Plan Review: 42 Issues Found

Summary: 15 index entries | 1 perfect matches | 5 mismatched | 9 missing Mismatched (5): B-001: Expected: BASE PLAN (B-001) | Actual: BUCKLAND ROAD / PORTAGE ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS BASE PLAN (B-001)(p3) L-001-002: Expected: LAYOUT PLAN WITH CRITICAL DIMENSIONS (L-001-002) | Actual: LAYOUT PLAN WITH CRITICAL DIMENSIONS (L-002)(p5) RM-001: Expected: ROADMARKING PLAN (RM-001) ...

Why it matters: Addressing this before construction prevents rework and supports code compliance.

Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve before construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify: Drawing Index Audit: 9 missing, 5 mismatched out of 15 sheets

Summary: The project specification General Note 3 requires 'ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.' However, the drawing's Note 1 explicitly states 'All dimensions are in millimetres unless noted otherwise.' All dimensions shown on this sheet (e.g., 300, 150, 210, 1800, 900) are clearly in millimetres, directly contradicting the project-wide specification.

Why it matters: This contradiction in the stated unit convention between the project specification and the standard detail sheet could lead to serious dimensional errors during construction. If a contractor follows the project specification and interprets the drawing dimensions as meters instead of millimetres, ...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the applicable dimension unit convention. The project General Notes on G-001 state dimensions are in meters, while the standard vehicle crossing detail sheet VX0103 states dimensions are in millimetres. Please confirm which convention governs and updat...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the applicable dimension unit convention. The project General Notes on G-001 state dimensions are in meters, while the standard vehicle crossing detail sheet VX0103 states dimensions are in millimetres. Please confirm whic...

Summary: The drawing specifies a 'NEW TOUCAN CROSSING WITH 600mm THICK PEDESTRIAN CROSSING BARS'. A Toucan crossing is a signal-controlled crossing for pedestrians and cyclists (as supported by the presence of a Signal Plan in the drawing index). According to standard traffic engineering practice and TCD Rules, signalised crossings must be marked with parallel crosswalk lines (100mm wide continuous line...

Why it matters: Using 600mm pedestrian crossing bars at a signalised Toucan crossing creates a severe safety hazard. Zebra bars give pedestrians the legal expectation of absolute priority at all times, which dangerously conflicts with the phasing of the traffic signals. This is a major compliance failure with st...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intent for the Toucan crossing. If it is signal-controlled, update the roadmarking callout to use standard parallel crosswalk lines instead of 600mm pedestrian crossing bars.

RFI draft: Please clarify the intent for the Toucan crossing. If it is signal-controlled, update the roadmarking callout to use standard parallel crosswalk lines instead of 600mm pedestrian crossing bars.

Summary: The detailed design for the Park Avenue roundabout approach contains contradictory traffic control road markings. One section of the plan indicates 'give-way triangles' (which are standard for roundabout yields), while the adjacent section explicitly specifies a 'STOP' line and 'STOP' text for the same Park Avenue approach.

Why it matters: Roundabout approaches legally require GIVE WAY (yield) controls. Providing both STOP and GIVE WAY markings on the exact same approach is a direct design contradiction that violates traffic standards. This will halt line-marking construction, cause confusion for contractors, and lead to failed saf...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct traffic control markings for the Park Avenue approach. Confirm that the 'STOP' line and text should be removed and replaced with standard GIVE WAY triangles consistent with the roundabout design.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct traffic control markings for the Park Avenue approach. Confirm that the 'STOP' line and text should be removed and replaced with standard GIVE WAY triangles consistent with the roundabout design.

Summary: Sheet T25 specifies 'INSTALL NEW TYPE 2B MOUNTABLE KERB WITHOUT CHANNEL AS PER TDM STANDARD DETAIL KC0001'. However, the referenced standard detail KC0001 only provides a 'TYPE 2B MOUNTABLE KERB AND CHANNEL' configuration, which explicitly includes a channel with a 300mm width dimension. There is no 'without channel' variant of the Type 2B kerb shown on KC0001. The cross-section on T25 directs ...

Why it matters: This conflict creates ambiguity for the contractor constructing the roundabout mountable kerb. If the Type 2B kerb is installed per KC0001 (with channel), it may not match the intended roundabout design where no channel is desired. If the contractor omits the channel as stated on T25, they have n...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the roundabout mountable kerb should be Type 2B with or without a channel. If a Type 2B kerb without channel is intended, please provide an appropriate standard detail or a project-specific detail with dimensions, haunching, and bedding requirements. If ...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the roundabout mountable kerb should be Type 2B with or without a channel. If a Type 2B kerb without channel is intended, please provide an appropriate standard detail or a project-specific detail with dimensions, haunching,...

Summary: Sheet T25 construction notes specify cycle ramps to be constructed with '100mm THICK 20MPa CONCRETE' and reference AT TDM CY0025 for compliance. However, CY0025 Note 6 explicitly states 'All concrete to be grade N32.' N32 is a New Zealand normal-class concrete designation with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 32 MPa, which is significantly higher than the 20MPa specified on the layout p...

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the 20MPa specification shown on T25, the cycle ramps will be constructed with concrete that is substantially weaker than the N32 grade required by the referenced standard detail CY0025. This could lead to premature cracking or deterioration of the cycle ramps under traf...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required concrete grade for cycle ramps. Sheet T25 specifies 20MPa concrete for cycle ramps while referencing AT TDM CY0025, which requires N32 grade concrete (Note 6). Please confirm which concrete grade should be used and update the relevant drawings accor...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required concrete grade for cycle ramps. Sheet T25 specifies 20MPa concrete for cycle ramps while referencing AT TDM CY0025, which requires N32 grade concrete (Note 6). Please confirm which concrete grade should be used and upda...

Summary: The Roundabout Cross Section on sheet T25 specifies that the 180mm thick 20MPa concrete island should 'INSTALL ONE LAYER OF 663 MESH' and refers to standard detail IS0001. However, standard detail IS0001 (Section A-A) explicitly calls for '180mm thick 20mpa unreinforced concrete'.

Why it matters: This contradiction directly impacts structural integrity, material procurement, and cost. If reinforcement mesh is required for the specific roundabout design, the reference to the unreinforced standard detail IS0001 is conflicting and needs an explicit override notation.

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the 180mm thick 20MPa concrete for the traffic island should include one layer of 663 mesh as noted on sheet T25, or if it should be unreinforced as specified in TDM standard detail IS0001.

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the 180mm thick 20MPa concrete for the traffic island should include one layer of 663 mesh as noted on sheet T25, or if it should be unreinforced as specified in TDM standard detail IS0001.

Summary: The Layout Plan (L-002) shows a new traffic island with a dimensioned width of 0.9m and instructs the contractor to construct it as per 'AT TDM STANDARD DETAIL IS0001'. However, the referenced standard detail (IS0001) illustrates a 'CONVENTIONAL TRAFFIC ISLAND LAYOUT' with a fixed concrete infill width of 1800mm, flanked by 300mm mountable kerbs on each side. A standard traffic island requiring...

Why it matters: If the contractor strictly follows the standard detail, the island will be too wide for the layout, potentially encroaching into live traffic lanes or green cycle paths. If they follow the 0.9m layout dimension, they lack specific detailing for adapting the 300mm standard kerbs and infill to a na...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended construction detail for the 0.9m wide traffic island shown on L-002. Should a modified version of standard detail IS0001 be used, or is an alternative detail for narrow traffic islands available?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended construction detail for the 0.9m wide traffic island shown on L-002. Should a modified version of standard detail IS0001 be used, or is an alternative detail for narrow traffic islands available?

Summary: The Approach Sight Distance (ASD) schedule on sheet V-003 assigns an Operating Speed of 45 km/h and a Grade of 2% for the Portage Road South approach (marker A7). However, the Roundabout Sight Triangles schedule on the Visibility Plan assigns an Operating Speed of 35 km/h and a Grade of 1% for the Potential Conflict ASD (marker PC2) originating from the exact same Portage Road South approach.

Why it matters: Using contradictory operating speeds and grades for sight distance checks on the identical road approach results in significantly different required sight distances (47m required for A7 vs. 33m for PC2). This inconsistency affects the geometric safety validation of the intersection and could lead...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct Operating Speed and Grade for the Portage Road South approach. Update the sight distance schedules across all sheets so that the fundamental approach parameters remain consistent.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct Operating Speed and Grade for the Portage Road South approach. Update the sight distance schedules across all sheets so that the fundamental approach parameters remain consistent.

Summary: General Note 1 in the specification mandates that all work be constructed in accordance with the 'TRANSPORT DESIGN MANUAL (TDM)'. In contradiction, Note 2 on drawing detail RD0042 directs the contractor to 'Comply with EDC - Road drainage & surface water control, Clause 6.5'.

Why it matters: The drawing title explicitly labels the detail under 'TDM TECHNICAL STANDARDS', suggesting the note referencing the Engineering Design Code (EDC) is a legacy carryover. Referencing two different manuals creates a conflict in the governing standards and could result in non-compliant installations ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which design manual takes precedence for the catchpit installation. Should Note 2 on drawing RD0042 be updated to reference the corresponding section within the Transport Design Manual (TDM) instead of EDC Clause 6.5?

RFI draft: Please clarify which design manual takes precedence for the catchpit installation. Should Note 2 on drawing RD0042 be updated to reference the corresponding section within the Transport Design Manual (TDM) instead of EDC Clause 6.5?

Summary: General Note 3 in the project specification explicitly states, "ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE." However, the stormwater drawing includes multiple dimensional callouts that omit units, such as "600Φ", "450 CONC", and "375 CONC".

Why it matters: Without explicit unit designations (such as 'mm'), these specific callouts technically default to meters per the specification's general notes (e.g., resulting in a 600-meter manhole lid). This strict interpretation creates an impossible detail that risks procurement delays and requires formal cl...

Suggested next step: Please revise the drawing callouts to explicitly include the "mm" unit designation for pipe and lid diameters, or add a drawing-specific note stating that all such diameters are in millimeters to properly supersede the specification's global dimension note.

RFI draft: Please revise the drawing callouts to explicitly include the "mm" unit designation for pipe and lid diameters, or add a drawing-specific note stating that all such diameters are in millimeters to properly supersede the specification's global dimen...

Summary: The standard detail for vegetation clearance establishes a "2.00m" minimum clear zone height over both the berm and footpath. This directly conflicts with the project specification which requires general signage in these areas to have a minimum mounting height of "2.1m OVER BERMS OR 2.5m OVER FOOTPATHS".

Why it matters: Maintaining a vegetation canopy as low as 2.00m over footpaths and berms is an incorrect detail for standard pedestrian clearance and will inherently obscure any traffic signage mounted at the compliant heights (2.1m and 2.5m). This leads to safety hazards, non-compliance with traffic visibility ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the vertical vegetation minimum clear zone over berms and footpaths to safely accommodate the specified 2.1m and 2.5m minimum signage mounting heights respectively, and to align with standard pedestrian clearance practices.

RFI draft: Please revise the vertical vegetation minimum clear zone over berms and footpaths to safely accommodate the specified 2.1m and 2.5m minimum signage mounting heights respectively, and to align with standard pedestrian clearance practices.

Summary: The note on this sheet explicitly states the vehicle tracking was undertaken using an '85th PERCENTILE DESIGN CAR AT A SPEED OF 45km/h.' However, the annotations placed directly on the tracking paths in the plan label the vehicles as '50th PERCENTILE CAR AT 50km/h' and '50th PERCENTILE CAR AT 37km/h.' Additionally, individual vehicle footprints are uniformly labeled 'AT Check Vehicle - 4.8m - 5...

Why it matters: The deflection check is a critical safety analysis for roundabout design, verifying that vehicles are physically forced to reduce speed through the intersection. Using the wrong percentile vehicle or design speed fundamentally changes the outcome of the deflection analysis. If the actual tracking...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which design vehicle percentile (50th or 85th) and which speed (37 km/h, 45 km/h, or 50 km/h) were actually used for the deflection check analysis shown on sheet T-014. Please update either the note or the plan annotations so they are consistent, and confirm tha...

RFI draft: Please clarify which design vehicle percentile (50th or 85th) and which speed (37 km/h, 45 km/h, or 50 km/h) were actually used for the deflection check analysis shown on sheet T-014. Please update either the note or the plan annotations so they a...

Summary: The Drawing Index assigns the prefix 'L-001' to two different drawing sets. 'L-001-002' is designated as 'LAYOUT PLAN WITH CRITICAL DIMENSIONS' (2 sheets), meaning sheet L-001 and L-002 exist in that series. Separately, 'L-001' is listed as the 'LIGHTING PLAN'. This means sheet number L-001 refers to both a Layout Plan sheet and a Lighting Plan sheet simultaneously, creating a direct naming con...

Why it matters: During permitting and construction, any reference to sheet L-001 would be ambiguous—reviewers and contractors would not know whether the Layout Plan or the Lighting Plan is intended. This can cause errors in cross-referencing from other sheets, miscommunication during plan reviews, and delays in ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify and resolve the sheet numbering conflict between L-001-002 (Layout Plan with Critical Dimensions) and L-001 (Lighting Plan). Consider re-designating the Lighting Plan with a distinct prefix (e.g., LT-001 or EL-001) to eliminate ambiguity.

RFI draft: Please clarify and resolve the sheet numbering conflict between L-001-002 (Layout Plan with Critical Dimensions) and L-001 (Lighting Plan). Consider re-designating the Lighting Plan with a distinct prefix (e.g., LT-001 or EL-001) to eliminate ambi...

Summary: The notes block explicitly states "VEHICLE TRACKING SHOWN HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN USING A 50th PERCENTILE DESIGN CAR AT A SPEED OF 45km/h." However, the leader-line annotations on the plan itself label the tracking paths as "50th PERCENTILE CAR AT 32km/h" and "50th PERCENTILE CAR AT 41km/h." These three different speed values on the same drawing directly contradict each other. Either the tracking w...

Why it matters: The tracking speed directly determines the swept-path envelope and is critical for verifying adequate lane widths, median clearances, and safe deflection geometry at the roundabout. A consent/permitting reviewer will flag the inconsistency, as it is impossible to confirm from this drawing whether...

Suggested next step: Clarify the actual speed(s) used for the vehicle tracking analysis. If multiple speeds were used for different movements, update the notes block to accurately describe each scenario. If a single speed was intended, correct either the notes or the plan annotations to reflect th...

RFI draft: Clarify the actual speed(s) used for the vehicle tracking analysis. If multiple speeds were used for different movements, update the notes block to accurately describe each scenario. If a single speed was intended, correct either the notes or the ...