DOCSLIB.ORG

An Evaluation of Guide Signing at Right Multilane Freeway Exits with Optional Lanes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Technical R~ort Documentation Paee 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWNTX-97/1467-5 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date AN EVALUATION OF GUIDE SIGNING AT RIGHT MULTILANE September 1996 FREEWAY EXITS WITH OPTIONAL LANES 6. Perfonning Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Perfonning Organization Report No. Richard A. Somers, H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Debbie Jasek, and Thomas Research Report 1467-5 Urbanik II 9. Perfonning Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAlS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Study No. 0-1467 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Final: Research and Technology Transfer Office November 1993-August 1996 P. O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Research Study Title: Urban Highway Operations Research and Implementation 16. Abstract This research study investigated guide signing practices used around the state and the rest of the nation for multilane exits. In particular, the research focused on signing for multilane exits with optional lanes. Photographs were taken of guide signing at multilane interchanges in the cities of San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth, Texas. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to the state traffic engineers of each state, asking that they indicate their method of signing for a multilane exit with an optional lane and a secondary ramp split. The results of both studies indicated that a variety of signing practices for multilane exits are used in Texas and across the nation. A review of previous research showed that most drivers understand the EXIT ONLY panel, commonly used to communicate a lane drop; however, as many as one half of all drivers are confused by the current method of signing used in Texas for an optional lane at a multilane exit. Guide signing alternatives were developed to improve driver comprehension of the optional lane situation at a multilane exit. The developed alternatives were tested against the recommended method of signing in two evaluations: an initial driver survey and a laboratory study. The phrase liMA Y EXIT" was found to be the best understood alternative in the initial survey. In the laboratory study, however, the differences between the various alternatives were small. The research findings indicate that the current method of signing for multilane exits should continue to be used. Additional evaluations should continue in this subject area. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Freeway Guide Signing, Multilane Interchange, No restrictions. This document is available to the Guide Signing, Freeway Exit, Multilane Exit public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif(ofthis report) 20. Security Classif(ofthis page) 21. No. of Pages I 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 180 FormDOTF 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized AN EVALUATION OF GUIDE SIGNING AT RIGHT MULTILANE FREEWAY EXITS WITH OPTIONAL LANES by Richard A. Somers Graduate Research Assistant Texas Transportation Institute H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Ph.D., P. E. Associate Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Debbie Jasek Research Associate Texas Transportation Institute and Thomas Urbanik II, Ph.D., P. E. Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Research Report 1467-5 Research Study Number 0-1467 Research Study Title: Urban Highway Operations Research and Implementation Sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation In Cooperation With U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration September 1996 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT This study reveals that many different guide signing treatments are used around Texas and the nation to communicate multilane freeway exits. Consistent, uniform guide signing applications should be maintained. Uniform signing treatments can help reinforce driver expectancy, helping to guide the unfamiliar driver. This study indicates that drivers have a good understanding of black on yellow EXIT ONLY panels used to communicate a lane drop. However, motorists sometimes misinterpret the white arrow often used with EXIT ONLY panels to communicate an optional lane. The initial research evaluations found that the phrase "MAY EXIT" exhibited potential for improving driver understanding of the optional lane at multilane freeway exits. Further analysis revealed that the potential improvement that can be realized from this alternative is minimal over the current method. The research findings indicate that current signing practices for optional lanes at multilane freeway exits should continue. v DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not reflect the official views or policies of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or a regulation; nor is it intended for construction, bidding, or permit purposes. This report was prepared by Richard A. Somers, H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., P.E. #61509, and Thomas Urbanik II, P.E. #42384. Vll ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank several individuals who assisted with this study. The TTl Houston Office Staff is recognized for helping in administration of the Houston Auto Show survey. In addition, special thanks are extended to those traffic engineers responding to the questionnaire sent to each state Department of Transportation. Ken Fogle, Ivan Lorenz, Pat Beck, and Danny Morris are also recognized for their contributions to the study. The TxDOT 1467 technical advisory panel chair, Gary Trietsch, i~ recognized for his time in providing direction and comments for this research. Lewis Rhodes and Mark Thorp, also of TxDOT, are recognized for their assistance in preparing the driver survey. Funding for the research was provided by the TxDOT and the FHWA. Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. " Xlll LIST OF TABLES .................................................... xv SUMMARY ......................................................... XVll 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........... " .............. " " . " ... .. ........ 1 1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT.............. ................. .... 1 1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES. .. .. ..... .. .... ... .. .. 2 1.3 SCOPE.... ....... .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .. ... 2 1A ORGANIZATION. 3 2.0 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND. 5 2.1 FREEWAY GUIDE SIGNING PRACTICES IN THE NATIONAL MUTCD ...................................... 5 2.1.1 Guide Sign Purposes . 5 2.1.2 Guide Sign Design Principles. 6 2.1.3 Current Guide Signing Practices in the MUTCD . 7 2.1.3.1 Categories of Guide Signs ........... \ . 8 2.1.3.2 Sign Mounting. .. 9 2.1.3.3 Arrows ..................................... 12 2.1.3 A Signing for Lane Drops . 13 2.1.3.5 Signing for Optional Lanes and Multilane Exits ............................... 13 2.2 SIGNING METHODS USED IN TEXAS ....................... 14 2.2.1 Texas MUTCD Signing Method ......................... 14 2.2.2 Texas Highway Operations Manual Method ................ 14 2.2.3 Inventory of Practices Used in Selected Texas Cities . 17 2.2.3.1 Multiple Lane Drops ........................... 17 2.2.3.2 Multilane Exit Ramps with Optional Lanes .......... 22 2.3 SIGNING TREATMENTS EMPLOYED AROUND THE NATION................. ... .... ..... .............. .... 29 2.3.1 Signing Methods Used in Other States .................... 29 2.3.1.1 California Method . 29 2.3.1.2 Minnesota Method ............................ 31 2.3.1.3 Ohio Method. 31 2.3.1A Mississippi Method .. 31 2.3.1.5 OtherMethods ............................... 31 IX TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 2.4 OTHER PREVIOUS STUDIES .................................... 38 2.4.1 Modified Diagrammatic Signing ........................ 38 2.4.2 Diagrammatic Guide Signs ............................ 40 2.5 SUMMAR.Y ............................................. 41 3.0 DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF INITIAL GUIDE SIGN ALTERNATIVES .............................................. 43 3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE GUIDE SIGNS ........... 43 3.1.1 MAY EXIT and EXIT OK ............................ 43 3.1.2 Divergent Arrow .................................... 45 3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF SURVEy ............................. 46 3.3 ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA ............................ 48 3.3.1 Statistical Testing of Data ............................. 50 3.3.2 Analysis of Multiple Choice Questions ................... 51 3.3.2.1 Questions 1-3 ............................... 51 3.3.2.2 Questions 4-6 ............................... 53 3.3.2.3 Questions 7-9 ............................... 55 3.3.2.4 Question 10 ................................. 57 3.3.2.5 Questions 11-13 ............................. 58 3.3.3 Analysis of Open-Ended Questions ...................... 60 3.4 INITIAL SURVEY CONCLUSIONS ......................... 64 3.4.1 Survey Results ..................................... 64 3.4.2 Suggestions for Further Research Raised by the Initial Survey . 65 4.0 DETAILED STUDY DESIGN ...................................
Recommended publications
  • Driver Use of En Route Real-Time Travel Time Information

    Driver Use of En Route Real-Time Travel Time Information

    Driver Use of En Route Real-Time Travel Time Information Final Report Contract DTFH61-01-C-00049 Task Order 28 Authors Neil Lerner Jeremiah Singer Emanuel Robinson Richard Huey James Jenness July 30, 2009 Prepared for: Prepared by: Federal Highway Administration Westat Washington, DC 1600 Research Boulevard Rockville, Maryland 20850 (301) 251-1500 Acknowledgements The authors thank the members of the Transportation Management Center Pooled Fund Study for their guidance and support during this project, as well as the regional transportation management experts who provided information about their jurisdictions’ uses of real-time travel time signs. The authors also thank Dr. Conrad Dudek for sharing his knowledge of travel time practices in the United States. The authors also thank Mark Demidovich (Georgia Department of Transportation), Timothy Vik (DAAR Engineering / Wisconsin DOT), and Vinh Dang (Washington Department of Transportation) for their help in identifying locations for Study 1 of this project, and providing information about the use of travel time CMS in these locations. The authors also thank Karen Schmiechen (Rideshare Program Manager, Wisconsin Department of Transportation – Southeast Region) and Jane Finch (Commute Trip Reduction Services, King County, Washington) for their generous assistance in recruiting commuters to participate in this research. Finally, the authors thank Dr. Thomas Granda, the Federal Highway Administration Task Order Manager, for his assistance and insights throughout the project. i Table of Contents
  • Chapter 1 North

    Chapter 1 North

    Interstate 73 FEIS: I-95 to North Carolina The feasibility study recognized that there had been some improvements to roads in the project study area; however, the improved roads were predicted to have capacity problems along some segments by the year 2025, based on traffic modeling. Future traffic projections indicated that I-73 would divert traffic from existing roadways, which would improve capacity and reduce traffic congestion.10 North Carolina completed a feasibility study in 2005 that evaluated alternatives for the proposed I­ 74 in Columbus and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, located in the southeastern portion of the state. The study was an initial step in the planning and design and described the project, costs, and identified potential problems that required consideration. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was passed by Congress and signed into law on August 10, 2005. SAFETEA-LU acknowledges the prior purpose for, and designation of, I-73 as a High Priority Corridor, along with designating it as a project of “national and regional significance” (23 U.S.C. §101(2005)). In addition, SAFETEA-LU provides earmarks for the I-73 project in South Carolina. At the state level, Concurrent Resolution H 3320 passed by the South Carolina General Assembly in 2003 states “that the members of the General Assembly express their collective belief and desire that the Department of Transportation should consider its next interstate project as one that provides the Pee Dee Region with access to the interstate system.”11 Both Congress and the South Carolina General Assembly have appropriated money to SCDOT to study the potential corridor for the proposed I-73.
  • Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina

    Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina

    Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina Piedmont Triad Rural Planning Organization Piedmont Triad Council of Governments May 2011 Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina May 2011 Prepared by Piedmont Triad Rural Planning Organization & Piedmont Triad Council of Governments In partnership with: Cape Fear RPO• Greensboro Urban Area MPO • High Point Urban Area MPO • Lumber River RPO Northwest Piedmont RPO • Winston-Salem Urban Area MPO Staff Hanna Cockburn, AICP, Planning Program Manager Jesse Day, Regional Planner Anne Edwards, Director, Regional Data Center Malinda Ford, GIS Planner Route data courtesy of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Lead Planning Agencies Table of Contents The Great Lakes Mid-Atlantic Route ........................................................................................................... 1 Interstate Impacts .......................................................................................................................................... 2 The North Carolina Corridor .......................................................................................................................... 3 Surry County .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Stokes County ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Forsyth County ...............................................................................................................................................
  • Economic Impact of I-73 in South Carolina

    Economic Impact of I-73 in South Carolina

    5.12.2011 Economic Impact of I-73 in South Carolina The existence of I-73 will inject billions of dollars into the I-73 Corridor and South Carolina, and provide tens of thousands of jobs in tourism, retail, service, and warehouse industries. After road completion, annual economic impacts estimated at $2.0 billion will sustain 22,347 jobs in South Carolina in 2030 and beyond. Prepared Northeastern Strategic Alliance (NESA) for Richmond, Virginia Cleveland, Ohio 1309 East Cary Street 1025 East Huron Road Richmond, Virginia 23219 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 804.649.1107 (phone) 216.357.4730 (phone) 804.644.2828 (fax) 216.357.4730 (fax) www.chmuraecon.com Table of Contents 1. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 5 3. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 4. Literature Review .................................................................................................................................................. 11 4.1. Aggregate National Studies ............................................................................................................................. 11 4.2. Regional Studies .............................................................................................................................................
  • Joint Committee to Study Interstate 73 November 10, 2014 the Joint

    Joint Committee to Study Interstate 73 November 10, 2014 the Joint

    Joint Committee to Study Interstate 73 November 10, 2014 The Joint Committee of the Senate Committee on Local Government and the Senate Committee on Transportation to study the construction of proposed Interstate 73 met on Monday, November 10, 2014, in Martinsville. Election of Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman The meeting began with the election of Senator William Stanley as Chairman and Senator Stephen Newman as Vice-Chairman. Project Introduction by Virginia Department of Transportation Mr. Richard L. Walton, Jr., Chief of Policy for VDOT, provided an overview of the Interstate 73 proposal. In 1991, the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) identified what is now known as the Interstate 73 corridor as a high-priority corridor. A Virginia feasibility study followed in 1993. The Commonwealth Transportation Board began making location decisions, approving the first alignment in 2001. Other decisions followed, with the fourth and most recent alignment approved during 2011. Portions of the cost of preliminary development of the corridor have been paid with funds from a federal TEA-21 earmark. The earmark totaled about $12.5 million, of which about $3.7 million remains; with funds from the two SAFETEA-LU earmarks, most of which remain unspent, the total earmark funding available is about $14.7 million. The cost to construct Interstate 73 from Roanoke to the North Carolina line alone is expected to be more than $4 billion. Chmura Economics and Analytics Report Dr. Xiaobing Shuai of Chmura Economics and Analytics explained the results of studies of the economic impact of Interstate 73 that the firm had conducted for three areas: Virginia, from Roanoke to the North Carolina line (2007), West Virginia (2009), and South Carolina (2011).
  • LCSH Section I

    LCSH Section I

    I(f) inhibitors I-215 (Salt Lake City, Utah) Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie USE If inhibitors USE Interstate 215 (Salt Lake City, Utah) Aktiengesellschaft Trial, Nuremberg, I & M Canal National Heritage Corridor (Ill.) I-225 (Colo.) Germany, 1947-1948 USE Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage USE Interstate 225 (Colo.) Subsequent proceedings, Nuremberg War Corridor (Ill.) I-244 (Tulsa, Okla.) Crime Trials, case no. 6 I & M Canal State Trail (Ill.) USE Interstate 244 (Tulsa, Okla.) BT Nuremberg War Crime Trials, Nuremberg, USE Illinois and Michigan Canal State Trail (Ill.) I-255 (Ill. and Mo.) Germany, 1946-1949 I-5 USE Interstate 255 (Ill. and Mo.) I-H-3 (Hawaii) USE Interstate 5 I-270 (Ill. and Mo. : Proposed) USE Interstate H-3 (Hawaii) I-8 (Ariz. and Calif.) USE Interstate 255 (Ill. and Mo.) I-hadja (African people) USE Interstate 8 (Ariz. and Calif.) I-270 (Md.) USE Kasanga (African people) I-10 USE Interstate 270 (Md.) I Ho Yüan (Beijing, China) USE Interstate 10 I-278 (N.J. and N.Y.) USE Yihe Yuan (Beijing, China) I-15 USE Interstate 278 (N.J. and N.Y.) I Ho Yüan (Peking, China) USE Interstate 15 I-291 (Conn.) USE Yihe Yuan (Beijing, China) I-15 (Fighter plane) USE Interstate 291 (Conn.) I-hsing ware USE Polikarpov I-15 (Fighter plane) I-394 (Minn.) USE Yixing ware I-16 (Fighter plane) USE Interstate 394 (Minn.) I-K'a-wan Hsi (Taiwan) USE Polikarpov I-16 (Fighter plane) I-395 (Baltimore, Md.) USE Qijiawan River (Taiwan) I-17 USE Interstate 395 (Baltimore, Md.) I-Kiribati (May Subd Geog) USE Interstate 17 I-405 (Wash.) UF Gilbertese I-19 (Ariz.) USE Interstate 405 (Wash.) BT Ethnology—Kiribati USE Interstate 19 (Ariz.) I-470 (Ohio and W.
  • NACTTI Final Report 0.Pdf

    NACTTI Final Report 0.Pdf

    TABLE OF CONTENTS COVID-19 PANDEMIC ................................................................................................................................ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 5 THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRAVEL AND TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE ................. 11 THE FIXING AMERICA’S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT (FAST ACT) ................................................... 12 STATE OF CRITICAL TRAVEL AND TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE: ............................................................. 13 The Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism and the Need for Infrastructure Improvement ....... 13 Opportunities Exist to Improve America’s Travel Infrastructure ....................................................... 14 Tribal Lands and National Parks ........................................................................................................... 16 TRAVEL AND TOURISM STATISTICS BY MODE ........................................................................................ 17 Roads ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Airports ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Passenger Rail .......................................................................................................................................
  • Legislative Audit Council

    Legislative Audit Council

    S O U T H C A R O L I N A G E N E R A L A S S E M B L Y Legislative Audit Council L A C May 2016 A REVIEW OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE BANK LAC.SC.GOV LAC/15-3 LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COUNCIL 1331 Elmwood Ave., Suite 315 Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 253-7612 VOICE (803) 253-7639 FAX The Legislative Audit Council performs audits of state agencies and Public Members Philip F. Laughridge, CPA, Chairman programs, in which we identify ways to reduce the cost and improve the Jane P. Miller, Vice Chairman performance of state agencies, and provide information to the General John B. Dangler, JSC (ret) Assembly and the public. We help ensure that operations are efficient and Thomas F. Hartnett Charles L. A. Terreni, Esq. that agencies follow the law to achieve the desired results. We provide information, analysis, and recommendations to help the General Assembly improve state agencies and to help the citizens of South Carolina oversee Members Who Serve Ex Officio state government. The LAC is part of the legislative branch of state Tom Young, Jr. government and, therefore, it is organizationally independent of the Senate Judiciary Committee Michael L. Fair executive branch agencies it audits. Our audits must be requested by the Senate Finance Committee General Assembly, either by statute or on an as-needed basis, Senate Walton J. McLeod Oversight Committee, or House Oversight Committee. House Judiciary Committee Garry R. Smith House Ways & Means Committee The Legislative Audit Council is composed of five public members, one of whom must be a practicing certified or licensed public accountant and one Director of whom must be an attorney.
  • An Investigation of Signs for Median Crossovers

    An Investigation of Signs for Median Crossovers

    Scholars' Mine Doctoral Dissertations Student Theses and Dissertations Spring 1986 An investigation of signs for median crossovers Gillian M. Worsey Missouri University of Science and Technology, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/doctoral_dissertations Part of the Civil Engineering Commons Department: Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering Recommended Citation Worsey, Gillian M., "An investigation of signs for median crossovers" (1986). Doctoral Dissertations. 589. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/doctoral_dissertations/589 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN INVESTIGATION OF SIGNS FOR MEDIAN CROSSOVERS BY GILLIAN MARY WORSEY, 1957- A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in T5270 CIVIL ENGINEERING Copy 1 177 Pages 1986 Advisor ii ABSTRACT This paper describes a study of advance warning signs for median crossovers on divided highways. Candidate crossover signs were identified from a literature review, survey of current State practices and discussions with FHWA personnel. Seven of these signs were selected for further testing in a laboratory study for legibility, understanding and driver preference. Sixty subjects representing a cross-section of drivers took part in the study, thirty at the Turner-Fairbanks Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia and thirty at the Unversity of Missouri-Rolla in Rolla, Missouri.
  • Driver Comprehension of Diagrammatic Freeway Guide Signs and Their Text Alternatives

    Driver Comprehension of Diagrammatic Freeway Guide Signs and Their Text Alternatives

    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-07/0-5147-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date DRIVER COMPREHENSION OF DIAGRAMMATIC FREEWAY October 2006 GUIDE SIGNS Published: February 2007 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Susan T. Chrysler, Alicia A. Williams, Dillon S. Funkhouser, Andrew Report 0-5147-1 J. Holick, Marcus A. Brewer 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project 0-5147 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2004 – August 2006 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Guidelines for the Use of Diagrammatic Guide Signs and Their Alternatives URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5147-1.pdf 16. Abstract This report contains the results of a three-phase human factors study which tested driver comprehension of diagrammatic freeway guide signs and their text alternatives. Four different interchange types were tested: left optional exit, left lane drop, freeway to freeway split with optional center lane, and two lane right exits with optional lanes. Three phases of the project tested comprehension by using digitally edited photographs of advance guide signs in freeway scenes.

  • Control Cities Request by North Carolina Dot

    NEW CONTROL CITIES REQUEST BY NORTH CAROLINA DOT Neil Boudreau Highway Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering, Vice Chair MassDOT, Assistant Administrator for Traffic and Safety June 19, 2018 Interstate Control Cities Purpose of a control city…. To provide the driver the best orientation of the major destinations and population centers located on or near the Interstate Highway System. Control city legends should be used in the following situations: 1. Interchange between freeways 2. Separation points of overlapping freeways 3. On directional signs on intersecting routes, to guide traffic entering the freeway 4. On pull Thru signs 5. On the bottom line of post interchange distance signs 2 Proposed North Carolina Control Cities Detail I-42 : proposing six cities and towns I-73 (partial complete): proposing five cities and towns I-74 (partial complete): proposing five cities and towns I-87 (partial complete): proposing five cities and towns 3 Interstate 42 (US-70) 142 Miles total length Proposed Interstate Control Cities: City of Raleigh City of Goldsboro City of Kinston City of New Bern City of Havelock Town of Morehead City Poposed Control Cities Interstate: I-42 4 Poposed Control Cities Route: I-42 (Western Portion) City of Raleigh Population (2015): 451,000 Major intersecting routes: I-40, I-87, US-1 Important feature: Capital of NC City of Kinston Population (2015): 21,300 Distance from last control city: 29 miles Important feature: Global Transpark air City of Goldsboro freight facility Population (2015): 35,800 Distance from last control

  • Interstate Plan

    INTERSTATE PLAN Prepared for: Prepared by: December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures ................................................................................... 3 3 Related Studies and Practices .............................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Intermodal Connectivity .............................................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Port-Related Projects ....................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Airport-Related Projects ................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Neighboring Interstate Plans ....................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Interstate System Plan ......................... 8 3.2.2 North Carolina Strategic Prioritization ............................................................................. 9 3.3 Interstate Feasibility Studies Review ........................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 I-20/I-26/I-126 Plan of Action Study................................................................................. 9 3.3.2 Corridor Studies