Historical Data Study of Traffic Signalization in the Most Hurricane Prone Regions of the United States

8/8/2019 Historical Data Study of Traffic Signalization in the Most Hurricane Prone Regions of the United States

1/29

HISTORICAL DATA STUDY

OF

TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION

IN THE MOST

HURRICANE PRONE

REGIONS OF THE

UNITED STATES

Robert E. Townsend, Jr.

Royal Palm Beach, Florida

561-248-8894

[email protected]

DECEMBER 2010
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/29

Historical Data Study of Traffic Signalization in the Most Hurricane Prone Regions of The United States Page 2

DISCLAIMER

The information, observations and conclusions presented in this study are not intended to be

authoritative. Rather, this study is intended to provide a presentation of historical data which

deals with the subject matter in an easy to understand and accurate manner. Persons in positions

of authority can, thereby, develop their own conclusions and, more confidently, initiate changes to

existing policies, standards and programs to preserve existing traffic signalization resources in a

timely and cost effective manner.


3/29


HISTORICAL DATA STUDY

OF TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION

IN THE MOST HURRICANE PRONEREGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES

December 2010

Author

Robert E. Townsend, Jr.President, Signal Safe, Inc.

Research


Introduction

by Gary Price, P.E.

Editing

Gary Price, P.E.

Mary Townsend, Signal Safe, Inc.


A report from


Signal Safe, Inc.

1128 Royal Palm Beach Boulevard, No. 368Royal Palm Beach, Fl. 33411

(561) 248-8894


4/29


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General . 61.2. Null Hypothesis . 71.3. Alternate Hypothesis 7

1.4. Premise of Study . 7

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Coastal Evacuation Routes .. 82.2. PopulationCoastal Counties 82.3. Hurricane History and Return Periods 9

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1. Other States Signalization 113.2. Functioning Single Point Palm Beach County .. 13

4. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY, DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CONCLUSION

4.1. Analytical Summary . 154.2. Descriptive Statistics . 154.3. Conclusion . 17

5. REFERENCES . 18

6. APPENDIX

6.1. Evacuation Route Study .. 196.2. Evacuation Route Maps .. 246.3. Mississippi DOT Let ProjectsSignalization .. 28

6.4. Louisiana DOT Let ProjectsSignalization 29


5/29


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1.Damaged SignalizationHurricane Ike Remnant 2008 . 7Figure 1-2.Damaged SignalizationLouisiana, Hurricane Katrina 2005 7Figure 2-1.Most Hurricane Prone Regions of the United States . 8Figure 2-2.Population Density of Coastal Counties: 2003 8Figure 2-3.Vehicle Miles Traveled 9

Figure 2-4.Hurricane Coastal Strikes .. 9Figure 2-5.Major Hurricanes Strikes by State 10Figure 2-6.Hurricane Strike History .. 9Figure 2-7. Return Period in Years for Category 1 Hurricanes . 10Figure 2-7.1.Return Period in Years for Category 2 Hurricanes 10Figure 2-7.2.Return Period in Years for Category 3 Hurricanes 10Figure 2-7.3.Return Period in Years for Category 4 Hurricanes 10Figure 2-7.4.Return Period in Years for Category 5 Hurricanes 10Figure 3-1.P.B.C. Pre-Storm Intersection . 13Figure 3-2.P.B.C. Post Storm (Same Intersection) . 13Figure 3-3.P.B.C. Traffic DivisionSignal Typical . 14Figure 3-4. P.B.C. Existing Signal Push Demonstration . 14Figure 4-1.Vulnerability of Signalization .. 16Figure 6-1.North Carolina Evacuation Route Map 24Figure 6-2.South Carolina Evacuation Route MapNorthern Portion 24Figure 6-2.1.South Carolina Evacuation Route MapCentral Portion 24Figure 6-2.2.South Carolina Evacuation Route MapSouthern Portion .. 24Figure 6-3.Georgia Evacuation Route Map 25Figure 6-4.Alabama Evacuation RoutesWestern Portion .. 25Figure 6-4.1Alabama Evacuation RoutesEastern Portion . 25Figure 6-5.Mississippi Evacuation Route Map .. 26Figure 6-6.Florida Evacuation Route Map . 26Figure 6-7.Louisiana Evacuation Route Map .. 26Figure 6-8.Texas Evacuation Route MapNorth Eastern Portion . 27Figure 6-8.1.Texas Evacuation Route MapSouth Eastern Portion .. 27

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1.Hurricane Return Periods . 10Table 4-1.Coastal Evacuation Route Study . 15Table 4-2.Eight State Percentages .. 15Table 4-3.Florida vs. Combined Coastal States .. 16


6/29


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Traffic signalization or signalization on streets and highways in the United States are justified

predominately, based on warrants presented in the Manuel on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These warrants provide a

uniform and consistent approach to solving safety and operation problems at at-grade intersections. The

MUTCD also provides design requirements for individual components of traffic signalization includingtraffic signal heads and their placement within the intersection. Traffic signal heads are vital components

of signalization since they provide the right-of-way assignment to motorists on conflicting approach

movements to the intersection. Without traffic signal heads and the other vital components ofsignalization (electrical power, an operational controller and electrical wiring from the controller to the

traffic signal heads), the safe and efficient operation of a signalized intersection cannot be achieved. The

need for all of these vital components of a signalized intersection, to be as designed and operational, is

never more evident than after a natural disaster, and more particularly, after a hurricane.

The traffic signal heads for a signalized intersection are typically placed on structural supports in order

to obtain the required height, viewing distance and transverse relationship between signal heads and thetravel lanes to and away from the intersection. There are many structural support design options for

traffic signals that have been developed by each state and jurisdictions within these states. These options

are based on criteria promulgated by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO) and presented in Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for HighwaySigns, Luminaires and Traffic Signals.Typically, structural support options include (1) a steel mast arm

with traffic signal heads attached to the horizontal arm, (2) support poles with traffic signal heads

attached to the top or side of a steel, aluminum or concrete pole and (3) a span wire assembly with

traffic signals heads attached to a stranded steel wire(s) strung between two steel, prestressed concrete orguyed wood poles. AASHTO criteria for steel mast arms and for support poles used for signalization is

fairly, well defined Unfortunately, for span wire assemblies AASHTO criteria is extremely lacking in

the identification of loads transferred to the poles from the span wire or the dynamic forces on trafficsignal heads and other devices attached to the span wire.

As a result of the category 5 hurricane which made landfall near Homestead in 1992 and the multiplehurricanes that devastated numerous Florida cities and counties in 2004 and 2005, significant changes

were made to traffic signal design standards by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). One

of these changes was the adoption of mast arm supports for traffic signalization in coastal areas becauseof their improved survivability during hurricanes, as opposed to the significantly lower cost, but highly

vulnerable span wire assembly. A recent change was the adoption of a single point attachment for traffic

signal heads on span wire assemblies to enhance their survivability in hurricanes. This replaced the two

point attachment which had been used by FDOT since the 1960s. The basis and validity of this changein the design for span wire assemblies is the subject of this study.

This study begins with the development of hypothesis to be addressed and a premise for the study. The

next section presents the coastal evacuation routes, population densities and hurricane occurrences forthe southeastern states included in this study. This is followed by a discussion of traffic signal design

standards and policies for both mast arm and span wire traffic signal in each study state. The last section

provides an analysis of the hurricane vulnerability of traffic signalization in each study state and endswith general conclusions based on the historical data and comparisons made from this data.


7/29


1.2 Null HypothesisThe purpose of this study is to possibly recant notions regarding the cause and prevention of wind

induced structural failures of span wire supported signalization, which may have been based upon

incomplete and /or insufficient historical data.

1.3 Alternate HypothesisBased on historical evidence, Florida sustains a greater amount of traffic signal hurricane damage than

all the other coastal states combined. Traffic signal loss in Florida is primarily due to Florida having (1)a vastly larger number of signalized intersections, (2) the most population, (3) the most coastline and (4)

the most hurricane strikes ,and not because Florida utilize a span wire signal support systems different

than other states.

1.4 Premise of Study

To demonstrate, using historical data, that other states use the single-point span wire system because it is

less expensive and not because of its performance or survivability during hurricanes (Figures 1-1 & 1-2).


8/29


2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Coastal Evacuation Routes

To establish a baseline for this study, traffic signal data was collected on hurricane evacuation routes in

101 coastal counties of eight Atlantic and Gulf states. The counties within each of these states are shownin Figure 2-1. Evacuation routes were electronically traveled to collect the number of signalized

intersections by type of support systems (mast arm and/or span wire) and the average distance these

signalized intersections are from the coastline. This traffic signal data is shown for each state by countyin Appendix 6-1. The hurricane evacuation routes for these eight states are shown in Appendix 6.2.

2.2 PopulationCoastal CountiesThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides an inter-active web tool for

historical and projected population data of all U.S. watershed counties [1]. From this web site, year 2010

population was taken and recorded for the purpose of approximating roadway use. Assuming population

is directly related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), more trips equates to the road systems having moresignalized intersections. The comparison of Figure 2-2 Population Density of Coastal Counties and

Figure 2-3 Vehicle Miles Traveled provides additional support to the theory that as populations increase,

so does the number of traffic signal controlled intersections.


9/29


2.3 Hurricane History and Return Periods

The main focus of this study is wind induceddamage and loss to span wire signalization,

primarily due to hurricanes making landfall along

the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal States (Figure 2-4Hurricane Coastal Strikes). The primary object ofunderstanding historical hurricane data is that not

only does Florida receive more hurricane strikes

(Figure 2-5) but also is impacted by more Category3 or greater storms (Figure 2-6) than other coastal

states. It should also be noted that according to theNational Hurricane Center Risk Analysis Program

(HURISK) Florida is projected to receive theoverwhelming majority of future storms including

95% of all Category 3 or greater hurricanes (see

Figures 2-7 thru 2-7A and Table 1-1).


10/29


Return Period

State Category 1

4-6 years

Category 2

6-12 years

Category 3

9-22 years

Category 4

16-33 years

Category 5

33-100 years

North Carolina 1 1 1 0 0

South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0Georgia 0 0 0 0 0

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0

Florida 7 7 8 6 7

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0

Texas 0 0 0 0 0

Table 1-1 Hurricane Return Periods Source: Townsend 2010


11/29


3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3-1. Other States Signalization

The primary purpose of this section is to determine other states use, if any, of steel mast arms to

preserve signalization during high wind events such as hurricanes. Another purpose is to verifyimplementation standards for span wire attached traffic signals as compared to Floridas current spanwire system .

3.1-1. North Carolina: The NCDOT has in effect a mast arm policy similar to Floridas [2] butdesignated by coastal counties in lieu of the FDOT 10 mile from coast limit. North Carolinas standardpractice for selection of metal poles at signalized intersections [3] states:

It will be the standard practice of the Department to use metal poles with mast arms at signalizedlocations that have an expected design life exceeding the break-even point of wood poles versus metal

poles with foundations for the wind region of the location, and that meet one of the following criteria:

In coastal high wind locations; In mountainous high wind locations; or At locations where permanent out-of-pavement vehicle detection will be used. ..

The NCDOT standard [4] for span wire attached signalization is a single span wire with 3 to 4 % sag.This system does not utilize a disconnect hanger.

3.1-2. South Carolina: SCDOT Traffic Signal Design Guidelines and Engineering Directive

Memorandum 2, Fiscal and Maintenance Responsibilities for Traffic Signal Installatins on the StateHighway System, state that SCDOT does not install or maintain mast arms for traffic signals.

SCDOT may elect to install mast arms if circumstances indicate that mast arms are the mosteconomically feasible. For example, right of way constraints or wind loading may dictate the use of mast

arms. When these situations occur, documentation must be submitted detailing the benefits of mast arms

over other types of installations.

The SCDOT standard [5] for span wire attached signalization is a single wire with 3-5% sag. This

system does not utilize a disconnect hanger.

3.1-3. Georgia: The GDOT has no policy or preference for steel mast arms. In fact, timber poles are still

widely used. This might be due to their limited coastline and only one hurricane in the last 60 years, a

Category 2 that only brushed the extreme N.E. corner of the State.

The GDOT standard [6] for span wire attached signalization is a single wire with 2.5% minimum sag.

This system does not utilize a disconnect hanger.

3.1-4. Alabama: The ADOTs Traffic Signal Design Guide & Timing Manual [7] states: Mast armpoles are now required on all new signal installations south of I-10 in order to provide protection against

hurricane damage

Alabamas span wire hung signalization is a typical single point system. The ADOTs specification [7]for sag is 3% minimum for pole stress amount to 5% maximum to limit sway. This system does not

utilize a disconnect hanger.


12/29


3.1-5. Mississippi: MDOT does not have a mast arm policy per-se, however, over the last 4 year perior

52 of the 53 let signalization projects were for mast arm construction (appendix 6-3).

The MDOT utilizes the single point system / no disconnect.

3.1-6. Louisiana: Though Louisiana has no specific mast arm policy, they have implemented the use ofmast arms in approximtely 72% of all signalization projects over the last 4 years (appendix 6-4).

Its also interesting to note that as Florida is reducing its number of new mast arms over the last coupleof years, Louisiana has actually increased theirs. Another thing of interest is that according to theirTraffic Signal Standard Details [8] No. 25, backplates are only permitted on mast arm or other rigid type

poles and not span wires.

The LADOT standard [9] for span wire attached signalization is a single wire with a sag range of 5%minimum to 10% maximum. This state also utilizes a disconnect hanger, typical to all installations.

3.1-7. Florida: The FDOT has a mast arm policy [2] specific to Floridas coastline, primarily directed toevacuation routes. Currently approximately 41% of intersections located on Floridas evacuation routesare steel mast arms, while the other 59% are dual wire / point span wire signalization (appendix 6-1).

FDOT Traffic Signal Standard 2006 [11] is applicable to primar ily all of Floridas existing span wiresignalized intersections, with the exception of new installations over the last 3 year period. FDOT 2010

Standard [12] for signalization is similar to other states as applicable to their use of single wire support

systems.

The specified sag [13] for the dual wire system is 5% plus or minus 0.5% for the catenary (no

specification for the messenger). The specified sag for the new single point systems catenary is 3% plus

or minus 0.5%.

3.1-8. Texas: No specific mast arm policy can be documented from the TXDOT web site. However,

research of Texass coastal county evacuation routes (appendix 6-1) reveals that 58% of all signalizationprojects are steel mast arms. After Hurricane Ike, a TXDOT spokesman stated in a published article

almost all of TXDOTs traffic signals in the 14 counties of the Houston and Beaumont districts areeither damaged, destroyed or missing

The TDOT standard [14] for span wire attached signals specifies each signal receives a catenary support

cable with 5% minimum sag. In both applications shown (vertical / horizontal heads) the use of a

stabilizer / tether is specified. No disconnect hangers are utilized.


13/29


3.2 Functioning Single Point Palm Beach County (PBC)

The premise of this section is to demonstrate that Palm Beach Countys modification of FDOT standardindex 17727 performs similar, if not identically, to other states single wire systems range of motion. It

should also be noted that PBC has sustained more signal damage or loss than any other Florida county.

As an example PBCs signal repair for just Hurricane Wilma alone was over $41 Million dollars [10].On average PBC lost 90% of its span wire signalization for each of the 4 hurricanes during the 2004-05

storm season.

Figures 3-1 & 3-2 show a typical pre and post storm intersection located in northern Palm Beach

County. In most cases the bottoms of the disconnects were broken out, with breakage at the top of thedisconnect as the second area of failure.

PBCs signal typical T-S Figure 3-3 specifies a dual wire system with the weight of the signal headssupported by a cable from the catenary in lieu of the other 66 counties that utilize rigid typeconnections between the catenary and messenger wires. By measuring the actual lower span wirehanger as shown in Figure 3-3, the distance between the axis of the messenger and upper connection isapproximately one inch. This slight difference performs as an unrestrictive pivot due to the flexural

movements of each of the span wires, particularly the messenger.


14/29


The one inch (distance between connections) has little if any restraint of movement (Figure 3-4) due to

the limited amount of cable tension that is possible and the typically found existing sags between the

poles and signals and sag between the signals.


15/29


4. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY, DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1. Analytical Summary

The primary objective of this study was to perform a historical comparative analysis of Floridas dualpoint signalization to the seven other southeastern States single point signalization. The final goal ofthis study is to determine if Florida sustains more hurricane signalization loss because of its support

system or because of Florida having more signals and the most hurricanes.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

Table 4-1.Costal Evacuation Route Study

Table 4-1 is comprised of the Evacuation Route Study (Appendix 6 -1), plus miles of coastline and

number of hurricane strikes over the last 50 years. This study recap of each states totals were used in this

research as a general overview and as the baseline for the comparative analysis.

State

No. of

Coastal

Counties

Average

Distance

from Coast

Coastal

Population

Miles of

Coastline

Hurricane

Strikes

Last 50 Years

No. of

Mast Arm

Intersections

No. of

Span Wire

Intersections

No. of Total

Intersections

Evacuation Routes Onl

North Carolina 15 38 miles 882,200 301 10 74 205 279

South Carolina 5 28 miles 874,600 187 4 31 182 213

Georgia 5 33 miles 474,400 100 1 3 80 83

Alabama 2 62 miles 592,900 53 1 29 208 237

Mississippi 3 26 miles 354,900 44 5 42 36 78

Florida 35 32 miles 14,293,300 1350 29 2679 2278 4957

Louisiana 19 49 miles 1,990,400 397 16 159 227 386

Texas 17 41 miles 6,041,520 367 16 452 330 782

Totals: 101

Avg.

39 miles 25,504,220 2,799 82 3469 3546 7015

Table 4-1 Coastal Evacuation Route Study Source: Townsend 2010

Table 4-2.Eight State PercentagesTable 4-2 is the quantitative data from Table 4-1 shown in percent totals for each state as compared to

one another. Along with providing a clearer understanding of each States data, Table 4-2 was used toconstruct Figure 4-1 which provides a complete understanding of the vulnerability of each States

signalization being damaged from hurricanes.

State

Coastal

Population

Miles of

Coastline

Hurricane

Strikes

Mast Arm

Intersections

Span Wire

Intersections

Total

Intersections

North Carolina 3.5% 10.8% 12.2% 2.1% 5.9% 4.0%

South Carolina 3.5% 6.7% 4.9% 1.0% 5.1% 3.0%

Georgia 2.3% 3.6% 1.2% .02% 2.2% 1.2%

Alabama 2.3% 1.9% 1.2% 1.0% 5.9% 3.4%

Mississippi 1.4% 1.6% 6.1% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1%

Florida 56% 48.2% 35.4% 77.2% 64.2% 70.6%

Louisiana 8% 14.1% 19.5% 4.5% 6.4% 5.5%

Texas 23% 13.1% 19.5% 13% 9.3% 11.2%

Totals: 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 4-2 Eight State Percentages Source: Townsend 2010


16/29


FIGURE 4-1 Vulnerability of Signalization in Percentages Source: Townsend 2010

Table 4-3.Florida vs. Combined Coastal StatesTable 4-3 shows Floridas data compared to the combined data of the 7 other States found in this study.

The most notable data from the table is that Florida has almost two thirds of the eight state total of spanwire intersections.

Description Florida NC, SC, GA, AL,

MS, LA,TX

(Combined)

Proportional Comparison

Florida NC, SC, GA, AL, MS,

LA, TX (Combined)

Total

Coastal Population 14,293,300 11,210,920 56% 44% 100%

Miles of Coastline 1,350 miles 1,449 miles 48% 52% 100%

Hurricane Strikes 50 years 29 53 35% 65% 100%

Mast Arm Intersections 2,679 790 77% 23% 100%

Span Wire Intersections 2,278 1,268 64% 36% 100%

Total Intersections along

Evacuation Routes

4,957 2,058 71% 29% 100%

Table 4-3 Florida vs. Seven Other Coastal States Source: Townsend 2010

0 20 40 60 80 100

Texas

Louisiana

Florida

Mississippi

Alabama

Georgia

South Carolina

North Carolina

Vulnerability of Signalization in Percentages

Coastal Population

Miles of Coastline

No. of Hurricane Strikes - Last 50

Years

No. of Mast Arm Intersections

No. of Span Wire Intersections

Total Number of Intersections


17/29


4-3. CONCLUSION

Based upon the historical data presented in this report, Floridaby an overwhelming marginis themost vulnerable of all U.S. coastal states and thereby, should experience more span wire supportedtraffic signal damage and/or loss due to hurricanes.

Even though an assumption can be made from this study as to the amount of signal loss, this reportdoes not include data that can be used to determine if one span wire system survives better than anotherduring hurricanes.

At the time of this report a companion study is underway to collect the 10 year historical data on

hurricane damage to traffic signals in each of the eight states included in this study. The primary purpose

of this companion study will be to verify each States signal loss and then include this data as a

supplement to this historical data study to determine which span wire signal system is the mostvulnerable to hurricanes.

Based upon this study, other states non-governmental reports of wind damaged signalization and thehistorical failures ofPalm Beach Countys functioning single point system, a more complete and in-depth government sponsored research project should be warranted to determine historically which span

wire signal support system has the better survivability during hurricanes.


18/29


5. REFERENCES

1. http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/welcome.html Link to US Population in Coastal Counties

2. FDOTMast Arm Policy 7.4.123. NCDOTTraffic Engineering and Safety Branch4. NCDOTDivision 17, 1710-3

5. SCDOTDesign Standard 675-105-026. GDOTTraffic Signal Detail TS-047. ADOTTraffic Signal Design Guide & Timing Manual 4.4 & 4.6.18. DOTDTraffic Signal Standard Details Signal Notes9. DOTDTraffic Signal Standard Details Span Wire Installation Details

10. FDOT2006 D-4 Work Program Office Report11. FDOT2006 FDOT Design Standard 1772712. FDOT2010 FDOT Design Standard 17727

13. FDOTFDOT Specification Hardware & Fittings 634-3.3 (e)14. TDOTTraffic Signal Support StructuresStrain Pole Assemblies
http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/welcome.htmlhttp://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/welcome.htmlhttp://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/welcome.html


19/29


6. APPENDIX

6-1 Evacuation Route Study

State: North Carolina

Coastal County Population

(2010)

Mast Arm

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Single Point

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Total

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Average

Distance

From Coast

Currituck 25,500 25 11 36 17.69

Camden 10,200 -0- 2 2 23.65

Pasquotan 42,200 -0- 1 1 33.61

Perquimans 13,200 -0- 2 2 43.99

Dare 34,500 -0- 1 1 25.43

Tyrrell 4,100 11 -0- 11 43.07

Hyde 5,200 -0- -0- -0- 61.58

Beaufort 46,600 -0- 19 19 83.79

Craven 98,200 1 40 41 68.38

Carteret 65,000 11 20 31 17.36

Jones 10,100 -0- 1 1 45.39

Onslow 166,500 11 22 33 35.06

Pender 53,200 -0- 10 10 36.17

New Hanover 200,300 9 64 73 14.33

Brunswick 107,40 6 12 18 26.48

Totals: 882,200 74

27%

205

73%

279 38.40

miles

Source: Townsend 2010

State: South Carolina


(2010)

Mast Arm

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Single Point

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Total

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Average

Distance

From Coast

Horry 270,900 7 61 68 35.97

Georgetown 62,000 2 20 22 21.90

Charleston 359,600 13 68 81 18.73

Beaufort 158,700 8 29 37 20.48

Jasper 23,400 1 4 5 40.87

Totals: 874,600 31

15%

182

85%

213 27.60

Miles



20/29


Appendix 6-1 Evacuation Route Study (Continued)



State: Mississippi

Coastal

County

Population

(2010)

Mast Arm

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Single Point

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Total

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Average

Distance

From Coast

Hancock 41,100 13 4 17 29.66

Harrison 181,600 12 22 34 23.52

Jackson 132,200 17 10 27 24.89

Totals: 354,900 42

54%

36

46%

78 26.02

Miles


State: Georgia


(2010)

Mast Arm

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Single Point

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Total

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Average

Distance From

Coast

Chatham 255,100 2 46 48 27.44

Bryan 32,800 -0- 3 3 41.73

Liberty 59,100 -0- 7 7 39.82

Glynn 77,700 -0- 11 11 24.67

Camden 49,700 1 13 14 31.13

Totals: 474,400 3

4%

80

96%

83 32.96

Miles

State: Alabama

Coastal

County

Population

(2010)

Mast Arm

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Single Point

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Total

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Average

Distance

From Coast

Baldwin 182,000 9 53 62 71.31

Mobile 410,900 20 155 175 52.49

Totals: 592,900 29

12%

208

88%

237 62.15

Miles


21/29



State: Florida


(2010)

Mast Arm

Intersections

( Evacuation

Routes)

DUAL Point

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes)

Total

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Average

Distance

From Coast

Escambia 308,700 115 54 169 46.57

Santa Rosa 161,500 23 34 57 42.49

Okaloosa 185,700 78 24 102 40.88

Walton 58,000 19 8 27 45.44

Bay 168,200 55 32 87 25.80

Gulf 15,900 2 1 3 24.19

Franklin 11,400 1 1 2 20.57

Wakulla 32,600 -0- 9 9 17.88

Jefferson 15,000 -0- 8 8 39.25

Taylor 21,900 12 -0- 12 29.26

Dixie 15,300 5 6 11 25.85

Levy 41,100 8 8 16 27.86

Citrus 148,000 9 51 60 28.17

Hernando 180,900 18 51 69 26.41

Pasco 497,700 59 104 163 39.81

Hillsborough 1,210,000 121 266 387 43.89

Pinellas 915,800 146 218 364 13.72

Manatee 329,900 83 63 146 38.67

Sarasota 377,800 36 40 76 16.84

Charlotte 156,100 33 23 56 45.84

Lee 617,600 133 139 272 38.26

Collier 331,300 93 58 151 33.97

Monroe 72,500 24 10 34 1.50

Miami-Dade 2,446,900 551 58 609 45.97

Broward 1,801,000 202 131 333 48.30

Palm Beach 1,323,800 228 260 488 52.53

Martin 144,400 66 24 90 34.51

St. Lucie 279,300 87 25 112 25.62

Indian River 137,800 43 43 86 29.72

Brevard 547,200 79 156 235 17.23

Volusia 514,400 84 163 247 26.80

Flagler 96,900 9 18 55 24.46

St. Johns 191,900 37 18 55 18.42Duval 863,700 203 165 368 30.91

Nassau 73,100 17 9 26 35.61

Totals: 14,293,300 2,679

54%

2,278

46%

4,957 31.51

MilesSource: Townsend 2010


22/29



State: Louisiana


(2010)

Mast Arm

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Single Point

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Total

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Average

Distance

From Coast

Calcasieu 187,700 16 26 42 43.51

Cameron 7,300 1 -0- 1 19.48

Jefferson Davis 31,400 1 5 6 56.58

Vermillion 56,600 -0- 15 15 37.43

Acadia 60,300 1 21 22 63.90

Lafayette 209,800 21 24 45 57.85

St. Martin 53,400 -0- 5 5 62.75

Iberia 76,400 3 21 24 7.87

St. Mary 51,000 -0- 9 9 14.91

Iberville 32,600 -0- 3 3 67.42

Ascension 107,900 -0- 15 15 62.35

St. James 21,200 -0- 1 1 61.95

Terresonne 109,300 10 21 31 35.92

Lafourche 93,400 4 10 14 54.65

St. Charles 52,400 2 24 26 73.56

Jefferson 441,700 20 14 34 55.21

Plaquemines 21,200 3 1 4 49.76

St. Bernard 40,400 19 6 25 55.18

Orleans 313,300 58 2 60 52.88

Totals: 1,990,400 159

41%

227

59%

386 49.11

Miles



23/29



State: Texas


(2010)

Mast Arm

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Single Point

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Total

Intersections

(Evacuation

Routes Only)

Average

Distance

From Coast

Orange 83,400 2 26 28 38.55

Jefferson 244,200 19 29 48 33.46

Chambers 30,500 -0- 5 5 30.21

Harris 4,027,400 230 56 286 78.14

Galveston 298,100 28 19 47 24.12

Brazaoia 312,860 46 73 119 32.36

Matagorda 37,500 -0- 7 7 32.90

Jackson 14,200 -0- 3 3 58.86

Victoria 87,200 3 10 13 62.08

Refugio 7,300 5 4 9 38.41

Calhoun 20,500 -0- 5 5 30.61

San Patricio 69,600 19 13 32 52.40

Aransas 25,400 4 7 11 15.54

Nueces 324,900 51 16 67 47.30

Kleberg 30,600 5 4 9 45.49

Willacy 20,860 5 12 17 41.42

Cameron 407,000 35 41 76 42.47

Totals: 6,041,520 452

58%

330

42%

782 41.31

Miles


Recap

8 State Totals

Population

(2010)

Mast Arm

Intersections(Evacuation Routes

Only)

Single / Dual

Point


Only)

Total


Only)

Average

Distance

From Coast

25,504,220 3469 3546 7015 38.64

MilesSource: Townsend 2010


24/29


Appendix 6.2 Evacuation Route Maps


25/29


Appendix 6.2 Evacuation Route Maps (Continued)


26/29




27/29




28/29


Appendix 6.3 Mississippi DOT Let Projects Signalization

Year Contract No. County

Type of Intersection

Mast Arm Span Wire

2007 101708301 Madison X

104569312 Hancock X

102252301 Forrest X

102069302 Covington X104569308 Harrison X

104850301 Jackson X

104569302 & 3110 Harrison X

10569309 Harrison X

104369301 & 311 Harrison X

103344301 Adams X

104891301 Lamar X

104904301 Madison X

104969302 & 303 Union & Pontotoc X

104846301 Forrest X

2008 104891301 Lamar X

104808301 Hancock X

104892301 Perry X105209301 Harrison X

104818301 Rankin X

104969304 & 305 Union & Pontotoc X

104654301 Lamar X

104875301 Hinds X

105263301 Forrest X

2009 105096301 Newton X

104969304 & 305 Union and Pontotoc X

105380301 Hinds X

104423301 Lauderdale X

105243301 Adams X

101630301 Union X

102435301 Attala X

10286301 Tate X

2010 105558301 & 302 Hinds and Rankin X

101212305 Harrison X

101212305 Harrison X

105657301 Hinds X

101708302 Madison X

105375301 Forrest X

100554301 Madison X

102942301 Adams X

101630301 Union X

100710301 Jackson X

103289301 Jones X

105891301 Grenada X



29/29

Appendix 6.4 Louisiana DOT Let Projects Signalization

Year Lead Project No. Parrish2007

Type of Intersection

Mast Arm Span Wire

2007 062-01-0025 Jefferson, Plaquemines, Orleans X

069-01-0016 Lincoln X

023-05-0029 Winn, Jackson X

262-02-023 Livingston X423-01-025 Jefferson X

023-03-0013 Grant, Winn X

013-04-0037 E. Bat Rat X

023-02-0015 Grant X

450-91-0150 Calcas Key X

256-06-0010 Ascension X

2008 273-03-0025 Livingston X

007-07-0048 Ebr / Ascension X

742-25-0044 Jefferson / Plaquemines X

019-04-0037 W Feli Ciana X

077-02-0017 Ascension X

262-01-0034 Livingston X

742-10-0120 Calcas key X451-01-0113 Cadoo X

737-97-0036 Calcasieu / Jeff Davis X

103-01-0025 Caddo X

737-94-0044 Caddo / Webster X

737-31-0001 Lincoln X

021-03-0031 DeSoto X

2009 4101-0034 RI Orleans X

424-02-0088 RI Lafayette X

008-02-0034 Pointe Couper X

817-41-008 E. Baton Rouge X

007-02-0097 Jefferson / St. Johns / St. Charles X

195-03-0029 Caloasieu X

218-03-0022 St. Tammany X

450-15-0103 Jefferson X

742-36-0008 Orleans X


064-05-0085 LaFourche X

010-30-0030 Bossier X

737-55-0003 Terrebonne X

001-09-0084 Quachita X

808-07-0051 Bossier X

2010 008-02-0034 Point Couper X

816-11-0002 DeSoto X

737-28-0010 LaFayette X

023-05-0045 Winn X

059-01-0027 St.Tammany X

852-25-0017 St Tammany - Remove only? X018-30-0025 St. Tammany X




737-55-0044 Terrebonne X

727-23-0007 Iberia X


737-28-0014 LaFayette X


Documents

Historical Data Study of Traffic Signalization in the Most Hurricane Prone Regions of the United States