Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO200900067 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2010-10-06Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 2:43 PM To: 'djensen @wwassociates.net'; 'richard @neighborhoodprops.com' Cc: Gerald Gatobu Subject: FW: WPO- 2009 -00067 North Pointe North Entrance Route 29 improvement plan Good afternoon, Please see the email below for VDOT comments on the Route 29 Intersection Improvement Plans for the Northern North Pointe Entrance. -Phil From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto: Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 2:01 PM To: Philip Custer Cc: Viar, Michael E.; Proctor, Charles C. Subject: WPO- 2009 -00067 North Pointe North Entrance Route 29 improvement plan WPO- 2009 -00067 North Pointe North Entrance Route 29 improvement plan: Phil, VDOT has reviewed the above referenced plan and has the following comments: Sheet C -4: Pavement Construction Note #3 — Surface Asphalt on Route 29 needs to be a SM -9.5D. General Note #1 — Also include 2007 VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications. Sheet C -5: 3. There are existing gas and water utilities in the existing median that will be the future through lane with this route 29 improvement plan. The utilities need to be moved from under the pavement and should be placed at the outer sections of the route 29 right of way. 4. The profile for the proposed Lewis and Clark connection needs modification. These comments were provided with the road plan for proposed Lewis and Clark Dr. Use SM -9.51D for route 29 surface ashpalt. 6. Typical sections need to meet the GS -5 standard for Urban Principal Arterial, 60 mph. In areas where Route 29 is proposed to be 6 lanes, the left graded and paved shoulder is to be the same width as the right graded and paved shoulder. The typical section shows left 8 foot graded shoulders. In addition, when guardrail is required, the left paved shoulder is required to be 13 feet minimum. 7. The typical section should show the mill and overlay of the adjacent lane in addition to noting that it will be in accordance with the WP-2 standard. 8. Side slope grading is to be in accordance with the CS -4 or 4E standard. Median grading is to be in accordance with GS -13 standard. Sheet C -7: 9. Note #5 states that existing under drains will be capped. This note needs to be written that existing under drains are to be removed. 10. Right of way needs to be a minimum of 10 feet from the retaining wall. 11. GR -7 terminal needs to have the adequate grading as shown in the VDOT 2008 standards. This treatment requires a 4 foot offset from the graded shoulder hinge point. The additional grading may be in conflict with the drainage features. 12. The additional 3`d lane at station 455 +00 +/- needs to be built at full pavement and shoulder width and blocked out. 13. The plan needs to show the lanes that are to be milled and overlaid in accordance with the WP -2 widening standard. The existing left turn lane needs to also be overlaid. Sheet C -12: 14. Remove the hatching pavement markings form the future turn lane and through lane merge. Since the signal will be set up for the three through lanes and there is approximately 1000 feet of additional through lane proposed to the south of the entrance, the intersection can have three northbound lanes through the signal. Also, having this lane open from the start will avoid milling and overlaying the lanes that are hatched out in the future. 15. Show the design vehicle turning movement from the new Lewis and Clark connection making a left onto southbound route 29. Additional widening of the median may be needed to accommodate the turn movement. Sheet C -14: 16. Route 29 lane closures will only be permitted from 9am to 3pm and 7pm to 6am on weekdays. Lane closures over holidays and weekends will not be permitted and all requirements for holidays and weekends stated in the 2007 VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications will be necessary. Cross Sections: 17. Grading needs to be in accordance with the GS -5, CS -4, 4E, and GS -13 standards. The cross sections do not reflect these standards. Please see comment #6. 18. Grading in excess of 2:1 slopes will not be permitted. 19. Median grading cannot reduce the southbound lanes graded shoulder. Stations 458 +50 to 465 +50 cut in to the southbound graded shoulder and have slopes in excess of 2:1. 20. It is recommended that instead of trying to maintain the graded median ditch you consider using some type of a paved ditch, standard PG -2A, to carry the runoff. It is not expected to be a large amount of water and a traversable paved ditch at the edge of the graded shoulder should be adequate. From the back of the paved ditch, you can then have an embankment slope that will not cut into the graded shoulder of the southbound lanes. The paved ditch will act more like a gutter pan without curb and be acceptable in the clear zone. Drainage structures and pipe may be necessary for adequate conveyance of the runoff. 21. The median to the north of the entrance needs to be graded to the GS -13 standard. Retaining Wall: 22. Comments have been provided by the district location and design and structures sections and are in the copied e- mail: Joel, Randy Amburn has finished his review of the retaining wall plans and his comments are in the attached letter. The only recommendation / have for the wall is to smooth up the grade on the top of the wall so it does not appear to have irregular angle breaks. The flow velocities along the wall face are low enough to not cause erosion unless post flood debris settles out and remains in place until another flood comes along. It's this flow condition that could begin some minor erosion, so I agree with Randy that some armoring should be provided. 18" of class Al dry riprap should be sufficient at a width of 8'. I am returning two sets of the plans to you today. One set has a note on the cover sheet indicating that sheet 22 has been marked. If you want, / will keep the set that was sent to Materials when they are finished with it and file it here in the district. If there are any further questions, please contact me. Michael E. Viar Hydraulic /Plan Review Engineer VDOT - Culpeper District Office 540 - 829 -7549 From: Amburn, Randy M., PE Sent; Friday, September 17, 201010:59 AM To: liar, Michael E. Cc: Pearce, David S., PE Subject. • FW: Route 29 widening at Lewis and Clark WPO- 2009 -00061 and WPO- 2009 -00067 Mike, I have completed a structural review of the proposed RW -3 retaining wall for this project. Structurally, everything appears to be satisfactory. I did not review the geometrics of the site. The bottom of the retaining wall is supposed to be below the existing ground elevation and will probably rest on firm material, not rock. While the stream velocities appear to be low, I would recommend that riprap be placed in front of the wall. However, I will leave that to your judgement as to whether that is necessary. Per note # 2 on sheet C -22, `The Contractor shall provide a geotechnical foundation analysis of the proposed retaining wall based on existing soil conditions. " I request that a copy of that analysis be sent to this office when it is completed. Thank you, Randy Amburn Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. VDOT Culpeper Land Development 434 - 589 -5871 joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov