REVIEW COMMENT AND RESOLUTION SHEET
PROJECT NO. 601096
Newburyport-Amesbury-Salisbury: Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project
DESIGNER: PBA, Inc.
On-going 25% Design Submission
Submittal:
Phase:
REVIEWER:
Reviewer:
NO.
MASSDOT
FHWA
Other
Boston HQ Traffic Engineering
SHEET
Date:
COMMENT
December 26, 2012
INITIAL
ACTION
Completed by Reviewer
1.
231,
Abbreviation
s, Notes &
Symbols
2.
General
Notes 24 &
25
3.
GN 22
“HID” is stand for “high Intensity Discharge”, not “High Density
Discharge”.
We do not recommend that highway light poles be painted black.
In past experience (93, 146), the finished paint would be striped
by weather, resulted ugly looking light poles. These light poles
become a high maintenance item and bust the District
maintenance budget. These light poles shall not be painted and
shall be in their natural galvanized steel color grey.
This note strictly requires that “All Roadway and SUP Luminaires
shall have a CCT equal to 4000K”. This note is too restricted will
eliminate many potential possible candidates. This note should be
modifies as follows: “All roadway and SUP luminaires shall have a
CCT equal to 3500K and less than 5500K and a CRI index equal
to 65 or higher.”
RESPONSE
Completed by Designer
QC
Review1
Compl.
by
Designer
D
Will correct
CJL
C
Color was determined by
MassDOT Bridge Section
and approved for base
concept.
CJL
D
Will revise this note to allow
for reduced restrictions.
CJL
ACTIONS:
A = WILL INCORPORATE
B = WILL EVALUATE
C = DELETE COMMENT
Note:
1. Designer QC Reviewer
2. Verified and completed by Mass DOT Reviewer at Comment Resolution Meeting
Final
Action/
Verified2
Compl.
by
MassDOT
Reviewer
D = WILL INCORPORATE IN NEXT SUBMITTAL
PAGE 1 OF 3
REVIEW COMMENT AND RESOLUTION SHEET
PROJECT NO. 601096
Newburyport-Amesbury-Salisbury: Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project
NO.
SHEET
4.
Lighting
General
5.
LG
6.
LG
7.
LG
8.
LG
9.
258,
Roadway
Lighting
Details,
sheet 1 of 2
10.
Autobarn 2
COMMENT
No light poles shall be mounted on such narrow barrier (less than
30”) that is used to separate highway and shared use path. If
required, light poles shall be mounted either on the sides or on
the median.
There is no existing lighting on highway. Please provide
justification for why this section of highway warranted to be lit.
Based on the Public Hearing on January 21, 2012, Mr. David
Watson, the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Bicycle
Coalition, No lighting for SUP is requested. MassDOT is not
starting to light every shared use path. Are respective
municipalities ready to sign utility agreements to state they are
ready to own & maintain their portion of the Shared Use Path.
If MassDOT must provide lighting for the subject section highway,
we recommend that lighting shall be mounted in the median
wherever possible.
INITIAL
ACTION
RESPONSE
QC
Review1
C
Lighting as been reviewed
and approved by District 4
(D4).
CJL
A
Lighting Warranting Report
is being prepared by PB.
CJL
C
The SUP is an unlit path.
CJL
C
See comment No. 4.
CJL
We recommend that 3 luminaires from 3 different manufacturers
shall be specified. This design process will narrow the choices for
the electrical contractor and result better lighting system.
C
This is a Design Build
project and the Design Build
Entity is responsible for the
lighting design per the RFP.
CJL
Sheet Note #5: Call for breakaway transformer base. MassDOT
standard practices do not use breakaway couplings or bases on
median island or barrier.
D
Will revise pole base to
MassDOT Standard.
CJL
C
PB has found that the Type
II for LED Roadway
luminaires tends to result in
the best performance
particularly for this type of
highway project with this
proposed spacing and
mounting heights. The type
II also meets the
requirements stated in the
RFP.
CJL
Based on the email by Joe Pavao on Dec 11, 2012, we find that
ATB2 Type III has better Isofootcandle plot than the Type II.
ACTIONS:
A = WILL INCORPORATE
B = WILL EVALUATE
C = DELETE COMMENT
Note:
1. Designer QC Reviewer
2. Verified and completed by Mass DOT Reviewer at Comment Resolution Meeting
Final
Action/
Verified2
D = WILL INCORPORATE IN NEXT SUBMITTAL
PAGE 2 OF 3
REVIEW COMMENT AND RESOLUTION SHEET
PROJECT NO. 601096
Newburyport-Amesbury-Salisbury: Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project
NO.
11.
SHEET
Light
Spacing
COMMENT
The spacing of light poles on I-93 Medford project is
approximately 260 feet. The spacing of light poles On the 495
Training Road Project (EXT 44-45) is approximately 235 feet. We
recommend that the spacing for this project may be improved to
at least 235 feet.
INITIAL
ACTION
RESPONSE
C
Spacing is completely
dependent on the luminaire
with all its different
attributes, mounting heights,
and setbacks. The DB
Contractor is to complete
the lighting calculations and
design based on the
proposed documents. The
spacing may vary slightly
depending on the DB Entity
equipment selections and
final design.
ACTIONS:
A = WILL INCORPORATE
B = WILL EVALUATE
C = DELETE COMMENT
Note:
1. Designer QC Reviewer
2. Verified and completed by Mass DOT Reviewer at Comment Resolution Meeting
QC
Review1
Final
Action/
Verified2
CJL
D = WILL INCORPORATE IN NEXT SUBMITTAL
PAGE 3 OF 3