DOCSLIB.ORG

Design Manual M 22-01.15 July 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design Manual M 22-01.15 July 2018 Publications Transmittal Transmittal Number Date PT 18-056 July 2018 Publication Distribution To: Design Manual Holders Publication Title Publication Number Design Manual – July 2018 M 22-01.15 Originating Organization WSDOT Development Division, Design Office – Design Policy, Standards, and Safety Research Section Remarks and Instructions What’s changed in the Design Manual for July 2018? See the summary of revisions beginning on Page 3. How do you stay connected to current design policy? It’s the designer’s responsibility to apply current design policy when developing transportation projects at WSDOT. The best way to know what’s current is to reference the manual online. Access the current electronic WSDOT Design Manual, the latest revision package, and individual chapters at: www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/m22-01.htm We’re ready to help. If you have comments or questions about the Design Manual, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Area of Practice Your Contacts Geometric Design, Roadside Safety Jeff Petterson 360-705-7246 [email protected] and Traffic Barriers Chris Schroedel 360-705-7299 [email protected] General Guidance and Support John Donahue 360-705-7952 [email protected] To get the latest information on individual WSDOT publications: Sign up for email updates at: www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/ HQ Design Office Signature Phone Number /s/ Jeff Carpenter 360-705-7821 Page 1 of 6 Remove/Insert instructions for those who maintain a printed manual NOTE: Also replace the Title Page CHAPTER/SECTION REMOVE PAGES INSERT PAGES Contents/Exhibits Entire Contents Entire Contents 100 Manual Description Entire chapter Entire chapter 300 Design Documentation, Approval, and Process Review Entire chapter Entire chapter 310 Value Engineering 310-3&4 310-3&4 320 Traffic Analysis Entire chapter Entire chapter 321 Sustainable Safety Analysis Entire chapter Entire chapter 530 Limited Access Control Entire chapter Entire chapter 550 Freeway Access Revision Entire chapter Entire chapter 1040-3-6; 1040-3-6; 1040-9&10; 1040-9&10; 1040 Illumination 1040-13&14; 1040-13&14; 1040-39&40; 1040-39&40; 1101 Need Identification Entire chapter Entire chapter 1102 Context Identification Entire chapter Entire chapter 1103 Design Control Selection Entire chapter Entire chapter 1120 Preservation Projects Entire chapter Entire chapter 1239 Geometric Cross Section – Shoulders, Side Slopes, Curbs, and Medians 1239-7&8 1239-7&8 1300 Intersection Control Type Entire chapter Entire chapter 1320-1&2; 1320-1&2; 1320 Roundabouts 1320-19&20 1320-19&20 1330 Traffic Control Signals Entire chapter Entire chapter 1360 Interchanges 1360-1&2 1360-1&2 1410 High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities Entire chapter Entire chapter 1420-1&2; 1420-1&2; 1420 HOV Direct Access 1420-19&20 1420-19&20 1510 Pedestrian Facilities Entire chapter Entire chapter 1600 Roadside Safety Entire chapter Entire chapter 1610 Traffic Barriers Entire chapter Entire chapter 1620 Impact Attenuator Systems Entire chapter Entire chapter 1720 Weigh Sites 1720-1-4 1720-1-4 Glossary Entire Glossary Entire Glossary About revision marks and footer dates: • A new date appears in the footer of each page that has changes. • Changes include inserted or deleted content and existing content that shifts to a new page. • Substantially rewritten chapters will have no revision marks. This is the case with many chapters this publication. • In some cases, just a page of a chapter changed with a spot revision, such as a correction or new chapter reference. Page 2 of 6 Summary of Design Manual Changes – July 2018 (Revisions merit careful study beyond this summary) Highlights of the More Substantial Revisions Chapter 530 Limited Access Control • Defined “access breaks” and “inner corridor access” • Added language about hearing waivers to section 530.02(2)(a) • Added new Exhibit 530-1f showing Diverging Diamond Interchange and minimum L/A control lengths on cross road; updated section 530.03(3) language to include this new exhibit • Eliminated confusing / unrepresentative examples of changes to limited access control • Reference new electronic access request checklist and submittal procedure detailed on Access and Hearings website: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/accessandhearings/ • Added multimodal text in many sections. Chapter 550 Freeway Access Revision • Provides instruction for the process, reporting, and documentation requirements to revise interchange access on freeways in Washington State. Highlights of the revised chapter include: • Aligns updated Federal policy with WSDOT Practical Solutions approach; • Interchange Justification Report is now called Access Revision Report (ARR); • Provides steps in the process to prepare a Non-Access Feasibility study, and ARR • Prior to preparing the ARR, a Non-Access Feasibility Study is conducted to seek improvements that meet performance needs. • If the Feasibility study does not resolve performance need, the ARR is prepared to include and analyze on-system freeway improvements. • The required NEPA/SEPA document is needed before final approval of an ARR. • Provides details about environmental, planning disciplines, outputs and engagement; • Presents typical members and expectations for Executive and Support teams; • Chapter 550 Policy applies only to freeways. Chapter 1120 Preservation Projects • Clarifying how and where to rehabilitate rumble strips • Provide consistency in measuring and using guardrail height • Provide consistency in treating breakaway cable terminals Chapter 1300 Intersection Control Type • With this revision the term Intersection Control Analysis (ICA) is changing to Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) • 1300.01 - ICE is working document to ensure scope and schedule are compatible with intersection type. • 1300.05 - when ICE is/ is not required; safety and operational considerations when rechannelize existing pavement. • 1300.05(1) - Clarifications and instruction added to procedures section for safety analysis and alternatives evaluation. • Other minor word changes. Chapter 1330 Traffic Control Signals • 1330.02(1)(a) - Minor revision for Warrant F support data. Page 3 of 6 • 1330.02(2) - Revised the threshold for city population to 27,500 (RCW 47.24.020 was revised in the 2018 Legislative session). • 1330.03(3) - Transferred information to Section 1510.12. • Exhibit 1330-8 - Minor revisions made. • 1330.04(3) - Added display information for permissive right turns. • 1330.04(4) - Minor revisions made. • 1330.04(4)(a) - Revisions made to accessible pedestrian signals, including guidance transferred from 1510.12(3). • 1330.04(5) - Revisions made for mast arm signal standards and foundation design. • 1330.04(5)(c) - Minor revisions made. • 1330.06 - Minor revisions made. • 1330.6(5) - Added a new section for APS. • Other minor revisions and re-dated all pages as 2018. Chapter 1510 Traffic Control Signals • 1510.05 (2) - Minor revision to MEF documentation. • 1510.05(2)(a) - A new section was added to provide clarification on when to address accessibility at signalized intersections. • 1510.09(2)(b) - Clarification on maximum running slope of a ramp. • 1510.10(2)(b) - Revised the threshold for city population to 27,500 (RCW 47.24.020 was revised in the 2018 Legislative session). • 1510.12 - Information transferred from Chapter 1330. • 1510.12(1)(a) - Moved pertinent information from 1510.12(3) to this section. • 1510.12(1)(b) - Guidance reorganized and rewritten and revised exhibits 1510-23, 24a, 24b. • 1510.12(1)(c) - Guidance rewritten and revised exhibit 1510-25. • 1510.12(2) - Moved guidance for when Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) are required to be installed to Chapter 1330. • Other minor revisions and re-dated all pages as 2018. Chapter 1600 Roadside Safety • Update and clarify process for addressing inadequate pavement structure in rumble strip installation • Rumble stripes added • Low noise rumble strips added • Breakaway light standards clarified • Rumble strip criteria reorganized and clarified Chapter 1610 Traffic Barriers • Extending existing runs of older style guardrail (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, Type 4) is no longer allowed. Extensions now must use MASH compliant systems (such as Type 31 guardrail). • Moved remaining minor information on transitions and anchors for (Old) Type 1 guardrail to the Roadside Safety Design webpage. Note that associated Standard Plans for Type 1 guardrail anchors and transitions will be moved to the Plan Sheet Library. • 1610.03(5) - Clarified the definition of length of need. • 1610.04(6) - Added a new shorter length, low-speed transition and provided additional guidance regarding other Type 31 transitions. A new Standard Plan C-25.30, Type 24 Transition (Low Speed), will be published in July. • 1610.04(7)(a) - Eliminated placement case 6 (no corresponding case in Std. Plans). • 1610.06(1) - Made F-shape barrier the preferred shape (over New Jersey shape) for precast non- embedded concrete barrier (F-shape is MASH compliant). New Jersey shape is still allowed. Page 4 of 6 • Revised Exhibit 1610-13 by removing Type 1 guardrail transitions and added the new Type 24 Transition to the table. • 1610.07 - Updated to reflect 42” min. bridge rail height (for fall protection), and stated the long- standing Test Level 4 requirement for bridge rail. • 1610.07(1)(b) - Eliminated language regarding I-2 Bridge Rail upgrades program as recommended by BSO. • Other minor revisions made. Chapter 1620 Impact Attenuator Systems • Moved detailed information regarding specific impact attenuator systems to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SIMULATION of DIFFERENT INTERSECTION DESIGN for IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW with FACTORS CONSIDERING LOCATION, POPULATION and DRIVER EXPECTANCY Sourabh Kumar Singh Dr
    Science, Technology and Development ISSN : 0950-0707 SIMULATION OF DIFFERENT INTERSECTION DESIGN FOR IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW WITH FACTORS CONSIDERING LOCATION, POPULATION AND DRIVER EXPECTANCY Sourabh Kumar Singh Dr. Anil kunte Associate Professor, Research Scholar, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Department of Civil Department of Civil Engineering Engineering, Shri JJT Engineering, Shri JJT Noida International University University University Dr. Paritosh Srivastava Abstract: In today’s economic growth the vehicular traffic is increasing day by day, which leads to failure of intersections before their time period. To increase the efficiency of these failed intersections the engineers added lanes to the existing major and minor roads, but this method do not give results which it used to deliver in the past, hence other methods were adopted. So to increase the efficiency and fulfil the criteria for successful intersection ,to cape with it several intersection are designed which are unconventional in nature like jug handle, bow tie, continuous flow intersection and median u turn which are very effective in increasing green time on highway and minor roads. The software used in this study is Auto- cad for planning and drawing purpose which can be used in sim-traffic software which will be used for simulation purpose of the traffic flow on different designs of intersections. The factors which are considered in this study are -location of town centre, population of the zone and driver expectancy. The final conclusion of this study is that continuous flow intersection provides the best results when the traffic is increased. The construction cost is least in median u turn and giving maximum result than all other intersections.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Network Plan Middleton, WI
    Report Transportation Network Plan City of Middleton, WI December 2006 Report for City of Middleton, Wisconsin Transportation Network Plan Prepared by: Traffic Associates LLC and STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC.® 910 West Wingra Drive Madison, WI 53715 www.strand.com December 2006 Approved by Middleton City Council November 21, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. or Following SECTION 1–INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.01 Overview.................................................................................................... 1-1 1.02 Executive Summary................................................................................... 1-3 SECTION 2–EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 2.01 Existing Transportation System................................................................. 2-1 2.02 Traffic Data Collection................................................................................ 2-14 2.03 Existing Conditions Modeling..................................................................... 2-16 SECTION 3–FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.01 Future Traffic Forecasting.......................................................................... 3-1 3.02 Future Conditions Traffic Operations Modeling ......................................... 3-4 3.03 Prioritization of Future Motor Vehicle Needs ............................................. 3-6 SECTION 4–SOLUTION TYPES 4.01 Transportation Solutions............................................................................ 4-1 4.02 Traffic Management Perspective ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rural Expressway Intersection Synthesis of Practice and Crash Analysis
    RURAL EXPRESSWAY INTERSECTION SYNTHESIS OF PRACTICE AND CRASH ANALYSIS Sponsored by the Iowa Department of Transportation (CTRE Project 03-157) Final Report October 2004 Disclaimer Notice The opinions, fi ndings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Iowa Department of Transportation. The sponsor(s) assume no liability for the contents or use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specifi cation, or regulation. The sponsor(s) do not endorse products or manufacturers. About CTRE/ISU The mission of the Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) at Iowa State Uni- versity is to develop and implement innovative methods, materials, and technologies for improv- ing transportation effi ciency, safety, and reliability while improving the learning environment of students, faculty, and staff in transportation-related fi elds. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. CTRE Project 03-157 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Rural Expressway Intersection Synthesis of Practice and Crash Analysis October 2004 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. T. H. Maze, Neal R. Hawkins, and Garrett Burchett 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research and Education Iowa State University 11. Contract or Grant No. 2901 South Loop Drive, Suite 3100 Ames, IA 50010-8634 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Iowa Department of Transportation Final Report 800 Lincoln Way 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Ames, IA 50010 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Intersections Comparative Analysis
    Alternative Intersections Comparative Analysis Morgan State University The Pennsylvania State University University of Maryland University of Virginia Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University West Virginia University The Pennsylvania State University The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute Transportation Research Building University Park, PA 16802-4710 Phone: 814-865-1891 Fax: 814-863-3707 www.mautc.psu.edu OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS By: John Sangster and Hesham Rakha Mid-Atlantic University Transportation Center Final Report Department of Civil and Environment Engineering Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University July 23, 2015 1 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. VT-2012-03 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Operational Analysis of Alternative Intersections July 21, 2015 6. Performing Organization Code Virginia Tech 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. John Sangster and Hesham Rakha 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 3500 Transportation Research Plaza 11. Contract or Grant No. Blacksburg, VA 24061 DTRT12-G-UTC03 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report US Department of Transportation Final Report Research & Innovative Technology Admin UTC Program, RDT-30 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Alternative intersections and interchanges, such as the diverging diamond interchange (DDI), the restricted crossing u-turn (RCUT), and the displaced left-turn intersection (DLT), have the potential to both improve safety and reduce delay. However, partially due to lingering questions about analysis methods and service measures for these designs, their rate of implementation remains low.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometric Design Strategic Research TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2006 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C110 January 2007 Geometric Design Strategic Research TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2006 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Vice Chair: Linda S. Watson, Executive Director, LYNX–Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2006 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, State Highway Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Christopher P. L. Barkan, Associate Professor and Director, Railroad Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Rail Group Chair Shelly R. Brown, Principal, Shelly Brown Associates, Seattle, Washington, Legal Resources Group Chair Christina S. Casgar, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of Intermodalism, Washington, D.C., Freight Systems Group Chair James M. Crites, Executive Vice President, Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, Aviation Group Chair Arlene L. Dietz, C&A Dietz, LLC, Salem, Oregon, Marine Group Chair Robert C. Johns, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Policy and Organization Group Chair Patricia V. McLaughlin, Principal, Moore Iacofano Golstman, Inc., Pasadena, California, Public Transportation Group Chair Marcy S. Schwartz, Senior Vice President, CH2M HILL, Portland, Oregon, Planning and Environment Group Chair Leland D. Smithson, AASHTO SICOP Coordinator, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, Operations and Maintenance Group Chair L. David Suits, Executive Director, North American Geosynthetics Society, Albany, New York, Design and Construction Group Chair Barry M.
    [Show full text]
  • TAC 2003 Jughandle Final
    UNCONVENTIONAL ARTERIAL DESIGN Jughandle Intersection Concept for McKnight Boulevard in Calgary G. FurtadoA, G. TenchaA and, H. DevosB A McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Surrey, BC B McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Edmonton, AB ABSTRACT: A functional planning study was initiated along McKnight Boulevard by the City of Calgary in response to the growing traffic and peak hour congestion routinely experienced along the corridor. The objective of the study was to identify and define, the most suitable improvements for medium term (2015 horizon) and long-term (2038 horizon) traffic demands, while conforming to a large number of independent constraints. Numerous alternatives were identified, and in due course rejected, due to their inability to adequately address the project requirements or satisfactorily meet stakeholder needs. Ultimately, a conventional intersection design involving widening along the south side of the corridor and the jughandle intersection concept were short listed for further evaluation and comparison. These design alternatives were subjected to a relatively rigorous appraisal that included performance, signing, laning and signalization requirements, property impacts, access and transit requirements, safety considerations, human factors and environmental impacts to name a few. It was found that operationally, the jughandle intersection design has compelling application potential in high volume corridors where local access is required and full grade separation is impractical or too costly. However, the jughandle property acquisition requirements and resulting costs along highly urbanized corridors, combined with their limited implementation experience in North America, can preclude their use in less than optimum circumstances. 1. INTRODUCTION Arterial roadways are typically designed and built with the intention of providing superior traffic service over collector and local roads (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Intersections - Final Report
    Operational Applications of Signalized Offset T- Intersections - Final Report Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) North Carolina State University Christopher M. Cunningham, P.E., P.I. Shannon Warchol, P.E., Co-P.I. Juwoon Baek Guangchuan Yang, Ph.D. NCDOT Project 2019-31 July 2020 NCDOT 2019-31 Project Report This page is intentionally blank. II North Carolina Department of Transportation Research Project No. 2019-31 Operational Applications of Signalized Offset T-Intersections Christopher M. Cunningham Shannon E. Warchol Juwoon Baek Guangchuan Yang July 2020 NCDOT 2019-31 Project Report 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/NC/2019-31 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Operational Applications of Signalized Offset T-Intersections July 22, 2020 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Chris Cunningham, MSCE, P.E., Shannon Warchol, MSCE, P.E., Juwoon Baek, Guangchuan Yang, Ph.D. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Institute for Transportation Research and Education North Carolina State University 11. Contract or Grant No. Centennial Campus Box 8601 Raleigh, NC 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered North Carolina Department of Transportation Final Report Research and Analysis Group August 2017 – July 2020 104 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 2019-31 Supplementary Notes: 16. Abstract NCDOT maintains a significant number of T intersections with developable land occupying the vacant fourth leg. When a need for a fourth leg is established, NCDOT must determine the optimal location of the leg.
    [Show full text]
  • A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Public Consultation APRIL 2018
    A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down public consultation APRIL 2018 Response to consultation questions Note: This response should be read in conjunction with the letter attached to this consultation response. This document details our response to the questions raised in the consultation documents provided by Highways England on the proposed scheme as currently designed. We note that while we have now been presented with more information about the design, a substantial amount of detailed design work still needs to be undertaken. We also await the publication of the full Environmental Impact Assessment and associated Heritage Impact Assessment to enable us to properly assess the potential impacts of the proposed scheme and the effectiveness of the measures proposed to mitigate those impacts. All of the comments we provide in this document (and the associated letter) are therefore given in the expectation of the delivery of a considered, high quality solution to the final design and construction of this proposed scheme, appropriate to the protection of this internationally important site. The potential impacts and benefits of the proposed scheme must be tested in accordance with UNESCO/ICOMOS guidance to assess whether it will protect, conserve and enhance the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the World Heritage Site (WHS). To that end, notwithstanding the need for Highways England as the scheme promoters to complete such an assessment as part of their full Heritage Impact Assessment, we, together with Historic England, have carried out our own assessments using this guidance to inform our position. Based on the findings of our latest assessment, we consider that while Highways England have made many improvements to the road design in an attempt to protect the WHS, further mitigation measures are required in order to ensure that the road, particularly in the western part of the WHS, does not cause unacceptable harm to its OUV.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007-32 Benefit-Cost Analysis for Intersection Decision Support
    2007-32 Benefit-Cost Analysis for Intersection Decision Support Report #5 in the Series: Developing Intersection Decision Support Solutions e ativ Solutions! nov ..In earch...Knowledge. es Take the steps... R Transportation Research Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN/RC-2007-32 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Benefit-Cost Analysis for Intersection Decision Support October 2007 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Michael Corbett, David Levinson, Xi Zou 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. University of Minnesota Department of Civil Engineering 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 500 Pillsbury Drive S.E. (c) 81655 (wo) 33 Minneapolis, MN 55455 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Department of Transportation Final Report 395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330 14. Sponsoring Agency Code St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 15. Supplementary Notes http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/200732.pdf Report #5 in the Series: Developing Intersection Decision Support Solutions 16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) The Intersection Decision Support (IDS) system is designed to assist drivers on stop-controlled low-volume rural roads choosing gaps when confronted with busy multiple lane divided-highways, without affecting traffic on the high-volume road. The hope is, that by providing better gap guidance, fewer crashes (and fatalities) will occur. This research develops a framework for analyzing such a new, and presently under-specified technology, and illustrates that framework by comparing that with more conventional engineering approaches, as well as a “do- nothing” base case.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedregal-Catambuco Segment
    - – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY FOR THE RUMICH2015 ACA PASTO DUAL CARRIAGEWAY, PEDREGAL CATAMBUCO SPAN, CONCESSION CONTRACT UNDER SCHEME APP NO. 15 OF Ambientales S.A.S Géminis Consultores EXECUTIVE SUMMARY March 2017 San Juan de Pasto, - – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY FOR THE RUMICHACA PASTO DUAL CARRIAGEWAY, PEDREGAL CATAMBUCO SPAN, CONCESSION CONTRACT UNDER SCHEME APP NO. 15 OF 2015 -Pasto theThePedregal Rumichaca- Catambuco dualspan carriageway road project is a project of national interest and one of the most important in the department of Nariño, which is part of , subject matter of this Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Given its technical characteristics, which can lead to serious deterioration to the implementation,renewable natural resources, or the environment, or introduce significant or notable changes to the landscape, -theANLA project- is subject of environmental licensing for its reason why it is submitted to considerationgathered of the National Authority 2015.of Environmental Licenses , in compliance with provisions of decree 1076 of 2015, as well as the terms of reference for road projects, by resolution 0751 of The EIS SAS where the is developed by Gemini Environmental Consultants and contains the environmental characterizationn of the territory project of the second carriageway will be constructed, as well as the description of the actions and interrelation of the atural resourcesthere with said works. On the other hand, the title holder of is the Concesionaria Vial Unión del Sur and is part of the eight second wave projects of the Fourth Generation of Road Concessions that are governed by the guidelines set forth in the CONPESation document 3760 of 2013 and byInfrastr the regulations (Law 1508 of 2012) related to Public Private Partnerships (PPPS) and who are in charge of the Ministry of Transport , through the National ucture AgencyEIA (ANI).
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Intersections Vs. Town Center Intersections Traditional
    Traditional Intersections vs. Town Center Intersections Similar to Split Intersection ‐ roads are split into 1‐way streets and space in center developed or preserved Traditional Intersection Traditional iiintersection signal cycle has 4 phases – 2 for left turns 2 for through movements Traditional Intersection 4 Phase Signal Cycle Times* 10% 6% 22% 62% lefts straight through *average intersection 75% of the traffic (through movement) gets only about 60% of the cycle time Too much time spent on left turns and yellow signals (transition between movements) Innovative Intersection Innovative intersection signal cycles have only 2 (or 3) phases – left turns are moved or redirected Innovative Intersections create more green time 4 Phase Signal ItiInnovative 2 Phase Cycle Times Signal Cycle Times 6% 4% 10% 6% 22% 62% 90% lefts straight straight through through 75% ‐ 80% of traffic 100% of traffic gets 90% of time – gets only about 60% of time no waiting for left turns Town Center Intersection A town center split intersection, intersection (tci) but both streets is similar to the are separated FUTURE USE open or developed “Town Center” available FUTURE USE for public open or developed into 1‐way ora private 4 simple uses. streets, creating d intersections Assist Town Center Intersection A town center split intersection, intersection (tci) but both streets is similar to the are separated FUTURE USE open or developed “Town Center” available FUTURE USE for public open or developed into 1‐way ora private 4 simple uses. streets, creating d intersections Assist Town Center Intersection A town center split intersection, intersection (tci) but both streets is similar to the are separated FUTURE USE open or developed “Town Center” available FUTURE USE for public open or developed into 1‐way ora private 4 simple uses.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundabout Solutions for Complex Traffic Environments
    ROUNDABOUT SOLUTIONS FOR COMPLEX TRAFFIC ENVIRONMENTS Author/Presenter’s Name: Mike Bittner Mailing Address: 728 East Beaton Drive, West Fargo, ND 58078 Telephone Number: 701 271 4879 E-Mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Roundabouts have many distinct features the engineering community can employ to solve complex or unique traffic scenarios. This paper illustrates how to capitalize on many of the features through three real- world project examples. In the first example, a roundabout is used to combine two closely spaced skewed intersections into one five legged intersection. This example is located in the heart of a city exploding with population and traffic growth. Under existing conditions, the two closely spaced intersections experience spillback across one another resulting in poor intersection operations and frequent conflicts. This is further exacerbated by the 7 uncontrolled driveways within 215 feet of the major intersection. The proposed five-legged roundabout mitigates the negative effect of the skewed intersections, consolidates the two closely spaced intersections and provides access management for the uncontrolled driveways. Not only does this improvement provide an anticipated reduction in crash potential and improved intersection operations, the alternative also provides significant aesthetic benefits, leading to a revitalized city center. In the second example, roundabouts are employed upstream of a central intersection that is oversaturated and experiencing safety issues specific to permitted left-turn movements. The proposed bowtie intersection configuration converts left-turn movements at the central intersection to U-turn maneuvers at the upstream roundabouts. Eliminating left-turn maneuvers at the central intersection resolves safety issues corresponding to the movement. Eliminating left-turn maneuvers also prioritizes high volume through movements at the central intersection, reducing motorist delays and queues that block upstream intersections and business driveways.
    [Show full text]