ST9902-CS130418 (2)
Halie Hernandez
From:Suki Y. Hay <shay@tnpinc.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:33 AM
To:Keith Marvin
Cc:Robert Jenkins
Subject:RE: Sandy Lake Addendum #2
Keith,
I just left you a VM. I am wrapping up the Addendum #2 changes for the traffic related items and wanted to run a
question by you on the Opticom equipment to make sure it is clear that the City gets the right detectors and number of
phase selectors. As stated on sheet 93 , TS General Notes, there is leeway for 3 types of detectors 711, 721, 722 to be
used.
I believe the intent is to use the same model detector at all intersections and that it is a uni-directional, no bi-
directional. Basically can we eliminate calling out Models 711 and 722, and only call out Model 721? If we use 722 (bi-
directional), more than one 4-Channel Phase Selector will be needed per intersection. The 721 is the better option for a
uni-directional over the 711 as it can pick up around curves and get both stopline and advance detection. There is a
price difference of about $50 more for the 721 vs the 711.
Thanks,
Suki
817.336.5773 Main
817.665.7194 Direct
shay@tnpinc.com
From: Keith Marvin [mailto:KMarvin@coppelltx.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:55 AM
To: Suki Y. Hay
Subject: RE: Sandy Lake Addendum #2
I just left you a voice mail. Please call me back.
Keith Marvin, P.E.
City of Coppell
972-304-3681
From: Suki Y. Hay [mailto:shay@tnpinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:51 AM
To: Keith Marvin; Andrew Luce
Cc: George Marshall; Robert Jenkins; Casey McBroom; Chris Schmitt
Subject: RE: Sandy Lake Addendum #2
My apologies Keith…I see you finally got the attachments from both Andrew and Robert this morning. I saw the e-mail
last night from Andrew with attachments (on my phone) and mistakenly thought he forwarded the attachments.
Again, sorry for the confusion…it was an oversight on my part as I did not have your e-mail address at the time I sent the
original e-mail.
1
Thanks,
Suki
P.S. Feel free to call me if you have any questions on the comments for the Addendum.
817.336.5773 Main
817.665.7194 Direct
shay@tnpinc.com
From: Keith Marvin [mailto:KMarvin@coppelltx.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:06 PM
To: Andrew Luce
Cc: Suki Y. Hay; George Marshall; Robert Jenkins; Casey McBroom; Chris Schmitt
Subject: Re: Sandy Lake Addendum #2
Please send me the attachments.
Keith Marvin
City of Coppell
On Apr 16, 2013, at 5:36 PM, "Andrew Luce" <ALuce@TNPINC.com> wrote:
Suki/Robert,
Please include Keith on any traffic questions as he is in charge of the Sandy Lake project and was the
engineer that sealed the Denton Tap plans.
Thanks,
Andrew
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 16, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "Suki Y. Hay" <shay@tnpinc.com> wrote:
George,
The project team is preparing for Addendum #2 this week. I was wondering if you could
review a few items that were noted at the Denton Tap signal and the attached
markups/highlighted items. These items deal with the recent change to the City
furnishing the controller/cabinets at the 3 intersections and some City traffic related
comments that may not have been fully addressed prior to advertisement.
Denton Tap Signal
1.The V4LT signal head to be used for the flashing yellow prot/perm left turn
phasing does not match the signal indications per Figure 4D-12 of the TMUTCD
(attached). The red and yellow ball indications need to be swapped with
arrow indications.
2.Please be aware that these flashing yellow arrow signal heads are shown being
used in the EB/WB Sandy Lake Road dual left turn lanes. Just making sure that it
was the City’s intent to operate prot/perm flashing yellow dual lefts at this
intersection vs protected only dual lefts.
2
3.Per the Denton Tap signal plans, the video detection system, ILSN signs, and
Comm equipment are shown being re-used. Bid Qtys and Pay Item Descriptions
have been revised for clarity. The payment for re-using the video falls under 1-
124, whereas separate pay items 1-148 and 1-176 covers the Comm and ISNS,
respectively.
Technical Specs
1.Since the City is now furnishing the controller and cabinet. Please advise if
these sections (captions in red) in the spec are to removed or edited
accordingly.
2.There was an outstanding comment to include video detection and ISNS
sections in the spec (see attached comment). Does the City have internal specs
on these items to add to Addendum #2?
Pay item description/Qtys - Green Highlights are markups made for Addendum #2
1.The “clouded” comment sections are items that the City previously commented
on needing further attention.
2.Qty for pay item 1-146 Video Imaging Vehicle Detection System has been
reduced by 1, for a total of 2 to reflect its re-use at Denton Tap.
3.Cost of the controller and cabinets have been backed out of the 1-122 to 1-224
Pay Items. These Pay Item descriptions may need clarification to match any
revisions made to item 1 under Technical Spec listed above.
I have attached the electronic files of the pay items, tech spec, and cost estimate for
your use. Please feel free to mark up any revisions for inclusion into Addendum #2 set
for Monday 3/22.
Sorry if this is longwinded….feel free to call me if you need help deciphering all this.
-Suki
<image001.jpg>
Suki Hay, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
1100 Macon Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
817.336.5773 Main
817.665.7194 Direct
817.965.1636 Mobile
817.336.2813 Fax
shay@tnpinc.com
<MUTCD 2011 TxDOT_Flashing Yellow.pdf>
<Section 6 - Technical Specifications_Copy.doc>
<sandy lake spec_city comments.pdf>
<Pay Item_City Comments.pdf>
<Section 5 - Description of Pay Items_Copy.doc>
<Bid Items 2A & 2B_Copy.xlsx>
3