The URL can be used to link to this page

ST9902-CS0611290 TEAGUE HALL AND PERKINS Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture Planning Memorandum To: Mr. Ken Griffin, P.E. From: Matt Atkins, P.E. cc: Mark Holliday, P.E. Date: November 29, 2006 Re: West Sandy Lake Road - Federal Funding As mentioned in our memo dated October 18, 2006, we have attached a preliminary Design Summary Report (DSR) that TxDOT will require for the above referenced project. Based upon our research and TNP's recent history on a similar project, we think that a meeting should be held with TxDOT representatives to discuss the DSR and determine what design elements will need to be changed and what elements will need Exceptions and Waivers from TxDOT's standards. Once you have reviewed the DSR, we would like to meet with you to determine what items the City would like to stand firm on and which items could have some flexibility. After our meeting we would like to send the DSR to TxDOT and request a meeting to review and decide what design elements will need to be changed. Once we have determined this information, we will be able to accurately assess our amendment to our existing design contract. Below is a partial list of items that do not conform to TxDOT Standards or items that will require more information. • Schematic Design - TxDOT will most likely require a revised schematic design. We will need to identify exactly what elements they will require in the schematic in order to convert our current design into an acceptable schematic. • TxDOT does not generally allow any utilities under the pavement sections. The existing 24" waterline will be under a majority of the pavement section as will proposed storm drain facilities. • TxDOT will most likely require a SUE to be performed. • TxDOT will require the traffic counts to be projected for various years, if they do not have the projections already. • The parkway width (Border) of 12 -feet is less than TxDOT's standard of 15 -feet. • Curb offsets are not currently proposed. We might be able to call the travel lanes 11 -feet wide with 1 -foot offsets. This will meet their absolute minimum standards. The desirable widths are 12 -feet lanes and 2 -feet of curb offset. • The median width of 16 -feet is less than TxDOT's standard of 20 -feet. • The median deceleration and storage lengths are significantly less than TxDOT's minimum. The minimum values for these design elements are 75 -feet and 100 -feet, respectively. • The special bridge railing is not a TxDOT standard rail. 12160 North Abrams Road, Suite 508 j Dallas, Texas 75243 1214.461.9867 phone i 214.461.9864 fax www.tnp-online.com • The City drainage design standards exceed TxDOT's standards. The City will most likely be asked to pay for the difference. • TxDOT will most likely not like the pavement design that has been completed. They require special calculations and testing that was not provided in the geotechnical report. • TxDOT requires continuously reinforced concrete pavement and a 4 -inch HMAC underlayment along with stabilized subgrade. The City standard for this roadway is 8" of reinforced concrete pavement and 8" of cement stabilized subgrade. • A scour analysis for Cottonwood Creek Bridge was not performed with the original geotechnical investigation, and TxDOT will most likely require that one be completed. • TxDOT will require some type of accelerated contract procedure listed on DSR - 15. • Page 2 Design Summary Report DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT (DSR) The DSR summarizes a basic project information in one document. Use judgment in completing the report since it covers a wide range of items that may not apply to all projects. This report can be partially completed during the Preliminary Design Conference and updated throughout project development. The DSR will be reviewed in detail during the Design Conference. Highway No. West Sandy Lake Road CSJ. 0918 -45 -773 County Dallas Length 1850 LF = 0.35 miles Project No. Limits From North Coppell Road To South Coppell Road Is project on National Highway System (NHS)? ❑ Yes ® No If yes, is project ❑ State oversight ❑ Federal oversight Type of work Reconstruction (4R) Project Layman's description Widening of West Sandy Lake from a two -lane roadway to a four -lane divided roadway Estimated construction cost 1 million Date of estimate April 2004 Estimated right of way cost N/A Date of estimate N/A Project Development Process Manual DSR -1 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Page Number Programming and Funding Data 3 Existing Elements 4 Advanced Project Development Elements 5 Proposed Right of Way & Utility Elements 6 Proposed Geometric Design Elements Proposed Bridge Design Data 9 Proposed Hydraulic Elements 10 Proposed Pavement Structure Elements 13 Proposed Traffic Operations Elements 13 Proposed Miscellaneous Elements 14 Accelerated Construction Procedures 15 APPENDIX Comments and Concurrence 17 Suggested Attendance 18 Suggested Agenda 19 Suggested Report Material 20 Project Development Process Manual DSR -2 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report Work Program PROGRAMMING AND FUNDING DATA Authorized Funds Breakdown of Funding Participation STIP Year Sidewalk funded by Cost to be shared as indicated above Curb and gutter funded by Cost to be shared as indicat above Storm drain system funded by Cost to be shared as indicated above Illumination to be maintained by Utility Company List and describe active Minute Orders and agreements Minute Order 110266 & Master Advance Funding Agreement (MAFA) dated January 10, 2006 Are advance funding agreements required? ® yes ❑ no If yes, describe In place Is unusual financing required? ❑ yes If yes, explain If program estimate differs from authorized amount, explain overrun/underrun See attached copy of current cost estimate. Tentative letting date Octob 2008 Date of PS &E submission to District Design March 2008 Should letting date be rescheduled? ❑ yes ® no If yes, recommended letting date (and notify all affected offices if letting date is changed) ►1 m Project Development Process Manual DSR -3 TxDOT May 2004 Preliminary En in ering Construction Ri ht of Way Eligible Utility Relocation Federal 80 8,000 80 670,588.23 State County City 20. 2,000 20 167,647.06 100 unknown 100 unknown Totals 100 10,000 100 800,000 100 0 100 0 Sidewalk funded by Cost to be shared as indicated above Curb and gutter funded by Cost to be shared as indicat above Storm drain system funded by Cost to be shared as indicated above Illumination to be maintained by Utility Company List and describe active Minute Orders and agreements Minute Order 110266 & Master Advance Funding Agreement (MAFA) dated January 10, 2006 Are advance funding agreements required? ® yes ❑ no If yes, describe In place Is unusual financing required? ❑ yes If yes, explain If program estimate differs from authorized amount, explain overrun/underrun See attached copy of current cost estimate. Tentative letting date Octob 2008 Date of PS &E submission to District Design March 2008 Should letting date be rescheduled? ❑ yes ® no If yes, recommended letting date (and notify all affected offices if letting date is changed) ►1 m Project Development Process Manual DSR -3 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report 41 EXISTING ELEMENTS A. Existing typical section 1. No. of traffic lanes 2 2. Lane Width 12' 3. Shldr. Width 0' 4. Median width N/A 5. Curb & gutter ❑ yes ® no Stream vl.us., uuu Structure � ............. .,.... Structure ... »,... ---- Structure - - - - Date of Sidewalk Clear Rdwy. Sufficiency Name Number Len h Type Construction Width Width Ratin Cotton- 80' Bridge Unknown n/a 24' Unknown wood Creek �. liA13Ll116 l IVJJ Ui uaiiY Station Number of Barrels Sizes Type (shape & material None IN Stream data 1. Will channel work be required? ❑ yes ® no If yes, linear feet disturbed? permits needed? ❑ yes 1:1 no 2. If bridges shafts must be drilled in channel or stream bed, how will drilling rigs gain access? (e.g., cofferdams, drilling pads, or access roads) None E. Other (e.g., stock pass) None F. ROW data 1. Existing ROW width 105' (typical) 2. Estimated number of land owners 12 3. Predominant land use Residential 4. Soil types Silty Clayey Sand H Existing constraints 1. Eligible historical structures None 2. Schools None 3. Parks Thweat Park 4. Archeological sites None 5. Potential hazardous material sites _ 6. Ecological (wetlands, habitats, etc.) 7. Other None Highway - railroad (RR) grade crossings 1. Owner of RR: ❑ UP RR ❑ BNSF RR ❑ KCS RR ❑ Other 2. Type of RR crossing surface material ❑ concrete ❑ rubber ❑ wood 3. Type of warning devices: ❑ passive ❑ cantilever flashing lights ❑ lights and gates ❑ mast signals 4. Do opportunities exist for consolidating or closing RR crossings? ❑ yes ❑ no 5. Is there a highway -RR grade crossing adjacent (i.e., within about 500 feet (152 m)) to a signalized highway intersection? ❑ yes ❑ no If yes, responsible office for determining the need for preemption I. Has a crash analysis been performed? ❑ yes ❑ no No ne None Project Development Process Manual DSR -4 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report ADVANCED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ELEMENTS A. Surveying 1. Is planimetric needed? ❑ yes ® no 2. Status of aerial photography: ❑ complete ❑ in progress ❑ not started ® not proposed 3. Status of field surveys: ® complete ❑ in progress ❑ not started 4. Has vertical and horizontal control been established on the ground? ®yes ❑ no 5. Additional elements to be surveyed (drainage channels, intersecting streets, etc.) None - Survey is Complete 6. Is existing ROW staking required? ❑ yes ® no Status: ❑ complete ❑ in progress ❑ not started Responsible Office: 7. Comments B. Schematic development 1. Is a geometric schematic required? ❑ yes ❑ no If yes, responsible office 2. Is a signing schematic required? ❑ yes ❑ no 3. Schematic status a. Percent complete % b. Approval authority: ❑ FHWA ❑ DES ❑ District c. Need prelim. schematic by d. Need approved schematic by e. Approval date 4. Comments C. Environmental Commitments & Issues 1. Anticipated type of environmental document required K CE ® EA ❑ EIS 2. Office responsible for preparing environmental document 3. Has environmental document been approved? ❑ yes ® no Status 4. Public meetings ❑ proposed ❑ not proposed ❑ scheduled ® held ❑ MAPO Date(s) December 7, 2004 5. Public hearing: ❑ scheduled ❑ opp. afforded ❑ held ❑ not required Date: 6. Environmental commitments a. Noise Will be addressed in EA or CE b. Air quality Will be addressed in EA or CE c. Wetlands /Section 404 Permit 1. Individual permit required? Will be addressed in EA or CE 2. Nationwide permit required? Will be addressed in EA or CE d. Water Quality Will be addressed in EA or CE e. Coast Guard N/A f. Natural Resources 1. Vegetation Will be addressed in EA or CE 2. Endangered species Will be addressed in EA or CE 3. Other Will be addressed in EA or CE g. Cultural resources 1. archeology Will be addressed in EA or CE 2. historical Will be addressed in EA or CE h. Social, economic, environmental justice Will be addressed in EA or CE i. 4f, 6f Will be addressed in EA or CE j. Other Will be addressed in EA or CE 7. Are hazardous materials issues anticipated? ❑ yes ® no 8. Environmental Issues Permits Commitments Sheet (EIPC) completed? ❑ yes ® no 9. Office(s) responsible for fulfilling commitments 10. Comments Project Development Process Manual DSR -5 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY & UTILITY ELEMENTS A. Right of way elements 1. Usual ROW width 90' Minimum 2. Additional ROW needed to accommodate design features (side slopes, sound walls, etc.) Around embankments for bridge and roadway re- alignment. 3. Have adjacent property owners been identified? ® yes ❑ no 4. Is additional ROW required? Eyes ❑ no 5. How many parcels will be involved in ROW acquisition? 2 6. Are easements required (drainage or construction)? ❑ yes ® no 7. Is control of access needed? ❑ yes ® no 8. Have ROW map /plats /descriptions been prepared for parcels? ❑ yes ® no 9. Is relocation assistance required? ❑ yes ® no a. Number of residences b. Number of businesses c. Other improvements 10. Comments B. Major utility facilities 1. Preliminary utility inventory Utility Type Describe potential conflict City of Coppell 24" WL Parallel Need to relocate section that would be under bridge. City of Coppell SS Crossing None expected TXU Transmission Parallel Several poles to be relocated due to horizontal conflicts with proposed pavement. Various Franchise Both Many Conflicts expected due to widening and grade changes. 2. Have utility conflicts been determined? ❑ yes E no 3. Has Subsurface Utility Engineering been requested or performed to locate utilities? ❑ yes ® no 4. Have utility agreements been prepared through district ROW office? ❑ yes ® no Comments Project Development Process Manual DSR -6 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report PROPOSED GEOMETRIC DESIGN ELEMENTS Note: Design features listed in tables may not apply to every project. Functional classification: ❑ freeway E arterial ❑ major collector ❑ minor collector ❑ local Highway type: ❑ urban freeway ❑ urban frontage road ❑ rural freeway ❑ rural frontage road ❑ rural multilane ❑ rural two -lane ❑ suburban roadway ® urban street ❑ bike /pedestrian trail Proposed work: ® 4R/new construction ❑ 3R ❑ 2R Terrain: ❑ level ❑ rolling A. Traffic Street Existing ADT ADT (letting ear ADT (design ear Sandy Lake Road 11095 Figure/Table ure /Table g Design speed 30 width Tb13 -1 Unless TxDOT -TPP provides this data, submit five -year and twenty -year forecasts of average daily traffic volumes including traffic loadings by axle load spectrum or vehicle classifications as defined by the FHWA on existing and proposed roads and streets within or affected by the facility. B. Design criteria Design Elements Design Guidelines Existing Value Proposed Value Minimum Desirable Figure/Table ure /Table g Design speed 30 width Tb13 -1 30 Max. horiz. curvature 300 Fig 2 -2 ratio 800 Max. superelevation rate 6% ratio 3:1 2% K value — sag 37 Fig 2 -11 ratio 70 min K value — crest 19 height Fig 2 -9 80 min Maximum grade 9% Tbl 2-9 6 % Minimum grade 0.35 Thl 2-9 0.5% Other C. Roadside features (See attached typical sections.) Roadside Feature Unit Value Comments Border width 12 Sidewalk Location: adjacent & offset width Cross slope — sidewalk % 1.5 Ditch front slope — usual ratio 6:1 Ditch front slop — maximum ratio 3:1 Ditch back slope — usual ratio 4:1 Ditch back slope — maximum ratio 3:1 Maximum fill height before retaining wall height 2' Clear zone width 1.5' min Other Project Development Process Manual DSR -7 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report PROPOSED GEOMETRIC DESIGN ELEMENTS (continued) D. Roadway surface features (See attached typical sections.) Roadwa Feature Dimension Comments :: �T�hru Lanes Proposed 24' 2 -12' Lanes each wa Ultimate 24' 2 -12' Lanes each wa Other Longitudinal elements Bike Lane on street n/a Parkin n/a Minimum grade Bridge Width 90' 0.5% Curb offset n/a Shoulders (ML) Inside n/a Outside n/a Median Raised 16' Flush n/a Other Depressed n/a n/a Opening spacing 300' min Access Constraints Opening width 60' Min Speed Change Lanes Lane width 10' Storage Length 60' Min Taper Length 99.5' Shoulders n/a Cross Slopes Thru lanes 2% Shoulders n/a Structure clearances Horizontal 3' Vertical n/a E. Connecting roadways (See attached typical sections.) Design Element Rams Direct Connectors Crossroads Design seed 20 m h Max. horizontal curve match existing Maximum grade 9% Minimum grade 0.5% Prop. number of lanes match existing Lane width match existing Inside shoulder n/a Outside shoulder n/a Other n/a F. Are design exceptions /waivers required? ❑ yes If yes, what design elements? ❑ no Project Development Process Manual DSR -8 TxDOT May 2004 Desizn Summary R PROPOSED BRIDGE DESIGN DATA A. Design data for structures Structure Number Structure Location Clearance horiz. vert. Clear Rdwy. width Length Over -pass OR under- pass Foundation type Super- structure type Sub - structure type Cottonwood Creek 66 +50 Concrete special 24' 130' Stream Crossing Drilled Shaft Type C Girders Conc. Bents & Abutments Structure Number (repeat from above) Railroad crossing? (yes /no) Type of Exist. Rail Type of Prop. Rail Proposed approach treatment Turn- arounds provided? (width) Retaining walls proposed? (fie) Bridge widening (describe exist. & proposed) Are bridge design exceptions /waivers required? If yes, for what design elements? Cottonwood Creek no Concrete special concrete approach none none replacement rails B. Bridge widths are for: ® proposed number of lanes O ultimate number of lanes C. Are bridge widths controlled by traffic handling? ❑ yes ® no Project Development Process Manual DSR -9 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report PROPOSED HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS A. TxDOT design frequency Notes: Table shown below is in the TxDOT Hydraulic Design Manual Shaded boxes denote recommended design frequencies. When multiple design frequencies are given, select a frequency by checking a box ( o ). Federal law requires interstate highways to be provided with protection from the 50 -year flood event, and facilities such as underpasses and depressed roadways where no overflow relief is available should be designed for the 50 -year event. Functional Classification and Structure Type Design Frequency (years) Check 100 -yr Flood? 2 5 10 25 50 Freeways (main lanes) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Culverts ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ' $ M yes Bridges ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � r y es Principal arterials ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Culverts ❑ ❑ ❑ ® yes Small bridges ❑ El ® yes Major river crossings ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑'' ` yes Minor arterials and collectors (including frontage roads) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Culverts Small bridges ❑ ❑ ❑ El ;' ❑ , : ❑ ❑ ", _, ❑ ❑ yes yes Major river crossings ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ yes Local roads and streets (off - system projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Culverts ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ yes Small bridges El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ yes Storm drain systems Interstate and controlled access highways (main lanes) yes inlets and drain pipe ❑ ❑.� ❑.� ❑ ❑ yes inlets for depressed roadways ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ yes Other highways and frontage inlets and drain pipe ❑ ❑ 'i ❑ El ® yes inlets for depressed roadways El El 77 ❑:, ® yes Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Project Development Process Manual DSR -10 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report PROPOSED HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS (continued) B. If design frequency is other than TxDOT guidelines, where it is to be used and the reason (e.g., to use in designing off system facilities or to comply with FEMA requirements) City Standards C. Comments on special hydrologic considerations (e.g. Basin is regulated by reservoirs, unit hydrograph and routing techniques in HEC -HMS used in lieu of regression equations) D. Safety end treatment proposed Parallel drainage structures n/a Cross drainage structures n/a E. Will outfall channels be provided? ❑ yes If yes, by whom? n/a F. Will outfall channels be maintained by others? ❑ yes ❑ no If yes, by whom? n/a G. Will others have to approve hydraulic design? N yes ❑ no If yes, by whom? City of Coppell H. Will others participate in funding hydraulic structures (e.g., joint ditch agreements with railroads)? N yes ❑ no If yes, who? City of Coppell I. For storm drain design, is there potential for future development that may redirect flows normally away from the project back to the project? ❑ yes N no If yes, will the actual "modified" contributing drainage area be used if known or will an estimate of a 150' wide area be used instead when the actual modification is not known? Will pump stations be required? ❑ yes N no If yes, approximate locations K. Is this an evacuation route where roadway elevation is critical? ❑ yes N no If yes, explain L. Is the design of any special drainage facility required? ❑ yes N no If yes, explain M. Which hydraulic programs will be required for analysis? HEC -HMS, HEC -RAS N. Are flood insurance study streams within project limits? N yes ❑ no If yes, which streams and what type of may is designated (e.g. Flood Hazard and Boundary Map)? Cottonwood Creek F.I.R.M. ❑ no Project Development Process Manual DSR -11 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report O. Informal FEMA coordination should always be initiated early in project development to identify any pertinent issues such as the availability or loss of the accumulative 1 -foot rise to previous development. Has the informal FEMA coordination revealed any special issues that may require formal coordination (e.g., such as a no remaining rise or the presence of a designated floodway)? ❑ yes ® no P. Is the any existing development in the floodplain that may be impacted at any stage by changes (no matter how small) brought about by the project, regardless of whether the project meets FEMA standards? ❑ yes ® no Project Development Process Manual DSR -12 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report PROPOSED PAVEMENT STRUCTURE ELEMENTS A. Describe existing pavement Deteriorating HMAC B. Is existing roadway load zoned? ® yes ❑ no Limits From Existing Bridge To C. Has pavement design been prepared? E yes ❑ no Been approved? Eyes ❑ no Responsible office City of Coppell D. Proposed pavement structure (See attached typical sections.) Describe thickness and material type of each layer. Pavement Structure Element Roadway Shoulder Widen existing Mainlanes 8" Conc w /8" cement subgrade n/a Frontage roads Direct connectors Ramps Detours Crossroads Match Exist - 6" conc minimum n/a Others PROPOSED TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ELEMENTS A. Are signing, delineation, and pavement markings to be included in const. plans? ® yes ❑ no If yes, responsible office City of Coppell B. Is signalization proposed? ❑ yes ® no If yes, are traffic signals warranted? ❑ yes ❑ no Resp. office for developing plans A Is there a highway - railroad grade crossing adjacent (i.e., within about 500 -feet, (152 m)) to a signalized highway intersection? ❑ yes ® no If yes, responsible office for determining the need for pre - emption D. Is safety lighting proposed? ❑ yes ❑ no If yes, is illumination warranted? ❑ yes ❑ no Resp. office for developing plans E. Is continuous lighting proposed? E yes ❑ no If yes, is illumination warranted? ❑ yes ❑ no Resp. office for developing plans City of Coppell F. Are Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) items proposed? ❑ yes ❑ no If yes, are proposed ITS items included in the regional ITS plan? ❑ yes ❑ no Comments Project Development Process Manual DSR -13 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report PROPOSED MISCELLANEOUS ELEMENTS A. Geotechnical exploration 1. Roadway Is geotechnical investigation needed? ❑ yes M no Is geotechnical investigation available? M yes ❑ no If yes, explain Completed by CMJ Engineering in April 2001 2. Bridges (list bridges requiring foundation exploration) Cottonwood Creek 3. Walls (list retaining walls or noise walls requiring foundation exploration) Retaining walls adjacent to ROW in several locations 4. Storm drains 5. Miscellaneous (e.g., overhead sign bridges, high mast illumination) 6. Office responsible for geotechnical exploration (borings) City of Coppell 7. Is a D 50 (grain size determination) for scour analysis on the proposed structure at the stream crossing required from the lab? ❑ yes ❑ no B. Sequence of construction (Outline probable stages. See attached typical sections.) 1. Stage I Construct EB lanes and bridge half - maintain existing traffic p atterns 2. Stage II Demo existing pvmt & bridge, construct WB lanes. 3. Additional stages C. Will median openings require approval by others? M yes ❑ no If yes, by whom? City of Coppell D. Are requirements satisfied for the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and the Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS)? M yes ❑ no Comments Design will comply and be approved & inspected E. Are railroad agreements needed? ❑ yes M no If yes, where? F. Are airway/highway clearance permits required? ❑ yes M no 1. For roadway 2. For other (e.g., high mast illumination G. What type of erosion control is proposed? 1. Fills seeding/sodding, soil retention blankets 2. Is a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SW3P) proposed? M yes ❑ no Required? M yes ❑ no 3. Other H. What end treatment is proposed for metal beam guard fence? n/a I. Is a Safety Review Committee (or multi- discipline team) review required? ❑ yes M no J. Does design address requirements of environmental permits and env. concerns? ❑ yes ❑ no K. Comments Project Development Process Manual DSR -14 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report ACCELERATED CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES A. Are accelerated contracting procedures required? (The following types of projects will require the use of accelerated construction contract provisions. Check all that apply to this project:) ❑ Interstate or freeway project with lane closures during one or more phases of construction ❑ Bridge closure (either as the entire project or a portion of a larger project) ❑ Road closure ® Added Capacity projects ❑ Non - freeway with ADT >I 0,000 and lane closures during one or more phases of construction ® Provides access to a nearby school, emergency services (hospital, fire, etc.), or major traffic generator ❑ Project affects access to adjacent businesses ❑ Other (Projects that are time critical such as traffic signal work at high accident locations) Explain: ❑ None of the above (Acceleration provisions are not required) Type of Work: B. Is an exception request to DES needed? ❑ Yes ® No (Note: If the project meets any of the above criteria and accelerated contract provisions are not utilized, Design Division approval will be required. Request for approval to not utilize accelerated contract provisions should be submitted in advance of PS &E submission for letting.) Request submitted: (date) Approval Received: (date) C. What type of accelerated contract procedure will be used? (Check the accelerated contract provision(s) to be used on this project.) ❑ Calendar Day Definition for Working Day ❑ Incentive Using Contract Administrative Cost ❑ Increased Liquidated Damages ❑ Milestones with Incentives/Disincentives ❑ Substantial Completion Incentives/Disincentives ❑ Lane Rental Disincentive ❑ A +B Provisions D. What technique will be used to calculate road user costs? ❑ FREQ, CORSIM or HCS models ❑ PASSER models ❑ Manual technique ❑ Other E. Who will perform road user costs calculations? ❑ consultant ❑ interagency agreement ❑ district Project Development Process Manual DSR -1 S TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report APPENDIX Project Development Process Manual DSR -16 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report COMMENTS AND CONCURRENCE District Comments Signed Title Design Division Comments Date Signed Title FHWA Comments Date Signed Title Date Note: Concurrence with this report does not imply approval of any design exceptions or waivers referred to herein. Project Development Process Manual DSR -17 ADOT May 2004 Design Summary Report SUGGESTED ATTENDANCE Date of conference Location of conference INVITED ATTENDED (name) (name) TxDOT district and area office staff advanced project dev. engineer area engineer area maintenance supervisor bicycle coordinator bridge engineer construction engineer dir. of trans. planning & dev. district engineer district design engineer environmental coordinator landscape architect maintenance engineer pavement engineer pedestrian coordinator planner programming & sched. mgr. railroad coordinator right of way administrator utility coordinator traffic engineer TxDOT division offices FHWA bicycle groups city and county consultants environmental resource agencies federal transit authority MPO director or staff transit operators trucking industry utility companies others (e.g., chamber of commerce) Project Development Process Manual DSR -18 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Re, SUGGESTED AGENDA Prior to the Preliminary Design Conference, experienced district representatives from traffic operations, design, construction and maintenance should visit the site together to review existing conditions. Background • existing elements • funding • surveys, studies, and data • agreements and permits • problematic features • Feasibility Study or Major Investment Study findings Project Scope Corridor issues • mobility & transportation • operations & maintenance • planned /funded projects Environmental Documents and Commitments made Detailed Design Criteria Project development criteria • Level of Service • control of access • geometric design • hydraulic design • bridge design • pavement design • traffic operations design • landscape and aesthetic design • constructibility Environmental issues Multimodal issues Alternatives Schematics Public Involvement Plan • stakeholders • public meeting and public hearing Right of Way • new ROW required • easements required • utility adjustments • control of access Maintenance Permits, agreements, and coordination with: • outside entities • Federal, State, City, or County • railroads Project Development Process Manual DSR -19 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report SUGGESTED REPORT MATERIAL Consider attaching the following to this report: PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT DRAFT ALTERNATIVES SCREENING AND EVALUATION CRITERIA PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION OF KEY STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AGREEMENTS REACHED BETWEEN CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS ATTACHMENTS Conference minutes or notes Typical Sections Page 3 of Form 1002 Location Map (optional) Project Development Process Manual DSR -20 TxDOT May 2004 p,l)- iz� e S C �cua� zlzi 474� O /X Ai VARI VARIES I 4 �1 2% 1' TYP 25' R.O.W. 16' MIN. VARIES FILL SECTIONS ONLY. ALTERNF Tr REVERSE SLOPE ACCEPTAB NOT TO EXCEED I I 25' t VARIES 12.5' 12.5' i 12.5' 12.5' 6" TYP 2% 1 2% 4 _ - 6" TYP NO. 3 BARS ON 24" CTRS. BOTH WAYS. SUBGRADE, TYP SEE NOTE 3 i _ 1 L. i -_ -- I I - - 6 IYH I, I � - T NO. 3 BARS ON 24 �T CTRS. BOTH WAYS. I I NO. 3 BARS ON 24" NO. 3 BARS ON 24" CTRS. BOTH WAYS. RFGHI AR �FC;TION T= 8 ", OR AS SPECIFIED BY CITY CTRS. BOTH WAYS. T= 8" OR AS SPECIFIED BY CITY N.T.S. U RED REFLECTIVE SURFACE FACING AWAY FROM TRAFFIC. DOUBLE REFLECTIVE BUTTON NOTES: 1. MIN. PAVEMENT DEPTH AND STRENGTH SHALL BE 8" - CLASS "C ", OR AS SPECIFIED BY CITY. 2. MIN. CURB HEIGHT AND WIDTH SHALL BE 6 ", OR AS SPECIFIED BY CITY. 3. SUBGRADE (MIN. REQUIREMENTS- UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER). SUBGRADE UNDER ALL PAVEMENT SHALL BE 6" THICK AND SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH 8% MIN. BY WEIGHT OF HYDRATED LIME (40 LBS. /S.Y.) AND COMPACTED TO A DENSITY NOT ® LESS THAN 95% AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D -698. ALTERNATIVE SUBGRADES, SUPPORTED BY LABORATORY TESTS, MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL. 4. PAVEMENT SURFACE FINISH SHALL BE TRANSVERSE TO TRAFFIC LANES AND SHALL BE BAKER BROOM FINISH UNLESS OTHERWISE i SPECIFIED BY CITY. 5. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. 6. CHANNELIZING BUTTONS SHALL BE INSTALLED OFF PAVEMENT JOINT. North central Town cou,a of Govemmenb 40 NOTE: STANDARDS ARE ADOPTED FROM THE NCTOG STANDARD DRAWINGS DATED NOV. '96, WITH LOCAL EXCEPTIONS. q ADD NOTES 3 THRU 6. CHANGED CORNER RADIUS FROM 20' TO 30'. r 25' SUBGRADE, TYP LEFT TURN SECTION SEE NOTE 3 N.T.S. 1O SAWED LONGITUDINAL CONTRACTION JOINT ON PAVEMENT LESS THAN 8" THICK. KEYWAY CONSTRUCTION JOINT ON PAVEMENT WITH THICKNESS OF 8" OR GREATER . 5' WHITE REFLECTIVE SURFACE FLOW OF TRAFFIC WHITE REFLECTIVE SURFACE FACING TOWARD TRAFFIC. FACING TOWARD TRAFFIC DOUBLE REFLECTIVE BUTTON SINGLE REFLECTIVE BUTTON O O 0 m O O m m Q Q O 0 0 0 0 z - CHANNELIZING BUTTONS WITH RED REFLECTOR _y 0 NON REFLECTIVE BUTTON INTERSECTION FIRST 4 GROUPS FROM INTERSECTION INNER PAIR, TYP ALL GROUPS 0 FLOW OF TRAFFIC V z X _ = ``' MEDIAN NOSE, SEE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAIL 2130 - DEDICATED LEFT TURN LANE, IF APPLICABLE. SEE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAIL 2025 ( FLOW OF TRAFFIC _ O O O O m 0 0 0 FLOW OF TRAFFIC LOCAL EXCEPTION SWL BY .o z � z 0 w 0 0 0 0 O O O O m O O m 0 0 0 0 PLAN N.T.S. N STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS STD. SPEC. REFERENCE 5.8., 4.6, 7.4. NOV. '03 z 0 o� NOV. '03 STANDARD DETAIL ZOZO N DATE CITY OF COPPELL DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS N N � W S ~ m Y a o 0 U o N Q 0 OINT z - CHANNELIZING BUTTONS WITH RED REFLECTOR _y 0 NON REFLECTIVE BUTTON INTERSECTION FIRST 4 GROUPS FROM INTERSECTION INNER PAIR, TYP ALL GROUPS 0 FLOW OF TRAFFIC V z X _ = ``' MEDIAN NOSE, SEE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAIL 2130 - DEDICATED LEFT TURN LANE, IF APPLICABLE. SEE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAIL 2025 ( FLOW OF TRAFFIC _ O O O O m 0 0 0 FLOW OF TRAFFIC LOCAL EXCEPTION SWL BY .o z � z 0 w 0 0 0 0 O O O O m O O m 0 0 0 0 PLAN N.T.S. SANewlogo\logosn2.Jpg STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS STD. SPEC. REFERENCE 5.8., 4.6, 7.4. NOV. '03 NOV. '03 REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOUR -LANE DIVIDED THOROUGHFARE NOV. '03 STANDARD DETAIL ZOZO N DATE CITY OF COPPELL DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS