operations subcommittee 1:30 p.m. january 21, 2020...jan 21, 2020 · jim keane, city of boulder...

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA – JANUARY 21, 2020

of 3

NOTICE AND AGENDA OF

PUBLIC MEETING

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

1:30 P.M. JANUARY 21, 2020

RTC/RFCD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

600 S. GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY, ROOM 108

LAS VEGAS, NV 89106

(702) 676-1500

This agenda with full backup is available at the Regional Transportation Commission Administration Building, 600 S. Grand Central

Pkwy, Las Vegas, Nevada; the Regional Transportation Commission’s website, http://www.rtcsnv.com; or by contacting David Gloria at

702-676-1623.

THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:

Clark County Government

Center 500 S. Grand Central Pkwy.

Las Vegas, NV 89155

City of Henderson

Office of the City Clerk 240 Water Street

Henderson, NV 89015

CC Regional Justice Center

200 Lewis Ave. Las Vegas, NV 89155

RTC

600 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV 89106

RTC website

www.rtcsnv.com

Nevada Public Notice website

https://notice.nv.gov

BY: ________________________________________________________

DocuSign Envelope ID: D7210C27-0BEF-443E-9C8C-7B86C3A8B42D

OS

http://www.rtcsnv.com/


https://notice.nv.gov/


of 3

Operations Subcommittee Meeting Schedule

2020

Meeting Date Deadline to Call Meeting

January 21, 2020 Scheduled Meeting

February 18, 2020 January 28, 2020

March 17, 2020 Scheduled Meeting

April 21, 2020 March 31, 2020

May 19, 2020 Scheduled Meeting

June 16, 2020 May 26, 2020

July 21, 2020 Scheduled Meeting

August 18, 2020 July 28, 2020

September 15, 2020 Scheduled Meeting

October 20, 2020 September 29, 2020

November 17, 2020 Scheduled Meeting

December 15, 2020 November 24, 2020



Page 3 of 3

Items 2 through 5 are items for possible action. Items 1 and 6 through 8 are discussion items and no

action can be taken. Please be advised that the Operations Subcommittee has the discretion to take items

on the agenda out of order, combine two or more agenda items for consideration, remove an item from

the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda any time.

1. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Meeting of November 19, 2019 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

3. DISCUSS A REGIONAL GIS DATA SCHEME FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

4. DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

5. APPROVE REVISIONS TO THE UNIFORM STANDARD DRAWINGS WITH RESPECT TO CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY BEST PRACTICES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

6. RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF REVISIONS TO THE UNIFORM STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS

7. DISCUSS TOPICS OF INTEREST


During the initial Citizens Participation, any citizen in the audience may address the Subcommittee on an item featured on the

agenda. During the final Citizens Participation, any citizens in the audience may address the Subcommittee on matters within the

Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, but not necessarily featured on the agenda. No vote can be taken on a matter not listed on the posted

agenda; however, the Subcommittee can direct that the matter be placed on a future agenda.

Each citizen must be recognized by the Chair. The citizen is then asked to approach the microphone at the podium, to state his or

her name, and to spell the last name for the record. The Chair may limit remarks to three minutes’ duration, if such remarks are

disruptive to the meeting or not within the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

The Regional Transportation Commission keeps the official record of all proceedings of the meeting. In order to maintain a

complete and accurate record, copies of documents used during presentations should be submitted to the Recording Secretary.

The Regional Transportation Commission appreciates the time citizens devote to be involved in this important process.

In compliance with Nevada Revised Statute 241.035(4), the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada shall

create an audio and/or video recording of the meeting and retain such recording(s) for the required period of time.

The Regional Transportation Commission Meeting Room and Conference Room are accessible to the disabled. Assistive

listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. A sign language interpreter for the deaf will be made available

with a forty-eight hour advance request to the Regional Transportation Commission offices.

Phone: 702-676-1500 TDD: 702-676-1834

Any action taken on these items is advisory to the Regional Transportation Commission.


5063

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF

SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM

Metropolitan Planning Organization [X] Transit [ ] Administration and Finance [ ]

SUBJECT: INITIAL CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

PETITIONER: M.J. MAYNARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA

RECOMMENDATION BY PETITIONER:

THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS

PARTICIPATION

GOAL: MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with State of Nevada Open Meeting Law, the Regional Transportation Commission of

Southern Nevada Operations Subcommittee shall invite interested persons to make comments. For the

initial Citizens Participation, the public should address items on the current agenda. For the final

Citizens Participation, interested persons may make comments on matters within the Operations

Subcommittee's jurisdiction, but not necessarily on the current agenda.

No action can be taken on any matter discussed under this item, although the Operations Subcommittee

can direct that it be placed on a future agenda.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. PEÑUELAS, JR., P.E.

Senior Director of Engineering OPS Item #1 January 21, 2020

ssf


for

MINUTES

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE


NOVEMBER 19, 2019 These minutes are prepared in compliance with NRS 241.035. Text is in summarized rather than verbatim format. For complete contents, please refer to

meeting recordings on file at the Regional Transportation Commission.

THIS MEETING WAS PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED

IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS ON NOVEMBER 12, 2019

Clark County Government Center

500 S. Grand Central Pkwy.

Las Vegas, NV 89155

City of Henderson

Office of the City Clerk

240 Water Street

Henderson, NV 89015

CC Regional Justice Center

200 Lewis Ave.

Las Vegas, NV 89155

RTC

600 S. Grand Central Pkwy.

Las Vegas, NV 89106

RTC Website

www.rtcsnv.com

Nevada Public Notice

https://notice.nv.gov

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Eric Hawkins, Chair, called the meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. in Meeting Room 108 of the Regional

Transportation Commission Administration Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eric Hawkins, Chair, City of Henderson

Gena Kendall, Vice-Chair, City of Las Vegas

Michelle Castro, Nevada Department of Transportation

Jim Keane, City of Boulder City

Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mike Hudgeons, City of North Las Vegas

Ed Kaminski, Clark County Department of Building and Fire Prevention (Non-voting)

Lt. Greg Munson, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Non-voting)

RTC STAFF:

John Peñuelas, Senior Director of Engineering

Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering

Theresa Gaisser, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) Manager of Engineering

Julia Uravich, Senior Project Engineer

Chris Schwarz, Project Engineer

David Gloria, Administrative Specialist

Salma Flores, Office Specialist

INTERESTED PARTIES:

Jennifer Woodward, City of Boulder City

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6471AFA4-FBBD-4DCC-86AE-EF8CF7FCB9C4


https://notice.nv.gov/

colemanz

Text Box

OPS Item #2 January 21, 2020

Minutes-Operations Subcommittee Meeting of November 19, 2019

Page 2 of 4

Item: 1. CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Comments: No comments were made.

Motion: No motion was necessary.

Vote/Summary: No vote was taken.

Item:

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Meeting of September 17, 2019 (FOR POSSIBLE

ACTION)

Comments:

No comments were made.

Motion: Vice-Chair Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas, made a motion to approve the minutes.

Vote/Summary: 5 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.

Ayes: Michelle Castro, Eric Hawkins, Jim Keane, Gena Kendall, Kaizad Yazdani

Nays: Mike Hudgeons

Absent: None

Item: 3. DISCUSS A REGIONAL GIS DATA SCHEME FOR TRANSPORTATION

INFRASTRUCTURE (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

Comments: Ms. Theresa Gaisser, Manager of Engineering for Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation

(FAST) said that the RTC has data mapping capabilities and can share the information with the

jurisdictions. She also mentioned that the RTC is looking for input in order to develop a master

Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure (ITS) Plan and identify any missing infrastructure data not

included in the system.

Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering for the RTC, presented the recommendation for RTC staff to

develop a valley-wide ITS Master Plan and begin the consultant selection process. Mr. Kaizad Yazdani,

Clark County Public Works, asked about the attributes the GIS Data Scheme would track.

Ms. Gaisser listed the attributes currently tracked, including the locations of conduit with fiber along

major and minor arterials and the locations of devices. She also listed additional possible attributes that

could be tracked, such as the location of installed conduit available for ITS fiber to be pulled through

and the areas where copper is installed instead of fiber.

Mr. Yazdani requested the current attribute table, and Ms. Gaisser agreed to send him the link to the

FAST map.

Vice-Chair Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas, commented that her department is in the midst of

preparing a request for proposals for a similar project that could be used as a starting point in order to

ensure consistency across the jurisdictions. Mr. Damiani commented that the full inventory provided by

the proposed regional ITS Master Plan would be beneficial for everyone. Vice-Chair Kendall agreed on



Page 3 of 4

the merits of the project but wanted to avoid a duplication of efforts. However, Ms. Gaisser reassured

her that the regional plan would build upon the City of Las Vegas project, not duplicate efforts.

Chair Eric Hawkins, City of Henderson, added that the plan should include tracking ownership of the

installed fiber. Mr. Yazdani expressed the need for a blueprint with the goals for the master plan and a

consolidated list of attributes from all the jurisdictions. He thought the blueprint should be developed

internally prior to hiring a consultant.

Vice-Chair Kendall recommended developing a list of key attributes that the jurisdictions could use to

begin collecting the data and sending it to the RTC. Ms. Gaisser said the list would be provided at the

next Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) meeting.

Mr. Yazdani also inquired about the RTC’s conduit requirement while noting that Clark County’s

standard is two four-inch conduits with pull boxes at every 750-feet. Mr. Damiani responded that

identifying discrepancies between the jurisdictions, such as differences in conduit requirements, is part

of the rationale behind the ITS Master Plan. The RTC’s conduit requirement is one four-inch conduit

on both sides.

Mr. Yazdani suggested developing set standards for FAST and entity uses. Ms. Gaisser said she would

include the suggestion and present a draft document at the next Subcommittee meeting.



Item:

4. DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

Comments:

No comments were made.



Item:

5. RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF REVISIONS TO THE UNIFORM

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS

Comments: Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern

Nevada (RTC), provided a list with the status of drawings under review. He noted that the review of

Proposed Rights-of-Way Guidelines (PROWAG) revisions would resume in January 2020. He then

reviewed the specifications review process, noting that drawings related to traffic operations are sent to

the Operations Subcommittee before moving on for further review by the other committees. Drawings

with no traffic impact are sent directly to the Specifications Subcommittee.

Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, asked about the reasoning behind the decision to

bypass the Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) on non-traffic related drawings. He felt it would

be beneficial for the Subcommittee to be privy to all drawing revisions. Mr. Damiani explained that a



Page 4 of 4

Subcommittee review would add two months to the review process. He suggested adding the non-

traffic-related drawing revisions to the status list report and sending an email notification to the

Subcommittee members.



Item:

6. DISCUSS TOPICS OF INTEREST

Comments: Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern

Nevada (RTC), stated he will begin setting meetings with each agency’s traffic development review

group to discuss the agency’s review process. He also discussed the number of as-built requests

erroneously sent to the RTC by private consultants. Since the RTC does not have such records, he said

the requests should be sent to the respective jurisdiction.

Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, asked if the RTC had begun any discussions

concerning lane striping and width in relation to autonomous vehicles. Mr. Damiani responded that no

discussions had been held thus far but that it could be included in the review of the Uniform Standard

Specifications and Drawings scheduled to begin after the completion of the Proposed Rights-of-Way

Guidelines (PROWAG) revisions.



Item:


Comments: No comments were made.



ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:02 p.m.


__________________________________

David Gloria, Recording Secretary

__________________________________

Marek Biernacinski, Transcription Secretary


6529


SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM


SUBJECT: STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS




THAT THE OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSS A REGIONAL GIS DATA SCHEME

FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

GOAL: ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

FISCAL IMPACT:

Not determined

BACKGROUND:

At the May 21, 2019 Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) meeting, a working group to discuss

and establish a regional infrastructure inventory data system was approved. This item will allow

Subcommittee members to discuss transportation asset data that is needed and how this information will

be shared.



Senior Director of Engineering OPS Item #3 January 21, 2020 ssf


for

6529

Agenda Item Requestor: Regional Transportation Commission

DISCUSS A REGIONAL GIS DATA SCHEME FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND FORM WORKING GROUP (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

Agenda Item Recommendation (as submitted):

Regional Transportation Commission

AGENDA ITEM DEVELOPMENT REPORT

Comments:Ms. Theresa Gaisser, Manager of Engineering for Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) said that the RTC has data mapping capabilities and can share the information with the jurisdictions. She also mentioned that the RTC is looking for input in order to develop a master Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure (ITS) Plan and identify any missing infrastructure data not included in the system.

Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering for the RTC, presented the recommendation for RTC staff to develop a valley-wide ITS Master Plan and begin the consultant selection process. Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, asked about the attributes the GIS Data Scheme would track.

Ms. Gaisser listed the attributes currently tracked, including the locations of conduit with fiber along major and minor arterials and the locations of devices. She also listed additional possible attributes that could be tracked, such as the location of installed conduit available for ITS fiber to be pulled through and the areas where copper is installed instead of fiber.

Mr. Yazdani requested the current attribute table, and Ms. Gaisser agreed to send him the link to the FAST map.

Vice-Chair Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas, commented that her department is in the midst of preparing a request for proposal for a similar project that could be used as a starting point in order to ensure consistency across the jurisdictions. Mr. Damiani commented that the full inventory provided by the regional ITS Master Plan would be beneficial for everyone. Vice-Chair Kendall agreed on the merits of the project but wanted to avoid a duplication of efforts. However, Ms. Gaisser reassured her that the regional plan would build upon the Las Vegas project, not duplicate efforts.

Chair Eric Hawkins, City of Henderson, added that the plan should include tracking ownership of the installed fiber. Mr. Yazdani expressed the need for a blueprint with the goals for the master plan and a consolidated list of attributes from all the jurisdictions. He thought the blueprint should be developed internally prior to hiring a consultant.

Vice-Chair Kendall recommended developing a list of key attributes that the jurisdictions could use to begin collecting the data and sending it to the RTC. Ms. Gaisser said the list would be provided at the next Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) meeting.

Mr. Yazdani also inquired about the RTC’s conduit requirement while noting that Clark County’s standard is two four-inch conduits with pull boxes at every 750-feet. Mr. Damiani responded that identifying discrepancies between the jurisdictions, such as differences in conduit requirements, is part of the rationale behind the ITS Master Plan. The RTC’s conduit requirement is one four-inch conduit on both sides.

Mr. Yazdani suggested developing set standards for FAST and entity uses. Ms. Gaisser said she would include the suggestion and present a draft document at the next Subcommittee meeting.

Motion:No motion was necessary

Discussion:

*Approval Disapproval Item HeldAdvisory Action (check one):

*Conditions (if applicable):

Meeting Date: 11/19/2019 Operations Subcommittee


6529

Comments:

NOTE: The Operations Subcommittee moved for a recess until 2 pm. At request of the Chair, the Subcommittee meeting was reconvened at 1:23 pm to continue discussion of the working group.

Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), prefaced the discussion by saying this working group was formed to discuss GIS attributes for the appropriate transportation infrastructure. He then introduced Ms. Theresa Gaisser, Manager of Engineering, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) to lead the group discussion.

Following a detailed PowerPoint presentation [attached], Ms. Gaisser began by saying she would provide a background overview of information available, and she noted that the working group could either proceed in the future as a separate working group or rejoin the Operations Subcommittee for joint discussion. Either way, information would be made available through FAST.

Mr. Damiani said that while individual agencies have some information, he believed what was missing currently was a transportation infrastructure master plan. Chair Eric Hawkins, City of Henderson, asked if this kind of master plan would require an extensive data collection undertaking. Mr. Damiani said it would. A consultant would likely be hired to create the master plan and meet with individual agencies to assess and verify a data inventory.

Ms. Gaisser remarked that FAST was already cataloguing information coming in through capital and public works projects as well as a well-retained inventory of Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) projects. She went on to say that information that has not been clearly defined is older historical transportation improvements and private development projects. She echoed Mr. Damiani’s sentiment that a comprehensive process would need to be followed to accurately capture that information. This could involve working closely with local agencies to evaluate construction plans.

Chair Hawkins asked if assessing construction plans were the preferred method to match real-world data. Ms. Gaisser said, best scenario, this would be a good place to start, followed by verification of further information via a consultant. Mr. Damiani shared Ms. Gaisser’s view that out-in-the-field verification would be necessary for an infrastructure masterplan to be viable.

Chair Hawkins asked how best to proceed, to which Mr. Damiani said that this was the decision of this working group. Each agency has information, which could be housed in one location/platform, but a master plan has a few advantages—it identifies deficiencies and what is still required (information-wise). Chair Hawkins asked if FAST already has a platform like this.

In response, Ms. Gaisser said there is a website that could be shared. Her recommendation is that if this website is shared, user access permissions and passwords should be required so the information is not public. She then addressed the working group, saying that if any agencies present would like access to this website, members should provide their contact information for user access permissions. Information on the website could then be discussed at a future meeting once people have a chance to view what is available. This way, any information gaps can be identified and more informed discussion can be had about whether a master plan would be the best way to proceed.

Mr. Damiani remarked that individual agencies could compare data from the FAST website with information their agency has as well. He then asked a few members of the working group if they have similar Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure (ITS) platforms to consult.

Mr. Jimmy Benoit, Clark County Public Works, did not believe his agency does.

Chair Hawkins said he would have to consult with the City of Henderson’s GIS group, but he believed his agency did not have anything extensive.

Mr. Mike Hudgeons, City of North Las Vegas, said his agency was the same, having some information but nothing extensive. He did voice his concerns that security protection may be an issue, saying traffic signal FAST fiber is different than city fiber.

Mr. Damiani said anything proposed would have security concerns addressed, just like access to the FAST website discussed. He then asked if member agencies would benefit from a master plan.

Mr. Hudgeons said the primary benefit would be knowing where gaps are and where service needs to be extended.

Discussion:



6529

Chair Hawkins agreed.

Summarizing, Ms. Gaisser said it sounded like the working group was in agreement to share user access to the FAST website to member agencies, after which further discussion can be had over whether moving forward with an ITS fiber master plan would be ideal.

** The working group approved a motion to recess until the Operations Subcommittee reconvened at 2:00 pm. Discussion continued off the record to the point that the working group decided reconvening as a working group was necessary.

Ms. Gaisser asked for historical information as to why this working group separated from the subcommittee so she could report to individual agencies on behalf of FAST.

Before this was provided, Mr. Damiani asked members present if information was collected in regard to where fiber is located.

Vice-Chair Joseph Norby, City of Las Vegas, said he believes what his agency has is minimal but comparable to what FAST has—bits and pieces with the assumption that FAST keeps the record data for fiber and connections.

Ms. Gaisser followed the train of thought by asking agency members if there was anyone actively mapping ITS fiber conduit infrastructures as public works projects are completed. Mr. Jim Keane, City of Boulder City, said yes. Mr. Norby clarified, saying public works projects are more comprehensive when it comes to data. Mr. Damiani asked if jurisdictions require developers to pull fiber. Chair Hawkins said it was normally just the conduit, with rare cases including fiber. Mr. Damiani summarized by saying, on the private developer side, the concern would be assessing conduits and boxes. Chair Hawkins said this was why he originally voiced concern about a master plan—it would have to include everything from public works to capital projects to private developer projects.

Developmental PlanningMr. Damiani then said the RTC is going to start to review developmental plans for three main purposes:

1.Coordination 2.FAST infrastructure 3.Transit amenities

He reiterated that with a master plan that highlight deficiencies, it would be easier to assess private development plans in terms of infrastructure requirements. Mr. Norby said the City of Las Vegas has a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) that is meant to do something similar—identify gaps and connections—for the jurisdiction. He said they are working with FAST to identify CCTV gaps as well. Mr. Damiani asked if they also have a current Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and Mr. Norby said they were in the process of scoping an MPO (which is already funded). Mr. Damiani said it might be ideal to simply piggyback onto this to complete a master plan. It was concluded that, at some point, a complete inventory of data is required.

Ms. Gaisser chimed in by saying a tiered, multi-year approach might ease the process and help prioritize. Mr. Norby stated that it is pretty much known that there is no need to go into residential areas. To Ms. Gaisser’s point, he said it is ideal to start with arterials and prioritize from there. Ms. Gaisser mentioned that it may be a good task to include GIS divisions to overlay what is already known onto a working regional map. She agreed that for this kind of mapping inventory, drilling all the way down to residential is not necessary. Mr. Norby noted that anticipated traffic signals and required fiber connections are already being considered in some instances. Ms. Gaisser summarized by saying each local agency would be the best source of information in terms of zoning regulations and future development plans.

Priority DiscussionNext, Mr. John Peñuelas, Senior Director of Engineering, RTC, spoke to three priorities outlined by a former subcommittee member:

1.The desire to have a working group of this kind to work out issues 2.A Smart Communities duct bank working group 3.A modification to drawings to include micro/multi-duct piping as well as 4-inch conduit

He noted that there is still likely a Smart Communities committee as well as a fiber subcommittee associated with it. He spoke briefly about different pipes (4-inch and multi-duct) and their intended uses for fiber and FAST. He said pipe capacity and existing infrastructure was discussed at one time. The consensus was that, again, it was pertinent to identify overall gaps (not necessarily at the regional level yet) and plan for development to fill in those gaps in a rational


6529

way. He said that was the purpose of this particular working group.

Mr. Keane posed the question of whether the working group should consist of members of the Operations Subcommittee or, rather, members of the GIS divisions. Ms. Julia Uravich, Senior Project Engineer, RTC, said some local GIS representatives were included as part of the working group originally. Mr. Damiani said complications arose when subcommittee members wanted to be part of the working group, requiring agenda inclusion. He reiterated yet again that, at a minimum, identifying gaps, capacities, and deficiencies should be the goal. Whether this is through a master plan or as individual agencies is yet to be determined.

To summarize, Mr. Hudgeons said Ms. Gaisser’s idea of disseminating what information FAST already has—in order to identify gaps and so on—would be a good first step. He spoke to the asset hierarchy already incorporated in a FAST GIS data scheme and his desire to have this shared. Ms. Gaisser agreed that this would also help address issues of data inconsistency and data collection and whether it makes sense to establish a master plan and data collection standards. She noted that formatting is worth considering. Is it more viable for most users to view data on a website, or is it necessary to approach that level of information in a way that is more compatible for daily GIS division use? She said this is a good opportunity to see what local GIS divisions would like to see to make the data set most valuable.

Mr. Damiani followed with concessions that jurisdictions could provide an active GIS layer as well as a map of current attributes. This information and associated data gaps could be discussed, once acquired, at the next working group meeting. A comprehensive list of all information desired would be ideal, after which discussion can be had as to how to most effectively acquire that information.

Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, joined the conversation with a comment speaking to project dig tickets and how it would be helpful to have that information. Ms. Gaisser said this information is often provided by FAST but not always. Mr. Norby believed FAST was responsible for anything to do with freeways or arterials. Ms. Gaisser conceded that this was how it has mostly been handled.

Furthering discussion, Ms. Michelle Castro, NDOT, asked if local fiber and conduit information was available for NDOT right-of-way projects and who had that information as it pertains to permits. She followed by saying that at District 1, there is no in-office person who has GIS access. Even if GIS information were sent to her office, they would not be able to open or view it. They could not add or manipulate that data in any way. Additionally, her office works with PDF documents, and she is not sure how best to disseminate that information.

Ms. Gaisser explained that once someone is granted access to the FAST website database, they do not need access to GIS in order to view information. That said, information on the website can be exported in GIS format if a user wants touse it that way. She again spoke to working group members viewing the information to identify gaps and proceed with adiscussion around filling those data gaps with agency-specific information for a more comprehensive overview of all available data. Comparison of FAST website data with agency data is the best way to do that. She repeated that this website is user and password protected. Mr. Damiani provided that paper maps are still readily available for agencies that may need them.

Next, Mr. Damiani asked generally what is used when an agency is given a line locate order. Mr. Norby explained that adequate data is available for some areas, while in others a pull box and tracer wire can be utilized. In other areas, line locators do not know there is infrastructure, and damage might occur. Sometimes it is a matter of guessing on which side of the sidewalk lines might be located. Mr. Yazdani agreed that line location can be difficult with some plans and cited work done with NV Energy and station offsets being located “at any angle.”

Ms. Gaisser interjected and said in the repository of information available on the FAST website, it does drill down to which side of the street lines are on.

Mr. Norby continued the conversation by saying the region was utilizing funding for mobile data acquisition for surface asset inventory. He asked if some of that funding might be available for agencies to conduct surface/subsurface investigations for mapping of conduits and pull boxes. Mr. Damiani said that, in theory, if it were transportation-related it might be a possibility. The end goal at some point would be to have a full 3-D model of street views.

A brief conversation was had regarding past efforts to bring such a view to fruition. At the time, security concerns were the issue—having all that information in one location. Mr. Peñuelas noted that this was likely in reference to the 2014-2015 RTC program to map assets. The goal was to map all surface and underground assets to create a comprehensive view. The problem was utility companies’ involvement and concerns with security issues.

Mr. Damiani concluded the working group discussion by saying providing surface level and ITS data would be a good place to start—and provide an example for further data gathering—if the end goal would be to create a comprehensive view of the corridor. He then offered that appropriate information would be sent to working group members for access to FAST website information, and further discussion would be continued at the next meeting.


6529




Mr. Jim Keane, City of Boulder City (CoBC), introduced their new GIS coordinator, Ms. Jennifer Woodward, CoBC, as part of the working group.

Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), explained to attendees that the format of the working group was less formal and invited attendees to participate in the conversation

Chair Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, asked for clarification on the working group’s purpose. Ms. Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas (CoLV), agreed on the need for clarification since she was under the impression that the group was to discuss all GIS data not just data schemes related to the intelligent transportation system (ITS).

Mr. Damiani explained that the working group had the ability to define the topics for discussion. He recommended starting with ITS infrastructure and expanding to other areas.

Mr. John Peñuelas, Senior Director of Engineering for the RTC, introduced Mr. Jesus Marmolejo, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportatio (FAST) Manager of Traffic Systems Maintenance, to discuss the work done by the Fiber Working Group (FWG) integrating FAST’s data into the RTC’s enterprise asset management system (EAMS).

Mr. Marmolejo explained that the FWG identified the need to document the fiber optic network in the valley. FAST utilizes software to keep inventory of the fiber optic cables located in the streets and freeways. Although not every conduit box is documented, FAST does document the splice points. The goal being to document the conduit runs so that they are easier to track and locate when street maintenance work is done. The data is first entered into FAST’s fiber network management software and then transferred into the RTC’s EAMS. He added that there is very little GIS data regarding the location of the conduit boxes.

Mr. Damiani asked which entity was responsible for keeping the GIS data. Mr. Marmolejo responded that currently FAST or the RTC maintain the data, but that a formal decision hadn’t been made. Mr. Damiani asked about the GIS data collected by the different member entities. Ms. Rebecca Whitlock, CoLV, responded that they don’t have a software system to collect and manage their data. Chair Yazdani added that Clark County does not capture ITS data. When a project is completed the plans are forwarded to the RTC or FAST for input into their system. Ms. Woodward mentioned that their system only tracks information related to the city’s projects. Mr. Mike Hudgeons, City of North Las Vegas (CoNLV) responded that they had some limited historic data, but were in the midst of discussions as to how to proceed. He added that a draft asset tree was developed by the FWG for all traffic components.

Mr. Damiani recommended using the draft asset tree as a starting point for discussion since the status of the FWG was unclear. Mr. Marmolejo added that FAST would prefer data instead of the being sent as-built drawings or plans. He alsomentioned the possibility of including other data, such as the IT fiber optic cables, in the future.

Ms. Kendall recommended developing a specific plan of action to develop the database. Mr. Damiani agreed. He mentioned that at the next meeting staff would provide information on the asset attributes RTC and FAST collect and how to share the data. Mr. Woodward suggested providing a blank asset schema since it would contain the field types and allow each agency to compare it to their respective systems.

Ms. Kendall asked if anyone had concerns with sharing the data. Mr. Hudgeons responded that there would be some data, such as police fiber data, they would be unable to share. Ms. Kendall added that starting with fiber data was a good strategy.

Mr. Damiani mentioned that the RTC will be issuing a request for proposal (RFP) to do an asset inventory of the valley, and that it would help collect data related to surface infrastructure.

Ms. Angela Parsons, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), introduced herself. She is replacing Ms. Baillie Keach who moved to a different position. She mentioned that NDOT does not have a local GIS team, but would check

Discussion:



6529

and report back on any data collected by NDOT.

Ms. Woodward reiterated that the blank data schema would provide a good starting point, since the rest of the agencies could modify their data schema to match. Once everyone is using the data schema sharing it between agencies is simple.

Ms. Kendall asked about developing overarching goals for the project. Mr. Damiani said the initial request came from FAST, but that he recognized the need to build a database especially as more requests for conduits come in. He added that it would help manage projects and potentially minimize street construction associated with conduit installation.

Ms. Kendall asked if competing companies could share conduits. Chair Yadzani responded that the initial goal was to map publicly installed fiber optic cables and conduits and see if it there was enough capacity to share the existing conduits. He added that it wasn’t legally possible to have companies share existing fiber and conduits, but the RTC wanted to be ready in case there was a statute change that would permit this.

Mr. Damiani added that the group could revisit the goals at the next meeting.



Mr. John Penuelas, Director of Engineering Services-Streets and Highways for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), said that several new members had been added to the working group list and stated that RTC staff recommended approval of these changes.Mr. Jim Keane, City of Boulder City, asked whether a new working group needed to be formed if the current Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) was also considered a working group. Mr. Peñuelas acknowledged that this was a fair question but stated that the nature of the work might call for a more detailed discussion. Chair Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, mentioned that in his opinion, a dedicated working group would be helpful.Mr. Keane mentioned that the City of Boulder City’s GIS staff member is currently working remotely, and staff was in the process of finding a replacement. He said he would send this information in, when available. Ms. Michelle Castro, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), pointed out that if RTC staff wanted to keep the working group under a certain number of people, it would be necessary to coordinate with NDOT to select the right members. Mr. Peñuelas admitted that at this point, he had given up trying to limit the number of working group members, as it was more important to have everyone at the table.Ms.Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas, suggested that the working group could meet directly after the Subcommittee meeting for convenience. Mr. Peñuelas agreed this could be a good option.

Mr. Jim Keane, City of Boulder City, made a motion to approve the working group.

Discussion:




Mr. Shital Patel, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation Projects and Operations Manager for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), explained that with more projects such as 5G wireless technology and the focus on smart communities, the need for data collection on all traffic-related elements such as traffic lights and signals. RTC staff recommended creating a working group in order to develop a regional standard for the collection of this data.

Chair Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Department of Public Works, asked for RTC staff to provide a table of the data currently collected by the RTC as a starting point. Mr. Patel said all the member agencies, including the RTC, could provide a list of the attributes currently collected and review together. Mr. John Peñuelas, Director of Engineering Services – Streets and Highways for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), asked that the Operations Subcommittee members send a list of designees for the working group, which RTC staff would vet for any quorum issues.

Chair Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Department of Public Works, made a motion to form a working group of

Discussion:



6529

designated by members of the Operations Subcommittee.



Discussion:



Meeting Date: 2/26/2019 Staff


47


SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM


SUBJECT: TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT

ISSUES





OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT

SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR

POSSIBLE ACTION)


FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

Representatives from the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Transit or Planning

staff will be present to discuss transit system/traffic engineering operation issues as requested by the

Operations Subcommittee members





for

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

OF SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM







APPROVE REVISIONS TO THE UNIFORM STANDARD DRAWINGS WITH RESPECT TO

CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY BEST PRACTICES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY (FOR

POSSIBLE ACTION)


FISCAL IMPACT:

Undetermined

BACKGROUND:

Kimley-Horn and Associates (Kimley-Horn) recently completed an audit of the regional standard

drawings to determine the extent to which they reflect and adhere to current accessibility law and

guidelines. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the proposed Public Right-Of-Way

Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) both give direction and guidance on how to provide safe and

effective infrastructure for all road users regardless of physical or mental capabilities. The drawing

revisions suggested by Kimley-Horn, based on the audit, were presented in the form of redlined

drawings at the March 19, 2019 Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) meeting, and Subcommittee

members were asked to provide comments on the suggested revisions. Following review of the

comments, RTC staff refined Kimley-Horn’s redlines and prepared a set of drawings that depict the

proposed revisions for the Subcommittee to consider sending to industry review.




6666


for

6666


Agenda Item Recommendation (as submitted):TO APPROVE REVISIONS TO THE UNIFORM STANDARD DRAWINGS WITH RESPECT TO CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY BEST PRACTICES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)



Comments: Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), detailed that this item entailed a new group of revisions to the Uniform Standard Drawings (Drawings) designed to bring the Drawings in compliance with Public Access Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). All items approved at the previous Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) meeting were sent out to industry review and will be ready for the Specifications Subcommittee in October 2019. Mr. Damiani went through each drawing and described the revisions. Drawing 236 “Sidewalk Drain” Changes to this drawing include adjustments to slopes and construction tolerances. New language states there must not be vertical surface discontinuity greater than a quarter-inch, regardless of construction tolerances. Mr. Damiani noted that this language will help ensure that contractors meet the criteria. RTC staff recommended sending this drawing for industry review followed by review and approval by the Specifications Subcommittee. Drawing 244.9 “Bicycle Lane Delineation, Legend, and Signage” Changes include adding language to note that sign placement shall conform to Drawing 249. Ms. Julia Uravich, Senior Project Engineer for the RTC, clarified that Drawing 249 references the standard streetlight post installation. Drawing 255.4 “Delineation and Bollard Usage on Shared Use Path” Mr. Damiani proposed adding language within note one of this drawing, referencing a four-foot clear spacing minimum for bollards on shared use paths. Drawing 320 “Lighting Standard Setback” Changes to this drawing involves adding standard language to mention a pedestrian access route and adds a reference to show how much clearance is required for each foundation. Drawing 321.1.S1 “Modified Existing Streetlight Foundation for Installation of Underground Conduit” Mr. Damiani stated that this item was recommended for removal, as it applied only to Clark County and it no longer wishes to be listed. Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, inquired what the standard for streetlight foundations would be if this drawing were to be removed. Mr. Damiani said Drawing 321 was modified to add additional conduits, but that he would verify with Mr. Yazdani to make sure Clark County has all the information needed. Chair Eric Hawkins, City of Henderson, commented that there were a few locations within the City of Henderson that have concrete streetlight poles. He did not believe four conduits would be able to fit into these poles. He was not sure if Drawing 321 specifies steel or concrete. Mr. Damiani said that RTC staff reviewed that issue, and to his knowledge, the concrete pole was a special pole that master plan developers use. Mr. Hawkins said there are multiple types of poles in use, including many that are not included in the standard drawings. Mr. Damiani recommended that Mr. Hawkins discuss this matter with the City of Henderson Specifications Subcommittee representative and to also provide a recommendation to address the issue within the jurisdiction at the upcoming Specifications Subcommittee meeting. Drawing 332.S2 “Service Pedestal Foundation Street Lighting” These revisions include revising the name to Drawing 332, combining the service pedestal foundation standard for street lighting and traffic signals into one, adding additional conduit, and provides a note for a 48-inch minimum clearance requirement. Mr. Damiani said that the changes also include removing requirements for Clark County and City of Las Vegas that specified wire sizes on the foundation drawings. Mr. Damiani continued, stating that RTC staff recommended that drawing 726 be removed, provided that all Subcommittee members were amenable with the specifications laid out in drawing 332. Mr. Yazdani said that Clark County would prefer two two-inch conduits instead of four-inch conduits, along with separated conduits for traffic signals and wireless uses. Mr. Damiani said this should be identified in the vault and asked if it needed to be included in the drawing. Mr. Jimmy Benoit, Clark County Public Works, said that the two two-inch request was to satisfy the National Electric Code (NEC) requirements for branch circuits for traffic signals, as they have to be kept separate. However, Mr. Damiani clarified that the discussion was regarding the conduits coming in. After further discussion of conduit logistics, Mr. Yazdani stated that the purpose of the revision was to allow for additional conduits into a pedestal without damaging the foundation. This was an ongoing

Discussion:



6666

goal for new services. He also noted that he had requested a plan view of where the conduits would terminate and that that was not included. He said he would like to hold these two drawings until the plan view details could be added, as the contractors would need this information. Ms. Uravich mentioned that the revisions Mr. Yazdani referred to were not the ones being discussed in this item. She referenced the drawing and clarified that the redlined items were for review by the Subcommittee. Mr. Damiani agreed, noting that Mr. Yazdani was correct and that the Specifications Subcommittee could still address this. It would be important to see where each conduit terminates. Mr. Yazdani and Mr. Damiani spent several minutes discussing the need for a plan view, with Mr. Damiani noting that the standard had not been adopted yet due to additional revisions requested by the Operations Subcommittee. He assured Mr. Yazdani that RTC staff would address this issue with the Specifications Subcommittee to ensure that the plan view is included. Drawing 726 “Service Pedestal Foundation Traffic Signal” Bringing back the discussion to Drawing 726, Mr. Damiani reiterated the recommendation to remove Drawing 726. The Subcommittee members spent a few minutes discussing the logistics of having different specifications, with Mr. Mike Hudgeons, City of North Las Vegas, asking if the drawing should note the standard was in alignment with NV Energy drawings. Mr. Damiani said this was a possible solution. Mr. Yazdani asked if deleting Drawing 726 would create issues for developers since they may not be able to find the appropriate drawing. Chair Hawkins agreed that this could be an issue. However, Mr. Damiani and Ms. Uravich remarked that the developers could access the RTC website and perform a search to find any information. Ms. Uravich clarified that this item was meant to address only accessibility-related items and that the conduit issues discussed would be further addressed at a future Specifications Subcommittee meeting. RTC Staff recommended that revisions be approved, be sent for industry review, followed by approval from the Specifications Subcommittee and Executive Advisory Committee.

Motion: Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, made a motion to approve the item and to delete Uniform Standard Drawing 726 “Service Pedestal Foundation Traffic Signal.”



Comments:Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), explained that this item was included in the first wave of pedestrian accessibility revisions.

Revision BackgroundHe proposed that today’s revisions be moved forward if there were no comments, and if there were, the revisions would come back in the next meeting with the comments included in the agenda. He also pointed out that there is a consistent theme in these revisions, which involved issues with the vertical deflections in previous designs. Anywhere there is a discussion about vertical deflection, the maximum tolerances are stated. This would require contractors to stay consistent with their developments.

Ms. Julia Uravich commented that the revisions were purely accessibility-related. The proposed redlines were drafted based on the assessments by Kimley-Horn, and comments from subcommittee members in previous meetings, but today’s discussion would focus only on the accessibility comments. This would help keep the discussion organized.

Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, expressed confusion at why they were not addressing all the comments, as he did not believe that the comments were too extensive to be looked at. Mr. Damiani replied that addressing all comments would require more input from the jurisdictions, and that for now, it made more sense to get the accessibility improvements in motion. However, he agreed with Mr. Yazdani that all of the drawings needed an extensive review, and stated that other pertinent comments could be considered. From there, the members began their review of each drawing’s comments.

Drawing 201.2These notes involved removing references to right-of-way on the sidewalks. Vice-Chair Gena Kendall, City of Las Vegas, asked if it were possible to add a schematic medium on the major streets to aid in visibility. She noted that none of the 201 series drawings referenced a median, which was a challenge her jurisdiction had noted. The other members agreed that this was an issue.

Mr. Damiani clarified that she wanted to add where the median could potentially exist, and showing the sight line going straight through. Ms. Kendall confirmed this approach. Mr. Damiani agreed. RTC Staff recommended that the median notes be added where applicable.

Discussion:



6666

Drawing 202Mr. Yazdani asked if there was a need to make revisions to the standard specifications, as that may override the intention of drawing 202. Mr. Damiani said that both needed to be updated, but that they could reference the specifications and make sure everything matches for accessibility purposes.

203 SeriesMr. Damiani explained that the 203 series notes were similar to the previously stated revisions. No members made comment.

205 SeriesMr. Damiani said these three drawings in the 205 series were similar to the aforementioned revisions. Mr. Jim Keane, City of Boulder City, noted that in drawing 205.1S1, in the jurisdiction table, Boulder City and Mesquite were not listed. Mr. Damiani acknowledged this and said he would verify this issue with the City of Mesquite.

206 SeriesMr. Damiani briefly asked if the jurisdictions would direct the RTC to improve its complex numbering system. However, no comments were made on the 206 series of revisions.

Drawing 210.S1Mr. Damiani stated that this comment involved a cross gutter lip attainment. No comments were made.

234 SeriesIn these comments, Mr. Damiani noted they were moving away from the term “sidewalk ramp” and changing to “pedestrian access route.” Mr. Yazdani mentioned that in drawing 234.5, the notes on dimensions should read “L” as eight-foot, and “W” as five-foot. However, Ms. Urvich pointed out that the eight-foot referred to the depth, and as such, the original drawing was correct. Mr. Damiani agreed, but noted that the drawing needed to be redrawn to make everything proportional. The other members agreed.

The members briefly discussed lighting options in these designs. Mr. Damiani said he would confirm the notes made today, and that if any other issues came up, the drawing might be sent back for another review session. He agreed that it was important to get everything drawn and labelled appropriately at this stage.

256 seriesMr. Damiani recommended that this series be removed from the standard drawings, as most use cases involved case-by-case scenarios that had to be reviewed individually. He said that it did not make sense to have a standard for this.

Drawing 323This comment referenced a standard for vertical surface discontinuity. No comments were made.

Drawing 326Mr. Damiani said that drawing 326 covered a similar issue to drawing 323. Mr. Yazdani suggested that the language in this drawing specify polymer lids for county use, but Mr. Damiani took it a step further and recommended that they remove the material type altogether. Mr. Yazdani was concerned about this approach, as different developers tended to use different materials. The members spent a few moments discussing which jurisdictions used which materials.

Mr. Damiani clarified that, for drawings 323/326, they were being asked to remove any reference to a cast-iron or metal lids, and also remove the grounding requirements shown. Mr. Yazdani requested that they specify “polymer covers” in the language, to which the members agreed.

Drawing 328No comments were made.

400 SeriesMr. Damiani said these comments were largely the same as the aforementioned comments, with revisions referring to the vertical service discontinuity. Notes had been added to each drawing as needed.

Mr. Yazdani referenced drawing 417 and asked if the grate was bicycle-friendly. He noted that he could not locate the gap spacing in the drawing. Mr. Damiani and Mr. Yazdani spent a few moments reviewing the drawing details, before Mr. Damiani stated that he would need to review the issue with the RTC’s bicycling requirement expert. They would make sure all of the appropriate information would be included. Ms. Kendall agreed and asked that they also include direction of travel in the drawing.

Ms. Michelle Castro, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), referenced a typographical error in the notes of


6666

drawing 408.1, noting that it should read four instead of five. She also noted a missing period at the end of the notes in drawing 408.S1. Mr. Damiani agreed with these corrections.

Drawing 705Mr. Damiani noted that this revision entailed specifying polymer covers in designs. He asked if the entities still used the pre-cast reinforced concrete bodies, and if it would create problems to specify one way or the other. Mr. Yazdani was unsure if Clark County used these, and said he would check. Mr. Jimmy Benoit, Clark County Public Works, said that Clark County was using the concrete body on all pull boxes except for the P30s.

From there, Mr. Damiani suggested that they hold the pull box issue for now until each jurisdiction could review their needs and come back with more information. However, the polymer lid issue could be sent through.

706 SeriesMr. Yazdani noted that Clark County did not use the 706.1 drawing, so they could remove “C” from the notes. Mr. Damiani suggested that each representative review whether they used the 706.1 drawing, and if nobody did, it could potentially be removed.

Drawing 707.1Similar to 706.1, Mr. Yazdani said that Clark County did not use this drawing. No other comments were made.

Drawing 707Mr. Damiani stated that this revision again referred to the use of polymer covers. No other comments were made.

Drawing 724Mr. Yazdani asked if they were specifying new construction only in this drawing. Mr. Damiani answered that the drawings were implied for new construction, and after the drawing was adopted, all construction would need to follow its guidelines.

Mr. Damiani asked what the type of foundation in drawing 724 was used for. Mr. Benoit replied that it was typically used for smaller and pedestrian crossing cabinets. Mr. Damiani stated his preference for adding a street light foundation to the drawing. Mr. Benoit said a standard drawing for that should exist already, but he was unsure of which one it was. Mr. Damiani acknowledged this.

Drawing 725Ms. Kendall asked to clarify that this revision entailed taking out the 60-inch minimum, with a clear width of 48-inches. Ms. Uravich said that the pedestrian access route had to be a minimum of 48-inches, though 60-inches was a commonly-used clearance. Mr. Yazdani suggested that they change the 60-inch to 48-inches, as that was the minimum. This would make it easier to secure right-of-way easements compared to a 60-inch clearance.

Drawing 726Ms. Uravich stated that this drawing needed to be brought back after the in-process revisions were incorporated. It should not have been included in this packet.

Drawing 745Mr. Yazdani described the call out for a tolerance in the notes, detailing how Clark County had assessed its pole and foundation systems. Certain foundations could only be used for certain poles. Mr. Damiani agreed, stating that they would take off the language referencing the foundation.

The members spent a few minutes reviewing the foundation and pole drawings, with Mr. Damiani suggesting that they create a schedule that calls out different foundations and what poles apply to each. Mr. Yazdani and Ms. Kendall agreed, though they noted it would need to be run by each jurisdiction as well.

Mr. Damiani proposed that they hold the discussion for now to give them time to get all the poles together, and make sure the foundation drawings match. This could be reviewed again at the next meeting.

Drawing 763Mr. Yazdani commented on the use of drain rocks in this drawing, noting that drains without any fabric barriers would be useless in a few years. Mr. Damiani agreed. Mr. Yazdani also expressed confusion about pouring around each conduit, asking what was specifically being done in the field. Mr. Damiani said he would verify these issues and make revisions accordingly.

No other items were reviewed. RTC Staff recommended approval of revisions and applying changes as discussed. Motion:Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, made a motion to follow staff recommendation


6666



Discussion:





FOR ALLEY CONSTRUCTION SEE STANDARD DRAWING NO. 227

SIDEWALK

ST

RE

ET

SEE NOTE 5

PROPERTY LINE

ALLEY

W = WIDTH OF DRIVEWAY = 12' MIN.,

16' MAX. FOR 1 OR 2 CAR GARAGE, OR

28' MAX. FOR 3+ GARAGE

CURB

GUTTER

C

C

N

B C H M NLAGENCY APPROVED R

RESIDENTIAL

DRIVEWAY GEOMETRICS

UNIFORM STANDARD DRAWINGS

CLARK COUNTY AREA

SPECIFICATION REFERENCE

NOTES

1. ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES MAY HAVE ONLY ONE CURB CUT EXCEPT CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS AS SHOWN.

2. LOCAL ORDINANCES MAY APPLY AND SHALL HAVE PREFERENCE.

3. NO DRIVEWAY SHALL BE LOCATED WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY, ON OR OVER A UTILITY EASEMENT WHICH RUNS

PERPENDICULAR TO THE CURB LINE.

4. NO DRIVEWAY SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 6 FEET OF A LIGHT POLE (UNLESS ACCEPTED BY THE ENTITY TRAFFIC

ENGINEER), FIRE HYDRANT, MAIL BOX, ABOVE-GROUND ELECTRICAL TRANSFER BOX, BLOCK WALL HIGHER THAN 2 FEET,

OR THE CURB RETURN AT A STREET INTERSECTION OR ALLEY.

5. COMMON DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION MAY BE PERMITTED AT ANY TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OF 60 FEET IN WIDTH

OR LESS. THE WIDTH OF THE JOINT DRIVEWAY SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 24 FEET. A JOINT DRIVEWAY AGREEMENT

SHALL BE REQUIRED. (EXCEPT CLARK COUNTY)

6. GEOMETRICS APPLY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY, AND MAY VARY IN EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

OF THE ENGINEER.

7. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO THE COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY

STANDARDS.

8. ALL DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER.

9. FOR CURB DEPRESSION AND DRIVEWAY APRON DETAIL, SEE STD. DWG. NO. 223.

DATE 8-12-99 DWG. NO. 222

UTILITY

EASEMENT

SEE NOTE 3

*12' MIN.-CLARK COUNTY

CLARK

COUNTY

ONLY

7' MIN.

NORTH

LAS VEGAS

ONLY


DIMENSIONS

12' MINIMUM FOR ONE-WAY DRIVEWAYS32' MINIMUM FOR TWO-WAY DRIVEWAYS40' MAXIMUM

48' MINIMUM

8' MINIMUM & 15' MAXIMUM

W.

E.

H.

= 15' MINIMUM & 35' MAXIMUM= 25' MINIMUM & 35' MAXIMUM

R1R2

THROAT DEPTH25' MINIMUM

D.

50' MINIMUM FOR PARKING LOTS > 50PARKING SPACES

75' MINIMUM FOR PARKING LOTS 51 TO100 PARKING SPACES

100' MINIMUM FOR PARKING LOTS 101TO 200 PARKING SPACES

150' MINIMUM FOR PARKING LOTS > 201PARKING SPACES

R2

R1

STR

EE

T

THR

OA

T D

EP

THR2R1


NOTES:

1. COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD DRAWINGNUMBERS 224, 225, 228, 235 AND 235.1.

2. LOCAL ORDINANCES AND POLICIES MAY APPLY AND SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE. SEE NDOT ACCESS POLICY FOR STATEROADWAYS. ACCESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND STANDARDS FOR STATE ROADWAYS.

3. THE TOTAL WIDTH "W" OF DRIVEWAY CURB OPENINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 65% OF FRONT FOOTAGE.4. NO DRIVEWAY SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 6 FEET OF A LIGHT POLE (UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENTITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER),

FIRE HYDRANT, MAIL BOX, ABOVE-GROUND ELECTRICAL TRANSFER BOX, OR BLOCK WALL HIGHER THAN 2 FEET.5. THE CENTERLINES OF THE DRIVEWAYS ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE STREET AT A MEDIAN OPENING SHOULD BE WITHIN 10'

FROM EACH OTHER AT THE MEDIAN OPENING.6. GEOMETRICS APPLY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY, AND EXCEPTIONS MAY BE GRANTED BY THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENCY

TRAFFIC ENGINEER BASED ON SITE CONSTRAINTS.7. HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS SHALL BE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS TO THE P.C. OF THE ONSITE CURB

RETURN, MINIMUM, OR AT AN ALTERNATE LOCATION.8. WHEN A PROPERTY LINE FALLS IN A MEDIAN OPENING A JOINT DRIVEWAY AGREEMENT SHALL BE REQUIRED OR NO DRIVEWAY

WILL BE ALLOWED.9. WHERE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE CROSSES A DRIVEWAY, THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY

SHALL HAVE A CROSS SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 2%, REGARDLESS OF CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES.


COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY

DRIVEWAY GEOMETRICS


CLARK COUNTY AREA

DATE 02-09-06 DWG. NO. 222 .1 SHEET 1 OF 2

SIDEWALK

SEE

NOTE 7

(TYP.)

UTILITY

SEE

NOTE 4

CURB

GUTTER


DIMENSIONS

THROAT DEPTH FOR SECURITY GATEJ.

DIMENSIONS FOR SECURITY GATE

CONTROLLED DRIVEWAY DETAIL

ISLAND : LENGTH-20' MINIMUM

WIDTH- 4' MINIMUM

15' MINIMUM

48' MINIMUM

8' MINIMUM & 15' MAXIMUM

D.

G.

E.

H.

50' MINIMUM FOR 1 TO 49 HOMES OR APT. UNITS TO VISITOR CALL BOX.

100' MINIMUM FOR 50 TO 100 HOMES OR APT. UNITS TO VISITOR CALL BOX.

GREATER THAN 100 HOMES OR APT. UNITS REQUIRE TRAFFIC STUDY




CLARK COUNTY AREA

COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY

SECURITY GATE GEOMETRICS

DATE 02-09-06 DWG. NO. 222 .1 SHEET 2 OF 2

DETAIL FOR SECURITY GATECONTROLLED DRIVEWAYS

LOOP DETECTOR

D

CALL BOX


2.00'

2.08' (OPTIONAL)

0.6

3'

0.1

3'

1.00'

1.02'

2.00'

0.17'

1.0

0'

4.00' MINIMUM

2.00'

2.08' (OPTIONAL)

0.6

3'

1.50'

0.5

0'

1.58'

2.00'4.00' MINIMUM

1.0

0'

0.1

3'

3.00' 3.00'

1.5

0'

1.0

0'

2.0

0'

4.0

0'

DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIES

2%

M

AX

. S

LO

PE

TRANSITION

CURB TYPE

L-TYPE CURB

& GUTTER

R-TYPE CURB

& GUTTER

2.00% MAXIMUM SLOPE

2.00% MAXIMUM SLOPE

SIDEWALK (TYPICAL)

SIDEWALK (TYPICAL)

R-TYPE CURB-

&-GUTTER

L-TYPE CURB-

&-GUTTER

D

R

IV

E

W

A

Y

S

L

O

P

E

V

A

R

IE

S

D

R

IV

E

W

A

Y

S

L

O

P

E

V

A

R

IE

S

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

6" TYPE II AGG. BASE

CONCRETE SIDEWALK


MIN

. S

ID

EW

ALK

WID

TH

SECTION B-B

A

A

B

B

0.0

2'

EXPANSION

JOINT (TYP)

EXPANSION JOINT (TYPICAL)


C M NLAGENCY APPROVED R

RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY

302 AGGREGATE BASE

501 CONCRETE

502 CONCRETE STRUCTURES

707 JOINT MATERIAL



CLARK COUNTY AREA

NOTES:

1. WHEN CONSTRUCTING DRIVEWAY WHERE CURB AND GUTTER EXISTS, COMPLETELY REMOVE INTERFERING PORTIONS

OF EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER. DRIVEWAYS MAY BE MONOLITHIC TO A.C. LINE.

2. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE UNIFORMLY PLACED BETWEEN 5' AND 7' INTERVALS, SEE STANDARD DRAWING 234.

3. WHERE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE CROSSES A DRIVEWAY, THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE ACROSS THE

DRIVEWAY SHALL HAVE A CROSS SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 2%, REGARDLESS OF CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES.

DATE 11-14-19 DWG. NO. 223

5' M

IN

.

5'

PLAN VIEW

2.0

0'

SECTION A-A

5'


2.00'

2.08' (OPTIONAL)

0.6

3'

0.1

3'

1.00'

1.02'

2.00'

0.17'

1.0

0'

4.00' MINIMUM

(SEE NOTE 4)

2.00'

2.08' (OPTIONAL)

0.6

3'

1.50'

0.5

0'

1.58'

2.00'

4.00' MINIMUM

(SEE NOTE 4)

1.0

0'

0.1

3'

3.00' 3.00'

1.5

0'

1.0

0'

2.0

0'

4.0

0'

DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIES

2%

M

AX

. S

LO

PE

TRANSITION

CURB TYPE

L-TYPE CURB

& GUTTER

R-TYPE CURB

& GUTTER

2.00% MAXIMUM SLOPE

2.00% MAXIMUM SLOPE

SIDEWALK (TYPICAL)

SIDEWALK (TYPICAL)

R-TYPE CURB-

&-GUTTER

L-TYPE CURB-

&-GUTTER

D

R

IV

E

W

A

Y

S

L

O

P

E

V

A

R

IE

S

D

R

IV

E

W

A

Y

S

L

O

P

E

V

A

R

IE

S

CONCRETE SIDEWALK


CONCRETE SIDEWALK


SECTION B-B

A

A

B

B

0.0

2'

EXPANSION

JOINT (TYP)



CAGENCY APPROVED


302 AGGREGATE BASE

501 CONCRETE


707 JOINT MATERIAL



CLARK COUNTY AREA

NOTES



2. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE UNIFORMLY PLACED BETWEEN 5' AND 7' INTERVALS, SEE STANDARD DRAWING 234.

3. WHERE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE CROSSES A DRIVEWAY, THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE ACROSS THE

DRIVEWAY SHALL HAVE A CROSS SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 2%, REGARDLESS OF CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES.

4. WHERE THE CLEAR WIDTH OF A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROTE IS LESS THAN 5', PASSING SPACES OF 5' MINIMUM BY 5'

MINIMUM SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERVALS OF 200' MAXIMUM.

DATE XX-XX-XX DWG. NO. 223.S1

PLAN VIEW

2.0

0'

SECTION A-A

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWING

NEW DRAWING

MIN

. S

ID

EW

ALK

WID

TH

(S

EE

N

OT

E 4)




CLARK COUNTY AREA

DATE DWG. NO. 223.1


ELEVATION

PLAN

SECTION

4' 4'

GUTTER

DEPRESSED CURB

CONCRETE

DRIVEWAY

1/2" EXPANSION JOINT

VARIES

DRIVEWAY

APRON

WEAKENED PLANE JOINT

VARIES

4' 4'DEPRESSED

CURB

BOTTOM OF CURB

EQUAL REVERSE CURVES

SLOPE SHALL BE 1:8 MAX.

AND 1:12 MIN.


MAXIMUM SLOPE 1-1/2" PER FOOT

1" ABOVE F.L. OF GUTTER

6" TYPE II AGGREGATE BASE

6" MIN.

CONCRETE DRIVEWAY

NOTES:



WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE UNIFORMLY PLACED BETWEEN 5' AND 7' INTERVALS, SEE STANDARD DRAWING2.

NO. 234.

302 AGGREGATE BASE

501 CONCRETE


JOINT MATERIAL707

07-01-16

AGENCY APPROVED CB H L M N

WITHOUT ADJACENT SIDEWALK

STANDARD DRAWING 223.1 SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WHEN SIDEWALK IS ATTACHED TO CURB.3.

THE "DUSTPAN" DRIVEWAY CANNOT BE A PART OF THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE

SINCE THE DEPRESSED AREA IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH ADAAG.

4.

R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G


3.00' DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIES 3.00'

4.00'

5.00' (T

YP

.)

SID

EW

AL

K

MIN

IM

UM

2%

M

AX

.

SL

OP

E

1

2

" EXPANSION

JOINT

1

2

" EXPANSION JOINT

2%

M

AX

.

SL

OP

E

2%

M

AX

.

SL

OP

E

FL ELEV=100.00

FC ELEV=100.125


LIP ELEV=100.125

FG ELEV=100.52

FG ELEV=100.60

2% MAX. SLOPE

1.50'1.50' 4.00'

A

PLAN VIEW

A

SECTION A-A

6" CONC. SIDEWALK

(SEE NOTE 3)

REINFORCING

(SEE NOTE 1)

NOTE: ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL

TRANSITION

CURB

TRANSITION

CURB

L-TYPE

CURB &

GUTTER

L-TYPE

CURB &

GUTTER

MINIMUMMIN.



CLARK COUNTY AREA

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

DRIVEWAY (OPTION A)


AGGREGATE BASE

CONCRETE

CONCRETE STRUCTURES

REINFORCING STEEL

JOINT MATERIAL

302

501

502

505

707

NOTES

1. NO. 4 BARS AT 16" O.C. BOTH WAYS EXTENDING INTO GUTTER. NO. 4 BARS SHALL BE PLACED 3" ABOVE BOTTOM OF

CONCRETE SUPPORTED BY NON-FERROUS CHAIRS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.

2. WHEN CONSTRUCTING DRIVEWAY WHERE CURB AND GUTTER EXISTS, COMPLETELY REMOVE INTERFERING

PORTIONS OF EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER. DRIVEWAY SHALL BE MONOLITHIC TO A.C. LINE.

3. DRIVEWAY THICKNESS FOR INDUSTRIAL USE SHALL BE 8" MIN.

4. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE EQUALLY SPACED AT 15' MAX. INTERVALS, SEE STANDARD DRAWING NO. 234.

5. NO UTILITY BOXES AND COVERS ADJACENT TO R-TYPE CURB SHALL BE ALLOWED AT DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS.

6. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE SHALL HAVE A CROSS SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 2%, REGARDLESS OF CONSTRUCTION

TOLERANCES.

DATE 01-01-17 DWG. NO. 224

MIN


40' B.C.

TYPICAL

PR

IV

AT

E S

TR

EE

T

OR

D

RIV

EW

AY

FLOW LINE

PUBLIC STREET

ST

RE

ET

C

EN

TE

RLIN

E

FLO

W LIN

E O

F

CR

OS

S G

UT

TE

R

P.

C.

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION

2%

TY

PIC

AL

N

O

R

M

A

L

C

R

O

W

N

8'

TYP.

±3%

MAXIMUM

GRADE BREAK


COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DRIVEWAY

(OPTION B) OR

PRIVATE STREET ACCESS

NOTES

1. SEPARATION OF PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC MUST BE MAINTAINED ON SITE.

2. FOR GRADE CHANGES GREATER THAN 3%, VERTICAL CURVES OF AT LEAST 10 FEET MUST BE USED.

3. WHEELCHAIR CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE CURB RETURN IN ACCORDANCE WITH

STANDARD DRAWING NO. 235.

4. WHERE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE CROSSES A DRIVEWAY, THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE

ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY SHALL HAVE A CROSS SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 2%, REGARDLESS OF

CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES.



CLARK COUNTY AREA

AREA REQUIRED

TO BE DEDICATED

AS AN EASEMENT

DWG. NO. 225DATE 2-11-93


PLAN

WIDTH


CONCRETE

SIDEWALK

BACK OF CURB

FLOWLINE

42" (TYP.)

A

A

B

B

BACK OF

SIDEWALK

DRIVEWAY

VARIES

LENGTH VARIES

SLOPE 1:12 MAX.

RAMP TRANSITION

SLOPE 1:12 MAX.

TRANSITION CURB

RAMP

SL

OP

E 1

:1

2 M

AX

.

TRANSITION CURB

RAMP

(3' MIN. / 15' MAX.)

6' M

IN

.

RA

MP

T

RA

NS

IT

IO

N

1.50' 5.00' 6.00'

1.5"


SEE NOTE 1

SECTION B-B


2% MAX.

1:1

2 M

AX

.

6" CONCRETE (SEE NOTE 3)

6" CURB FACE


SECTION A-A

EXPANSION JOINT

EXPANSION JOINT

TRANSITION CURB HEIGHT

SEE NOTE 1

CURB & GUTTER


FLOW LINE %

1:1

2 M

AX

.

6" CONCRETE (SEE NOTE 3)

FLOW LINE %

TRANSITION LENGTH VARIES

SL

OP

E 2

% M

AX

.


CLARK COUNTY AREA

DATE DWG. NO. 226.S1

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

1. NO. 4 BARS AT 16" O.C. BOTH WAYS EXTENDING INTO GUTTER. NO. 4 BARS SHALL BE PLACED 3" ABOVE BOTTOM

OF CONCRETE SUPPORTED BY NON-FERROUS CHAIRS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.


302 AGGREGATE BASE

501 CONCRETE


JOINT MATERIAL707


3. DRIVEWAY THICKNESS FOR INDUSTRIAL USE SHALL BE 8" MIN.

4. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE EQUALLY SPACED AT 15' MAX. INTERVALS.

505 REINFORCING STEEL

DRIVEWAY (OPTION C)

THIS DRIVEWAY DESIGN SHALL ALSO BE USED FOR ALLEY INTERSECTIONS, 8" MIN. THICKNESS.5.

6. SPECIAL DESIGNS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.

07-01-15



AGENCY APPROVED NH

SEE NOTE 1

1.50' 1.00'

1"

SL

OP

E 1

:1

2 M

AX

.

1.00'

R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G


APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER

#4 BARS AT 16" CENTERS,

BOTH WAYS SUPPORTED

BY NON-FERROUS CHAIRS

DRAWING NO. 222.1

R = ACCORDING TO UNIFORM STANDARD

SEALANT DETAIL

FINISHED ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE TO BE FLUSH WITH CROSS GUTTER LIP.

(OFFICES, CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, RESTAURANTS, ETC.)

LIGHT DUTY COMMERCIAL

TT-S-00153A CLASS A SEALANT

EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL707

SECTION A-A

ADJACENT SPANDREL SHALL BE 6" THICK P.C.C.

REINFORCING STEEL

CONCRETE STRUCTURES

AGGREGATE BASE

CONCRETE

505

502

501

302

NOTES:

2.

1.

2" CLR. (TYP.)

3"

6"

6"

CL

R.

DRIVEWAY

AGGREGATE BASE

TYPE I OR TYPE II

CONCRETE - SEE NOTE NO. 2

A

3/4"

#4 BARS AT 16" O.C.

JOINT DETAIL

1" TYP.

5'-6"

EACH WAY

2" CLR.

12"

3" 3"

SILICONE SEALANT

1'-6"

5/8" BACKING ROD

BOND BREAKER OR

PLAN

2'

"

R

"

JOINT FILLER

1/2" PREMOLDED EXPANSION

1'-6

"

7'

FLOWLINE

A

END PLUG. GREASE REINFORCING STEEL

PRIOR TO PIPE INSTALLATION

2'

STANDARD 1/2" PVC PIPE

1/4

"

1/2"

1/4

"


DATE DWG. NO. 226.S212-14-00

CLARK COUNTY AREA



AGENCY APPROVED H

R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G


APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER

#4 BARS AT 16" CENTERS,

BOTH WAYS SUPPORTED

BY NON-FERROUS CHAIRS

DRAWING NO. 222.1

R = ACCORDING TO UNIFORM STANDARD

SEALANT DETAIL

FINISHED ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE TO BE FLUSH WITH CROSS GUTTER LIP.

(SERVICE STATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, LOADING DOCKS, ETC.)

HEAVY DUTY COMMERCIAL

TT-S-00153A CLASS A SEALANT

EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL707

SECTION A-A

ADJACENT SPANDREL SHALL BE 9" THICK P.C.C.

REINFORCING STEEL

CONCRETE STRUCTURES

AGGREGATE BASE

CONCRETE

505

502

501

302

NOTES:

2.

1.

2" CLR. (TYP.)

3"

10"

9"

CLR

.

DRIVEWAY

AGGREGATE BASE

TYPE I OR TYPE II

CONCRETE - SEE NOTE NO. 2

A

3/4"

#4 BARS AT 16" O.C.

JOINT DETAIL

1" TYP.

5'-6"

EACH WAY

2" CLR.

12"

3" 3"

SILICONE SEALANT

1'-6"

5/8" BACKING ROD

BOND BREAKER OR

PLAN

2'

"

R

"

JOINT FILLER

1/2" PREMOLDED EXPANSION

1'-6"

7'

FLOWLINE

A

END PLUG. GREASE REINFORCING STEEL

PRIOR TO PIPE INSTALLATION

2'

STANDARD 1/2" PVC PIPE

1/4"

1/2"

1/4"


DATE DWG. NO. 226.S312-14-00

CLARK COUNTY AREA



AGENCY APPROVED H

R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G


ELEVATION

PLAN

SECTION A-A

ALLEY

VARIES

MIN. SLOPE 1:200 (0.5%)

1" ABOVE F.L. OF GUTTER

3"

2" CLEAR (TYP.)

A

A

SLOPE 1:12 MAX. (8.33%)

LENGTH VARIES

STREET SLOPE (%)

MAX. SLOPE 1:50 (2%)

LENGTH VARIES

1:12 MAX. SLOPE

LENGTH VARIES

LENGTH VARIES

1:12 MAX. SLOPE

(WIDTH VARIES)

B C H NLAGENCY APPROVED R



CLARK COUNTY AREA


DEPRESSED ALLEY DRIVEWAY

DATE 07-01-15 DWG. NO. 227.S1

NOTES

1. NO. 4 BARS AT 16" O.C. BOTH WAYS CONTINUOUS THROUGH GUTTER. NO. 4 BARS SHALL BE PLACED 3"

ABOVE BOTTOM OF CONCRETE.



3. DRIVEWAY THICKNESS SHALL BE 8" MIN.

4. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTES SHALL HAVE A CROSS SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 2%, REGARDLESS OF

CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES.

5. THE RUNNING SLOPE AND LENGTH OF TRANSITION WITHIN THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE SHALL BE

MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS, REGARDLESS OF CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES.

2% MAX CROSS SLOPE

INCLUDING TRANSITIONS

15' MAX.15' MAX.

8.3%8.3%

TRANSITION AREA

1:12 8.3% MAX. SLOPE


6762


SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM







OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF

REVISIONS TO THE UNIFORM STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS

GOAL: ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

This item will provide the status of proposed revisions to the Uniform Standard Specifications and

Drawings. The attached tracking spreadsheet sets forth information about the revisions as the

modifications are addressed by the Operations and Specifications Subcommittee, Executive Advisory

Committee, and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Board of Commissioners.



Senior Director of Engineering OPS Item #6 January 21, 2020

ssf


for

6762


Agenda Item Recommendation (as submitted):RECEIVE A REPORT REGARDING THE CURRENT STATUS OF REVISIONS TO THE UNIFORM STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS



Comments:Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), provided a list with the status of drawings under review. He noted that the review of Proposed Rights-of-Way Guidelines (PROWAG) revisions would resume in January 2020. He then reviewed the specifications review process, noting that drawings related to traffic operations are sent to the Operations Subcommittee before moving on for further review by the other committees. Drawings with no traffic impact are sent directly to the Specifications Subcommittee.

Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, asked about the reasoning behind the decision to bypass the Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) on non-traffic related drawings. He felt it would be beneficial for the Subcommittee to be privy to all drawing revisions. Mr. Damiani explained that an Subcommittee review would add two months to the review process. He suggested adding the non-traffic-related drawing revisions to the status list report and sending an email notification to the Subcommittee members.


Discussion:




Discussion:





Uniform Standard DrawingsDrawing

No.Sheet Name

Associated Specification

OPS Sent to IRIR Comments

DueSPEC Sent to IR* EAC RTC

222 Residential Driveway Geometrics 1/21/20

222.1 1 Commercial and Multi‐family Driveway Geometrics 1/21/20

222.1 2 Commercial and Multi‐family Security Gate Geometrics 1/21/20

223 Residential Driveway 302, 501, 502, 707 1/21/20

223.S1 Residential Driveway 302, 501, 502, 707 1/21/20

223.1 Residential Driveway without Adjacent Sidewalk 302, 501, 502, 707 1/21/20

224 Commercial and Industrial Driveway (Option A)302, 501, 502, 505, 707

1/21/20

225Commercial and Industrial Driveway (Option B) or Private Street Access

1/21/20

226.S1 Commercial and Industrial Driveway (Option C)302, 501, 502, 505, 707

1/21/20

226.S2 Light Duty Commercian Driveway302, 501, 502, 505, 707, TT‐S‐00153A

1/21/20

226.S3 Heavy Duty Commercial Driveway302, 501, 502, 505, 707, TT‐S‐00153A

1/21/20

227.S1 Depressed Alley Driveway 1/21/20

745 30 ft. Pole w/School Flashing Sign 9/17/19 ‐ Held

763 S2ITS Communication Conduit and Pull Box Detail (For Existing Curb & Gutter)

9/17/19 ‐ Held

724 Type "I" Foundation 501, 623 9/17/19 ‐ Held

725 Type "J" & "K" Foundations 501, 623 9/17/19 ‐ Held

236 Sidewalk Drain 302, 501, 710 9/17/19 10/29/19 11/21/19 1/8/20

244.9 Bicycle Lane Delineation, Legend and Signage 9/17/19 10/29/19 11/21/19 1/8/20

255.4 Delineation and Bollared Usage On Shared Use Path 628, 633 9/17/19 10/29/19 11/21/19 1/8/20

320 Lighting Standard Setback 501, 623 9/17/19 10/29/19 11/21/19 1/8/20

321.S.S1Modified Existing Streetlight Foundation for Installation of Underground Conduit

501, 623 9/17/19 10/29/19 11/21/19 1/8/20

Drawings Pending Ops

Ops Drawings in IR

Drawings Pending Spec

Spec Drawings in IR

Drawings Pending EAC

1



No.Sheet Name




201.2 1 Sight Visibility Zones At Intersections 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20








202 Arterial Urban Area Street Sections302, 401, 403, 413, 501

7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

203 Alt Urban Area St Section w/Offset Sidewalk302, 401, 403, 413, 501

7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

203.1.S1 Primary Arterial 302, 401, 403, 501 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

205Collector Urban Area Street Section w/Curbside Sidewalk

302, 401, 406, 407, 413, 501

7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

205.1.S1 Collector Alt Urban Area St Sec w/Offset Sidewalk302, 401, 406, 407, 413, 501

7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

205.2.S1 Major Collector302, 401, 406, 407, 501

7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

205.3.S1 Minor Collector302, 401, 406, 407, 501

7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

206.S1 Local Residential Urban Area St Sections302, 401, 406, 407, 501

7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20


7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20


7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

206.1.S1 Local Residential302, 401, 406, 407, 501

7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

210.S1 Private Street Section302, 401, 406, 407, 501

7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

234 Sidewalk 302, 501, 502, 707 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

234.2 Typical Bus Stop Passenger Loading w/Shelter Pads 302, 501, 502 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

234.3Typical Double Bus Stop Passanger Loading w/Shelter Pads

302, 501, 502 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

234.5 Bus Shelter Pad Details and Notes 302, 501, 502 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

256.1 Typical Signage for Shared Use Path at Intersection 628, 633 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

256.2 Shared Use Path Crossing Two Lane Roadway 628, 633 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

256.3 Shared Use Path Crossing Four Lane Roadway 628, 633 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

Drawings at RTC Board

2



No.Sheet Name




256.4 Shared Use Path Crossing Six Lane Roadway 628, 633 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

256.5 Shared Use Path Under Crossing 628, 633 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

256.6 Shared Use Path Crossing Railroad 628, 633 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

256.7Typical Delineation for Shared Use Path Parallel to Railroad Corssing a Roadway

628, 633 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

321 Lighting Standard Foundation 501, 623 7/16/19 8/13/19 9/12/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

323 Pull Box Cover Bonding Detail 623 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

326 Precast Reinforced Concrete Pull Box 503, 623 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

328Utility Pull Box Locations Sidwealk and Between Driveways

503, 623 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

332.S1 Service Pedestal Foundation 501, 623 7/16/19 8/13/19 9/12/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

332.S2 Service Pedestal Foundation 501, 623 7/16/19 8/13/19 9/12/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

402 Storm Drain Drop Inlet General Notes 501, 609 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

403 Type I Manhole 501, 609 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

403.1 Type I Manhole 30 Inche Ring and Cover 501, 609 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

408 Concrete Collar around Manholes 501, 505 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

408.S1 Concrete Collar around Manholes 501, 505 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

408.1Concete Collar around Manholes 30‐inch Ring and Cover

501, 505 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

408.1.S1Concete Collar around Manholes 30‐inch Ring and Cover

501, 505 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

417 Drop Inlet Frame and Grate 712, 714, 715, 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

705 No. 3 1/2 Pull Box 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

706 No. 5 Pull box 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

706.1 Reinforced Plastic Mortar Service Box Assembly No. 5 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

707 No. 7 Pull Box 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

707.1 Reinforced Plastic Mortar Service Box Assembly No. 7 7/16/19 8/5/19 9/3/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

726 Service Pedestal Foundation 501, 623 7/16/19 8/13/19 9/12/19 10/9/19 12/19/19 1/9/20

3


Uniform Standard Specifications

Spec No. Name OPS Sent to IRIR Comments


401 Plantmix Bituminous Pavements - General - - - 1/8/20

404 Hot Plant Mix Recycled Bituminous Pavement - - - 1/8/20

702 Concrete Curing Materials and Admixtures - - - 1/8/20

703 Bituminous Materials - - - 1/8/20

704 Base Aggregates N/A N/A N/A 10/9/19 10/17/19 12/19/19

707 Joint Material N/A N/A N/A 10/9/19 N/A 12/19/19

Specifications Pending Ops

Ops Specficiations in IR

Specifications Pending Spec

Spec Specifications in IR

Specifications Pending EAC

Specifications at RTC Board

1


4733


SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM


SUBJECT: TOPICS OF INTEREST





OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSS TOPICS OF INTEREST


FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

The Operations Subcommittee members can share information about activities, meetings, news and other topics of interest in an informal manner.

While no action may be taken on the subjects discussed, this item provides an opportunity for the

exchange of information and may serve as the forum to recommend future Operations Subcommittee

agenda items.





for

5064


SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM


SUBJECT: FINAL CITIZENS PARTICIPATION





OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE CONDUCT A COMMENT PERIOD FOR CITIZENS

PARTICIPATION


FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with State of Nevada Open Meeting Law, the Regional Transportation Commission of

Southern Nevada Operations Subcommittee shall invite interested persons to make comments. For the

initial Citizens Participation, the public should address items on the current agenda. For the final

Citizens Participation, interested persons may make comments on matters within the Operations

Subcommittee's jurisdiction, but not necessarily on the current agenda.

No action can be taken on any matter discussed under this item, although the Operations Subcommittee

can direct that it be placed on a future agenda.





for

operations subcommittee 1:30 p.m. january 21, 2020...jan 21, 2020 · jim keane, city of boulder...

Documents