Roundabout Publications Rest Area Guide, Copyright © 2018 by Roundabout Publications

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Roundabout Publications Rest Area Guide, Copyright © 2018 by Roundabout Publications ROUNDABOUT PUBLICATIONS Rest Area Guide, copyright © 2018 by Roundabout Publications. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher. Although efforts are made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, Roundabout Publications shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to be caused, directly or indirectly by the information contained in this publication. Published by: Roundabout Publications PO Box 569 LaCygne, KS 66040 Phone: 913-203-7623 Internet: www.RoundaboutPublications.com Contents Introduction ...................................................................4 Interstate 74 ................................................................. 55 Interstate 4 ......................................................................5 Interstate 75 ................................................................. 56 Interstate 5 ......................................................................5 Interstate 76 ................................................................. 61 Interstate 8 ......................................................................9 Interstate 77 ................................................................. 63 Interstate 10 ....................................................................9 Interstate 78 ................................................................. 65 Interstate 15 ................................................................. 14 Interstate 79 ................................................................. 66 Interstate 16 ................................................................. 17 Interstate 80 ................................................................. 67 Interstate 17 ................................................................. 17 Interstate 81 ................................................................. 74 Interstate 19 ................................................................. 17 Interstate 82 ................................................................. 77 Interstate 20 ................................................................. 18 Interstate 83 ................................................................. 77 Interstate 24 ................................................................. 21 Interstate 84 ................................................................. 77 Interstate 25 ................................................................. 21 Interstate 85 ................................................................. 80 Interstate 26 ................................................................. 23 Interstate 86 ................................................................. 82 Interstate 27 ................................................................. 24 Interstate 87 ................................................................. 83 Interstate 29 ................................................................. 24 Interstate 88 ................................................................. 84 Interstate 30 ................................................................. 26 Interstate 89 ................................................................. 85 Interstate 35 ................................................................. 27 Interstate 90 ................................................................. 86 Interstate 37 ................................................................. 30 Interstate 91 ................................................................. 95 Interstate 39 ................................................................. 30 Interstate 93 ................................................................. 95 Interstate 40 ................................................................. 31 Interstate 94 ................................................................. 96 Interstate 41 ................................................................. 36 Interstate 95 ............................................................... 100 Interstate 43 ................................................................. 36 Interstate 96 ............................................................... 107 Interstate 44 ................................................................. 36 Appendix A - Overnight Parking Rules ................ 108 Interstate 45 ................................................................. 38 Appendix B - Department of Interstate 49 ................................................................. 38 Transportation Offices ......................................... 110 Interstate 55 ................................................................. 39 Appendix C - State Tourism Offices....................... 112 Interstate 57 ................................................................. 41 Interstate 59 ................................................................. 42 Interstate 64 ................................................................. 43 Interstate 65 ................................................................. 45 Interstate 66 ................................................................. 47 Interstate 68 ................................................................. 47 Interstate 69 ................................................................. 48 Interstate 70 ................................................................. 49 Interstate 71 ................................................................. 54 Interstate 72 ................................................................. 55 4 Rest Area Guide Introduction as Exit 2, Exit 3 and so on. Few states use this method of numbering Interstate exits. The following states The information presented in this publication is use the sequential numbering system: designed to help you locate rest areas along Interstate highways. Understanding how the information is • Connecticut presented, and learning the difference between a mile • Delaware marker and exit number, will aid you in using this • Massachusetts publication. • New Hampshire • New Jersey (Turnpike) Mile Markers and Exit Numbers • New York • Rhode Island • Vermont Mile Markers Mile markers, or mileposts as they are also known, California’s Numbering System are the vertical green signs on the edge of highways As mentioned above, California does not use mile placed at one-mile intervals. Mile marker numbering markers nor does it indicate exits with a number. This begins at the most southerly or westerly point in a is changing, however. In January of 2002, California state. For example, if you enter Colorado from New began erecting signs displaying exit numbers based Mexico, mile markers will increase as you travel north on the mile marker system. The exit numbers and through Colorado. Likewise if you were to enter mile marker numbers used in this publication for Colorado from Utah, mile markers would increase California are based on the proposed numbers that as you travel east through Colorado. California is the California has assigned. only state that does not use mile markers. Instead, they use a Post Mile system with numbering beginning and ending at county lines. Rest Area Information Exit Numbers Rest area information is presented in a way that makes Interstate exit numbers are determined by one of two it easy to use as you’re traveling. Depending on your methods. The first, and most widely used, is based direction of travel, your navigator will either read up on the mile marker system. Using this method, the the page or down the page. If you are traveling north first exit number on an Interstate as you travel south or east, read from the bottom, up. If you are traveling to north or west to east is determined by its distance south or west, read from the top, down. from the state line. For example, if an exit is located between mile markers 4 and 5, it is numbered as Exit 4. The next exit, if located at mile marker 8.7, would be numbered as Exit 8. Thus you would know that you must travel approximately 4 miles to reach the next exit. Using this method of exit numbering helps to determine the location and distance to a desired exit. The second method of numbering Interstate exits is the sequential numbering system, which means Interstate exit numbers begin at the most southerly or westerly point and increase consecutively as you travel north or east. Using this method, the first exit on an Interstate as you travel south to north or west to east is Exit 1. Each exit thereafter increases consecutively Rest Area Guide 5 Interstate 4 Interstate 5 Interstate 4 is a 133-mile route running east to west within Interstate 5 is a 1,381-mile route running north to south from Florida from Daytona Beach to Tampa. Eastbound travelers Canada to Mexico. Northbound travelers read up the page; read up the page; westbound travelers read down. southbound travelers read down. ▼ DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA ▼ WASHINGTON MILE 96 - EASTBOUND - LONGWOOD MILE 269 - SOUTHBOUND - CUSTER Seminole County Rest Area Custer Rest Area Restrooms, Family Restrooms, Phones, Picnic Tables, Restrooms, Phones, Picnic Tables, Vending Machines, Pet Vending Machines, Pet Exercise Area, Accessible Facilities, Exercise Area, Accessible Facilities On-Site Security • 24hr Security MILE 267 - NORTHBOUND - CUSTER MILE 94 - WESTBOUND - LONGWOOD Custer Rest Area Seminole County Rest Area Restrooms, Phones, Picnic Tables, Vending Machines, Pet Restrooms, Family Restrooms, Phones, Picnic
Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................ 1 County Overview ............................................................................... 2 Population Trends & Demographic Profile .................................... 3 Population Trends in Pottawattamie County ....................................................... 3 Population Profile.............................................................................................. 5 Demographic Profile ......................................................................................... 7 Employment Profile ........................................................................................... 7 Projected Population & Employment ................................................................ 10 Roadways & Bridges ........................................................................ 12 Roadway Systems ............................................................................................ 12 Profile of County Roadways............................................................................. 14 Pavement Condition ........................................................................................ 16 Bridges in Pottawattamie County ..................................................................... 19 Traffic Trends in Pottawattamie County ........................................................... 21 Roadway Safety ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Top 10 Bridges by State.Xlsx
    Top 10 Most Traveled U.S. Structurally Deficient Bridges by State, 2015 2015 Year Daily State State County Type of Bridge Location Status in 2014 Status in 2013 Built Crossings Rank 1 Alabama Jefferson 1970 136,580 Urban Interstate I65 over U.S.11,RR&City Streets at I65 2nd Ave. to 2nd Ave.No Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 2 Alabama Mobile 1964 87,610 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Halls Mill Creek at 2.2 mi E US 90 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 3 Alabama Jefferson 1972 77,385 Urban Interstate I-59/20 over US 31,RRs&City Streets at Bham Civic Center Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 4 Alabama Mobile 1966 73,630 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Southern Drain Canal at 3.3 mi E Jct SR 163 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 5 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over D Olive Stream at 1.5 mi E Jct US 90 & I-10 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 6 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over Joe S Branch at 0.2 mi E US 90 Not Deficient Not Deficient 7 Alabama Jefferson 1968 41,990 Urban Interstate I 59/20 over Arron Aronov Drive at I 59 & Arron Aronov Dr. Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 8 Alabama Mobile 1964 41,490 Rural Interstate I-10 over Warren Creek at 3.2 mi E Miss St Line Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 9 Alabama Jefferson 1936 39,620 Urban other principal arterial US 78 over Village Ck & Frisco RR at US 78 & Village Creek Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 10 Alabama Mobile 1967 37,980 Urban Interstate
    [Show full text]
  • CODE of COLORADO REGULATIONS 8 CCR 1507-25 Division of State Patrol
    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Division of State Patrol RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PERMITTING, ROUTING & TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS AND NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN THE STATE OF COLORADO 8 CCR 1507-25 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] _________________________________________________________________________ AUTHORITY The Chief of the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) is authorized by §42-20-108 (1) and (2) and §§42-20-403, 504, and 508, CRS, to promulgate rules and regulations for the permitting, routing and safe transportation of hazardous and nuclear materials by motor vehicle within the state of Colorado, both in interstate and intrastate transportation. Pursuant to §42-20-108.5, CRS, the Chief of the CSP is authorized to adopt rules and regulations which exempt agricultural products from the hazardous materials rules. APPLICABILITY These rules and regulations shall apply to all persons who transport, ship or cause to be transported or shipped, a hazardous material by motor vehicle over the public roads of this state. COMPLIANCE WITH 8 CCR 1507-1 All commercial vehicles that transport hazardous and/or nuclear materials shall comply with the rules and regulations found at 8 CCR 1507-1, Concerning the Minimum Standards for the Operation of Commercial Vehicles. GENERAL DEFINITIONS Unless otherwise specified, definitions of general applicability throughout these rules are: Enforcement Official: As identified within §42-20-103 (2), CRS, the definition of enforcement official is limited to a peace officer who is an officer of the CSP as described in §§16-2.5-101 and 114, CRS; a certified peace officer who is a certified Port of Entry (POE) officer as described in §§16-2.5-101 and 115, CRS; a peace officer who is an investigating official of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) transportation section as described in §§16-2.5-101 and 143, CRS; or any peace officer as described in §16-2.5-101, CRS.
    [Show full text]
  • Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide
    Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide A Complete Compendium Of RV Dump Stations Across The USA Publiished By: Covenant Publishing LLC 1201 N Orange St. Suite 7003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Copyrighted Material Copyright 2010 Covenant Publishing. All rights reserved worldwide. Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide Page 2 Contents New Mexico ............................................................... 87 New York .................................................................... 89 Introduction ................................................................. 3 North Carolina ........................................................... 91 Alabama ........................................................................ 5 North Dakota ............................................................. 93 Alaska ............................................................................ 8 Ohio ............................................................................ 95 Arizona ......................................................................... 9 Oklahoma ................................................................... 98 Arkansas ..................................................................... 13 Oregon ...................................................................... 100 California .................................................................... 15 Pennsylvania ............................................................ 104 Colorado ..................................................................... 23 Rhode Island ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Patriot Hills of Dallas
    Patriot Hills of Dallas Background: After years of planning and market research our team assembled over 200+ - acres of prime Dallas property that was comprised of 8 separate properties. There is no record of any construction every being built on any of the 200 acres other than a homestead cabin. Much of the property was part of a family ranch used for grazing which is now overgrown with cedar and other species of trees and native grasses. Location: View property in the Dallas metroplex is one of the most unique features unmatched in the entire Dallas Fort Worth area. Most of the property is on a high bluff 100 feet above the surrounding area overlooking the Dallas Baptist University and the skyline of Fort Worth 21+ miles to the west. Convenient access to the greater Fort Worth and Dallas area by Interstate 20 and Interstate 30 Via Spur 408 freeways, Interstate 35, freeway 74, and the property is currently served by DART bus stops which provide connections to other mass transit options. The property is located 2 miles north of freeway 20 on the Spur 408 freeway and W. Kiest Blvd within the Dallas city limits. The property fronts on the East side of the Spur 408 freeway from Kiest Blvd exit on the North and runs continuous to the South to Merrifield Rd exit. The City of Dallas has plans to extend this road straight east to connect to West Ledbetter Drive that will take you directly to the Dallas Executive Airport and connecting on east with Freeway 67, Interstate 35 and Interstate 45.
    [Show full text]
  • Interchange Modification Report
    I-26 / Naval Base Terminal Access Road Interchange INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION REPORT CHARLESTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared for: South Carolina Department of Transportation Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. May 2012 I-26ȀPortAccessRoadInterchangeModificationReport TABLEOFCONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Project Location.................................................................................................................................................. 3 Project History.................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Project Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................................. 9 Project Conceptual Design ................................................................................................................................ 11 Interchange Modification Report (IMR) Scope..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • I-24 SMART CORRIDOR Leveraging Technology to Improve Safety and Mobility
    I-24 SMART CORRIDOR Leveraging Technology to Improve Safety and Mobility Brad Freeze, Director, Traffic Operations Division, TDOT The Need • Interstate 24 (I-24) is a integral part of the Nashville transportation network and a major route for commuters and freight. • Traffic volumes along the I-24 corridor have experienced exponential growth rates over the past decade. Since 2005, traffic volumes have increased more than 60% on I-24 near Murfreesboro. • Currently, peak hour volumes exceed capacity and even a minor incident can have a severe impact on travel time reliability. • Due to physical, environmental, and financial constraints along the Corridor there are no viable, short term roadway widening projects. Area Map I-24 Congestion Contributors Traffic Incidents 27% Incidents Breakdown 2015 Contributors to Congestion (Total Crashes:1,661) Crash History & Analysis I-24 Section Crash Rate Crash Rate Data represents information collected between 2013-2015 System Performance Review AM Peak Period Travel Time I-24 From I-840 to Briley Pkwy. 85 High Variability 75 65 55 Travel Time 95th Percentile 45 Average Travel Time Travel Time (min) Time Travel 35 25 15 Reliability From Exit 78 (SR-96) & Exit 53 (I-440 Interchange), 25 miles Westbound Travel (Weekdays 2014-2016) Buffer time (minutes) Planning time (minutes) Travel time (minutes) 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 39.64 3.59 69.32 30.14 36 27.94 43.98 4.48 73.64 31.04 37.3 27.57 43.57 4.63 73.22 31.18 37.59 27.32 Eastbound Travel (Weekdays 2014-2016) Buffer time (minutes) Planning time (minutes) Travel time (minutes) 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 5:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM 2.76 19.18 27.22 45.71 24.93 30.63 2.86 22.16 27.31 48.69 24.97 32.53 1.97 25.85 26.43 52.38 24.46 33.92 2014 User Costs 2015 2016 Previous Studies I-24 Multimodal Corridor Study • Identified short- and long-term solutions for improving problem spots along the entire corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Lane Extension Regional Multi-Modal Connector
    Department of Transportation Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD Transportation) Grants Program Kansas Lane Extension Regional Multi-Modal Connector City of Monroe, Louisiana May 2020 Table of Contents Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2 -- Application Snapshot ........................................................................................................ 3 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 4 Concise Description ............................................................................................................ 4 Transportation Challenges .................................................................................................. 7 Addressing Traffic Challenges ............................................................................................ 8 Project History .................................................................................................................... 9 Benefit to Rural Communities .............................................................................................. 9 Project Location .....................................................................................................................10 Grant Funds, Sources and Uses of Project Funds .................................................................12 Project budget ....................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • I-11 Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection Letter to ADOT, July 2016
    July 8, 2016 Interstate 11 Tier 1 EIS Study Team c/o ADOT Communications 1655 W. Jackson St., MD 126F Phoenix, AZ 85007 RE: Scoping Comments on the Interstate 11 Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement, Nogales to Wickenburg To Whom It May Concern: The Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection appreciates the opportunity to provide scoping comments for the Interstate 11 Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Nogales to Wickenburg. We submit the enclosed comments on behalf of the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, founded in 1998 and comprised of 34 environmental and community groups working in Pima County, Arizona. Our mission is to achieve the long-term conservation of biological diversity and ecological function of the Sonoran Desert through comprehensive land-use planning, with primary emphasis on Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. We achieve this mission by advocating for: 1) protecting and conserving Pima County’s most biologically rich areas, 2) directing development to appropriate land, and 3) requiring appropriate mitigation for impacts to habitat and wildlife species. In summary, our scoping comments highlight the need for further evaluation of the purpose and need for this project and major environmental impacts that should be considered statewide and particularly in Pima County as this study area is evaluated. Specifically, potential environmental impacts in Pima County include impacts to federal lands such as Saguaro National Park, Ironwood Forest National Monument, and the Bureau of Reclamation’s Central
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Worth Arlington
    RealReal EstateEstate MarketMarket OverviewOverview FortFort Worth-ArlingtonWorth-Arlington Jennifer S. Cowley Assistant Research Scientist Texas A&M University July 2001 © 2001, Real Estate Center. All rights reserved. RealReal EstateEstate MarketMarket OverviewOverview FortFort Worth-ArlingtonWorth-Arlington Contents 2 Population 6 Employment 9 Job Market 10 Major Industries 11 Business Climate 13 Education 14 Transportation and Infrastructure Issues 15 Public Facilities 16 Urban Growth Patterns Map 1. Growth Areas 17 Housing 20 Multifamily 22 Manufactured Housing Seniors Housing 23 Retail Market 24 Map 2. Retail Building Permits 26 Office Market 28 Map 3. Office and Industrial Building Permits 29 Industrial Market 31 Conclusion RealReal EstateEstate MarketMarket OverviewOverview FortFort Worth-ArlingtonWorth-Arlington Jennifer S. Cowley Assistant Research Scientist Haslet Southlake Keller Grapevine Interstate 35W Azle Colleyville N Richland Hills Loop 820 Hurst-Euless-Bedford Lake Worth Interstate 30 White Settlement Fort Worth Arlington Interstate 20 Benbrook Area Cities Counties Arlington Haltom City Hood Bedford Hurst Johnson Benbrook Keller Parker Burleson Mansfield Tarrant Cleburne North Richland Hills Land Area of Fort Worth- Colleyville Saginaw Euless Southlake Arlington MSA Forest Hill Watauga 2,945 square miles Fort Worth Weatherford Grapevine White Settlement Population Density (2000) 578 people per square mile he Fort Worth-Arlington Metro- cane Harbor and The Ballpark at square-foot rodeo arena, and to the politan Statistical
    [Show full text]
  • I-25/I-80 Fonsi
    Finding of No Significant Impact for the I-25/I-80 Interchange Laramie County, Wyoming WYDOT Project Number I806212 FHWA—WYDOT—EA-20-01 Wyoming Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration August 2020 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the Preferred Alternative (which includes full replacement of both the Interstate (I)-25/I-80 and I-25/U.S. Highway 30 (Lincolnway) interchanges, lengthened merge and diverge areas, flyover ramps, auxiliary lanes, braided ramps, widening the curve along eastbound I-80 approaching the interchange, expanding the radius of remaining cloverleaf ramps, and variable message and new static signage) will have no significant impact on the human or natural environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is based on the Environmental Assessment for the I-25/I-80 Interchange, Laramie County (FHWA—WYDOT—EA- 20-01) (EA) and subsequent comments received during the public and agency review period, which have been independently evaluated by FHWA. FHWA has determined that the EA adequately and accurately discusses the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. The EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the EA. Approved by: Bryan Cawley, P.E. Digitally signed by BRYAN R CAWLEY Date: 2020.08.24 12:30:49 -06'00' Division Administrator Date Wyoming Division Federal Highway Administration FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Statute of Limitations The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may publish a notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 United States Code Section 139(l), indicating that one or more federal agencies have taken final action on permits, licenses, or approvals for a transportation project.
    [Show full text]
  • National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
    PUBLIC LAW 104±59ÐNOV. 28, 1995 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT OF 1995 ?567 109 STAT. 568 PUBLIC LAW 104±59ÐNOV. 28, 1995 Public Law 104±59 104th Congress An Act Nov. 28, 1995 To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for the designation of the National [S. 440] Highway System, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of National the United States of America in Congress assembled, Highway System Designation Act SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. of 1995. Intergovern- (a) SHORT TITLE.ÐThis Act may be cited as the ``National mental relations. Highway System Designation Act of 1995''. 23 USC 101 note. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.Ð Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Secretary defined. TITLE IÐNATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM Sec. 101. National highway system designation. TITLE IIÐTRANSPORTATION FUNDING FLEXIBILITY Sec. 201. Findings and purposes. Sec. 202. Funding restoration. Sec. 203. Rescissions. Sec. 204. State unobligated balance flexibility. Sec. 205. Relief from mandates. Sec. 206. Definitions. TITLE IIIÐMISCELLANEOUS HIGHWAY PROVISIONS Sec. 301. Traffic monitoring, management, and control on NHS. Sec. 302. Transferability of apportionments. Sec. 303. Quality improvement. Sec. 304. Design criteria for the national highway system. Sec. 305. Applicability of transportation conformity requirements. Sec. 306. Motorist call boxes. Sec. 307. Quality through competition. Sec. 308. Limitation on advance construction. Sec. 309. Preventive maintenance. Sec. 310. Federal share. Sec. 311. Eligibility of bond and other debt instrument financing for reimbursement as construction expenses. Sec. 312. Vehicle weight and longer combination vehicles exemptions. Sec. 313. Toll roads.
    [Show full text]