Texas Corridor Roadway / Civil: 164 Issues Found

Summary: The plan view calls out the start of full depth construction at station 500+30, but the profile on the same sheet calls out the start of full depth construction at station 503+30.00.

Why it matters: This is a 3+00 (300 ft) discrepancy in the limits of full depth construction, which can directly change pavement limits, quantities, and where transitions occur in the field.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct station for “BEGIN FULL DEPTH CONSTRUCTION” and revise either the plan callout or the profile callout so both match.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct station for “BEGIN FULL DEPTH CONSTRUCTION” and revise either the plan callout or the profile callout so both match.

Summary: A plan callout for “END WIDENING / END TAPER” is labeled at “STA 1003+89”, but the sheet title block indicates the sheet covers “STA 1013+00 TO STA 1016+60”. The callout station is outside the stated station range for this sheet, creating a direct internal inconsistency about where the taper ends.

Why it matters: Incorrect stationing for a taper/widening termination can lead to construction staking/layout errors and incorrect placement of pavement transitions, potentially requiring rework and affecting inspection acceptance.

Suggested next step: Verify the correct station for the “END WIDENING / END TAPER” callout shown on this sheet and correct the station annotation so it falls within the intended station range for Sheet 43 (or relocate the callout to the appropriate sheet).

RFI draft: Verify the correct station for the “END WIDENING / END TAPER” callout shown on this sheet and correct the station annotation so it falls within the intended station range for Sheet 43 (or relocate the callout to the appropriate sheet).

Summary: On this sheet, the culvert location callout is labeled “RS 26850,” and the downstream boundary condition note references “RS 27071.” In the same plan view, multiple HEC-RAS river station cross-sections are labeled “RS 494 / RS 394 / RS 279 / RS 182 / RS 111.” The legend defines these “RS” labels as “HEC-RAS MODEL RIVER STATION,” but the sheet...

Why it matters: If the RS values are not in a single consistent stationing scheme (or if different stationing systems are being used without being clearly defined), boundary conditions and cross-section locations could be applied at the wrong river station in the hydraulic model, potentially invalidating results and creating permitting/construction confusion.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct HEC-RAS river stationing scheme for Culvert B – West Drain and revise Sheet 326 so the culvert location, downstream boundary condition, and cross-section labels use a single consistent RS system (or explicitly state and map any different RS systems being used).

RFI draft: Confirm the correct HEC-RAS river stationing scheme for Culvert B – West Drain and revise Sheet 326 so the culvert location, downstream boundary condition, and cross-section labels use a single consistent RS system (or explicitly state and map any different RS systems being used).

Summary: The sheet lists the culvert inlet invert elevation as 585.14 ft, but the Site Data section explicitly states it is using “Culvert Invert Data” while listing the inlet elevation as 588.21 ft for the same culvert. These two inlet elevations conflict by 3.07 ft, while the outlet elevation matches (585.02 ft), indicating an internal inconsistency...

Why it matters: This is a direct elevation conflict for the culvert inlet that would affect hydraulic results and could lead to constructing the culvert at the wrong elevation (or rejecting the permit submittal due to inconsistent design data).

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct culvert inlet invert elevation for Culvert_E_Ult and revise either the “Culvert Barrel Data” invert elevations or the “Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data” inlet elevation so both sections match.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct culvert inlet invert elevation for Culvert_E_Ult and revise either the “Culvert Barrel Data” invert elevations or the “Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data” inlet elevation so both sections match.

Summary: Sheet 193 indicates the match line to Sheet 236 occurs at station 165+60, but Sheet SH46 (page 236) indicates the match line back to Sheet 193 occurs at station 165+50. These two match-line station callouts conflict for the same sheet break, which can cause misalignment of roadway features across the sheet transition.

Why it matters: If the match line station is incorrect on either sheet, station-based limits, quantities, and locations of improvements (e.g., widening/tapers/ROW/EOP) may not tie correctly between sheets, increasing the risk of layout errors and construction staking discrepancies.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct match line station between Sheet 193 and Sheet SH46 (page 236) and revise both sheets so the cross-reference and station callout match exactly (including the referenced sheet identifier and station).

RFI draft: Confirm the correct match line station between Sheet 193 and Sheet SH46 (page 236) and revise both sheets so the cross-reference and station callout match exactly (including the referenced sheet identifier and station).

Summary: Sheet 193 directs the plan continuation at a match line of STA 168+10 to Sheet 237, but Sheet 237 shows the corresponding match line back to Sheet 193 at STA 168+00. These two match line station callouts conflict for the same sheet-to-sheet tie-in.

Why it matters: If the match line station is incorrect, plan geometry and station-based construction limits may not align between sheets, risking layout errors, quantity takeoff discrepancies, and field staking/limits-of-work confusion at the sheet break.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct match line station between Sheets 193 and 237 and revise one or both sheets so the match line station callouts match (and verify the stationing/geometry ties correctly across the sheet boundary).

RFI draft: Confirm the correct match line station between Sheets 193 and 237 and revise one or both sheets so the match line station callouts match (and verify the stationing/geometry ties correctly across the sheet boundary).

Summary: Sheet 20 calls out the agricultural access limits as beginning at STA 206+55 and ending at STA 207+55, and explicitly directs the reader to Sheet 260 for more information. However, on Sheet 260 the “AGRICULTURAL ACCESS MEDIAN” schedule lists the corresponding agricultural access median segment as BEGIN STA 206+45 and END STA 207+45. These two...

Why it matters: This discrepancy can shift the agricultural access median construction limits by 10 feet, affecting field staking, curb/toe wall placement, ditch tie-ins, and any related quantities/pay items tied to stationing.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct BEGIN/END stationing for the agricultural access median in the STA 205+00 to 210+00 area and revise either the Sheet 20 callouts or the Sheet 260 schedule so both match (and confirm any impacts to associated details/quantities).

RFI draft: Confirm the correct BEGIN/END stationing for the agricultural access median in the STA 205+00 to 210+00 area and revise either the Sheet 20 callouts or the Sheet 260 schedule so both match (and confirm any impacts to associated details/quantities).

Summary: Sheet 162 (SSCB(2)-10) calls out reinforcement as 'V1 Bars (See Sheet 1)'. However, project Sheet 1 is labeled as an index sheet ('INDEX OF SHEETS') rather than a barrier reinforcement sheet, creating an apparent cross-reference mismatch/ambiguity about where the V1 bar definition is located.

Why it matters: If the V1 bar information cannot be reliably found, the barrier/joint reinforcement could be detailed or fabricated incorrectly, or require delays while the correct reference is identified.

Suggested next step: Confirm what 'Sheet 1' refers to for 'V1 Bars' on SSCB(2)-10 (e.g., a different standard sheet set vs. project Sheet 1), and provide the correct sheet number/title (or add the V1 bar detail to the project set) so the V1 reinforcement can be unambiguously detailed and fabricated.

RFI draft: Confirm what 'Sheet 1' refers to for 'V1 Bars' on SSCB(2)-10 (e.g., a different standard sheet set vs. project Sheet 1), and provide the correct sheet number/title (or add the V1 bar detail to the project set) so the V1 reinforcement can be unambiguously detailed and fabricated.

Summary: On the SUP bridge plan, the rail is called out as “RAIL (TY PR11) SEE SHEET 291”. However, the SUP bridge slab section shows a 6' slab thickness, while the PR11 “ON BRIDGE SLAB” detail requires a “7' Min Slab”. These requirements conflict for the same railing type installed on the bridge slab.

Why it matters: If the bridge slab is constructed at 6' thick, the PR11 railing anchorage/detail requirements shown for installation “ON BRIDGE SLAB” may not be achievable, potentially requiring redesign of the slab thickness and/or the railing anchorage (risking rework, delays, and structural/constructability issues).

Suggested next step: Confirm the actual slab thickness at the PR11 railing installation location on the SUP bridge. If the slab is 6', provide a revised PR11 anchorage detail approved for a 6' slab (or revise the bridge slab thickness to meet the “7' Min Slab” requirement).

RFI draft: Confirm the actual slab thickness at the PR11 railing installation location on the SUP bridge. If the slab is 6', provide a revised PR11 anchorage detail approved for a 6' slab (or revise the bridge slab thickness to meet the “7' Min Slab” requirement).

Summary: Sheet 29 Note 3 instructs the user to “REFER TO HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT DATA SHEETS FOR CURVE DATA AND ALIGNMENT INFORMATION.” On the same sheet, the roadway plan’s centerline is labeled “C CORDOVA RD.” The provided HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT DATA sheet (Sheet 192) lists alignments “CL ALBERT GRV,” “CL ERIC PATH,” and “CL BRB,” and does not show a...

Why it matters: If the alignment/curve control data used for staking and design verification is not clearly tied to the CORDOVA RD centerline, field layout and construction checks may use incorrect geometry, creating potential errors in roadway placement and station-based features (e.g., ditch and PC/PT callouts).

Suggested next step: Confirm which Horizontal Alignment Data sheet contains the alignment/curve data for “C CORDOVA RD” (STA 250+00 to 255+00) and update Sheet 29 Note 3 to reference the correct sheet number(s), or provide the missing CORDOVA RD alignment data sheet if it is not currently included.

RFI draft: Confirm which Horizontal Alignment Data sheet contains the alignment/curve data for “C CORDOVA RD” (STA 250+00 to 255+00) and update Sheet 29 Note 3 to reference the correct sheet number(s), or provide the missing CORDOVA RD alignment data sheet if it is not currently included.

Summary: The SW3P/erosion control layout includes a match line instruction directing the reader to Sheet 54, but Sheet 54 is a traffic signing sheet (“SUMMARY OF SMALL SIGNS”), not a SW3P continuation. This is a cross-reference mismatch that could lead the user to the wrong sheet when trying to follow the SW3P layout across match lines.

Why it matters: If the SW3P plan continuation is not correctly referenced, erosion and sediment control measures may be missed or installed incorrectly, creating construction sequencing errors and potential non-compliance with SWPPP requirements.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct sheet number intended for the SW3P layout match line currently calling out “SEE SHEET 54”. If Sheet 54 is incorrect, revise the match line callout (and any related sheet numbering/index) to reference the correct SW3P continuation sheet.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct sheet number intended for the SW3P layout match line currently calling out “SEE SHEET 54”. If Sheet 54 is incorrect, revise the match line callout (and any related sheet numbering/index) to reference the correct SW3P continuation sheet.

Summary: One sheet’s slip-joint detail permits a reduced wall thickness at the arm tip section ('.239\' thickness is permissible for Tip Section'), while the arm dimensions table for fixed mount arms lists a (12) thickness of '.3125' and states that the (12) thickness shown is the minimum. These are conflicting requirements for the fixed mount arm/tip...

Why it matters: If the fabricator follows the slip-joint detail and uses .239' wall thickness where the schedule requires .3125' minimum, the mast arm section properties and capacity (strength/fatigue) could be reduced from what the design tables assume, creating potential structural noncompliance and inspection/rejection risk.

Suggested next step: Confirm the governing minimum wall thickness for the fixed mount arm slip-joint/tip section for 50' to 65' arms: is '.239\' thickness' allowed for the tip section, or must the tip section also meet the schedule minimum '.3125'? Revise the slip joint detail or the arm schedule note to clearly state the allowed thickness for the tip/telescoping...

RFI draft: Confirm the governing minimum wall thickness for the fixed mount arm slip-joint/tip section for 50' to 65' arms: is '.239\' thickness' allowed for the tip section, or must the tip section also meet the schedule minimum '.3125'? Revise the slip joint detail or the arm schedule note to clearly...

Summary: On Sheet 376, the storm drain profile callout at STA 255+90.00 identifies the inlet as DI-FD1-14 and directs “SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 398.” However, on Sheet 398 the inlet detail title shown is “DI-FD1-17 DETAIL,” and on Sheet 376 plan a nearby inlet callout is labeled “DI-FD1-17.” This creates an inconsistent structure/detail designation...

Why it matters: If the structure designation/detail reference is not corrected, the contractor may apply the wrong inlet detail to the field structure (incorrect structure ID, connection/opening configuration, or construction requirements), creating constructability and inspection/acceptance issues.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the inlet/associated detail should be DI-FD1-14 or DI-FD1-17, and revise Sheet 376 profile/plan callouts and/or the Sheet 398 detail title/labels so the inlet designation and referenced detail match consistently.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the inlet/associated detail should be DI-FD1-14 or DI-FD1-17, and revise Sheet 376 profile/plan callouts and/or the Sheet 398 detail title/labels so the inlet designation and referenced detail match consistently.

Summary: On the Drainage Layout sheet, the project limit is identified as 'END PROJECT' at 'STA 294+57.65'. However, the referenced Culvert F-1 Plan and Profile sheet shows Culvert F-1 elements at stations beyond that limit (e.g., 'STA 295+26.82' and stationing up to '296+00'). This indicates the Culvert F-1 work/depiction extends past the stated End...

Why it matters: If the End Project station is used as the construction/pay limit, this discrepancy can cause scope and quantity errors (culvert length, riprap/extents, ROW/easement limits), and may create ambiguity in where construction is permitted/authorized to occur.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct End Project station for Cordova Rd and confirm whether Culvert F-1 construction limits are intended to extend beyond 'STA 294+57.65'. Revise Sheet 31 and/or Sheet 395 stationing/limits so the End Project station and Culvert F-1 extents are consistent.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct End Project station for Cordova Rd and confirm whether Culvert F-1 construction limits are intended to extend beyond 'STA 294+57.65'. Revise Sheet 31 and/or Sheet 395 stationing/limits so the End Project station and Culvert F-1 extents are consistent.

Summary: The long mast arm assembly sheet indicates the structure is designed for 80/100 mph wind criteria and directs the luminaire arm to the LUM-A standard. However, the referenced luminaire arm details sheet states a 90 mph wind design basis. This creates a direct conflict in the governing wind speed criteria for the luminaire arm used with the long...

Why it matters: If the project is in an 80/100 mph wind zone, using a luminaire arm design basis of 90 mph could result in the luminaire arm and/or its connections being under-designed (for 100 mph) or not aligned with the structure’s intended wind zone criteria, potentially affecting structural adequacy and permitting acceptance.

Suggested next step: Confirm the governing wind speed criteria for the luminaire arm on the long mast arm assembly, and clarify whether LUM-A-12 is acceptable as-is, needs revision for the project wind zone, or should be replaced with a luminaire arm standard/detail set matching the 80/100 mph design basis.

RFI draft: Confirm the governing wind speed criteria for the luminaire arm on the long mast arm assembly, and clarify whether LUM-A-12 is acceptable as-is, needs revision for the project wind zone, or should be replaced with a luminaire arm standard/detail set matching the 80/100 mph design basis.