times and maximize transit service reliability o Forward‐compatible with future light rail transit option • Challenges o Conversion of general purpose traffic lane to bus‐only operation will divert some traffic onto remaining NLSD lanes and/or adjacent street network 4 2 10/13/2017 Option A – 3+1 Managed Lane* Proposed Typical Section Looking North Between Junctions** *Converts one general purpose lane in each direction to a Shared Bus/Auto Managed Lane.
  • Summary of 2015 Anticipated Special Event Street Closures

    Summary of 2015 Anticipated Special Event Street Closures

    SUMMARY OF 2015 ANTICIPATED SPECIAL EVENT STREET CLOSURES City of Bristol, Tennessee Last updated Monday, July 13, 2015. Friday, July 17, 2015 – Fifth Border Bash. State Street between Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and 6th Street/Moore Street will be closed from 4:00 p.m. to approximately 1 1 :00 p.m. for the Border Bash event. One-half block sections of Lee Street and Bank Street adjacent to State Street will also be closed. Parking will be restricted on State Street between 5th Street/Lee Street and 6th Street/Moore Street; on far southern Lee Street; on westbound State Street between Moore Street and the bank entrance; and the northernmost parking space on 6th Street, all after 1:45 p.m. 5th Street itself is not closed, but there will be no access to it from State Street or Lee Street during the closure period. Eastbound State Street left turns to northbound Moore Street, typically prohibited, will be permitted while State Street is closed for this event. Motorists should also be aware of a right lane closure on southbound Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Virginia approaching State Street during this time. Saturday, July 18, 2015 - SonShine KidsFest at Anderson Park. For this event, the two-lane roadways surrounding Anderson Park will be closed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Olive Street; the dead-end block of 5th Street north of Olive Street; and Alabama Street between Olive Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard). Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard will remain open to traffic.
  • Matakana Link Road Public Consultation Feedback

    Matakana Link Road Public Consultation Feedback

    Matakana link road Public Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 AT.govt.nz Contents 1. Background ................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Project Development ..................................................................................... 5 1.2 Public Consultation ....................................................................................... 6 2. Feedback Received ..................................................................................................... 8 Question 1 – Which option do you prefer? ................................................................... 9 Question 4 – How would you use the road? .................................................................. 9 Questions 2, 3, 5 & 6 – Issues and Constraints (Key themes identified) ................... 10 3. Next Steps ................................................................................................................. 22 4. Conclusion................................................................................................................. 22 5. Appendix A. Consultation feedback ........................................................................ 23 2 Executive Summary In April 2017, Auckland Transport (AT) sought public feedback on the four short-listed options for the proposed Matakana Link Road. Feedback on the short-listed options was invited from 26 April to 20 May 2017. Submitters were asked to identify their preferred route option (see map
  • Freeway Management and Operations Handbook September 2003 (See Revision History Page for Chapter Updates) 6

    Freeway Management and Operations Handbook September 2003 (See Revision History Page for Chapter Updates) 6

    FREEWAY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS HANDBOOK FINAL REPORT September 2003 (Updated June 2006) Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-OP-04-003 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Freeway Management and Operations Handbook September 2003 (see Revision History page for chapter updates) 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Louis G. Neudorff, P.E, Jeffrey E. Randall, P.E., Robert Reiss, P..E, Robert Report Gordon, P.E. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Siemens ITS Suite 1900 11. Contract or Grant No. 2 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10121 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Transportation Management Research Federal Highway Administration Room 3404 HOTM 400 Seventh Street, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington D.C., 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Jon Obenberger, FHWA Office of Transportation Management, Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR) 16. Abstract This document is the third such handbook for freeway management and operations. It is intended to be an introductory manual – a resource document that provides an overview of the various institutional and technical issues associated with the planning, design, implementation, operation, and management of a freeway network.
  • 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.
  • Dynamic Lane Reversal in Traffic Management

    Dynamic Lane Reversal in Traffic Management

    To appear in Proceedings of the 14th IEEE ITS Conference (ITSC 2011), Washington DC, USA, October 2011. Dynamic Lane Reversal in Traffic Management Matthew Hausknecht, Tsz-Chiu Au, Peter Stone David Fajardo, Travis Waller Department of Computer Science School of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Texas at Austin University of New South Wales {mhauskn,chiu,pstone}@cs.utexas.edu {davidfajardo2,s.travis.waller}@gmail.com Abstract— Contraflow lane reversal—the reversal of lanes in order to temporarily increase the capacity of congested roads— can effectively mitigate traffic congestion during rush hour and emergency evacuation. However, contraflow lane reversal deployed in several cities are designed for specific traffic patterns at specific hours, and do not adapt to fluctuations in actual traffic. Motivated by recent advances in autonomous Fig. 1. An illustration of contraflow lane reversal (cars are driving on vehicle technology, we propose a framework for dynamic lane the right side of the road). The total capacity of the road is increased by reversal in which the lane directionality is updated quickly and approximately 50% by reversing the directionality of a middle lane. automatically in response to instantaneous traffic conditions recorded by traffic sensors. We analyze the conditions under systems, more aggressive contraflow lane reversal strategies which dynamic lane reversal is effective and propose an integer can be implemented to improve traffic flow of a city without linear programming formulation and a bi-level programming increasing the amount of land dedicated to transportation. formulation to compute the optimal lane reversal configuration An important component of implementing dynamic lane that maximizes the traffic flow.
  • Rider Guide / Guía De Pasajeros

    Rider Guide / Guía De Pasajeros

    Updated 02/10/2019 Rider Guide / Guía de Pasajeros Stations / Estaciones Stations / Estaciones Northline Transit Center/HCC Theater District Melbourne/North Lindale Central Station Capitol Lindale Park Central Station Rusk Cavalcade Convention District Moody Park EaDo/Stadium Fulton/North Central Coffee Plant/Second Ward Quitman/Near Northside Lockwood/Eastwood Burnett Transit Center/Casa De Amigos Altic/Howard Hughes UH Downtown Cesar Chavez/67th St Preston Magnolia Park Transit Center Central Station Main l Transfer to Green or Purple Rail Lines (see map) Destination Signs / Letreros Direccionales Westbound – Central Station Capitol Eastbound – Central Station Rusk Eastbound Theater District to Magnolia Park Hacia el este Magnolia Park Main Street Square Bell Westbound Magnolia Park to Theater District Downtown Transit Center Hacia el oeste Theater District McGowen Ensemble/HCC Wheeler Transit Center Museum District Hermann Park/Rice U Stations / Estaciones Memorial Hermann Hospital/Houston Zoo Theater District Dryden/TMC Central Station Capitol TMC Transit Center Central Station Rusk Smith Lands Convention District Stadium Park/Astrodome EaDo/Stadium Fannin South Leeland/Third Ward Elgin/Third Ward Destination Signs / Letreros Direccionales TSU/UH Athletics District Northbound Fannin South to Northline/HCC UH South/University Oaks Hacia el norte Northline/HCC MacGregor Park/Martin Luther King, Jr. Southbound Northline/HCC to Fannin South Palm Center Transit Center Hacia el sur Fannin South Destination Signs / Letreros Direccionales Eastbound Theater District to Palm Center TC Hacia el este Palm Center Transit Center Westbound Palm Center TC to Theater District Hacia el oeste Theater District The Fare/Pasaje / Local Make Your Ride on METRORail Viaje en METRORail Rápido y Fare Type Full Fare* Discounted** Transfer*** Fast and Easy Fácil Tipo de Pasaje Pasaje Completo* Descontado** Transbordo*** 1.
  • Contra-Flow Operations Bay Bridge

    Contra-Flow Operations Bay Bridge

    Bay Bridge Contra-flow Operations Bay Bridge What is Contra-flow? 8/13/2019 2 Bay Bridge Bridge Layout - Normal Operation Western Shore Eastern Shore • Two Bridge Spans – North Bridge : 3 Lanes Westbound – South Bridge : 2 Lanes Eastbound – Single Lane Capacity 1,500 VPH • North Bridge Max 4,500 VPH • South Bridge Max 3,000 VPH 8/13/2019 3 Bay Bridge Bridge Layout – Contra-flow Western Shore Eastern Shore • Contra-Flow – Uses one of the Westbound Bridge lanes for Eastbound Movement – Provides a 3rd Eastbound Lane – Not implemented during inclement weather 8/13/2019 4 Bay Bridge Contra-flow Operation • Increases Eastbound traffic throughput from 3,000 vph to 4,500 vph • Implemented only during ideal weather conditions – No Rain – No Frozen Precipitation – Winds below 30 mph – No Fog 8/13/2019 5 Bay Bridge Contra-flow Operation • Maintenance of traffic consist of: – Lane Signals • 28 North Bridge (Westbound) • 24 South Bridge (Eastbound) • Strobe on signals to indicate reverse traffic – Traffic barrels and cones to create tapers and directional lanes – Requires approximately 20-30 minutes for setup – Hourly Monitoring of volumes and travel & direction 8/13/2019 6 Bay Bridge Contra-flow - When? 8/13/2019 7 Bay Bridge Daytime Closures • Closures due to construction, inspection and preventive maintenance repairs on EB Bridge – requires contraflow ops • Monday thru Wednesday – 9:00 am to 2:30 pm • Thursday – 9:00 am to 1:30 pm • Friday – no lane closures permitted 8/13/2019 8 Bay Bridge Contra-flow Operations Contra-flow Operation (Weekday):
  • The Putney Road Link Road Scheme

    The Putney Road Link Road Scheme

    The Putney Road Link Road Scheme: Why the Council should think again about building this link road Contents Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Is Putney Road suitable for use as a link road? 1 3. Is the Putney Road scheme linked to an Evesham Road scheme? 2 4. Does the Putney Road scheme meet its objectives? 2 5. What are the outcomes from the Putney Road scheme? 3 6. Are the Putney Road scheme outcomes positive? 4 7. Overall conclusions about outcomes and objectives 5 8. Will it reduce rat-running? 6 9. How good is the traffic modelling? 7 10. Testing the traffic model 8 11. Count point accuracy 8 12. Conclusions about the scheme and concluding comments 11 13. The conduct of the bid and the consultation 12 0 The Putney Road Link Road Scheme: Why the Council should think again about building this link road 1. Introduction The Putney Road Link Road scheme will create a new junction where Putney Road West meets Aylestone Road/Saffron Lane, and create a link road running through to Welford Road/Victoria Park Road. Although it is intended to create a new local access to the business area, the main purpose of the scheme is the creation of the link road which at this stage will extend to the A6 London Road through Victoria Park Road. Although the council claims this scheme is not connected with a further scheme, linking Aylestone Road to Narborough Road through Evesham Road, it is self-evident that it is, and the council says this in the bid for the funding for this first stage.
  • Parkside Development New Link Road Access to the M6 Motorway Proposal

    Parkside Development New Link Road Access to the M6 Motorway Proposal

    Richard Ward PINS Reference 3253194; 3253230; and 3253232 Parkside Development New Link Road Access to the M6 Motorway Proposal Page 1 of 20 June 2020 Current Link Road proposal as shown in the Drainage Plan Page 2 of 20 The Current Proposal for the Parkside Link Road by not being a dedicated direct link to the M6 motorway, the Commercial Vehicle Traffic that will be generated by the proposed development(s) in total will impact on the local roads from all directions as measures to prevent are impossible to manage. The following plan of road access to the proposed Parkside development show the Commercial Vehicle Traffic impact on the Local Roads. Where the utilisation of the Motorway M6 junction 22 will be little used with respect to the access to the proposed development from the local roads. The Access was not solved by the previous Parkside Proposals by the developers: 1996 British Coal/Morrisons; 2000+ RailTrack; 2004-2009 Astral Developments; and 2009-2012 Prologis. To whom all had withdrawn due to not being able to solve the Traffic situation, over and above the reason for the development for the need for jobs which has become secondary and not a main issue considering the Parkside proposals having been an issue since 1993 to 2018, (ie 25 years). So the need for jobs is still not the issue the traffic impact still is the issue purely due to the urban location surrounded by a major road infrastructure. It is this that is the problem, due to heavily industrialising an area that the surrounding locality can not cope with the proposed situation – traffic wise.