The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFAX from Pul county on widening01/07/2008 15:26 5013406820 ROAD BRIDGE r cil--d u --i Rib BRIDGE5.200 anowlu sr� UTTLE ROCK. AR+C EQT-340.6800 SAS '2204 PAGE 01 CITU ALE>C4NDfR C'MMACKVILLAGE FAX Co-VER '►ACKS%ftu LMIE HOCK FAX # ' + j LLE �' 3x0-6820 MM" LflTLE ROCK rro : - T 5NERWOOD �HIGHT5v4LE FROM. FAX: �-Ll WIN p cc: 15OLWRE �dILES 0 Plxmj3 RepLy rL►r��r PAR IDBlNSON 01/07/2008 15:26 5013406820 eefi L� Notes ROAD BRIDGE Date & Time: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 @ 11;00 AM Location; Conference Room at Public Warks Department of City of Little Racy Subject: Pinnacle Valley Road - Pre -preliminary design review s Attendees: Chandra Waller - Fustic Arorks Director, CLR Bob Turner - Aavis ant Public warks Director, CLR David Scherer - City Enpreer, CLR- V&= Heziry - Trsf "xc Zngineer, CrR- Macbeth Bragg - Director of Road & Bridge, Pulmki County Barbara Richard - A isistzw Director of Road car Bridge, Pulaski Caunxy Delbert Vanlandingfiam - aff agineer mg, Inc. Kelly VaWandingham - AMT Engineering, Inc. PAGE 02 Intersection Layout q> It was asked why so imuch guardrail was shown. AM[ pointed out that this was as required by Mr. Henry to protect the backslopes and the bridges ANI also pointed out that the AIUD stated that they prefeer to not have curb with the guardraih in place, but some mention was etade that there should be at least enough guard rail to protect the bridge. It was determined by Ms. Waller to extend the curb & gutter around the turning radii of Pinnacle Valley, and to terminate the guardr4ff on Hwy 10 at just the appropriate length to protect the bridge ends. `b The use of 12 -ft lanes were proposed by Mr. Henry during previous meeting and was accepted by the AHTD. Ms. Waller stated that she wanted Aj1�II to use 11-i} [aness,�instead of 12 -ft lanes. , q> Use 5 -percent slope appraachiag intersection, not 2 -percent as shown on the plans. This will reduce right Of way requirements due to back hlL but it was noted that this will reduce sight distance for traffic €vn dug through the intersection orrto Hwy l0. q� AM[ was directed to attempt to save the house on Pine Mountain Road. 1;� Aw will revise the layout of this intersection 'and re=bmit to hot& the AHTD and LR. City of Right of Way Reduce right-of-way requirements as rehired to include theconstruction of the wain. road. AMS was directed to use 25 -ft right of way each side of the centerline, where possible, and. then use permaneztt drainage & utility easements to include the backfxa and ditch conmetion, as required. It should be noted that this will reduce the 5jot di tante for the roadway due to vegetation, and will not meet the 90 -ft mh7ixmum right of way as required by Little Rock's subdivision requirements for a minor arteriaL Also, there may be legal issues conceming the use of permanent easements along the right of way for utilities and drainage. 01/07/2008 15:26 5013406820 ROAD BRIDGE Page 2 of 3 Meeting Notes on 9/29198 A questioa was raised by AMI for the possibility of usingc� gutter, retairfing walls, etc. to reduce the amount of right way alone steeper portions o the roadway which are in cut, especially along the right side of the road. After some dis ion, it was decided that the use of curb & gutter would not be allowed, and that open ditches �ere to be required, ,Alignments �>; Mr. Scherer stated that tine 900 -ft horizontal radii along the enterlixte were excessive. AM[ stated that it met City code for minor arterials, and that it meet AASHTO requirements for a 40 -mph design speed. k&Scherer stated that the City'nimutn s r�istandard for eezrterline radii had been reduced to 600 -ft. AMI stated that they wer� not aware of the change, and that 6004 would not meet the requirements for a 40 -mph deign: speed, and asked if the City was wanting to reduce the design speed for this project. Ms� Waller stated that the roadway would be designed for a 40 -mph design speed, using tn. Ir arterial requirements for site distance, but using collectof street widths, which will include provisions for future widening. t�> It should be noted that for e R -0.02 (cross slope of pav ent), the calculated minimum radius for a 40 -mph design speed without a superelevatedradway is 821 feet, 605 -feet for 35 oaph, and 429 -feet for 30 mph (refer to.�AS,HTO's "A Poli on Geonrec Design of Highways and Streets"). AMI stated in the meeting that it was open to r in% the centerline radii, either to the AA.SIdTO minimum, or by reducing the design speed. qt� Ivfr. Scherer also stated that the vertical curve data seemed Co be excessive for this roadway. AMI produced the alignment data for both the horizontal an vertical alisumnts and pointed out that the vertical alig=ent had been design for a 40.m rh design speed, and per the site distance requirements shown in. the City's standard requirem ts. tAccording to AASHT0, the minim= sight distance calculated for a 40 -mph design speed is 275 -feet to 325 -feet (35 mph to 40 mph actual speeds). q� Agaiti, Ms. Waller stated that the City wanted a 40 -mph design speed for this roadway. Therefore, AW will proceed with a design speed of 4 using a 2ffift minimuM centerline- radius, and a minimum sight distance of 325- ekL PAGE 03 Miseeganeous q� On a portion ftrh about 36+00 to 50+00, there will be considerable out and fill to accomodate the new alignment, and pavc1netxc structure To reduce right of way, AMI proposed cutting the slope back at 1:1 and utilizing an napper ditch to catch run. Mr. Tumer suggested that we "bench" the slope in order to meet the shear slope of the sbale/soil. ANn pointed out that some areas on the left side of the n . roadway Will have considerable fill inside of a floodplain area below the road. Some sugge ons to reduce theamount, and reduce the amouint of required right of way were to use rock gabions, or other structures. It was; determined that AM should design the slopes with�ut the aide of structures. ,Zi Mention was made about establishing vegetation on the dut slopes (even the 1:1 slopeson shale). After some discussion, it was determined that t City could direct AMI on what method was to be used for this once the sections were allplated_ I 01/07/2008 15:26 5013406820 ROAD BRIDGE PAGE 04 of Little Rock Department of 701 Wast Markha Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas (501)371-4475 Fax (501) 371-48 February 17, 1998 Macbeth Bragg, Director Pulaski County Road & Bridge 201 South Broadway Administration Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Macbeth: Office of the Director Thank you for your cooperation and efforts coordinatingIthe design and construction of the access for Two Rivers Nature Park at the easterly en' of County Farm Road. Construction is expected to be complete this spring. Pullski County is also designing and intends to construct improvements to County Farm Road (Pinnacle Valley Road east). This work is expected to be let to construction this sprini. These two projects, plus previous improvements to PinnLle Valley Road between the Little Rock and Western Railroad and County Farm Road, will complete road improvements within the county for greater accessibility to Two Rivers Park. Access to this park is from Cantrell Road via Pinnacle Valley Road across the Little Rock and Western Railroad. This section of road is narrow and his vertical and horizontal alignment problems. The intersection at Cantrell Road it in particular need of attention. In a continued spirit of cooperation, Pulaski County pro design for this section of Pinnacle Valley Road- They a but not be limited to (1) coordination of design with the design (3) widening of pavement (4) storm drainage des determination of existing and proposed requirements (G design of the intersection with Cantrell Road (7) prelim' specifications for construction, It is proposed that funds for construction would be prov Villins and Mayor Dailey may want to discuss various availability's. osed to fund the engineering ticipate design would include, �ity (2) vertical and horizontal gn (5) right-of-way coordination with A= of re- iary )clans (8) final plans (9) d by the City, however, Judge tding options and c -a 01/07/2008 15:26 5013406820 ROAD BRIDGE AMY Engineering, Inc. has designed both Two Rivers Access and County Farm Road and is currently revising County Farm Road for construction within the existing right-of-way. Please continue to use this firm for the continuation of design of this Pinnacle Valley project. AMI will be asked to coordinate their design with the City. If you have any questions or need further information please Call. Sincerely, Chandra Mussell, P.E. Director CR/lj PAGE 05