HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO200800016 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2008-06-04From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .Denunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:24 AM
To: Amy Pflaum
Subject: FW: Meeting Street Road Plans for Phases 3 &4, Albemarle County
Amy,
We have reviewed the above site plan and have the comments listed below. If you
have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov
From: Viar, Michael E.
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 1:38 PM
To: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Cc: Giometti, John A. P.E.
Subject: Meeting Street Road Plans for Phases 3 &4, Albemarle County
Joel,
I have reviewed the road plans for the extension of Meeting Street and would
like to provide comments.
The maximum centerline grade should be 10 %. Approximately 150' of
Meeting Street between station 47 +50 and 49 +00 will have grades between 10% and
12 %.
- Phases 3 &4 of Meeting Street are shown to have a design speed of 25
MPH. With an anticipated traffic count of 4000 VPD, the design speed should be
shown as 30 MPH.
- The cross pipe and manhole, between MHD4 and STRS, could be
eliminated by connecting STR3 to STR2. If the Biofilter at STR7 needs this
redirected discharge, then STR10 could be moved downgrade and connected to
STR6A. That would also eliminate the cross pipe from STR10 to STR9.
The crossover at station 56 +50 appears undersized. The turning
criteria and data used to determine the dimensions should be provided for
review.
The fill slopes at both ends the 84" concrete pipe at station 51 +35
should be protected with VDOT Standard EW -2 endwalls in lieu of the Redi -Rock
retaining wall presently shown on the plans. Any deviation of endwall
configuration from this standard will require special designed engineered and
certified drawings and computations. These must be sent to Adam Wilkerson in the
Central Office Special Design Section for review and approval. Several plan
submittals should be anticipated.
- The design (10 year) outlet velocity for the 84" pipe is
approximately 22 fps. There are no computations available for the concrete
energy dissipator shown on sheet 6, to indicate whether or not it was designed
in accordance with the FHWA's HEC -14 publication. Outlet velocities should be
computed for the design discharge and the 25 year discharge. Whichever velocity
is less should be used to ensure that the channel is stable. See the VDOT
Drainage Manual, Section 8.3.2.6.
The following are comments from Chuck Proctor regarding the typical section of
Meeting Street.
Mike,
Here are my comments:
a.. The design does not comply with the roadway used in the Places 29 study.
The typical section south of Town Center Drive should have 2 travel lanes in
each direction. The section should also include bike lanes and sidewalk unless
provide on a separate trail and on- street parking (if needed);
b.. Again the original reason for a reduced roadway through this section was
that 2 roadways were proposed and modeled. Now only one facility is being
proposed south of Town Center. Therefore all of the traffic will use this
facility and needs to be accommodated for the model to remain valid.
Chuck
I am returning this one copy of the plans to you today. If there are any
questions, please contact me.
Michael E. Viar
Hydraulic /Plan Review Engineer
VDOT - Culpeper District Office
540 - 829 -7549