Loading...
ST9902-CS080128Av maw TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture Planning January 28, 2008 01 -29 -O BP12:36 RCVD Keith Marvin, P.E. Project Engineer City of Coppell 255 E. Parkway Blvd. Coppell, Texas 75019 RE: Reconstruction of West Sandy Lake Road CSJ: 0918 -45 -773 Dear Keith: Attached please find two (2) schematic exhibits for the above referenced project for your review. Also, you will find a completed Design Summary Report (DSR) outlining our understanding of the scope of this project. I have also sent this same information to Mr. Maurice Pittman, P.E. with TxDOT for his review. For your reference, I have attached a copy of the transmittal letter that was included with his submittal. If you have any questions during your review, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, INC. Matt Atkins, P.E. DTIT•1 � c- Za ( '- P '-'J , d5 12160 North Abrams Road, Suite 508 Dallas, Texas 75243 214.461.9867 phone ' 214.461.9864 fax www.tnp-online.com jW w TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture Planning January 28, 2008 Maurice Pittman, P.E. Assistant Area Engineer Texas Department of Transportation 12000 N. Greenville Avenue Dallas, Texas 75243 RE: Reconstruction of West Sandy Lake Road CSJ: 0918 -45 -773 Mr. Pittman: Attached please find two (2) schematic exhibits for the above referenced project for your review. Also, you will find a completed Design Summary Report (DSR) outlining our understanding of the scope of this project. Once you have completed your review, I would be glad to meet with you to discuss any comments or questions that you may have regarding either the schematic or the DSR. If you have any questions during your review, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, INC. Matt Atkins, P.E. enc. 12160 North Abrams Road, Suite 508 Dallas, Texas 75243 214.461 .9867 phone 214.461.9864 fax www.tnp-online.com 0 2 - - Mea F1 ST 99 -02B Sandy Lake Road N. Coppell to Denton Tap Project has been broken into two sections. received $800,000 in federal assistance. S city funding. Design Engineer: Teague, Nall & Perkins Remaining Engineering: $400,000 Construction Estimate Phase II: $3,700,000 Lab Estimate: $60,000 Construction Estimate Phase III: $5,100,000 Lab Estimate: $75,000 N. Coppell Road to S. Coppell Road has Coppell Road to Denton Tap will be 100% Design was at the 50% level for the entire stretch. The city portion will progress from this level to 100 %. The federal portion will go back to schematic design for TXDOT to review. Design will then progress from there under TXDOT guidelines. Phase II ( TXDOT) Schematic submittal — 3/1/08 30% Plans — 7/1/08 65% Plans — 10 /1 /08 Final Plans — 1/1/09 Phase III (City) 65% Plans — 4/1/08 Final Plans 9/1/08 There are significant right of way needs for this project. Our design engineers are working on preparation of documents for acquisition, expect to submit them on 4/1/08. We will begin the acquisition process during the second quarter of 2008. We have informed the franchise utility companies of this upcoming project. They will not begin their relocations until the ROW has been dedicated. ST 05 -01 Deforest Road Design Engineer: GSWW, Inc. MacArthur Blvd. to Windsor Estates Engineering: $188,106 Construction Estimate: $2,100,000 Lab Estimate: $45,000 This design contract was awarded at the October 9, 2007 City Council Meeting. Survey is approximately 75% complete. We anticipate a schematic design submittal on March 14, 2008. We will have a better idea of ROW needs and utility conflicts at that time. Desig S ummary 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 East side of North Coppell Road To West side of 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 7 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 Su mmary Report Work Program Authorized Funds Breakdown of Funding Participation STIP Year Sidewalk funded by Cost to be shared as indicated above Curb and gutter funded by C ost to be shared as indicated 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 PROGRAMMING AND FUNDING DATA October 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) o Project Development Process Manual DSR -3 TxDOT May 2004 Preliminary En in ering Construction Right 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 0 2000 0 167,647.06 100 0 100 0 Sidewalk funded by Cost to be shared as indicated above Curb and gutter funded by C ost to be shared as indicated 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 PROGRAMMING AND FUNDING DATA October 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) o Project Development Process Manual DSR -3 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report 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 R Pyictino hridve data (inrindinu hridae -class culverts) Stream Structure Structure Structure Date of Sidewalk Clear Rdwy. Sufficiency Name Number Length Type Construction Width Width Ratin Cotton- 80' Bridge Unknown n/a 24' Unknown wood Creek (` Rvictino rrnee drninaoe riduert data Station Number of Barrels Sizes Type (shape & material None D. Stream data 1. Will channel work be required? ® yes ❑ no If yes, linear feet disturbed? 100 permits needed? ❑ yes ® 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 G. 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 H None 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 Project Development Process Manual DSR -4 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report I. Has a crash analysis been performed? ❑ yes ❑ no Project Development Process Manual DSR -5 TxDOT May 2004 De sign 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 City 2. Is a signing schematic required? ❑ yes ® no 3. Schematic status a. Percent complete 95 % b. Approval authority: ❑ FHWA ❑ DES ® District c. Need prelim. schematic by Feb 2008 d. Need approved schematic by March 2008 e. Approval date 4. Comments C. Environmental Commitments & Issues 1. Anticipated type of environmental document required ❑ CE ® EA ❑ EIS 2. Office responsible for preparing environmental document TxDOT 3. Has environmental document been approved? ❑ yes ® no Status Started 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 i. 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 -6 TxDOT May 2004 Des ign Summary Report PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY & UTILITY ELEMENTS 1 I 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? E 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 E no 8. Have ROW map /plats /descriptions been prepared for parcels? ❑ yes E 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 ® 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 -7 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 ® 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: E 4R/new construction ❑ 3R ❑ 2R Terrain: ❑ level ❑ rolling A. Traffi Street Existing ADT 11095 ADT (letting ear ADT (design ear Minimum Desirable Figure/Table ure/Table g Design speed 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 Thl 3 -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 Tb12 -9 0.5% Other C. Roadside features (See attached typical sections.) Roadside Feature Unit Value Comments Border width 12 sidewalk Location: adjacent & offset width 5' -8' 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 -8 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report PROPOSED GEOMETRIC DESIGN ELEMENTS (continued) D. Roadway surface features (See attached typical sections.) Roadwa Feature Dimension Comments Thru 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 mph Max. horizontal curve match existin Maximum grade 9 % Minimum grade 0.5% Prop. number of lanes match existin Lane width match existin Inside shoulder n/a Outside shoulder n/a Other n/a F. Are design exceptions /waivers required? ❑ yes ❑ no If yes, what design elements? Project Development Process Manual DSR -9 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary R PROPOSED BRIDGE DESIGN DATA A. Design data for structures Structure Number Structure Location Clearance horiz. I 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? (hype) 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 ❑ ultimate number of lanes C. Are bridge widths controlled by traffic handling? ❑ yes ® no Project Development Process Manual DSR -11 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 Design Frequency Check and (years) 100 -yr Flood? Structure Type 2 5 10 1 25 50 Freeways (main lanes) Li L-i u u u Culverts ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ yes Bridges ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ yes Principal arterials ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Culverts El ❑ 1:1 ® yes Small bridges Li El ❑ ® yes Major river crossings El 1:1 ❑ yes Minor arterials and collectors El 1:1 ❑ El ❑ (including frontage roads) Culverts ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ yes Small bridges ❑ ❑ ❑ El yes Major river crossings ❑ El ❑ El MW yes Local roads and streets (off - system projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El Culverts El El ❑ El El yes Small bridges ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ yes Storm drain systems Interstate and controlled access highways yes (main lanes) main inlets and drain pipe El ❑ ❑ yes inlets for depressed roadways ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ yes Other highways and frontage inlets and drain pipe ❑ ❑ I ❑ ® yes inlets for depressed roadways ❑ ❑ ❑ J= ® yes Other Project Development Process Manual DSR -12 TxDOT May 2004 Design S ummary 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? ❑ no n/a G. Will others have to approve hydraulic design? E yes ❑ no If yes, by whom? City of Coppell H. Will others participate in funding hydraulic structures (e.g., joint ditch agreements with railroads)? ® 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 ® 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 ® no If yes, approximate locations K. Is this an evacuation route where roadway elevation is critical? ❑ yes ® no If yes, explain L. Is the design of any special drainage facility required? 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? ® 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. ❑ yes ® no Project Development Process Manual DSR -13 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 -14 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report PROPOSED PAVEMENT STRUCTURE ELEMENTS A. Describe existing pavement Deteriorating HMAC B. Is existing roadway load zoned? M yes ❑ no Limits From Existing Bridge To C. Has pavement design been prepared? ® yes ❑ no Been approved? ® yes ❑ 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 C. Is there a highway - railroad grade crossing adjacent (i.e., within about 500 -feet, (152 In)) 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? ® 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 -1 S TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report PROPOSED MISCELLANEOUS ELEMENTS A. Geotechnical exploration 1. Roadway Is geotechnical investigation needed? ❑ yes ® no Is geotechnical investigation available? E 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 D50 (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 traffi patterns 2. Stage H Demo existing pvmt & bridge, construct WB lanes. 3. Additional stages C. Will median openings require approval by others? ® 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)? ® yes ❑ no Comments Design will comply and be approved & inspected E. Are railroad agreements needed? ❑ yes ® no If yes, where? F. Are airway/highway clearance permits required? ❑ yes ® 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? ® yes ❑ no Required? ® 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 E no J. Does design address requirements of environmental permits and env. concerns? ❑ yes ❑ no K. Comments Project Development Process Manual DSR -16 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 >10,000 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 -17 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report APPENDIX Project Development Process Manual DSR -18 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 -19 TxDOT 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 -20 TxDOT May 2004 Design Summary Report 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 -21 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 -22 TxDOT May 2004 r te/ /- s tj S� Z�/ z )- /0 47 le-I c Gn 2 � / 6 2 '� ?