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

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
bob@signalsafe.net
DECEMBER 2010
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.
Historical Data Study of Traffic Signalization in the Most Hurricane Prone Regions of The United States Page 2
HISTORICAL DATA STUDY
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION
IN THE MOST HURRICANE PRONE
REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
December 2010
Author
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. 368
Royal Palm Beach, Fl. 33411
(561) 248-8894
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General ………………………………………………………………………………. 6
1.2. Null Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………………. 7
1.3. Alternate Hypothesis ………………………………………………………………… 7
1.4. Premise of Study ……………………………………………………………………. 7
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Coastal Evacuation Routes ………………………………………………………….. 8
2.2. Population – Coastal Counties ……………………………………………………… 8
2.3. Hurricane History and Return Periods ……………………………………………… 9
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1. Other States Signalization …………………………………………………………… 11
3.2. Functioning “Single Point” – Palm Beach County ………………………………….. 13
4. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY, DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CONCLUSION

4.1. Analytical Summary …………………………………………………………………. 15
4.2. Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………………………………. 15
4.3. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………. 17
5. REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………. 18
6. APPENDIX
6.1. Evacuation Route Study …………………………………………………………….. 19
6.2. Evacuation Route Maps …………………………………………………………….. 24
6.3. Mississippi DOT Let Projects – Signalization ……………………………………….. 28
6.4. Louisiana DOT Let Projects – Signalization ………………………………………… 29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1.Damaged Signalization – Hurricane Ike Remnant 2008 ……………………………. 7

Figure 1-2.Damaged Signalization – Louisiana, Hurricane Katrina 2005 ……………………… 7
Figure 2-1.Most Hurricane Prone Regions of the United States ………………………………. 8
Figure 2-2.Population Density of Coastal Counties: 2003 ……………………………………… 8
Figure 2-3.Vehicle Miles Traveled ……………………………………………………………… 9
Figure 2-4.Hurricane Coastal Strikes ………………………………………………………….. 9
Figure 2-5.Major Hurricanes Strikes by State …………………………………………………… 10
Figure 2-6.Hurricane Strike History …………………………………………………………….. 9
Figure 2-7. Return Period in Years for Category 1 Hurricanes …………………………………. 10
Figure 2-7.1.Return Period in Years for Category 2 Hurricanes ………………………………… 10
Figure 3-1.P.B.C. Pre-Storm Intersection ……………………………………………………. 13
Figure 3-2.P.B.C. Post Storm (Same Intersection) ……………………………………………. 13
Figure 3-3.P.B.C. Traffic Division – Signal Typical ……………………………………………. 14
Figure 3-4. P.B.C. Existing Signal “Push Demonstration” ………………………………………. 14
Figure 4-1.Vulnerability of Signalization ……………………………………………………….. 16
Figure 6-1.North Carolina Evacuation Route Map ……………………………………………… 24
Figure 6-2.South Carolina Evacuation Route Map – Northern Portion ………………………… 24
Figure 6-2.1.South Carolina Evacuation Route Map – Central Portion ………………………… 24
Figure 6-2.2.South Carolina Evacuation Route Map – Southern Portion ……………………….. 24
Figure 6-3.Georgia Evacuation Route Map ……………………………………………………… 25
Figure 6-4.Alabama Evacuation Routes – Western Portion …………………………………….. 25
Figure 6-4.1Alabama Evacuation Routes – Eastern Portion ……………………………………. 25
Figure 6-5.Mississippi Evacuation Route Map ………………………………………………….. 26
Figure 6-6.Florida Evacuation Route Map ………………………………………………………. 26
Figure 6-7.Louisiana Evacuation Route Map …………………………………………………….. 26
Figure 6-8.Texas Evacuation Route Map – North Eastern Portion ……….……………………… 27
Figure 6-8.1.Texas Evacuation Route Map – South Eastern Portion …………………………….. 27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1.Hurricane Return Periods ……………………………………………………………. 10

Table 4-1.Coastal Evacuation Route Study ……………………………………………………. 15
Table 4-2.Eight State Percentages ……………………………………………………………….. 15
Table 4-3.Florida vs. Combined Coastal States ………………………………………………….. 16
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 including
traffic 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 of
signalization (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 the
travel 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 Highway
Signs, 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 or
guyed 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 traffic
signal 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 multiple
hurricanes 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 because
of 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 change
in 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 for
the 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 ends
with general conclusions based on the historical data and comparisons made from this data.
1.2 Null Hypothesis
The 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 Hypothesis

Based 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).
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 shown
in 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 county
in Appendix 6-1. The hurricane evacuation routes for these eight states are shown in Appendix 6.2.
2.2 Population – Coastal Counties

The 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 more
signalized 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.
2.3 Hurricane History and Return Periods
The main focus of this study is wind induced

damage and loss to span wire signalization,
primarily due to hurricanes making landfall along
the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal States (Figure 2-4
Hurricane Coastal Strikes). The primary object of
understanding historical hurricane data is that not
only does Florida receive more hurricane strikes
(Figure 2-5) but also is impacted by more Category
3 or greater storms (Figure 2-6) than other coastal
states. It should also be noted that according to the
National Hurricane Center Risk Analysis Program
(HURISK) Florida is projected to receive the
overwhelming majority of future storms including
95% of all Category 3 or greater hurricanes (see
Figures 2-7 thru 2-7A and Table 1-1).
Return Period
State Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
4-6 years 6-12 years 9-22 years 16-33 years 33-100 years
North Carolina 1 1 1 0 0
South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0
Georgia 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
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 verify
implementation standards for span wire attached traffic signals as compared to Florida’s current span
wire system .
3.1-1. North Carolina: The NCDOT has in effect a mast arm policy similar to Florida’s [2] but
designated by coastal counties in lieu of the FDOT 10 mile from coast limit. North Carolina’s standard
practice 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 signalized
locations 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 State
Highway 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 most
economically 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 ADOT’s Traffic Signal Design Guide & Timing Manual [7] states: “…Mast arm
poles are now required on all new signal installations south of I-10 in order to provide protection against
hurricane damage…”
Alabama’s span wire hung signalization is a typical single point system. The ADOT’s 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.
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 of
mast arms in approximtely 72% of all signalization projects over the last 4 years (appendix 6-4).
It’s also interesting to note that as Florida is reducing it’s number of new mast arms over the last couple
of years, Louisiana has actually increased theirs. Another thing of interest is that according to their
Traffic 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 Florida’s coastline, primarily directed to
evacuation routes. Currently approximately 41% of intersections located on Florida’s evacuation routes
are 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 primarily all of Florida’s existing span wire
signalized 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 Texas’s coastal county evacuation routes (appendix 6-1) reveals that 58% of all signalization
projects are steel mast arms. After Hurricane Ike, a TXDOT spokesman stated in a published article
“…almost all of TXDOT’s traffic signals in the 14 counties of the Houston and Beaumont districts are
either 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.
3.2 Functioning “Single Point” – Palm Beach County (PBC)
The premise of this section is to demonstrate that Palm Beach County’s modification of FDOT standard
index 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 PBC’s 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 the
disconnect as the second area of failure.
PBC’s signal typical T-S Figure 3-3 specifies a dual wire system with the weight of the signal heads
supported by a ¼” cable from the catenary in lieu of the other 66 counties that utilize rigid type
connections between the catenary and messenger wires. By measuring the actual “lower span wire
hanger” as shown in Figure 3-3, the distance between the axis of the messenger and upper connection is
approximately one inch. This slight difference performs as an unrestrictive pivot due to the flexural
movements of each of the span wires, particularly the messenger.
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.
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 Florida’s dual
point signalization to the seven other southeastern State’s single point signalization. The final goal of
this 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.
No. of Average Coastal Miles of Hurricane No. of No. of No. of Total

State Coastal Distance Population Coastline Strikes Mast Arm Span Wire Intersections
Counties from Coast Last 50 Years Intersections Intersections Evacuation Routes Only
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
Avg.
Totals: 101 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 Percentages

Table 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 to
construct Figure 4-1 which provides a complete understanding of the vulnerability of each States
signalization being damaged from hurricanes.
Coastal Miles of Hurricane Mast Arm Span Wire Total

State Population Coastline Strikes Intersections Intersections 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
Vulnerability of Signalization in Percentages
North Carolina
South Carolina Coastal Population
Georgia Miles of Coastline
Alabama No. of Hurricane Strikes - Last 50

Years
Mississippi
No. of Mast Arm Intersections
Florida
No. of Span Wire Intersections
Louisiana
Total Number of Intersections
Texas
0 20 40 60 80 100
FIGURE 4-1 Vulnerability of Signalization in Percentages Source: Townsend 2010
Table 4-3.Florida vs. Combined Coastal States

Table 4-3 shows Florida’s 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 span
wire intersections.
Description Florida NC, SC, GA, AL, Proportional Comparison

MS, LA,TX Florida NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, Total
(Combined) LA, TX (Combined)
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 4,957 2,058 71% 29% 100%
Evacuation Routes
Table 4-3 Florida vs. Seven Other Coastal States Source: Townsend 2010
4-3. CONCLUSION
Based upon the historical data presented in this report, Florida – by an overwhelming margin – is the
most vulnerable of all U.S. coastal states and thereby, should experience more span wire supported
traffic 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 report
does not include data that can be used to determine if one span wire system survives better than another
during 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 most
vulnerable to hurricanes.
Based upon this study, other states non-governmental reports of wind damaged signalization and the
historical failures of Palm Beach County’s 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.
5. REFERENCES
1. http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/welcome.html Link to US Population in Coastal Counties

2. FDOT Mast Arm Policy 7.4.12
3. NCDOT – Traffic Engineering and Safety Branch
4. NCDOT – Division 17, 1710-3
5. SCDOT – Design Standard 675-105-02
6. GDOT – Traffic Signal Detail TS-04
7. ADOT – Traffic Signal Design Guide & Timing Manual 4.4 & 4.6.1
8. DOTD – Traffic Signal Standard Details – Signal Notes
9. DOTD – Traffic Signal Standard Details – Span Wire Installation Details
10. FDOT – 2006 D-4 Work Program Office Report
11. FDOT – 2006 FDOT Design Standard 17727
12. FDOT – 2010 FDOT Design Standard 17727
13. FDOT – FDOT Specification Hardware & Fittings 634-3.3 (e)
14. TDOT – Traffic Signal Support Structures – Strain Pole Assemblies
6. APPENDIX
6-1 Evacuation Route Study
State: North Carolina

Mast Arm Single Point Total Average
Coastal County Population Intersections Intersections Intersections Distance
(2010) (Evacuation (Evacuation (Evacuation From Coast
Routes Only) Routes Only) Routes Only)
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 74 205 279 38.40

27% 73% miles
Source: Townsend 2010
State: South Carolina

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 31 182 213 27.60

15% 85% Miles
Appendix 6-1 Evacuation Route Study (Continued)
State: Georgia
Coastal County Population Intersections Intersections Intersections Distance From
(2010) (Evacuation (Evacuation (Evacuation 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 80 83 32.96

4% 96% Miles
State: Alabama
Coastal Population Intersections Intersections Intersections Distance
County (2010) (Evacuation (Evacuation (Evacuation From Coast
Baldwin 182,000 9 53 62 71.31
Mobile 410,900 20 155 175 52.49
Totals: 592,900 29 208 237 62.15

12% 88% Miles
State: Mississippi
Coastal Population Intersections Intersections Intersections Distance
County (2010) (Evacuation (Evacuation (Evacuation 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 36 78 26.02

54% 46% Miles
State: Florida
Mast Arm DUAL Point Total Average
(2010) ( Evacuation (Evacuation (Evacuation From Coast
Routes) Routes) Routes Only)
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 18.42
Duval 863,700 203 165 368 30.91
Nassau 73,100 17 9 26 35.61
Totals: 14,293,300 2,679 2,278 4,957 31.51

54% 46% Miles
State: Louisiana
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: 1,990,400 159 227 386 49.11

41% 59% Miles
State: Texas
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: 6,041,520 452 330 782 41.31

58% 42% Miles
Recap
Mast Arm Single / Dual

Intersections Point Total Average
Population (Evacuation Routes Intersections Intersections Distance
Only) (Evacuation Routes (Evacuation Routes
8 State Totals (2010) From Coast
Only) Only)
25,504,220 3469 3546 7015 38.64

Miles
Appendix 6.2 Evacuation Route Maps
Appendix 6.2 Evacuation Route Maps (Continued)
Appendix 6.3 Mississippi DOT Let Projects – Signalization
Type of Intersection
Year Contract No. County Mast Arm Span Wire
2007 101708301 Madison X
104569312 Hancock X
102252301 Forrest X
102069302 Covington X
104569308 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 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
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
Appendix 6.4 Louisiana DOT Let Projects – Signalization
Type of Intersection
Year Lead Project No. Parrish2007 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 X
423-01-025 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 X
451-01-0113 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 410—1-0034 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? X
737-55-0044 Terrebonne X
727-23-0007 Iberia X
737-28-0014 LaFayette X

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

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

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

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

HISTORICAL DATA STUDY

Robert E. Townsend, Jr.

4. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY, DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CONCLUSION

Figure 1-1.Damaged Signalization – Hurricane Ike Remnant 2008 ……………………………. 7

Table 1-1.Hurricane Return Periods ……………………………………………………………. 10

1.3 Alternate Hypothesis

1.4 Premise of Study

2.1 Coastal Evacuation Routes

2.2 Population – Coastal Counties

The main focus of this study is wind induced

3-1. Other States Signalization

The MDOT utilizes the single point system / no disconnect.

4.1. Analytical Summary

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

Table 4-1.Costal Evacuation Route Study

No. of Average Coastal Miles of Hurricane No. of No. of No. of Total

Table 4-2.Eight State Percentages

Coastal Miles of Hurricane Mast Arm Span Wire Total

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

Table 4-2 Eight State Percentages Source: Townsend 2010

South Carolina Coastal Population

Georgia Miles of Coastline

Alabama No. of Hurricane Strikes - Last 50

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

Table 4-3.Florida vs. Combined Coastal States

Description Florida NC, SC, GA, AL, Proportional Comparison

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

6-1 Evacuation Route Study

State: North Carolina

Totals: 882,200 74 205 279 38.40

Source: Townsend 2010

State: South Carolina

Totals: 874,600 31 182 213 27.60

Source: Townsend 2010

Totals: 474,400 3 80 83 32.96

Source: Townsend 2010

Totals: 592,900 29 208 237 62.15

Source: Townsend 2010

Totals: 354,900 42 36 78 26.02

Source: Townsend 2010

Totals: 14,293,300 2,679 2,278 4,957 31.51

Totals: 1,990,400 159 227 386 49.11

Source: Townsend 2010

Totals: 6,041,520 452 330 782 41.31

Source: Townsend 2010

Mast Arm Single / Dual

25,504,220 3469 3546 7015 38.64

Você também pode gostar