Transportation / Roadway Plan Review: 139 Issues Found

Summary: 8 index entries | 3 perfect matches | 2 mismatched | 3 missing Mismatched (2): T-1: Expected: KEY SHEET (T-1) | Actual: null (T-1)(p1) T-12: Expected: STANDARD MAST ARM ASSEMBLIES DATA TABLE (T-12) | Actual: STANDARD MAST ARM ASSEMBLIES DATA TABLE (000)(p12) Missing (3) — listed in drawing index but not found in the...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: 23 index entries | 5 perfect matches | 14 mismatched | 4 missing Mismatched (14): IT-1: Expected: KEY SHEET (IT-1) | Actual: INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLANS (IT-1)(p1) IT-3 - IT-4: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (IT-3 - IT-4) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES (IT-3)(p3) IT-5: Expected: CONCRETE CCTV POLE SCHEDULE (IT-5) | ...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: 7 index entries | 4 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 2 missing Mismatched (1): L-1: Expected: KEY SHEET (L-1) | Actual: T.B.D. (L-1)(p1) Missing (2) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Landscape: - L-4 - L-6 LIGHTING DATA TABLE AND LEGEND - L-7 - L-22 LIGHTING PLAN

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: 8 index entries | 3 perfect matches | 2 mismatched | 3 missing Mismatched (2): S-1: Expected: KEY SHEET (S-1) | Actual: null (S-1)(p1) S-17 - S-18: Expected: GUIDE SIGN WORKSHEET (S-17 - S-18) | Actual: GUIDESIGN WORKSHEET (S-17)(p17) Missing (3) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Structural: -...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: 36 index entries | 10 perfect matches | 10 mismatched | 16 missing Mismatched (10): 1: Expected: KEY SHEET (1) | Actual: null (1)(p1) 3 - 7: Expected: DRAINAGE MAP (3 - 7) | Actual: DRAINAGE MAP (3)(p4) 19 - 22: Expected: PROJECT CONTROL (19 - 22) | Actual: PROJECT CONTROL (19)(p20) 65 - 66: Expected: DRAINAGE...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Signalization Plan calls for a 'PROPOSED PEDESTAL MOUNTED SIGNAL' at STA. 117+76.56, 98.2' RT. and a mast arm pole ('POLE LOCATION= B SURVEY WESTERN WAY STA. 116+73.72, 91.1' RT.'). The Utility Adjustments Plan indicates that the right offset between STA 116 and 117 contains a major utility corridor for Reedy Creek, comprising a '16\' WM...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Roadway Plan shows drainage ponds (POND 11B) located adjacent to Ramp I-1. However, the Lighting Plan indicates this same area as 'RAMP I-2' and specifies existing light poles to remain in this location, along with routing new proposed underground electrical circuits through the pond footprint.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Roadway Plan details a new ramp, 'RAMP I-3', branching off to the left of Ramp I-1 beginning at station 3436+23.68. The Lighting Plan does not display Ramp I-3 and proposes placing a new light pole (POLE NO. D-1-13) at station 3437+52, 43' LT, which falls directly into the path of the proposed Ramp I-3 roadway.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Lighting Plan specifies the location of proposed Pole No. D-6-9 at an offset of 21' RT from the Ramp J-1 baseline. However, the Roadway Plan indicates that the right edge of the paved roadway tapers from 31.41' RT at STA 6429+54.33 down to 24.00' RT at STA 6430+50.00 (the start of the widening section). Because the pavement edge is between...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Lighting Plan routes a 97 LF open trench electrical conduit (630-2-11) between stations 111 and 112. The Utility Adjustments plan identifies an 'UNKNOWN UTILITY POSSIBLE GAS' line in this exact location, which the Lighting Plan fails to show or warn against.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Sheet L-8, Note 3 requires circuits D-1, D-2, and D-3 to be installed in a separate conduit from circuits D-4, D-5, and D-6. Accordingly, at Matchline STA. 9460+40.00, L-8 specifies a conduit run containing '(2) #2 - CKT. D-4', '(2) #2 - CKT. D-5', '(2) #2 - CKT. D-6', '(2) #2 - GROUND', and '(2) 2\' SPARE CONDUIT' using Pay Item 630-2-12....

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The Mast Arm Tabulation for Pole ID 4 on sheet T-11 shows signal mounting distances from the pole of up to 43.9 ft on Arm 1, and up to 62.4 ft on Arm 2 (with distances listed as 47.1, 62.4, and 58.1 ft). However, the Standard Mast Arm Assemblies Data Table on sheet 000 designates the MA4 structure with a first arm of 'A60/D' (60 ft maximum...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Sheet S-14 details a lane reduction on Ramp K-1 prior to the matchline, indicated by a 'W4-2R' right lane drop sign at STA. 7439+40 and a 'MERGE' pavement message at STA. 7442. This reduces the initial three 12' lanes down to two. However, the continuation on sheet S-15 immediately following the matchline (STA. 7443+60.00) erroneously labels...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: The '12-SIDED CONCRETE POLE DATA TABLE' specifies a burial depth of 13 feet for the pole at STA 101+26 and 18 feet for the pole at STA 124+89. However, the individual cross sections for both stations (STA 101+26.21 and STA 124+89.39) show a foundation burial depth dimension of 23.00 feet for both concrete CCTV poles.

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft:

Summary: Multiple existing structures in the summaries list pipe invert elevations that are physically deeper (lower) than the specified structure bottom elevation. For example, Structure 190 indicates a bottom elevation of 103.86', but the connecting 36' RCP inverts are recorded between 98.31' and 98.47' (over 5 feet lower). Structures 167, 175, and...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: