Three Year Engineering Factors, SFY 2017 Report: Overhead Costs per Total Construction Costs
|
|
|
- Kellie McDaniel
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Three Year Factors, SFY 2017 Report: Overhead Costs per Costs 1/9/2018 Report Key: Projects are group by Work Type 1, and then work types are used to group projects into categories: qry01makekey 12/11/2017 Category Work Type MAJOR PROJECT A- ADD LANES MAJOR PROJECT D- DUAL DIVIDED MAJOR PROJECT F- FREEWAY MAJOR PROJECT I- INTERCHANGE MAJOR PROJECT M- MAJOR BRIDGE MAJOR PROJECT T- NEW OR IMPROVED 2 LANE OTHER OTHER OTHER Note: 1- ITS 2- ADA-TRANS B- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT G- PREV MAINT-BRIDGE H- HIGH TYPE RESURFACING J- PREV MAINT-PAVEMENT K- MED TYPE RESURFACING L- LOW TYPE RESURFACING O- OTHER P- PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT Q- CMAQ R- BRIDGE REHABILITATION S- BRDG RETROFIT AND STR X- SAFETY Y- ROUTINE MAINTENANCE E- ENHANCEMENTS V-HIGHWAY RAIL SAFETY W- SHOULDER WIDENING Only the first work type is used. For instance, many projects include shoulder widening, but few projects have shoulder widening as their first work type. Note: Since SFY 2015's report, all projects are in the seven, reorganized districts. The group of "various" districts has been removed. Calculations: Projects completed in the time frame are tabulated and categorized by primary work type and district. Excludes payment projects, right of way only projects, and other Within each line item, all projects are totaled and then converted to percentages, based on the actual construction amount (actual CN). Not based on the actual total amount (actual ). Thus, estimated construction costs for a project can be used with factors in this report to estimate overhead costs, which add up to total costs. PE% = (actual PE) / (actual CN) CE% = (actual CE) / (actual CN) RW acquisition = (actual land) RW incidentals = (total actual RW) - (actual land) RWp% = (actual land) / (actual CN) RWi% = (RW incidentals) / (actual CN) = ((actual PE) + (actual CE) + (RW incidentals)) (actual CN) If a district has no completed projects of the work type, in the time frame, then the line item is removed from their table. Highlighted values: n < 20 Each line item has an 'n' value indicating the number of projects included in the line. If the number of projects is low, then any unusual project can have a large effect on the results. Thus, lower 'n' values are highlighted and validity of the data should be confirmed. 0% In some line items, none of the projects will include a type of engineering expense. For instance, Routine Maintenance normally does not include Acquisition. The calculated rate will then be 0%, and these values have been highlighted.
2 Three Year Average Factors Costs per Costs 7/1/2014-6/30/2017 Statewide s 1/9/2018 Statewide 1- ITS 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 2 2- ADA-TRANS 13.67% 27.07% 1.58% 42.32% 0.84% 16 A- ADD LANES 5.88% 4.13% 0.62% 10.63% 6.58% 27 B- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 15.45% 11.33% 0.22% 27.00% 0.94% 81 D- DUAL DIVIDED 9.11% 5.94% 0.96% 16.01% 28.22% 7 E- ENHANCEMENTS 8.97% 16.39% 0.59% 25.96% 0.57% 22 F- FREEWAY 1.94% 6.54% 0.05% 8.54% 0.45% 7 G- PREV MAINT-BRIDGE 3.06% 6.52% 0.00% 9.58% 0.00% 26 H- HIGH TYPE RESURFACING 2.49% 7.22% 0.05% 9.76% 0.25% 48 I- INTERCHANGE 9.04% 7.40% 0.47% 16.91% 6.02% 22 J- PREV MAINT-PAVEMENT 2.35% 8.11% 0.00% 10.46% 0.00% 136 K- MED TYPE RESURFACING 1.71% 7.41% 0.01% 9.13% 0.01% 218 L- LOW TYPE RESURFACING 1.80% 6.51% 0.09% 8.39% 0.13% 140 M- MAJOR BRIDGE 13.42% 1.89% 1.11% 16.42% 5.86% 8 O- OTHER 9.61% 10.59% 0.61% 20.82% 2.49% 79 P- PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 7.48% 7.55% 0.12% 15.15% 0.02% 12 Q- CMAQ 6.22% 9.64% 0.01% 15.87% 0.003% 32 R- BRIDGE REHABILITATION 5.66% 8.97% 0.01% 14.64% 0.03% 107 * S- BRDG RETROFIT AND STR % 8.12% 3.11% % 99.75% 2 T- NEW OR IMPROVED 2 LANE 5.92% 8.59% 1.50% 16.01% 26.28% 10 V- HIGHWAY RAIL SAFETY 15.37% 9.84% 1.00% 26.20% 4.69% 1 W- SHOULDER WIDENING 6.36% 18.25% 0.71% 25.32% 1.13% 2 X- SAFETY 6.48% 11.20% 0.31% 17.98% 1.90% 91 Y- ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 1.31% 9.26% 0.02% 10.59% 0.04% % 6.60% 0.45% 14.13% 4.72% 1,134 MAJOR PROJECT 9.09% 4.45% 0.80% 14.35% 9.10% % 8.41% 0.11% 13.64% 0.68% 1,028 OTHER 9.40% 15.93% 0.62% 25.96% 0.89% % 6.60% 0.45% 14.13% 4.72% 1,134 costs are represented as percentages of corresponding actual construction costs. Based on projects projects without actual construction costs. * Only two projects for Bridge Retrofit and Strengthening were completed during the current time frame. One project was split into smaller construction projects with all in the parent project, but most construction was in the child projects, which were not included. Resulting in unusual percentage values for this larger project.
3 Three Year Average Factors 7/1/2014-6/30/2017 Costs per Costs Northwest B- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 19.00% 9.35% 1.56% 29.91% 9.38% 7 G- PREV MAINT-BRIDGE 0.73% 7.15% 0.00% 7.88% 0.00% 1 H- HIGH TYPE RESURFACING 0.59% 6.21% 0.00% 6.80% 0.00% 6 J- PREV MAINT-PAVEMENT 0.18% 6.19% 0.00% 6.37% 0.00% 7 K- MED TYPE RESURFACING 1.28% 5.96% 0.00% 7.24% 0.00% 13 L- LOW TYPE RESURFACING 0.56% 4.12% 0.12% 4.79% 0.06% 54 M- MAJOR BRIDGE 0.07% 0.50% 0.18% 0.75% 1.21% 2 O- OTHER 14.18% 13.58% 2.97% 30.73% 7.79% 9 P- PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 3.61% 9.34% 0.75% 13.70% 0.11% 4 R- BRIDGE REHABILITATION 4.27% 10.45% 0.04% 14.75% 0.03% 28 X- SAFETY 4.27% 7.61% 0.22% 12.10% 0.88% % 5.70% 0.24% 8.48% 1.00% 137 MAJOR PROJECT 0.07% 0.50% 0.18% 0.75% 1.21% % 7.08% 0.26% 10.53% 0.94% % 5.70% 0.24% 8.48% 1.00% 137 costs are represented as percentages of corresponding actual construction costs. Based on projects
4 Three Year Average Factors 7/1/2014-6/30/2017 Costs per Costs Northeast A- ADD LANES 0.06% 14.15% 0.00% 14.21% 0.00% 2 B- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 22.53% 15.17% 0.24% 37.94% 0.21% 20 D- DUAL DIVIDED 0.00% 11.76% 0.00% 11.76% 0.00% 1 E- ENHANCEMENTS 13.52% 31.09% 1.30% 45.92% 0.62% 4 G- PREV MAINT-BRIDGE 1.77% 12.59% 0.00% 14.36% 0.00% 7 H- HIGH TYPE RESURFACING 2.11% 7.77% 0.00% 9.88% 0.00% 4 I- INTERCHANGE 14.80% 10.79% 1.34% 26.93% 41.04% 1 J- PREV MAINT-PAVEMENT 0.82% 9.82% 0.00% 10.64% 0.00% 37 K- MED TYPE RESURFACING 3.93% 10.71% 0.02% 14.66% 0.00% 5 L- LOW TYPE RESURFACING 1.86% 7.85% 0.44% 10.16% 0.98% 20 O- OTHER 3.48% 9.15% 0.00% 12.63% 0.00% 4 P- PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 0.00% 15.22% 0.00% 15.22% 0.00% 1 R- BRIDGE REHABILITATION 5.91% 11.37% 0.00% 17.28% 0.00% 25 X- SAFETY 11.11% 11.89% 0.84% 23.83% 10.74% 8 Y- ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 0.00% 38.50% 0.00% 38.50% 0.00% % 11.32% 0.27% 18.69% 3.21% 141 MAJOR PROJECT 10.98% 11.61% 1.00% 23.58% 30.41% % 10.94% 0.19% 17.76% 0.89% 133 OTHER 13.52% 31.09% 1.30% 45.92% 0.62% % 11.32% 0.27% 18.69% 3.21% 141 costs are represented as percentages of corresponding actual construction costs. Based on projects
5 Three Year Average Factors 7/1/2014-6/30/2017 Costs per Costs Kansas City A- ADD LANES 5.11% 2.49% 0.42% 8.02% 4.26% 6 B- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 14.34% 8.08% 0.03% 22.45% 0.03% 5 D- DUAL DIVIDED 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 1 E- ENHANCEMENTS 5.29% 28.75% 0.35% 34.39% 0.20% 5 G- PREV MAINT-BRIDGE 3.68% 3.58% 0.00% 7.26% 0.00% 6 H- HIGH TYPE RESURFACING 3.81% 6.44% 0.00% 10.25% 0.00% 4 I- INTERCHANGE 10.08% 6.30% 0.51% 16.89% 7.64% 8 J- PREV MAINT-PAVEMENT 0.25% 6.80% 0.00% 7.05% 0.00% 14 K- MED TYPE RESURFACING 0.92% 8.39% 0.00% 9.32% 0.00% 17 L- LOW TYPE RESURFACING 2.23% 6.68% 0.08% 8.99% 0.01% 10 O- OTHER 11.60% 8.19% 0.44% 20.23% 1.78% 25 Q- CMAQ 0.73% 2.71% 0.00% 3.44% 0.00% 5 R- BRIDGE REHABILITATION 4.89% 5.76% 0.00% 10.64% 0.00% 17 S- BRDG RETROFIT AND STR 4.25% 2.09% 0.00% 6.34% 0.00% 1 T- NEW OR IMPROVED 2 LANE 9.10% 6.84% 1.40% 17.34% 36.93% 2 X- SAFETY 1.20% 9.57% 0.06% 10.83% 0.12% 12 Y- ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 0.19% 2.29% 0.05% 2.53% 0.06% % 4.79% 0.31% 10.67% 3.73% 147 MAJOR PROJECT 6.37% 3.55% 0.45% 10.38% 5.86% % 6.42% 0.07% 10.72% 0.23% 125 OTHER 5.29% 28.75% 0.35% 34.39% 0.20% % 4.79% 0.31% 10.67% 3.73% 147 costs are represented as percentages of corresponding actual construction costs. Based on projects
6 Three Year Average Factors 7/1/2014-6/30/2017 Costs per Costs Central A- ADD LANES 8.98% 10.85% 0.85% 20.68% 6.90% 6 B- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 21.82% 16.00% 0.26% 38.08% 0.59% 14 D- DUAL DIVIDED 4.36% 9.56% 1.11% 15.03% 18.93% 1 E- ENHANCEMENTS 9.70% 16.81% 0.50% 27.00% 0.45% 2 G- PREV MAINT-BRIDGE 3.09% 12.04% 0.00% 15.13% 0.00% 2 H- HIGH TYPE RESURFACING 0.48% 8.06% 0.00% 8.53% 0.00% 9 I- INTERCHANGE 4.75% 8.39% 0.00% 13.13% 0.00% 1 J- PREV MAINT-PAVEMENT 0.37% 7.78% 0.00% 8.16% 0.00% 15 K- MED TYPE RESURFACING 2.08% 8.77% 0.02% 10.87% 0.00% 30 L- LOW TYPE RESURFACING 1.13% 7.27% 0.00% 8.40% 0.00% 34 M- MAJOR BRIDGE 14.45% 4.21% 0.02% 18.68% 0.71% 1 O- OTHER 10.61% 13.07% 0.59% 24.27% 0.15% 5 P- PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 3.37% 7.76% 0.00% 11.13% 0.00% 3 R- BRIDGE REHABILITATION 14.55% 13.05% 0.08% 27.68% 0.28% 10 X- SAFETY 4.28% 15.91% 0.17% 20.36% 2.57% 9 Y- ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 3.23% 19.48% 0.01% 22.72% 0.07% % 9.26% 0.22% 15.39% 2.81% 152 MAJOR PROJECT 9.03% 7.66% 0.52% 17.21% 7.48% % 10.06% 0.05% 14.20% 0.19% 141 OTHER 9.70% 16.81% 0.50% 27.00% 0.45% % 9.26% 0.22% 15.39% 2.81% 152 costs are represented as percentages of corresponding actual construction costs. Based on projects
7 Three Year Average Factors 7/1/2014-6/30/2017 Costs per Costs St. Louis 1- ITS 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 2- ADA-TRANS 37.99% 30.73% 1.12% 69.83% 0.56% 1 A- ADD LANES 4.95% 12.26% 0.31% 17.52% 6.67% 4 B- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 11.85% 7.87% 0.01% 19.73% 0.04% 9 D- DUAL DIVIDED 15.45% 6.22% 1.17% 22.84% 48.35% 2 E- ENHANCEMENTS 9.45% 11.91% 0.74% 22.10% 0.80% 3 F- FREEWAY 0.46% 5.28% 0.00% 5.74% 0.00% 2 G- PREV MAINT-BRIDGE 1.69% 9.79% 0.00% 11.48% 0.00% 9 H- HIGH TYPE RESURFACING 6.04% 10.11% 0.21% 16.36% 1.05% 14 I- INTERCHANGE 7.06% 8.33% 0.78% 16.17% 1.79% 1 J- PREV MAINT-PAVEMENT 4.42% 8.59% 0.00% 13.01% 0.00% 39 K- MED TYPE RESURFACING 8.43% 11.22% 0.00% 19.65% 0.00% 10 L- LOW TYPE RESURFACING 8.52% 13.71% 0.00% 22.23% 0.00% 2 M- MAJOR BRIDGE 14.62% 1.81% 1.30% 17.73% 6.79% 5 O- OTHER 10.35% 14.71% 0.17% 25.23% 0.20% 15 P- PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 9.39% 6.94% 0.00% 16.33% 0.00% 3 Q- CMAQ 7.53% 11.30% 0.01% 18.83% 0.00% 26 R- BRIDGE REHABILITATION 5.61% 11.04% 0.00% 16.66% 0.00% 14 * S- BRDG RETROFIT AND STR % 12.02% 5.13% % % 1 X- SAFETY 12.27% 13.58% 0.41% 26.25% 1.17% 17 Y- ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 0.00% 1.76% 0.00% 1.76% 0.00% 8 * 11.82% 5.83% 0.75% 18.40% 7.44% 186 MAJOR PROJECT 12.80% 3.29% 1.11% 17.21% 11.04% % 9.90% 0.11% 20.27% 1.56% 169 OTHER 9.45% 11.91% 0.74% 22.10% 0.80% % 5.83% 0.75% 18.40% 7.44% 186 costs are represented as percentages of corresponding actual construction costs. Based on projects Only one project for Bridge Retrofit and Strengthening was completed during the current time frame for this district. This one project was split into many smaller construction projects. Thus, all is in the parent project, but most construction is in child projects, which were not included. Resulting in unusual percentage values.
8 Three Year Average Factors 7/1/2014-6/30/2017 Costs per Costs Southwest 1- ITS 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 1 2- ADA-TRANS 12.64% 26.91% 1.60% 41.16% 0.85% 15 A- ADD LANES 12.43% 8.73% 2.02% 23.19% 25.59% 6 B- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 13.17% 14.26% 0.00% 27.43% 0.00% 12 E- ENHANCEMENTS 11.10% 16.07% 0.00% 27.17% 0.00% 6 F- FREEWAY 14.18% 16.99% 0.50% 31.67% 4.16% 5 G- PREV MAINT-BRIDGE 1.51% 14.90% 0.00% 16.40% 0.00% 1 H- HIGH TYPE RESURFACING 0.99% 8.06% 0.00% 9.05% 0.00% 2 I- INTERCHANGE 9.93% 8.79% 0.43% 19.15% 3.00% 5 J- PREV MAINT-PAVEMENT 0.57% 8.76% 0.00% 9.33% 0.00% 18 K- MED TYPE RESURFACING 1.38% 6.43% 0.01% 7.82% 0.01% 93 L- LOW TYPE RESURFACING 2.32% 7.34% 0.00% 9.66% 0.00% 6 O- OTHER 7.08% 15.61% 0.42% 23.11% 3.97% 11 P- PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT 0.00% 9.01% 0.00% 9.01% 0.00% 1 Q- CMAQ 0.00% 1.63% 0.00% 1.63% 0.00% 1 R- BRIDGE REHABILITATION 2.69% 6.63% 0.00% 9.32% 0.00% 8 T- NEW OR IMPROVED 2 LANE 6.43% 9.61% 2.28% 18.31% 54.16% 3 V- HIGHWAY RAIL SAFETY 15.37% 9.84% 1.00% 26.20% 4.69% 1 X- SAFETY 9.76% 13.80% 0.56% 24.13% 3.09% 30 Y- ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 1.34% 19.23% 0.00% 20.58% 0.00% % 8.93% 0.41% 14.62% 5.43% 229 MAJOR PROJECT 10.38% 9.40% 1.27% 21.05% 19.41% % 8.66% 0.10% 12.01% 0.42% 203 OTHER 12.99% 13.32% 0.44% 26.75% 2.08% % 8.93% 0.41% 14.62% 5.43% 229 costs are represented as percentages of corresponding actual construction costs. Based on projects
9 Three Year Average Factors 7/1/2014-6/30/2017 Costs per Costs Southeast A- ADD LANES 6.63% 7.54% 1.51% 15.67% 12.47% 3 B- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 12.47% 15.02% 0.20% 27.68% 0.28% 14 D- DUAL DIVIDED 6.50% 6.18% 1.12% 13.79% 12.97% 2 E- ENHANCEMENTS 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 H- HIGH TYPE RESURFACING 0.42% 5.36% 0.00% 5.78% 0.00% 9 I- INTERCHANGE 3.70% 9.33% 0.00% 13.03% 0.00% 6 J- PREV MAINT-PAVEMENT 1.51% 3.75% 0.00% 5.26% 0.00% 6 K- MED TYPE RESURFACING 1.13% 7.50% 0.02% 8.65% 0.01% 50 L- LOW TYPE RESURFACING 2.45% 4.42% 0.00% 6.87% 0.00% 14 O- OTHER 6.32% 8.25% 0.94% 15.51% 4.19% 10 R- BRIDGE REHABILITATION 11.42% 15.75% 0.03% 27.20% 0.00% 5 T- NEW OR IMPROVED 2 LANE 4.19% 8.78% 1.10% 14.08% 5.21% 5 W- SHOULDER WIDENING 6.36% 18.25% 0.71% 25.32% 1.13% 2 X- SAFETY 1.00% 5.90% 0.07% 6.96% 0.45% 9 Y- ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 4.65% 15.20% 0.00% 19.85% 0.00% % 7.44% 0.42% 11.36% 3.12% 142 MAJOR PROJECT 5.30% 7.94% 0.98% 14.21% 7.91% % 7.13% 0.11% 9.73% 0.46% 122 OTHER 3.79% 10.87% 0.42% 15.08% 0.67% % 7.44% 0.42% 11.36% 3.12% 142 costs are represented as percentages of corresponding actual construction costs. Based on projects
APPENDIX G. Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Analysis
APPENDIX G Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Analysis GHG Running Exhaust and Fuel Cycle Emissions (CO2e) Year Emission Factor (g/mi)* ADT (vehicles per day) Length (mi) g/day MT/day MT/year 2015 638.13
Section III Transportation and Stormwater Projects Receiving Additional Funding Project Detail Sheets Alphabetical Listing by Project Name Five Year
Section III Transportation and Stormwater Projects Receiving Additional Funding Project Detail Sheets Alphabetical Listing by Project Name Five Year Capital Improvement Plan FY2015/2016 through FY2020
Missouri Seat Belt Usage Survey for 2017
Missouri Seat Belt Usage Survey for 2017 Conducted for the Highway Safety & Traffic Division of the Missouri Department of Transportation by The Missouri Safety Center University of Central Missouri Final
Rural Planning. Highway Projects - CULLMAN COUNTY
4/17/2015 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Page - 1 of 9 Length CR-1742 4.770 Highway s - CULLMAN COUNTY RESURFACE CR-1742 FROM SR-74 (US-278) TO SR-67 RESURFACING 100063223 ST-022-888-011- ( ) CONSTRUCTION
2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Bridge Section Summary of Proposed Changes July 24, 2018
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Bridge Section Summary of Proposed Changes July 24, FFY Section 2A State Prioritized Reliability s Bridge Program/On-System (NHS) Increase the Cost of Holyoke (600936)
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Second Jharkhand State Road Project (RRP IND 49125) ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS A. Introduction 1. The project involves capacity augmentation and rehabilitation of four state highway sections in the
Current Corridor Characteristics. MN 62 Corridor Performance
Corridor Context The corridor runs 12 miles between I-494 and MN 55 south of Minneapolis. The corridor serves as an important East-West connection for the Metro area. A portion of the corridor has been
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 1 of 3 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The six-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes capital projects for 2017 2022. This plan includes capital projects that add
EXCEPTION TO STANDARDS REPORT
EXCEPTION TO STANDARDS REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NEED The project is located in Section 6, Township 23 North, Range 9 East and Section 31 Township 24 North, Range 9 East, in the Town of Stockton,
1400 MISCELLANEOUS Traffic Engineering Manual
TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 14 - MISCELLANEOUS 1400 GENERAL... 14-3 1415 RUMBLE STRIPS (INCLUDING STRIPES) IN THE ROADWAY... 14-4 1415-1 General... 14-4 1415-2 Transverse Rumble Strips... 14-4 1415-2.1 General...
To: File From: Adrian Soo, P. Eng. Markham, ON File: Date: August 18, 2015
Memo To: From: Adrian Soo, P. Eng. Markham, ON : 165620021 Date: Reference: E.C. Row Expressway, Dominion Boulevard Interchange, Dougall Avenue Interchange, and Howard 1. Review of Interchange Geometry
Downtown Lee s Summit Parking Study
Downtown Lee s Summit Parking Study As part of the Downtown Lee s Summit Master Plan, a downtown parking and traffic study was completed by TranSystems Corporation in November 2003. The parking analysis
ESTIMATE PREPARATION ASSISTANCE
S T I P D i s t r i c t 1 C l a r k N o ESTIMATE PREPARATION ASSISTANCE PROJECT ESTIMATE INFORMATION TP a. Estimate prepared by (user's name): Paul H. Judd b. Date of initial estimate: 8/11/2010 c. Date
Project Application. General Information ODOT PID. Primary County (3 char abrv) ODOT District
Current Status (Tier 1, Tier 2 or New) Proposed Status (Tier 1 or Tier 2) Project Application General Information ODOT PID ODOT District Primary County (3 char abrv) Facility Name (i.e. route, rail, terminal,
NOTIFICATION OF ADDENDUM ADDENDUM NO. 2 DATED 5/03/2013
NOTIFICATION OF ADDENDUM ADDENDUM NO. 2 DATED 5/03/2013 Control 6237-93-001 Project RMC - 623793001 Highway US0075 County DALLAS Ladies/Gentlemen: Attached please find an addendum on the above captioned
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. ASCE Conference Wyndham Hotel North Little Rock Thursday, October 16, 2014
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department ASCE Conference Wyndham Hotel North Little Rock Thursday, October 16, 2014 Recent Voter Approved Programs November 2011 November 2012 Complete: 11 Miles:
Region PROJECT PHASE PROGRAM ROUTE TOWN DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST
CAPITOL 10 0001-0105 ROW BRZ TIMES FARM ANDOVER BR 04581 O/ HOP RIVER 58 46 12 0 10 0004-0131 PE BRZ WHEELER LANE AVON REHAB BR 05850 O/ ROARING BROOK (PD ONLY) 110 88 0 22 10 0004-0132 PE STPH CT 10/OLD
US 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting
US 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting March 14, 2013 Introductions ODOT FHWA SAIC Meeting Purpose Present need for bypass Provide responses to 10/04/11 public meeting comments
Highways: State Highways. Highways: Local Roads. Highways: Off State Hwy Sys/Off Fed Sys. Transportation Planning: Non-System Specific
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5 - YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN ($ IN THOUSANDS) TENTATIVE FY 2019-2023 (10/01/2017 20:15:01) LEVY COUNTY Highways: State Highways 4135251 D2-LEVY COUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNAL
S.M. Wright Project (I-45, US 175, SH 310) and Road to Work Opportunity Program. Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee May 23, 2016
635 S.M. Wright Project (I-45, US 175, SH 310) and Road to Work Opportunity Program Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee May 23, 2016 Project Scope Increase safety by removing the existing
Washington State S. T. I. P to 2021 (Project Funds to Nearest Dollar)
( Funds to Nearest Dollar) MPO/RTPO: CWCG Y Inside N Outside August 16, 2018 Func Cls Number PIN STIP ID 00 BPCWCO G Imp Total Length Environmental RW Required Begin End Total Est. Cost of BPCWCOG08 05
Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail. IDOT District 8 Crossings. July 29, 2015
Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail IDOT District 8 Crossings July 29, 2015 1 History: Chicago-St. Louis Corridor» IDOT has actively developed the Chicago to St. Louis corridor since the mid 1980 s» In
Guam Transportation Program Project Updates. Joanne M.S. Brown Director Carl Dominguez Deputy Director February 6, 2012
Guam Transportation Program Project Updates Joanne M.S. Brown Director Carl Dominguez Deputy Director February 6, 2012 Agenda Road Construction Highlights Ongoing Construction Route 17 Rehabilitation and
Highways: Interstate. Highways: State Highways. Highways: Local Roads. Highways: Off State Hwy Sys/Off Fed Sys. Maintenance: Interstate
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5 - YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN ($ IN THOUSANDS) TENTATIVE FY 2019-2023 (10/01/2017 20:15:01) BAKER COUNTY Highways: Interstate 4386501 I-10 BAKER CO SPRAYFIELD EB REST
Highways: State Highways. Highways: Local Roads. Highways: Off State Hwy Sys/Off Fed Sys. Maintenance: State Highways
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5 - YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN ($ IN THOUSANDS) TENTATIVE FY 2019-2023 (10/01/2017 20:15:01) PUTNAM COUNTY Highways: State Highways 4135331 D2-PUTNAM COUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNAL
STREET LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM UNDERGROUNDING. Underground Vault
CIP_215 Title Pages 217:Layout 1 8/16/16 4:2 PM Page 7 STREET LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM UNDERGROUNDING Underground Vault A D O P T E D C A P I T A L I M P R O V E M E N T P R O G R A M B U D G E T
APPENDIX C. Existing Utilities
APPENDIX C Existing Utilities THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Existing Utilities Numerous utilities exist within the project area, including natural gas, sewer, water, electric, communications, and street
4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS
4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the estimated capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the Modal and High-Speed Train (HST) Alternatives evaluated in this
800 Access Control, R/W Use Permits and Drive Design
Table of Contents 801 Access Control... 8-1 801.1 Access Control Directives... 8-1 801.2 Access Control Policies... 8-1 801.2.1 Interstate Limited Access... 8-1 801.2.2 Limited Access... 8-1 801.2.3 Controlled
CAPITAL FUND 9510 STREET & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS
9510 STREET & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 9510 STREET & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS - 01 STREET AND SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM $1,250,000 $0 $1,250,000
FFY2014 Federal Obligated or Grant Projects
CAPITOL 10 0426-0065 OTH 5307C GHTD GHTD - PURCHASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT FY 14 10 0426-0065 ACQ 5307C GHTD GHTD - PURCHASE PARATRANSIT VEHICLES FY 14 COST COST 50 40 10 0 2,850 2,280 570 0 10 0426-0065 ACQ
SH 249 IN GRIMES COUNTY. Open House April 3, 2014
SH 249 IN GRIMES COUNTY Open House April 3, 2014 Meeting Agenda Purpose of Meeting Today: Review the purpose and need for the SH 249 Grimes County project Review the proposed project and alternatives Discuss
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...1 INTRODUCTION...3 PROJECTED FUTURE GROWTH...3 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS...4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES...
Transportation Impact Fee Study September 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...1 INTRODUCTION...3 PROJECTED FUTURE GROWTH...3 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS......4 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES...7 PROPOSED
Created by: St. Louis County
Created by: Victor Lund, PE Traffic Engineer St. Louis County Ken Johnson, PE, PTOE State WZ, etc. MnDOT Why do workers want speed limits? How effective are speed limits in work zones? New legislation
Regional Transportation Priority Projects 2009 Richmond Area MPO
Regional Transportation Priority Projects 2009 9211 Forest Hill Ave, Suite 200 Richmond, Virginia, 23235 Phone: (804) 323-2033 Fax: (804) 323-2025 www.richmondregional.org Ashland Charles City Chesterfield
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Candidate Project List for Public Review
2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Candidate List for Public Review Table 1 Annual Listing Of Federal Aid Obligation For Federal Fiscal Year 2010 North Dakota s Number Transit 410083 Transit
Public Information Packet FY Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Public Information Packet FY - Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Comment Form Annual Element TIP Projects - TIP Projects Year - Metropolitan Transportation Improvement
Access Management Standards
Access Management Standards This section replaces Access Control Standards on Page number 300-4 of the Engineering Standards passed February 11, 2002 and is an abridged version of the Access Management
Regional Transportation Priority Projects 2009 Richmond Area MPO
Regional Transportation Priority Projects 2009 9211 Forest Hill Ave, Suite 200 Richmond, Virginia, 23235 Phone: (804) 323-2033 Fax: (804) 323-2025 www.richmondregional.org Ashland Charles City Chesterfield
Safety Projects Listing
0011-0155 CT 178/Crestvie BLOOMFIELD Extension of RR Track Circuit at Int. CN 5/22/19 6/12/19 135,000 150,000 #11-252 CN thru RRF Account 0015-0335 CT 127 BRIDGEPORT Widening & geometric revisions @ CN
Operate a Reliable and Convenient. Becky Allmeroth, State Maintenance Engineer. Tracker. Measures of Departmental Performance
Operate a Reliable and Convenient Transportation System Becky Allmeroth, State Maintenance Engineer Tracker Measures of Departmental Performance Missourians expect to get to their destinations on time,
.MAINTENANCE. Strategic Initiative Four:
The accompanying fact sheets explain specific components of the department s effort to prioritize maintenance activities. This information provides the basis of ODOT s 2001 Strategic Initiative Four: Re-Defining
residents of data near walking. related to bicycling and Safety According available. available. 2.2 Land adopted by
2. Assessment of Current Conditions and Needs In order to prepare a plan to reach the vision desired by the residents of Texarkana, it is first necessary to ascertain the current situation. Since there
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
THE PROJECT Last updated on 2/19/16 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What s happening on Highway 169? The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is planning to rebuild and repair the infrastructure on
TEMPLATE OF THE NATIONAL REPORT
TEMPLATE OF THE NATIONAL REPORT TO BE PRESENTED BY EACH DELEGATION DURING THE ASECAP STUDY AND INFORMATION DAYS LJUBLJANA, 6-8 JUNE 2018 Network length The total length of the Polish Motorways network
SFY Call for Projects MPO Staff Recommendation All Projects Submitted for Funding Funds Available: $57,075,000
SFY 2022-2023 Call for Projects MPO Staff Recommendation All Projects Submitted for Funding Funds Available: $57,075,000 DES NUM LPA PROJECT TITLE TYPE TOTAL SCORE FUND TYPE SFY FEDERAL COST LOCAL COST
PN /21/ SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS
PN 420-10/21/2016 - SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS DESCRIPTION: The surface tolerance specification requirements are modified as follows for all pavements of constant width with at least
US 10 Corridor Performance
Corridor Context The corridor runs northwest 18 miles from I-35W to the edge of Anoka County. The corridor connects the cities of Ramsey, Anoka,, Mounds View, and Blaine. Current Corridor Characteristics
Section 2B.59 Weight Limit Signs - Interim Revisions
Note: this document is an interim modification to Section 2B.59 of the Virginia Supplement to the MUTCD, Revision #1. Once the VDOT District Structure & Bridge section has made the determination that a
Transportation. Background. Transportation Planning Goals. Level of Service Analysis 5-1
Transportation portion of the city s stormwater utility, and state road and fuel taxes. Background The transportation needs of the City of Lacey and its planning areas are met by a growing multimodal network
Tracker. Operate a reliable and COnvenient transportation system. Becky Allmeroth, Chief Safety and Operations Officer
Operate a reliable and COnvenient transportation system Becky Allmeroth, Chief Safety and Operations Officer Tracker Measures of Departmental Performance Missourians expect to get to their destinations
Population Trends. US 12 Corridor Performance
Corridor Context The corridor runs over 81 miles from Willmar to the Twins Cities metropolitan area. It connects the Twin Cities and the cities of Montrose, Howard Lake, Cokato, Dassel, Litchfield, Atwater,
Kentucky Highway District 6
Kentucky Highway District 6 ROAD AND BRIDGE CONDITIONS, TRAFFIC SAFETY, TRAVEL TRENDS, AND NEEDS MARCH 2018 PREPARED BY WWW.TRIPNET.ORG Founded in 1971, TRIP of Washington, DC, is a nonprofit organization
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation Dhaka Northwest Corridor Road Project, Phase 2 (RRP BAN 40540) A. Introduction ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1. The proposed project primarily aims at capacity
City of Marina. Regional Roundabout Study Utilizing Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation Section 4: Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Regional Roundabout Study Utilizing Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation Section 4: City of Marina Study Intersections: RESERVATION ROAD AT BEACH ROAD RESERVATION ROAD AT DEFOREST ROAD CARDOZA AVENUE
B.C. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION. Vancouver Island Electrical Services Area - LOCAL AREA SPECIFICATION #1 MOVABLE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE
1. OBJECTIVE B.C. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION Vancouver Island Electrical Services Area - LOCAL AREA SPECIFICATION #1 MOVABLE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE 17 th Street Bridge (lift span, at Courtenay) To ensure safe
Proposed Project I 35 Improvements from SH 195 to I 10
I 35 ROADWAY Proposed Project I 35 Improvements from SH 195 to I 10 The existing I 35 facility from State Highway 195 (SH 195) north of Georgetown to Interstate 10 (I 10) in San Antonio varies from four
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAVEMENT RIDE QUALITY (IRI ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA)
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 03SP502(P) SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAVEMENT RIDE QUALITY (IRI ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA) C&T:TEH 1 of 8 C&T:APPR:JFS:MJE:01-28-08 FHWA:APPR:02-01-08 a. Description. Provide
Wyoming Cost of Living Index for the Second Quarter of 2012
State of Wyoming Department of Administration and Information Economic Analysis Division 2800 Central Avenue Cheyenne, WY 82002-0060 E-mail: ai-ead-info@wyo.gov http://eadiv.state.wy.us Ph. (307) 777-7504
Traffic Accident Statistics
2000 Missouri State Highway System Traffic Accident Statistics Missouri State Highway System Traffic Accident Statistics Table of Contents Subject Chapter 1: Statewide Traffic Accident Statistics, Introduction
2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan -- Table XVII-1
C:\7. \Projects\ 2040MTP Project List_Nov16-16.xlsx ID # NAME LIMITS DESCRIPTION COST () AGENCY PROJECT TYPE* 2017 1 B Dr S and Capital Ave SW B Dr S from 3.5 Mile Rd eastward to M-66 (1.7 mi); Capital
TRAFFIC AND SAFETY NOTE 907B. Incentive/Disincentive Clause
TRAFFIC AND SAFETY NOTE 97B SUBJECT: PURPOSE: Incentive/Disincentive Clause To Provide Guidance for Calculating Capacity in Determining if an Incentive/Disincentive is Warranted COORDINATING UNIT: Geometric
Understanding and Identifying Crashes on Curves for Safety Improvement Potential in Illinois
Understanding and Identifying Crashes on Curves for Safety Improvement Potential in Illinois Priscilla Tobias, P.E. Mouyid Islam, Ph.D. Kim Kolody, P.E. Optional Agenda Image Title Background Workflow
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
THE PROJECT Last updated on 9/8/16 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What s happening on Highway 169? The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is planning to rebuild and repair the infrastructure on
TIGER VI Discretionary Grant Program. Project Name: Highway 67 Interchange
Department of Transportation s National Infrastructure Investments under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 TIGER VI Discretionary Grant Program Project Name: Highway 67 Interchange Project Location:
I-4 Beyond the Ultimate. Florida Transportation Builders Association January 18, 2019
I-4 Beyond the Ultimate Florida Transportation Builders Association January 18, 2019 FDOT District 5 Improving Mobility & Safety in Central Florida FDOT District 5 is: Designing and building a better Interstate
Highways: State Highways. Highways: Local Roads. Highways: Off State Hwy Sys/Off Fed Sys. Maintenance: State Highways
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5 - YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN ($ IN THOUSANDS) TENTATIVE FY 2019-2023 (10/01/2017 20:15:01) DIXIE COUNTY Highways: State Highways 4135211 D2 - DIXIE COUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Road User Cost Analysis
Road User Cost Analysis I-45 Gulf Freeway at Beltway 8 Interchange CSJ #500-03-382 1994 Texas Transportation Institute ROAD USER COST ANALYSIS CSJ #500-03-382 The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
Introduction and Background Study Purpose
Introduction and Background The Brent Spence Bridge on I-71/75 across the Ohio River is arguably the single most important piece of transportation infrastructure the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana (OKI) region.
MDOT Metro Region. Jim Schultz, P.E. Manager of Planning
MDOT Metro Region Jim Schultz, P.E. Manager of Planning Presentation Overview Part 1: I-75 Reconstruction Monroe County Part 2: Gordie Howe International Bridge Part 3: M1 Rail Streetcar Project I-75 Reconstruction
District 2 Projects Scheduled for award during the period from 06/19/17 to 06/18/18 Sorted by PID
83312 85266 WOO Buck/Lime City Inters WOO Buck/Lime City Inters LUC SR 25 07.82 Bridge Improve the intersection of Buck Rd and Lime City Rd in Wood. Based on the preferred alternative of the PDP process,
ODOT District Two Monthly Construction Update
Ohio Department of Transportation Construction Update DISTRICT 2 KIRK SLUSHER, P.E., ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR 317 East Poe Rd. Bowling Green, Ohio 43402-1330 www.transportation.ohio.gov/dist2 ODOT District
W&OD TRAIL BRIDGE OVER LEE HIGHWAY I-66 EASTBOUND WIDENING INSIDE THE BELTWAY FROM THE DULLES CONNECTOR ROAD (ROUTE 267) TO FAIRFAX DRIVE (ROUTE 237)
W&OD TRAIL BRIDGE OVER LEE HIGHWAY A COMPONENT OF THE I-66 EASTBOUND WIDENING INSIDE THE BELTWAY FROM THE DULLES CONNECTOR ROAD (ROUTE 267) TO FAIRFAX DRIVE (ROUTE 237) October 11, 2018 Bill Cuttler, PE
I-394 Corridor Performance
Population Trends Corridor Context The corridor runs from edge of Hennepin County to downtown Minneapolis and serves the cities of Delano, Independence, Medina, and Wayzata. City Population 2000 2010 2,088
Volume 1 Traffic Impact Analysis Turtle Creek Boulevard Dallas, Texas. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Dallas, Texas.
Volume 1 Traffic Impact Analysis 2727 Dallas, Texas June 18, 2018 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Dallas, Texas Project #064523000 Registered Firm F-928 Traffic Impact Analysis 2727 Dallas, Texas Prepared
L O S A N G E L E S U N I F I E D S C H O O L D I S T R I C T. Business Services Division Transportation Branch BUS REPLACEMENT PLAN
L O S A N G E L E S U N I F I E D S C H O O L D I S T R I C T Business Services Division Transportation Branch BUS REPLACEMENT PLAN Current Fleet By Organizational Group NUMBER OF VEHICLES (EXCLUDING SCHOOL
WELCOME PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE FOR US-64 FROM THE SH-18 INTERSECTION EAST 6.5 MILES JANUARY 10TH, 2017 PAWNEE CITY HALL, 5:30 PM
WELCOME PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE FOR US-64 FROM THE SH-18 INTERSECTION EAST 6.5 MILES JANUARY 10TH, 2017 PAWNEE CITY HALL, 5:30 PM 1 PURPOSE OF THIS OPEN HOUSE Present information about the proposed improvements
Horizontal Sight Distance Considerations Freeway and Interchange Reconstruction
80 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1208 Horizontal Sight Distance Considerations Freeway and Interchange Reconstruction In JOEL p. LEISCH With improvements being made to freeways and expressways, the problem
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. Rotary Club of Stuttgart Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department Rotary Club of Stuttgart Tuesday, April 7, 2015 The Facts: 12 th Largest System in USA 43 rd Highway Revenue Per Mile State Highway Systems State Mileage
New Buck O Neil (U. S. 169) Crossing Benefit-Cost Analysis. Kansas City, Missouri
New Buck O Neil (U. S. 169) Crossing Benefit-Cost Analysis Kansas City, Missouri New Buck O Neil (U. S. 169) Crossing Benefit-Cost Analysis prepared for Kansas City, Missouri prepared by Burns & McDonnell
CHANGE LIST for MDOT Traffic and Safety Geometric Design Guides. May 23, 2017: The following update was made to the web site.
CHANGE LIST for MDOT Traffic and Safety Geometric Design Guides Note: Located at https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/tssd/tssdhome.htm May 23, 2017: The following update was made to the web site. GEO-650-D Flares
RECOMMENDATIONS. 7-1 Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions
RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1 Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan 7-2 A Call to Action 7-3 Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions 2035 Metropolitan
ODOT District Two Monthly Construction Update
Ohio Department of Transportation Construction Update DISTRICT 2 KIRK SLUSHER, P.E., ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR 317 East Poe Rd. Bowling Green, Ohio 43402-1330 www.transportation.ohio.gov/dist2 ODOT District
Request for Design Exception (#1) S.M. Wright Phase IIB
Request for Design Exception (#1) S.M. Wright Phase IIB County: Dallas CSJ s: 0092-01-059, 0092-14-088 Project Limits: From Pennsylvania Avenue to North of Al Lipscomb Way Date: June 28, 2016 Proposed
MEMORANDUM FPN: State Road: 91 County: Osceola (92)
Traffic and Revenue Consultant Florida s Turnpike Enterprise Florida Department of Transportation MEMORANDUM Date: October 14, 2013 To: From: Copies: Subject: Tom Neyer, Production Project Manager Emam
December 12, Dear Secretary Foxx:
Chair Pete White City Councilmember Vice-Chair Jay Adams Mustang Mayor Secretary/Treasurer Matt Dukes Midwest City Mayor association of central oklahoma governments Executive Director John G. Johnson December
Tulsa Transportation Management Area. Urbanized Area Surface Transportation Program
Tulsa Transportation Management Area Urbanized Area Surface Transportation Program FFY 2022 Application Information Sponsor Location Description STP Request Other Funds Broken Arrow Elm Place: Kenosha
FY Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Allocations *
FY 2015-2020 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Allocations * Cost Previous Actual Other Source Total Allocation Jurisdiction/Project Description UPC Estimate Funding Allocation * Projected
IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS
IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS for the South Novato Transit Hub Study Prepared by: January 11, 2010 DKS Associates With Wilbur Smith Associates IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS Chapter 1: Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION The strategic
Kentucky Highway District 1
Kentucky Highway District 1 ROAD AND BRIDGE CONDITIONS, TRAFFIC SAFETY, TRAVEL TRENDS, AND NEEDS FEBRUARY 2018 PREPARED BY WWW.TRIPNET.ORG Founded in 1971, TRIP of Washington, DC, is a nonprofit organization
This section is illustrated in Figure The length of this section is approximately 24.5 km.
4.2.5 Section 5: Ntafufu River to Lusikisiki (Magwa Intersection) This section is illustrated in Figure 4.19. The length of this section is approximately 24.5 km. It is proposed to upgrade and rehabilitate
April 27, FHWA/FTA Approval of an Amendment to the Kansas STIP to include WAMPO s April 14, 2009 TIP Amendment 6
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration 901 Locust Street, Suite 404 6111 SW 29 th Street, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64106 Topeka, KS 66614-4271
Mid-East RPO P5.0 Scores: Division Needs Local Input Point Assignment - TAC Amended on October 8, 2018
Mid-East RPO P5. Scores: Local Point Assignment - TAC Amended on October 8, 218 SPOT ID Mode TIP Project Category Route / Name From / Cross To / Cross Description Specific Improvement Type Cost to NCDOT
Public Information Workshop
Public Information Workshop Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO - Meeting Rooms A and B March 29, 2018 Welcome to the Public Information Workshop for Harborview Road Project Development and Environment (PD&E)
CATEGORY 500 PAVING SECTION 535 PAVEMENT SURFACE PROFILE
CATEGORY 500 PAVING 1 of 9 SECTION 535.01 DESCRIPTION. This work shall consist of measuring the roughness of the final surface of hot mix asphalt (HMA) or portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements. The
Chapter 7. Transportation Capital Improvement Projects. Chapter 7
Chapter 7 Transportation Capital Improvement Projects Chapter 7 81 Chapter 7 Transportation Capital Improvement Projects Local Transportation Sales Tax Programs For over three decades, Santa Clara County
Chapter 4 COLLISION REDUCTION PROGRAM
Chapter 4 COLLISION REDUCTION PROGRAM Table of Contents 4.0 Background...4-3 4.1 Safety Improvement Projects SHOPP 201.010 Program...4-3 4.1.1 Spot Improvements..4-3 4.1.2 Wet Improvements...4-4 4.1.3
Benefit-Cost Analysis Technical Memo
I-40 Douglas Boulevard Interchange Reconstruction and Related Widening Oklahoma County, OKLAHOMA INFRA Grant Application Benefit-Cost Analysis Technical Memo November 2017 Submitted by: Oklahoma Department
Purpose and Need Report
Purpose and Need Report State Highway (SH) 29 From Southwestern Boulevard to SH 95 Williamson County, Texas (CSJ: 0337-02-045) Prepared by Blanton & Associates, Inc. Date: November, 2015 The environmental
Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation
Provincial Smoothness Specifications (MB, SK, AB, BC) Darel Mesher PhD, PEng November, 2012 Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation 2 1 Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Construction Smoothness