DOCSLIB.ORG

Traffic Impact Study Proposed GA 53 at New Cut Road Mixed-Use Development Town of Braselton, Jackson County, Georgia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Traffic Impact Study Proposed GA 53 at New Cut Road Mixed-Use Development Town of Braselton, Jackson County, Georgia Traffic Impact Study Proposed GA 53 at New Cut Road Mixed-Use Development Town of Braselton, Jackson County, Georgia May 7, 2020 MARC R. ACAMPORA, PE, LLC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Traffic Impact Study Proposed GA 53 at New Cut Road Mixed-Use Development Town of Braselton, Jackson County, Georgia study prepared for: Mahaffey Pickens Tucker, LLP 1550 North Brown Road, Suite 125 Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043 May 7, 2020 MARC R. ACAMPORA, PE, LLC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 858 Myrtle Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308 phone: (678) 637-1763 e-mail: [email protected] Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ROADWAYS ............................................................................................................................................. 2 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY ............................................................................................................................. 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 6 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 8 NO BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 NO-BUILD LANES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL ......................................................................................................................................... 8 NO-BUILD INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 8 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................................. 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................................................. 10 TRIP GENERATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 12 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 14 LANE CONFIGURATION AT SITE ACCESSES ........................................................................................................................................ 15 New Cut Road Access ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 GA 53 Accesses .................................................................................................................................................................. 16 FUTURE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 16 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 18 APPENDIX Tables TABLE 1 – HISTORIC GEORGIA DOT TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS AND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES ............................................................................ 5 TABLE 2 – EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 7 TABLE 3 – NO-BUILD INTERSECTION OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 9 TABLE 4 – GA 53 AT NEW CUT ROAD MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION ...................................................................................... 12 TABLE 5 – FUTURE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 17 TABLE A – LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS AND ROUNDABOUTS ................................................................ APPENDIX B TABLE B – LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ......................................................................................... APPENDIX B GA 53 at New Cut Road Mixed-Use Development Traffic Impact Study Marc R Acampora, PE, LLC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Figures FIGURE 1 – SITE LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 FIGURE 2 – EXISTING* WEEKDAY A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES............................................................................................. 6 FIGURE 3 – SITE PLAN .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 4 – WEEKDAY A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR SITE TRIPS ...................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 5 – FUTURE WEEKDAY A.M AND P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................... 14 Photographs PHOTOGRAPH 1 – GA 53 FACING NORTH AT NEW CUT ROAD / EDNAVILLE ROAD ............................................................................................. 3 PHOTOGRAPH 2 – GA 53 FACING SOUTH AT NEW CUT ROAD / EDNAVILLE ROAD .............................................................................................. 3 PHOTOGRAPH 3 – GA 53 FACING NORTH WITH SITE FRONTAGE TO RIGHT ........................................................................................................ 4 PHOTOGRAPH 4 – NEW CUT ROAD FACING EAST WITH SITE FRONTAGE TO LEFT ................................................................................................ 4 GA 53 at New Cut Road Mixed-Use Development Traffic Impact Study Marc R Acampora, PE, LLC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 1 Introduction This study assesses the traffic impact of a proposed mixed-use retail, office, and residential development in Jackson County, Georgia, with the property proposed to be annexed into the Town of Braselton. The site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Georgia State Route 53 and New Cut Road / Ednaville Road, as shown in the location map in Figure 1. The site will be developed with a 220 residences, with a mix of attached and detached homes on the northern portion of the site and ten commercial buildings totaling 104,500 square feet. One full-movement and one right-in/right-out vehicular access will be provided on the east side of GA 53 and one full-movement access will be provided on the north side of New Cut Road. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to determine existing traffic operating conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, project future traffic volumes, assess the impact of the subject development, then develop conclusions and recommendations to mitigate the project traffic impact and ensure safe and efficient existing and future traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project. Figure 1 – Site Location Map GA 53 at New Cut Road Mixed-Use Development Traffic Impact Study Marc R Acampora, PE, LLC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 2 Existing Traffic Conditions Existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed mixed-use development were assessed. The following is a description of existing transportation facilities, traffic volumes, and intersection operations. Description of Existing Roadways Georgia State Route 53 is a northwest/southeast urban minor arterial (Georgia DOT designation) that provides regional mobility. An interchange between GA 53 and Interstate 85 is located approximately one mile south of the subject site. In the vicinity of the site, the road has one through lane in each direction with a northbound exclusive right turn lane at New Cut Road. The striping at the intersection of GA 53 and New Cut / Ednaville Roads is heavily faded. The terrain along GA 53 is level to very gently rolling in the study area and the speed limit is 55 mph with warning speed limits of 45 mph in both directions in advance of the New Cut Road / Ednaville Road intersection. In 2018 (the most recent year for which counts were available at study time) the Georgia Department of Transportation (Georgia DOT) recorded an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume of 9,060 vehicles per day (vpd) on GA 53 north of New Cut
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Heavy Equipment
    Heavy Equipment Code: 5913 Version: 01 Copyright © 2007. All Rights Reserved. Heavy Equipment General Assessment Information Blueprint Contents General Assessment Information Sample Written Items Written Assessment Information Performance Assessment Information Specic Competencies Covered in the Test Sample Performance Job Test Type: The Heavy Equipment assessment is included in NOCTI’s Teacher assessment battery. Teacher assessments measure an individual’s technical knowledge and skills in a proctored prociency examination format. These assessments are used in a large number of states as part of the teacher licensing and/or certication process, assessing competency in all aspects of a particular industry. NOCTI Teacher tests typically oer both a written and performance component that must be administered at a NOCTI-approved Area Test Center. Teacher assessments can be delivered in an online or paper/pencil format. Revision Team: The assessment content is based on input from subject matter experts representing the state of Pennsylvania. CIP Code 49.0202- Construction/Heavy Career Cluster 2- 47-2073.00- Operating Engineers Equipment/Earthmoving Architecture and Construction and Other Construction Equipment Operation Equipment Operators NOCTI Teacher Assessment Page 2 of 12 Heavy Equipment Wrien Assessment NOCTI written assessments consist of questions to measure an individual’s factual theoretical knowledge. Administration Time: 3 hours Number of Questions: 232 Number of Sessions: This assessment may be administered in one, two, or three
    [Show full text]
  • Montlake Cut Tunnel Expert Review Panel Report
    SR 520 Project Montlake Cut Tunnel Expert Review Panel Report EXPERT REVIEW PANEL MEMBERS: John Reilly, P.E., C.P.Eng. John Reilly Associates International Brenda Böhlke, Ph.D., P.G.. Myers Böhlke Enterprise Vojtech Gall, Ph.D., P.E. Gall Zeidler Consultants Lars Christian Ingerslev, P.E. PB Red Robinson, C.E.G., R.G. Shannon and Wilson Gregg Korbin, Ph.D. Geotechnical Consultant John Townsend, C.Eng. Hatch-Mott MacDonald José Carrasquero-Verde, Principal Scientist Herrera Environmental Consultants Submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation July 17, 2008 SR520, Montlake Cut, Tunnel Alternatives, Expert Review Panel Report July 17h, 2008 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................5 1.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................5 1.2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................5 1.3. TUNNELING METHODS CONSIDERED......................................................................................................5 Figure 1 - Immersed Tunnel Construction (General) ......................................................................................6 Figure 2 - Tunnel Boring Machine (Elbe River, Hamburg) ............................................................................6 Figure 3 – Sequential Excavation
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stability
    Slope stability Causes of instability Mechanics of slopes Analysis of translational slip Analysis of rotational slip Site investigation Remedial measures Soil or rock masses with sloping surfaces, either natural or constructed, are subject to forces associated with gravity and seepage which cause instability. Resistance to failure is derived mainly from a combination of slope geometry and the shear strength of the soil or rock itself. The different types of instability can be characterised by spatial considerations, particle size and speed of movement. One of the simplest methods of classification is that proposed by Varnes in 1978: I. Falls II. Topples III. Slides rotational and translational IV. Lateral spreads V. Flows in Bedrock and in Soils VI. Complex Falls In which the mass in motion travels most of the distance through the air. Falls include: free fall, movement by leaps and bounds, and rolling of fragments of bedrock or soil. Topples Toppling occurs as movement due to forces that cause an over-turning moment about a pivot point below the centre of gravity of the unit. If unchecked it will result in a fall or slide. The potential for toppling can be identified using the graphical construction on a stereonet. The stereonet allows the spatial distribution of discontinuities to be presented alongside the slope surface. On a stereoplot toppling is indicated by a concentration of poles "in front" of the slope's great circle and within ± 30º of the direction of true dip. Lateral Spreads Lateral spreads are disturbed lateral extension movements in a fractured mass. Two subgroups are identified: A.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Earthwork
    Topic #625-000-007 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 January 1, 2016 Chapter 3 Earthwork 3.1 General ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Classification of Soils ................................................................. 3-3 3.3 Cross Sections - A Design Tool .................................................. 3-3 3.4 Earthwork Quantities .................................................................. 3-4 3.4.1 Method of Calculating ................................................. 3-4 3.4.2 Earthwork Tabulation ................................................. 3-4 3.4.3 Earthwork Accuracy ................................................... 3-5 3.4.3.1 Projects with Horizontal and Vertical Controlled Cross Sections .......................... 3-5 3.4.3.2 Projects without Horizontal and Vertical Controlled Cross Sections .......................... 3-6 3.4.4 Variation in Quantities ................................................ 3-6 3.5 Earthwork Items of Payment ...................................................... 3-7 3.5.1 Guidelines for Selecting Earthwork Pay Items ............ 3-7 3.5.2 Regular Excavation .................................................... 3-8 3.5.3 Embankment .............................................................. 3-9 3.5.4 Subsoil Excavation ..................................................... 3-9 3.5.5 Lateral Ditch Excavation ............................................. 3-9 3.5.6 Channel Excavation ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Site Grading Design
    188.pdf A SunCam online continuing education course Fundamentals of Site Grading Design by Joshua A. Tiner, P.E. 188.pdf Fundamentals of Site Grading A SunCam online continuing education course Table of Contents A. Introduction B. Basics • Background: • Existing Conditions: • Contour Lines: • Spot Elevations / Spot Grades: • Other Standard Annotations: • Slope • Plan Setup • Limit of Disturbance / Transition between Existing and New Grades • The Inverse Slope/Contour Calculation Method C. Design Parameters and Other Limitations • Design Parameters • Positive Drainage • Rules of Thumb o Maximum Access Drive Slope: 8% o Maximum Parking Lot Slope: 5% o Maximum Slope in Maintainable Grassed Landscaped Areas 3:1 o Maximum Slope in Stabilized Landscaped Areas 2:1 o Slopes exceeding 2:1 o Minimum Slope of Asphalt: 1.5% o Minimum Slope of Concrete: 0.75% o Minimum Slope of Concrete Curb: 0.75% o Loading Dock grading: 2.0% for 60’ • ADA Requirements • Cut-Fill Analysis • Rock Ledge walls D. Other Grading Features • Berms • Swales • Ridge Lines • Retaining Walls E. Problem Areas and Other Locations of Importance • Landscaped Islands and Peninsulas • ADA Parking Spaces • Longitudinal Islands with Sidewalks • Flush Ramps • Drainage Outfall Location • Setting the Finished Floor • Property Line grading F. Summary and Conclusion www.SunCam.com Copyright 2014 Joshua A. Tiner, P.E. Page 2 of 24 188.pdf Fundamentals of Site Grading A SunCam online continuing education course A. Introduction This course is developed to identify the fundamentals of site grading design to those who are not experienced with site grading design, as well as a refresher to anyone who has worked in Civil Engineering and/or Land Development.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 99 Deep Bored Tunnel Vs. the Waterfront Tunnel
    Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program Central Waterfront 02.09 All tunnels are not the same: SR 99 deep bored tunnel vs. the waterfront tunnel WSDOT, King County and the City of Seattle plan to replace the central waterfront portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall with an approximately 2 mile-long deep bored tunnel beneath downtown, a new waterfront surface street, transit investments, and downtown and waterfront city street improvements. While this bored tunnel and the cut-and-cover tunnel considered by Seattle voters in March 2007 are both tunnels, they are vastly different in their construction methods, length and degree of public disruption, and environmental effects. The bored tunnel will be two lanes in each direction with shoulders on each side. Location and depth Construction method The bored tunnel will be located several and timeline blocks inshore under First Avenue, The bored tunnel will be drilled by a large bypassing the Battery Street Tunnel. tunnel boring machine, and most of the The cut-and-cover tunnel would have construction operations will occur from roughly followed the path of the existing one location near the stadiums. The tunnel viaduct. boring machine will be a new machine built specifically for this tunnel. Constructing Other central waterfront The bored tunnel will be at depths of 100- the cut-and-cover tunnel would have fact sheets include: 200 feet, while the cut-and-cover tunnel meant digging up the entire street along would have required excavation of 30-50 Alaskan Way, temporarily rebuilding • Comparison of the Big Dig and feet of soil.
    [Show full text]
  • A Field Method of Determining Soil Permeability
    THE BICE INSTITUTE A FIELD METHOD OF DETERMINING / SOIL PERMEABILITY BY WALTER DEWITT MURPHY A THESIS f-/7-*ro SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY i2-i^( IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE <(3 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF ix! U MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING HOUSTON, TEXAS MAY, 1950 ABSTRACT The permeability of soil—its capacity to transmit water under pressure—may be determined by indirect or direct laboratory methods or by field methods. Most field methods are useful only below the water table, but in this study a procedure for use above the water table was investigated. The method consists of inserting into the ground a pipe which has on its end a perforated cy¬ linder. Y/ater is allowed to flow into the soil and the time for the head to drop a given distance is measured. In ad¬ dition, the natural water content and porosity of the soil is required. A correlation is made between field tests and direct laboratory tests in order to obtain an empirical equation for permeability involving time and percentage of air voids. In addition, another expression for permeability is found by making use of Darcy's law as applied to a flow net for the apparatus. The use of a model study on dry sands is found very useful in determining the shape of the flow pattern. Although some additional studies should be made on certain aspects of the method, it is felt that it may be recommended for use as a field method of determining per¬ meability. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading
    Appendix D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required.
    [Show full text]
  • 8. Bulk Earthworks
    FEEDLOT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 8. Bulk earthworks AUTHORS: Rod Davis and Mairead Luttrell FEEDLOT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Introduction Bulk earthworks create pens, runoff and drainage control, drains, roads, silage pits, buildings, sedimentation structures and holding ponds. They also prepare for the foundations of buildings and structures that are to be erected including site offices, grain storages, feedmill, workshop and cattle handling facilities and the levelling of areas for the road network. Earthworks carry a significant initial capital cost and it is therefore important to get this design right from the start; mistakes will be difficult and expensive to correct once work has commenced. Pens, runoff control and effluent storage are the largest component of the earthworks. Bulk earthworks for these are usually undertaken using materials from within the site. If suitable materials are not available from within the site they can be brought in from off site, but at a higher cost. Bulk earthworks must be executed in conjunction with other processes including, but not limited to, surface and subsurface drainage works, underground services and environmental control measures. Design objectives Pens, runoff control systems and effluent storage earthworks should be designed to • drain downslope from the feed apron towards the runoff control Bulk earthworks start with dozers... and storage elements • provide a comfortable pen surface for cattle while lying or standing • provide a durable and stable pen surface that is resistant to rainfall erosion and cattle damage • provide a stable pen surface for cleaning and other equipment • provide a pen surface that does not degrade the value of manure by admixing • facilitate low ongoing maintenance costs • ensure that the engineering works perform in accordance with their design capacities or capabilities • ensure that structures containing and controlling runoff maintain their integrity and compliance with specified design criteria ...and scrapers.
    [Show full text]
  • 11. the Stability of Slopes
    11-1 11. THE STABILITY OF SLOPES 11.1 INTRODUCTION The quantitative determination of the stability of slopes is necessary in a number of engineering activities, such as: (a) the design of earth dams and embankments, (b) the analysis of stability of natural slopes, (c) analysis of the stability of excavated slopes, (d) analysis of deepseated failure of foundations and retaining walls. Quite a number of techniques are available for these analyses and in this chapter the more widely used techniques are discussed. Extensive reviews of stability analyses have been provided by Chowdhury (1978) and by Schuster and Krizek (1978). In order to provide some basic understanding of the nature of the calculations involved in slope stability analyses the case of stability of an infinitely long slope is initially introduced. 11.2 FACTORS OF SAFETY The factor of safety is commonly thought of as the ratio of the maximum load or stress that a soil can sustain to the actual load or stress that is applied. Referring to Fig. 11.1 the factor of safety F, with respect to strength, may be expressed as follows: τ F = ff (11.1) τ where τ ff is the maximum shear stress that the soil can sustain at the value of normal stress of σn, τ is the actual shear stress applied to the soil. Equation 11.1 may be expressed in a slightly different form as follows: c σ tan φ = n τ F + F (11.2) Two other factors of safety which are occasionally used are the factor of safety with respect to cohesion, F c, and the factor of safety with respect to friction, F φ.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND 100 Fairway Drive North Kingstown, RI 02852-6202 Phone: (401) 294-3331 Fax: (401) 583-7125
    TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND 100 Fairway Drive North Kingstown, RI 02852-6202 Phone: (401) 294-3331 Fax: (401) 583-7125 www.northkingstown.org REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL MILL COVE CAUSEWAY FOOTBRIDGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES *Sealed proposals for the above will be accepted in the Office of the Purchasing Agent, Town Municipal Offices, 100 Fairway Drive, North Kingstown, RI 02852, until 10:00am on Tuesday, November 12, 2019, and will then be publicly opened read aloud. NO BIDS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2019 10:00 AM DEADLINE. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS TO MONITOR THE TOWN’S WEBSITE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT BID ADDENDUM. NO ADDENDA WILL BE ISSUED OR POSTED WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF THE BID SUBMISSION DEADLINE. The bid will be evaluated as to R.I.G.L. 45-55-5. (2) “Competitive Sealed Bidding” and the award shall be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated or responsive bid price. Specifications may be obtained at the Purchasing Agent’s Office at address listed above. A certificate of Insurance showing $1 million General Liability and $1 million Any Auto, with the Town being named as an additional insured, Worker’s Compensation, with a waiver of subrogation will be required of the successful bidder. The Town of North Kingstown reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or parts thereof; to waive any formality in same, or accept any proposal deemed to be in the best interest of the Town. The Town of North Kingstown will provide interpreters for the hearing impaired at any pre-bid or bid opening, provided a request is received three (3) days prior to said meeting by calling 294- 3331, ext.
    [Show full text]
  • Earthwork Balance MR-3 Greenroads™ Manual V1.5 Materials & Resources
    Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources EARTHWORK BALANCE GOAL MR-3 Reduce need for transport of earthen materials by balancing cut and fill quantities. CREDIT REQUIREMENTS Minimize earthwork cut (excavation) and fill (embankment) volumes such that the 1 POINT percent difference between cut and fill is less than or equal to 10% of the average total volume of material moved. For purposes of this credit, use the method and definitions detailed in Chapter 8 (Earthwork) of the Road Design Manual from the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT), or equivalent, to compute cut and fill volumes. RELATED CREDITS Include miscellaneous additional cut and fill such as outlet ditches and muck PR‐8 Low Impact excavations (see definitions in Chapter 8 of the Manual) and account for moisture and Development density as well as shrink and swell. MR‐2 Pavement Reuse tBalance cu and fill material volumes: MR‐4 Recycled Materials A = Volume of Cross Section Cut MR‐5 Regional B = Volume of Cross Section Fill Materials C = Volume of Miscellaneous Cut D = Volume of Miscellaneous Fill SUSTAINABILITY For points, show that design volumes AND actual construction volumes meet: COMPONENTS Ecology Economy Extent Experience Note that for purposes of this credit, all volumes are positive quantities. SDDOT’s BENEFITS Chapter 8 is available here: http://www.sddot.com/pe/roaddesign/plans_rdmanual.asp Reduces Fossil Fuel Use Details Reduces Air Emissions Projects with minimal earthwork or with no earthwork do not qualify for this Reduces Greenhouse credit. “Minimal earthwork” means that the total excavated cut or imported fill Gases volume is less than one full dump truck volume, based on the smallest dump Reduces Solid Waste truck used on the project.
    [Show full text]