HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201200111 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2012-11-06From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT) [ Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:48 PM
To: Michael Koslow
Subject: SUB - 2012 -00111 Morey Creek Offsite Improvement Plan
SUB - 2012 -00111 Morey Creek Offsite Improvement Plan:
Michael,
I have reviewed the subject plan and have the following comments:
General:
1. A striping a signing plan will need to be submitted prior to final
approval.
2. The Traffic Signal Plan should be submitted for review and approval
even if it is not warranted at this
time.
3. Drainage calculations need to be submitted prior to approval.
4. A Land Use Permit will be required prior to construction of offsite
improvements.
Typical Sections:
1. Note 10 for pavement insets shows 4.5 inches of BM -25.0. The
minimum lift of this material is 2.5
inches and the max is 4 inches. The minimum thickness for 2 lifts will
require 5 inches.
2. Show pavement mill and overlays on existing pavement sections in
accordance with WP -2 for all typical
sections.
3. Median drains are Standard UD -2, not UD -4.
4. For typical section 119 +40 to 120 +37 under the bridge, sidewalk
needs to be placed to the face of MB-
7F.
5. For typical section from 125 +55 to 127 +05, it is not acceptable to
place guardrail 5.5 feet off of the face
of curb. The minimum offset is 8 feet. There also is a very small area
around 126 +00 according to the
cross sections that actually gets steep in this location where it will be
difficult to catch the fill slope.
6. Show clear zones on all typical sections.
7. Ramp D from station 10 +25 to 11 +85 appears to have a non -
traversable slope within the clear zone of
the left side of the ramp.
Proposed Sidewalk Waiver Request:
1. In review of the plans and cross sections for the proposed waiver
request for the buffer strip it
appears that the only locations that need to have a waiver from the VDOT
standard is a section from
106 +40 to 107 +91 to stay within the right of way, a section from station
201 +76 to 203 +61 (Fontaine
Ave Transition) to minimize impacts to the adjacent property owner, and
119 +25 to 120 +40 for the
median barrier installation. All other locations can meet the minimum
VDOT standard without right of
way impacts or excessive costs with the exception of a small section
around station 126 +00 which will
require the guardrail to be placed a minimum of 8 feet from the face of
curb anyway. A small retaining
wall should be considered in this area. The section where there is a
proposed 2 foot retaining wall can
provide the buffer strip by increasing the wall by around 2 feet. I will
support and approve a waiver for
station 106 +40 to 107 +91, 119 +25 to 120 +40 and 201 +76 to 203 +61. All
other locations will need to
meet the standard.
2. Justification for the proposed reduction of standard outside of the
two sections does not show a cost
associated with meeting the standard verses project cost. There is a
statement that the cost savings
will be substantial but no figures. Justification needs to show that the
cost to meet standards makes
the project not feasible. I do not agree that meeting the standard in
most locations will be a substantial
savings or make this project not feasible.
Plan Sheets
1. Use a type 2 DI when the structure is within the sidewalk to keep
manholes out of the sidewalk.
2. Additional pavement widening west of the Buckingham Circle entrance
is needed for the pavement
transition.
3. I discussed the culvert extension with the maintenance staff and we
agree that metal culverts should
not be extended and put into closed systems for drainage. Concrete pipe
will be required in these
situations.
4. Keep all manhole structures outside of pavement.
5. The entrance left of station 125 +25 needs to have the 4 foot
traversable area for the sidewalk.
6. Guardrail must be placed a minimum of 8 feet off the face of curb.
7. Concrete pipe extension left of station 133 +19 needs to be extended
at the same grade and alignment
to eliminate the need for a manhole structure in the pavement.
8. The proposed two lanes on the entrance ramp to southbound Route 29
needs to meet the minimum
AASHTO criteria for acceleration and merge length. Show all the
dimensions on the plan. The design
speed of the ramp should be 60 mph.
Pavement Design:
1. The pavement design needs to be in accordance with the 1993 AASHTO
methods as described in the
VDOT Manual of Instructions by the VDOT Materials Division.
2. All references to Fontaine Ave in the Geotechnical Engineering
Study are misspelled as Fountain Ave.
3. There should be a map location for the hand auger testing.
4. There should be an additional pavement core at a location between
C -3 and C -4 between the Route 29
north ramps and Ray Ray C Hunt Dr.
5. A design for locations with unsuitable materials where CBR values
are low needs to be submitted.
6. Topsoil and rootmat removal should be between 6 and 12 inches.
Placement will need to be in
accordance with the VDOT Road Design Manual.
7. There is no data nor a pavement design for the section from the
Route 29 ramps to Ray C Hunt Dr.
8. UD -4 and CD -1 or 2's are required with this pavement design and
should not be labeled as
recommended.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Administrator
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434 - 422 -9373
joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov