DOCSLIB.ORG

Maine Turnpike Needs Assessment Safety and Capacity Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maine Turnpike Needs Assessment Safety and Capacity Study Maine Turnpike Needs Assessment Safety and Capacity Study Prepared for: Maine Turnpike Authority Prepared by: May 2016 ii | Page TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Turnpike Assets ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Current Traffic Observations ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Safety Needs Identified ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Capacity Needs Identified ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Planning Study Needs Identified ........................................................................................................... 5 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 7 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Traffic Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Average Annual Daily Traffic............................................................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Seasonal Variation ......................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Existing Level of Service Analysis ....................................................................................................... 17 3.4.1 LOS Analysis Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 17 3.4.2 Interchange Merge Sections ....................................................................................................... 18 3.4.3 Interchange Diverge Sections .................................................................................................... 23 3.4.4 Mainline Travel Sections ............................................................................................................. 28 3.4.5 Summary – Existing Level of Service Analysis ........................................................................ 29 4 FUTURE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................. 31 4.1 Growth Rate Calculations ................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 Interchange Merge Sections ................................................................................................................ 32 4.3 Interchange Diverge Sections ............................................................................................................. 35 4.4 Mainline Sections .................................................................................................................................... 39 4.5 Summary of Future Conditions .......................................................................................................... 40 5 VISSIM Traffic Analysis for the Portland Area......................................................................................... 44 5.1 VISSIM Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................. 44 5.2 2014 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 47 5.3 2024 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 49 5.4 2034 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 51 6 VISSIM Traffic Analysis for the Biddeford/Saco Area ............................................................................ 54 6.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 54 6.2 2014 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 57 6.3 2024 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 58 6.4 2034 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 59 7 SAFETY CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 62 7.1 Crash Rate Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 62 7.2 Current Safety Practices ...................................................................................................................... 63 7.3 Safety Improvement Projects .............................................................................................................. 65 7.4 Other Studies .......................................................................................................................................... 67 i | Page 7.5 High Crash Locations ............................................................................................................................ 68 7.5.1 High Crash Locations 2009-2011 Update ............................................................................... 68 7.5.2 Current High Crash Locations of the Maine Turnpike ....................................................... 73 8 COST ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 78 9 RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................ 80 Appendix A Level of Service Description ....................................................................................................... 82 Appendix B Non-Typical Diverge Calculations ............................................................................................ 85 Appendix C Forecasted Volumes & LOS ....................................................................................................... 86 Appendix D High Crash Location Diagrams.................................................................................................. 94 Appendix E Peak Hour Growth Rate Forecasts ........................................................................................ 105 E-1. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 105 E-2. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 105 E-3. Historic Peak Hour Traffic Growth ............................................................................................... 106 E-4. Other Traffic Forecasts ..................................................................................................................... 107 E-5. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 107 Appendix F. Additional VISSIM Traffic Analysis for the Exit 36 Southbound Off-Ramp ................... 108 F.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 108 F.2 Site Visit............................................................................................................................................................ 108 F.3 2014 and 2015 Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................................... 109 F.4 2034 No-Build Traffic Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 110 F.5 2034 Traffic Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 111 F.6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 113 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 – 2012-2014 HCLs on the Maine Turnpike .................................................................................... 3 Table ES-2 – Annual Peak Hour Growth Projections ......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • David Mohler Signature
    Massachusetts Division 55 Broadway, 10th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 January 15, 2021 (617) 494-3657 (617) 494-3355 www.fhwa.dot.gov/madiv In Reply Refer To: HDA-MA David J. Mohler Executive Director Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116-3969 Subject: FY 2021-2025 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Amendment #2 Dear Mr. Mohler: Thank you for your letter received on January 5, 2021. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has reviewed the Fiscal Years (FY) 2021-2025 STIP with the following amendments and adjustments received from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and endorsed by the relevant Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): Action Organization MPO Endorsement Date 1.01 Berkshire MPO December 22, 2020 1.02-1.05 Boston MPO December 17, 2020 1.06-1.08 Merrimack Valley MPO December 30, 2020 1.09-1.10 Pioneer Valley MPO December 22, 2020 1.11 Southeastern Mass MPO December 9, 2020 Our review consisted of ensuring that the FY 2021-2025 STIP Amendment #2 and associated FY 2021- 2025 TIP Amendments adopted by the MPOs are based on a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative transportation planning process that substantially meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 23 CFR 450. The actions listed above do not require an air quality determination. Changes called for in this STIP amendment maintain financial constraint as required under 23 CFR 450.218. Additionally, our approval of the FY 2021-2025 STIP was subject to the resolution of one corrective action. On December 29, 2020, we received an action plan update addressing the corrective action and a number of recommendations, indicating that all self-certifications have been updated and completing the corrective action.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC
    1 Reimagining DC 295 as a vital multi modal corridor: The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC Jonathan L. Bush A capstone thesis paper submitted to the Executive Director of the Urban & Regional Planning Program at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Masters of Professional Studies in Urban & Regional Planning. Faculty Advisor: Howard Ways, AICP Academic Advisor: Uwe S. Brandes, M.Arch © Copyright 2017 by Jonathan L. Bush All Rights Reserved 2 ABSTRACT Cities across the globe are making the case for highway removal. Highway removal provides alternative land uses, reconnects citizens and natural landscapes separated by the highway, creates mobility options, and serves as a health equity tool. This Capstone studies DC 295 in Washington, DC and examines the cases of San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway, Milwaukee’s Park East Freeway, New York City’s Sheridan Expressway and Seoul, South Korea’s Cheonggyecheon Highway. This study traces the history and the highway removal success using archival sources, news circulars, planning documents, and relevant academic research. This Capstone seeks to provide a platform in favor DC 295 highway removal. 3 KEYWORDS Anacostia, Anacostia Freeway, Anacostia River, DC 295, Highway Removal, I-295, Kenilworth Avenue, Neighborhood Planning, Southeast Washington DC, Transportation Planning, Urban Infrastructure RESEARCH QUESTIONS o How can Washington’s DC 295 infrastructure be modified to better serve local neighborhoods? o What opportunities
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Roads in the United States: History and Current Policy
    TOLL FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES Bridges - Roads - Tunnels - Ferries August 2009 Publication No: FHWA-PL-09-00021 Internet: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage.htm Toll Roads in the United States: History and Current Policy History The early settlers who came to America found a land of dense wilderness, interlaced with creeks, rivers, and streams. Within this wilderness was an extensive network of trails, many of which were created by the migration of the buffalo and used by the Native American Indians as hunting and trading routes. These primitive trails were at first crooked and narrow. Over time, the trails were widened, straightened and improved by settlers for use by horse and wagons. These became some of the first roads in the new land. After the American Revolution, the National Government began to realize the importance of westward expansion and trade in the development of the new Nation. As a result, an era of road building began. This period was marked by the development of turnpike companies, our earliest toll roads in the United States. In 1792, the first turnpike was chartered and became known as the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike in Pennsylvania. It was the first road in America covered with a layer of crushed stone. The boom in turnpike construction began, resulting in the incorporation of more than 50 turnpike companies in Connecticut, 67 in New York, and others in Massachusetts and around the country. A notable turnpike, the Boston-Newburyport Turnpike, was 32 miles long and cost approximately $12,500 per mile to construct. As the Nation grew, so did the need for improved roads.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interstate 295 Project : Construction Advisories, Week of September 13, 2010
    Maine State Library Digital Maine Transportation Documents Transportation 9-13-2010 The Interstate 295 Project : Construction Advisories, Week of September 13, 2010 Maine Department of Transportation Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs Construction Advisories Week of September 13, 2010 (Alert!) New traffic patterns on several bridges: This week, MaineDOT contractors will begin shifting lane closures on several bridges on I-295 southbound in the Portland area from the center to the left lane. These lane closures are 24/7, with two lanes of traffic open during daylight hours. (Alert!) Several Exits and On-Ramps will be closed according to the following planned schedule for this week: o The on-ramp to I-295 southbound from Forest Ave. may be closed nightly from 7PM to 6AM o Southbound Exit 11 (Maine Turnpike Spur) will be closed Tuesday night 9/14 and Wednesday night 9/15 from 7PM to 6AM o The on-ramp to I-295 southbound from Bucknam Road will be closed Wednesday night, 9/15 and Thursday night, 9/16 from 7PM to 6AM o I-295 southbound Exit 10 (US1 & Rt 9, Bucknam Road) will be closed Thursday night, 9/16 and Friday night, 9/17 from 7PM to 6AM. o I-295 southbound Exit 6B (Forest Ave. North) will be closed Friday night, 9/17 from 7PM to 6AM o Detours will be established for all above exit closures. The 24/7 closure of the Veranda St. southbound on-ramp to I-295 has been extended to early October. This 24/7 closure is a safety precaution, due to bridgework and lane closures on I-295 where traffic normally enters from the Veranda St.
    [Show full text]
  • A-To-Be and Globalvia Sign a Contract for Tolling Backoffice in Pocahontas Parkway»
    Press Release A-to-Be and Globalvia sign for tolling backoffice in Pocahontas Parkway A new US contract for A-to-Be MoveBeyond tolling backoffice Virginia, US, January 15th 2018 A-to-Be and Globalvia signed a a new tolling backoffice contract for Globabvia’s Pocahontas Parkway, in Richmond, Virginia, USA. This contract with one of the largest concession management companies is a significant milestone for A-to-Be as it marks its third delivery of its highly proven A-to-Be MoveBeyond tolling backoffice in the US. The Pocahontas project is expected to go live in the first quarter of 2018, complementing two deployments of A-to-Be MoveBeyond at existing client partners — Southern Connector in South Carolina, and Northwest Parkway in Colorado. With this A-to-Be solution, Globalvia is now able to collect and process toll transactions from the entire concession on the operational side, as well as manage client accounts and effectively control the payment process on the commercial side. «A-to-Be is proud to be doing business with Globalvia, one of the largest players in this industry.», according to Pedro Bento, A-to-Be Chief-Sales Officer. «This contract reflects again the strategic importance of the US market for A-to-Be, and that A-to-Be MoveBeyond is proving to be a reliable and cost-efficent solution for any toll road concession in the US. A-to-Be will continue to invest in this market», anticipates Pedro Bento. This solution — A-to-Be MoveBeyond — is also being delivered in Washington state’s Road Usage Charge (RUC) program, as part of a contract won by IMS and A-to-Be this summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Traveler's Guide
    Florida’s Major Highway Construction Projects: April - June 2018 Interstate 4 24. Charlotte County – Adding lanes and resurfacing from south of N. Jones 46. Martin County – Installing Truck Parking Availability System for the south- 1. I-4 and I-75 interchange -- Hillsborough County – Modifying the eastbound Loop Road to north of US 17 (4.5 miles) bound Rest Area at mile marker 107, three miles south of Martin Highway / and westbound I-4 (Exit 9) ramps onto northbound I-75 into a single entrance 25. Charlotte County – Installing Truck Parking Availability System for the SR 714 (Exit 110), near Palm City; the northbound Rest Area at mile marker point with a long auxiliary lane. (2 miles) northbound and southbound Weigh Stations at mile marker 158 106, four miles south of Martin Highway /SR 714 (Exit 110) near Palm City; the southbound Weigh-in-Motion Station at mile marker 113, one mile south of 2. Polk County -- Reconstructing the State Road 559 (Ex 44) interchange 26. Lee County -- Replacing 13 Dynamic Message Signs from mile marker 117 to mile marker 145 Becker Road (Exit 114), near Palm City; and the northbound Weigh-in-Motion 3. Polk County -- Installing Truck Parking Availability System for the eastbound Station at mile marker 92, four miles south of Bridge Road (Exit 96), near 27. Lee County – Installing Truck Parking Availability System for the northbound and westbound Rest Areas at mile marker 46. Hobe Sound and southbound Rest Areas at mile marker 131 4. Polk County -- Installing a new Fog/Low Visibility Detection System on 47.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Cement-Stabilized Full-Depth-Recycled Base Materials for Frost and Early Traffic Conditions
    EVALUATION OF CEMENT-STABILIZED FULL-DEPTH-RECYCLED BASE MATERIALS FOR FROST AND EARLY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS By Heather J. Miller, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Massachusetts Dartmouth North Dartmouth, MA 02747 (508) 999-8481 Voice (508) 999-8964 Fax [email protected] W. Spencer Guthrie, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-3864 Voice (801) 422-0159 Fax [email protected] Rebecca A. Crane Research Assistant Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 [email protected] Brad Smith Graduate Research Assistant Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 [email protected] Disclaimer This material is based on work supported by the Federal Highway Administration under Cooperative Agreement No. DTFH61-98-00095 through the Recycled Materials Resource Center at the University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire. The findings, opinions, and recommendations expressed within this document are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the University or the Federal Awarding Agency. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 2. OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................. 2 3. SCOPE OF WORK....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Operation and Maintenance Annual Report
    2020 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT PRESENTED BY: HNTB CORPORATION PRESENTED TO: MAINE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY HNTB Corporation 340 County Road, Suite 6-C Telephone (207) 774-5155 The HNTB Companies Westbrook, ME 04092 Facsimile (207) 228-0909 Infrastructure Solutions www.hntb.com October 1, 2020 Maine Turnpike Authority 2360 Congress Street Portland, ME 04102 Ladies and Gentlemen, We are pleased to submit our 2020 Operation and Maintenance Annual Report for the Maine Turnpike. This report sets forth our findings as to the condition of the Maine Turn- pike and our recommendations concerning maintenance, operation, insurance, and depos- its to be made to the Capital Improvement and Reserve Maintenance funds and the Opera- tion and Maintenance budget. Our findings and recommendations are based on a visual inspection of the turnpike facilities performed between April and July, 2020; several additional visual inspections of turnpike facilities made during the year; and, on a careful evaluation of turnpike opera- tion and maintenance procedures. We have periodically reported to the Executive Direc- tor, Chief Operations Officer, or Director of Engineering, on other items which warranted prompt attention. We appreciate the opportunity to provide Consulting Engineering Services and we ac- knowledge the excellent cooperation of Authority members and personnel in the perfor- mance of these services. Best regards, Roland A. Lavallee, P.E., PLS Vice President TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 6. Planning Studies 34 » Annual Inspection Program 2 » Exit 32 Feasibility Study 34 2. Inspection Findings and » Exit 36 Feasibility Study 34 Exit 45 Feasibility Study 34 Corrective Measures 5 » » Gorham Corridor Study and » Vegetative Cover 5 Alternatives Analysis 35 » Pavement 6 » Safety and Capacity Study 35 » Bridges and Minor Spans 7 » Portland Area Mainline » Ancillary Structures 14 Needs Assessment 36 » Drainage 15 » Study of the Future Needs of the Piscataqua » Guardrail and Safety Improvements 16 River Bridge 36 » Lighting 18 7.
    [Show full text]
  • I-295 Corridor Study Scarborough-Brunswick Prepared by Maine Department of Transportation (Mainedot) Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning
    I-295I-295 CorridorCorridor StudyStudy Scarborough-BrunswickScarborough-Brunswick Prepared by Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning May 2010 I-295 Corridor Study Scarborough-Brunswick Prepared by Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) Bureau of Transportation Systems Planning May 2010 Acknowledgements MaineDOT Edward Hanscom, Study Manager Dennis Emidy, Transportation Engineer PACTS John Duncan, Director Eric Ortman, Transportation Planner Paul Niehoff, Transportation Planner Kevin Hooper, Travel Demand Modeler Other Staff Participants Ernest Martin, MaineDOT Project Development Dan Stewart, MaineDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Sue Moreau, MaineDOT Multimodal Planning & Operations Unit Russ Charette, MaineDOT Mobility Management Division Tracy Perez, formerly MaineDOT Office of Passenger Transportation Gerald Varney, FHWA John Perry, FHWA David Willauer, formerly GPCOG Maddy Adams, GPCOG Corridor Advisory Committee Brunswick: Don Gerrish, Town Manager Theo Holtwijk, Town Planner Cumberland: Bill Shane, Town Manager Carla Nixon, Town Planner Falmouth: George Thebarge, Town Planner Tony Hayes, Public Works Director Freeport: Donna Larson, Town Planner Albert Presgraves, Town Engineer Maine Turnpike Authority: Conrad Welzel, Manager of Government Relations Portland: James Cloutier, City Councilor Larry Mead, Assistant City Manager Mike Bobinsky, Public Works Director State Police I-295 Troop: Lieutenant Ron Harmon Scarborough: Ron Owens, Town Manager Joe Ziepniewski, Town Planner South Portland: Tex Haeuser, Planning Director Steve Johnson, Public Works Director Transit Providers Working Group: Peter Hefler, METRO General Manager Westbrook: Paul Boudreau, Public Works Director Eric Dudley, Chief City Engineer Yarmouth: Nat Tupper, Town Manager Dan Jellis, Town Engineer Cover: I-295 northbound, Exit 3 to Exit 4 (PACTS photo) Table of Contents Executive Summary ES-1 I. Introduction 1-1 A.
    [Show full text]
  • I-95 395 HOT Lane Project Volume 1
    K Awadika3 I-95/I-395 HOV/Bus/HOT Lanes Interchange Justification Report Volume 1 January 7, 2009 PRESENTED TO: Virginia Department of Transportation & Federal Highway Administration PREPARED FOR: Fluor Enterprises 4900 Seminary Road Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22331 PREPARED BY: HNTB Corporation 2900 South Quincy Street Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22206 I-95/I-395 HOV/Bus/HOT Lanes Interchange Justification Report January 7, 2009 PRESENTED TO: Virginia Department of Transportation & Federal Highway Administration PREPARED FOR: Fluor Enterprises 4900 Seminary Road Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22331 PREPARED BY: HNTB Corporation 2900 South Quincy Street Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22206 This document was prepared in a manner consistent with the Federal and State requirements and processes to be utilized in the development of an Interchange Justification Report as documented in the Virginia Department of Transportation Location and Design Division Instructional and Informational Memorandum LD-200.3 Table of Contents ES - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................ES - 1 I. PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................... 1 B. COMPREHENSIVE INTERSTATE NETWORK......................................................................................... 5 C. RELATIONSHIP
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Route 1 North Vision Plan
    Town of Falmouth Route 1 North Vision Plan | 2017 Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The Route 1 North Committee would like to thank the Town of Falmouth residents and business owners, Town staff, consultants, and general public who provided knowledge, assistance and insight throughout the process of developing this Vision Plan. Route 1 North Committee Project Team Chris Wasileski - Chair VHB Nicole Favreau - Vice Chair Arthur Batson Geoffrey Morrison-Logan – Principal-in-Charge Paul Burlin David Woodward – Project Manager Dava Davin Steve Thomas – Senior Advisor Laurie Leonard Renee Guo - Planner Jay Trickett Steve Woods RKG Associates, Inc. Charlie McBrady - Council Liaison Craig Seymour – Market/Economics Town of Falmouth Nathan Poore - Town Manager Theo Holtwijk - Director of Long-Range Planning i Town of Falmouth Route 1 North Vision Plan | 2017 DRAFT Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................... 1 Appendix A – Zoning Excerpt of Residential A District and Business Professional District Purpose .................................................................. 1 Process .................................................................. 2 Appendix B – RKG Route 1 North Vision Plan Market Indicators Memorandum Study Area Analysis ....................................................... 3 Existing Conditions ................................................. 3 Current Real Estate Market .................................. 19 Stakeholder/Public Input .....................................
    [Show full text]