Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500165 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-11-17i COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Oraige Road Culpeper Vida 227rjl Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner November 17, 2015 Mr. John Anderson County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SUB - 2015 -00165 North Pointe Middle Entrance & Route 29 Improvements Dear Mr. Anderson, We have reviewed the North Pointe Middle Entrance and Rte. 29 Improvements Road Plans dated 9.126i 14 with revisions dated 9/22.115 as submitted by Townes Site Engineering and offer the following comments: 1. The sheet index on the cover page does not agree with all of the plan sheet labels as indicated below: a. There are two sheets labeled C -4A. l believe that sheet C -413 in the index is mislabeled. b. Sheet C -10 in the index appears to be labeled as C -14. c. Sheet C -10A in the index appears to be labeled as C -14A. d. Sheet C -I I in the index appears to be labeled as C -613. 2. It would be helpful if the cross - streets on sheet C -2 were labeled to help identify the location in the field. 3. Are the entrance and improvements on Route 29 that are shown on sheets C -3, C -4, and C -5 proposed to be constructed as part of this phase of the project? 4. An island needs to be provided in the crossover at the southern -most entrance to prevent left turn movements from the North Pointe entrance and from Airport Acres Road. 5. The proposed island to be constructed in the crossover at the middle entrance to North Pointe does not appear to prohibit left turns from either North Pointe or Northside Drive. The geometries of the island may need to be revised to prevent this maneuver. 6. From the grading plan, there appears to be a low point in the median to the south of the crossover at the middle entrance to North Pointe. As shown, this low point appears to not drain. 7. The "bump -out" for the proposed U -turn north of the middle entrance to North Pointe extends outside of the existing right of way for Route 29. The owners of North Pointe will need to work with Mr. Beard to obtain the necessary right of way. 8. An auto -turn exhibit should be provided for the U -turn to confine that the proposed "bump -out" is adequate. 9. Several entries in the Drainage Structure Summary on sheet C -313 do not match the information found on the storm sewer profiles. The following are examples: a. The length of pipe listed for most pipe sections do not agree with the lengths shown in the profiles. b. The length of pipe 33 was not provided in the summary. c. The length of pipe 36 was not provided in the summary. d. The pipe diameters of pipes 17, 33, 36, and 38 in the summary do not match the diameters in the profiles. e. In general, the BB and CC series of drop inlets should be used for structures that are between 8 and 20 feet in depth. Several of the structures are labeled incorrectly in the summary. f. The top elevations of structures 18, 20, 26, 29, 31, 34, 49, and the EX DI (between 59 and 60 in the summary) do not match the elevations shown on the profiles. g. The inverts of structures 34, 40, and 51 in the summary do not match the inverts in the profiles. 10. On sheet C -4, can the waterline shown in the inset be located behind the curb? If possible, the waterline should not be located in the right turn lane. 11. The CG -12's shown at the middle entrance should be located perpendicularly to the proposed subdivision road. As currently oriented, the ramps would direct a visually impaired person towards the intersection of Route 29 and the proposed subdivision street. 12. The radius and taper on the north side of the middle entrance is shown incorrectly. The radius should continue to the tangent point with Route 29. At that point, the taper should begin. It is likely that storm structure 16 will need to move to the east when the radius is corrected. 13. Note that the WP -2 widening standard requires that the entire adjacent lane width is resurfaced. Sheet C -4B should be revised accordingly to show the area of new asphalt including the adjacent through lane. 14. Structure 54 should be moved to the median rather than in the crossover asphalt. 15. There are several storm structures that will be located in fill areas. What is the proposed fill method to ensure that the structures do not settle? 16. Structure 20 does not appear to be shown correctly on the profile on sheet C -713. 17. The top elevations for structures 29 and 31 should be added to the profile. 18. Cross sections for Route 29 should be provided for the southern-most entrance, i.e. between approximately station 3 +50 and 12 +00. 19. The cross - sections for Route 29 should show all edge of pavement locations in addition to curb and right of way. 20. The cross - sections provided on not appear to agree with the grading plan. For example, the grading plan does not show grading in the median between stations 25 +50 and 27 +50, however, the cross - sections do. 21. The pavement section shown as Route 29 Pavement Addition Detail should match the existing section for Route 29. 22. The Rte. 29 Improvements Typical Section should indicate the entire adjacent lane to be resurfaced in accordance with the WP -2 standard. 23. What is the proposed pavement section for the middle entrance to North Pointe? Pavement calculations need to be provided for review. 24. The proposed middle entrance shows dual right turn lanes for egress. This needs to be revised to a single right turn lane. See comments on TIA below. 25. Hydraulic calculations for the storm sewer need to be provided for review. These calculations will need to include HGL calculations in addition to velocity, capacity and spread calculations. TIA Comments 1. The concept and study show signals in the future scenario for the middle entrance and for the northern U -turn. Route 29 is a Corridor of Statewide Significance and when the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) adopted the Route 29 Corridor study in 2010, VDOT was instructed to work to minimize the number of traffic signals on the corridor per the following Policy Statement: CoSS Access Point and Access Control Policy Statement: In managing the Corridors of Statewide Significance, and to minimize the number of traffic signals, it is the policy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) that intersections or new access points to those corridors shall be planned, designed, operated and maintained to ensure minimum delay to through traffic. Access locations under consideration shall be evaluated for the impact to corridor travel time and mitigation strategies, including., land use planning, access management, mode shift, transit enhancements, and,'or aggressive traffic operational strategies, In addition, the Virginia Supplement to the MUTCD states that: On any roadway corridor designated by the CTB as a Corridor of Statewide Significance, intersections or new access points which meet warrants for traffic signals shall not have a new traffic signal installed until alternatives such as grade separations, parallel service roads, roundabouts, and other possible options have been evaluated and determined not to be appropriate for the location. 2. The road improvement plans show west bound dual right turn lanes in the initial phase of the development of the middle entrance. This is not appropriate for the un- signalized condition. In addition, the analysis was performed using a single right turn lane. The road plans need to be revised accordingly. 3. The existing traffic volumes for Northside Drive and Cypress Drive were generated by using Trip Gen 2013 software which is acceptable. The existing traffic counts at the Airport Road /Rte. 29 intersection and the Lewis & Clarke Drive,-Rte. 29 intersection are actual counts and should remain constant for the existing condition analysis. There are also a number of additional business and a residential development on this portion of the corridor that are not accounted for in the traffic data so the network does not have to be balanced. 4. The background traffic includes a proposed development at the north end of the North Pointe development that is under separate ownership. This development would provide the installation of the fourth leg to the intersection of Lewis & Clarke Drive and Route 29. The study indicates that this development, which consists of 184 townhouse units, will be in place by 2018. This seems to be a very aggressive buildout schedule. The background development should have a similar build schedule to the proposed North Pointe development as discussed in the scoping meeting. It is recommended to run the initial scenario without the development in the 2020 time period for the Phase A evaluation and consider it as part of the 2023 Phase B buildout when the connection will need to be in place, regardless of who constructs the connection. 5. The remarks in the Level of Service tables for the Lewis and Clarke Drive at Route 29 and Airport Road at Route 29 intersections indicating that the capacity issues exist in the background conditions are accurate. However, this does not mean that the North Pointe development will not contribute to further degradation of the intersections. The original study for the entire development showed that an additional lane in each direction was needed to support the entire development. That study was prepared over 11 years ago and the need for those improvements for the entire development has not changed. The improvements identified in the initial study were planned for the initial phase of development of North Pointe. The phasing of development has been changed so that the major improvements for Route 29 occur later in development buildout. This change in phasing does not eliminate the need for improvements at other intersections to address the impacts of the North Pointe development. 6. As part of the discussion for the current study, VDOT recommended including the conversion of the existing signal at Lewis & Clarke Drive to an R Cut intersection similar to the proposed middle entrance intersection for North Pointe in order to continue the Super Street concept on the corridor. This will need to be reviewed before the fourth leg of the intersection at Lewis & Clarke Drive is added. This will likely result in the conversion of the Lewis & Clarke intersection to an alternative type of intersection that does not require signalization. 7. The proposed development increases the delay at both of the adjacent signalized intersections in all scenarios evaluated. The cumulative intersection delay experienced by through traffic on the Route 29 corridor in this area increase in the AM southbound direction from the current 43.9 seconds to 110.4 seconds, and in the PM northbound direction form the current 79.1 seconds to 131.2 seconds. These increases are considered significant and need to be addressed. The additional R Cut conversion of the Lewis & Clarke Drive intersection Iikely would address some of the delay. Improvements at Airport Road are likely to also be necessary. 8. When queues exceed capacity, a queue analysis needs to be done using SimTraffic to determine the actual queue length. This analysis should follow the procedures outlined in the "Traffic Operation Tools Guidebook ". If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434 ) 422 -9782. Sincerely, / 0 Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING