OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 1:30 P.M. MAY 19, 2020€¦ · 19/05/2020 · Theresa Gaisser, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) Manager of Engineering Julia Uravich,

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

OF SOUTHERN NEVADA

NOTICE AND AGENDA OF PUBLIC MEETING

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

1:30 P.M. MAY 19, 2020

On March 22, 2020, the State of Nevada Executive Department issued Declaration of

Emergency Directive 006, which suspends the requirement contained in Nevada

Revised Statute 241.023(1)(b) that there be a physical location designated for

meetings of public bodies where the public can attend and participate. Pursuant to

Directive 006, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada will not

provide a physical location for the public to attend the meeting of the Operations

Subcommittee.

The meeting of the Operations Subcommittee will be available to livestream at the

following link:

https://www.rtcsnv.com/about/meetings-agendas/operations-subcommittee/

Additionally, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada encourages

citizen participation at its public meetings and will be accepting public comment via email.

Public comment relating to the Operations Subcommittee may be submitted via email

to [email protected]. Please make sure to include your name and the agenda

item number you wish to comment on. Also, please indicate if you would like your

comment read on the record as part of the record or just added to the backup for the record.

Only the first 500 words of comments submitted to be read into the record will be read

aloud. The remaining words will be included in the written record.

This meeting will be accessible to the public online. A sign language interpreter for the deaf will

be made available with a 48-hour advance request to the Regional Transportation Commission

of Southern Nevada offices. Phone: 702-676-1623 TDD: 702-676-1834

This agenda, including the supporting materials, is available at the Regional Transportation Commission of

Southern Nevada’s website, http://www.rtcsnv.com; or by contacting David Gloria via mail at 600 S. Grand

Central Pkwy, Ste. 350, Las Vegas, Nevada 89106, by calling (702) 676-1623, or by email at [email protected].

In accordance with the State of Nevada Executive Department’s Declaration of Emergency, Directive 006, which includes exceptions to Open

Meeting Law, it is hereby noted that this meeting agenda has been properly noticed and posted at the following locations:

RTC Website

www.rtcsnv.com

Nevada Public Notice

https://notice.nv.gov

BY: ________________________________________________________

DocuSign Envelope ID: DF3FF7C3-FCED-437C-A28F-6EA759226DEC

https://www.rtcsnv.com/about/meetings-agendas/operations-subcommittee/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.rtcsnv.com/

mailto:[email protected]


https://notice.nv.gov/

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: F6139AD2-A9A6-4A89-A585-6F0B2BF3E5ED

Items 2, 3, 6, and 7 are items for possible action. Items 1, 4, 5, and 8 through 10 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 January 21, 2020 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

3. DISCUSS A REGIONAL GIS DATA SCHEME FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

(FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

4. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION REGARDING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PERFORMANCE

METRICS SYSTEM

5. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM NEXAR REGARDING INTELLIGENT

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS WORK ZONE AND ROADWAY INVENTORY DETECTION

PLATFORMS

6. DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

7. APPROVE REVISIONS TO THE UNIFORM STANDARD DRAWINGS WITH RESPECT TO

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

POSSIBLE ACTION)

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

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS

9. 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.

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

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA – MAY 19, 2020


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 May 19, 2020

ssf


for

MINUTES

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE


JANUARY 21, 2020 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 JANUARY 13, 2020

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 1:33 p.m. in Meeting Room 108 of the Regional

Transportation Commission Administration Building.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Eric Hawkins, Chair, City of Henderson

Michelle Castro, Nevada Department of Transportation

Jim Keane, City of Boulder City

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

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)

Gena Kendall, Vice-Chair, City of Las Vegas

RTC STAFF:

Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering

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

Julia Uravich, Senior Project Engineer

David Gloria, Administrative Specialist

Salma Flores, Office Specialist

INTERESTED PARTIES:

Jimmy Benoit, Clark County Public Works

OPS Item #2

May 19, 2020

DocuSign Envelope ID: 23D2D94B-7FF2-4C2F-8211-35AC72FD1586


https://notice.nv.gov/

Minutes-Operations Subcommittee Meeting of January 21, 2020

Page 2 of 6

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 November 19, 2019 (FOR POSSIBLE

ACTION)

Comments:

No comments were made.

Motion: Mr. Jim Keane, City of Boulder City, made a motion to approve the minutes.

Vote/Summary: 4 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.

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

Nays: Mike Hudgeons, Gena Kendall

Absent: None

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

INFRASTRUCTURE (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

Comments: Ms. Theresa Gaisser, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) Manager of Engineering,

described the progress of this discussion. There are certain attributes listed in the FAST GIS map,

including mapped conduits, facilities, camera devices, dynamic message signs, location of ramp meters,

and integrated devices included in the tool. These attributes are currently in the GIS scheme, though

more could be added or removed as needed moving forward.

Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, noted the assets could be organized better to outline

each asset and its associated attributes. Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering for the Regional

Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), stated that this is just a collection of what had

been received thus far. Ms. Gaisser agreed, stating that this represents what FAST had been compiling

internally since tracking these attributes.

Then, Mr. Yazdani asked if FAST had a draft list of assets and associated attributes that it would like to

track. Ms. Gaisser replied that FAST did not, and this item was meant to get the opinions of other

agencies on whether a list like this could form the basis of a regional master plan. Mr. Yazdani

suggested seeing if the City of Las Vegas had done anything like this and to reference work done so far,

if possible. Ms. Julia Uravich, Senior Project Engineer for the RTC, mentioned that she believed the

City of Las Vegas sent out a request for proposals, so it was still in a preliminary stage. Mr. Damiani

said that this could still be a viable strategy, utilizing that project and viewing reports as a way to direct

progress on a regional basis.

Mr. Yazdani said that he did not see Clark County using this information, but it would be helpful to

collect it for FAST. Chair Eric Hawkins, City of Henderson (Henderson), stated that Henderson has a



Page 3 of 6

different system that involves a valley-wide inventory, but it does not have the capacity for this

approach currently.

Mr. Yazdani then mentioned a labeling issue for pull boxes, noting that this could create some

problems. Ms. Gaisser agreed that this could be clarified, as there were multiple lid options in the field

with different details. For best practices for future plans, it would be good to note these with more

clarity. Mr. Damiani stated that for now, staff recommended keeping this item while coordinating with

other jurisdictions on how to proceed on a larger scale. Chair Hawkins asked how involved the RTC

has been with projects like this. Mr. Damiani said the RTC has not been involved, but that it could get

as involved as was necessary to help.

Mr. Damiani recommended continuing this discussion as a standing item for future meetings. The

Operations Subcommittee can receive an update from the City of Las Vegas, and at some point make a

recommendation on how to proceed with a Las Vegas Valley-wide master plan.

Motion: Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, made a motion to follow staff recommendation.

Vote/Summary: Vote/Summary:

4 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.



Absent: None

Item:

4. DISCUSS AND RESOLVE VARIOUS TRANSIT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

OPERATION/LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

Comments:

No comments were made.



Item: 5. 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), explained that this item involved reviewing the next batch of drawing revisions to the

Uniform Standard Drawings related to Public Access Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines

(PROWAG), primarily related to driveways. He suggested going through each drawing and allowing

each jurisdiction to make comments on the revisions, if they so desired. After the drawing revisions are

approved, it will go out for industry review, followed by approval from the Specifications

Subcommittee, Executive Advisory Committee (EAC), and RTC Board of Commissioners.

Drawing 222 “Residential Driveway Geometrics”

Mr. Damiani described how this revision was meant for a better representation of driveways. Ms. Julia

Uravich, Senior Project Engineer for the RTC, mentioned that this drawing and others in the list had

mistakenly been printed without dimensions. Mr. Damiani asked the Operations Subcommittee



Page 4 of 6

(Subcommittee) if this would need to be brought back with the missing dimensions attached or moved

on at the present meeting. Mr. Jim Keane, City of Boulder City (Boulder City), mentioned that the

Subcommittee members would all be copied on the changes, so he was comfortable moving it forward.

Drawing 222.1 “Commercial and Multi-Family Driveway Geometrics”

Mr. Damiani stated that this revision involved vertical discontinuities and standard routes.

Drawing 223 “Residential Driveway”

Ms. Uravich explained that on this drawing, Clark County was removed as it did not support the

minimum five-foot sidewalk width. As a result, a supplemental drawing would be added to compensate

for a four-foot wide minimum sidewalk width with an additional note on consistent interval spacing.

Mr. Keane asked if any other entity was using the wedge-style driveway. Mr. Damiani said he believed

the particular driveway was currently in use. Chair Eric Hawkins, City of Henderson (Henderson),

mentioned that Henderson does not allow R-type curbs, instead using roll curbs. Mr. Kaizad Yazdani,

Clark County Public Works, mentioned that Clark County does use them.

Drawing 223.1 “Residential Driveway Without Adjacent Sidewalk”

Mr. Damiani said that this drawing was slated for removal, per previous discussions. Mr. Keane asked

if this drawing was being replaced with anything, as Boulder City still uses the design. He remarked

that if necessary, Boulder City could simply make its own standard. Mr. Damiani agreed with this.

Drawing 224 “Commercial and Industrial Driveway (Option A)”

Mr. Yazdani expressed confusion about why Drawings 223.S1 and 224 were listed as different

standards. Mr. Damiani replied that one was for commercial use, the other for industrial use. Then, Mr.

Yazdani clarified, stating that within the residential drawing, there were two specifications, with a four-

foot minimum requirement, and the other with a five-foot minimum requirement. Since Clark County

was the only entity using the four-foot minimum requirement, the drawing could be combined to make

it simpler and list only the five-foot minimum requirement drawing while adding a note for the four-

foot minimum requirement for Clark County use. Mr. Damiani agreed that this could be done.

Drawing 225 “Commercial and Industrial Driveway (Option B)”

Mr. Yazdani asked if the two percent cross slope went through three-quarters of the valley gutter, as it

was unclear. Ms. Uravich confirmed this. Mr. Damiani said that would need to be addressed as he was

confident this was not consistent with the valley gutter. Mr. Damiani suggested moving the

accessibility ramp into the driveway. Mr. Yazdani mentioned that this causes the accessibility ramp to

interfere with the crossing. This could create issues for developers. The Subcommittee members spent a

few moments discussing the logistics of vehicles stopping near curb lines and the locations of stop

signs. Chair Hawkins said that this may need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Damiani

pointed out that there were many issues that could not be solved with this revision, and he agreed that

these other problems would need to be addressed case by case.

Drawings 226.S1 “Commercial and Industrial Driveway (Option C),” 226.S2 “Light Duty

Commercial Driveway,” and 226.S3 “Heavy Duty Commercial Driveway”

Mr. Damiani stated that these series of drawings were recommended for removal due to lack of use.

Mr. Damiani remarked that RTC staff’s recommendation was to approve these drawing revisions and

sent out for industry review.


Vote/Summary:



Page 5 of 6

Vote/Summary:

4 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.



Absent: None

Item:

6. 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), explained that this item was meant to update the Operations Subcommittee

(Subcommittee) on proposed revisions to the uniform standard specifications and drawings along with

each revision’s progress in the process. He explained the approval process briefly.

Ms. Julia Uravich, Senior Project Engineer for the RTC, mentioned that the RTC website had been

updated with the latest batch of revisions that occurred from September 2019 to present. Mr. Damiani

reminded the Subcommittee that some revisions start at the Specifications Subcommittee and do not go

before the Operations Subcommittee. However, Subcommittee members could request that specific

revisions be brought to the Subcommittee if so desired. This is also an option for revisions that

originate in the Specifications Subcommittee.



Item:

7. DISCUSS TOPICS OF INTEREST

Comments: Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, asked about the status of the working group that was

discussed to address roadway conduit issues. He asked about the status of that discussion. Mr. Joe

Damiani, Manager of Engineering for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

(RTC), mentioned that the conduit discussion came from the Freeway and Arterial System of

Transportation (FAST) originally, but at this point, FAST did not see a reason to require anything more

than the four-inch conduit already being used. Thus, the issue was dropped.

Mr. Yazdani asked for clarification about the conduit specification. To which Mr. Damiani replied that

the RTC would prefer having two four-inch conduits, one on each side of the roadway. Ms. Theresa

Gaisser, FAST Manager of Engineering, agreed with this, stating that FAST staff was in the process of

reviewing this need along with other related specifications. If the specifications require adjustment, it

will be brought to the Operations Subcommittee for review.

Mr. Yazdani stated that this issue, as it pertains to pull boxes, may need to be revisited, as those

spacings could be problematic. Ms. Gaisser replied that there was a process in place to ensure that the

minimum spacing for these boxes could be met. Mr. Yazdani noted that Clark County’s standards for

capital projects was different, and if FAST does not use Clark County’s standard, it may need to be

revisited. Ms. Gaisser agreed that there were some inconsistencies in the issue that need to be worked

out.



Page 6 of 6

Chair Eric Hawkins, City of Henderson, asked if the two separate four-inch conduits would be on a

separate pull box schedule. Ms. Gaisser replied that the issue was approached by developers in different

ways but that it is an example of the inconsistencies that FAST is trying to work out. Mr. Damiani

agreed, stating that it would be up to the jurisdiction’s preference. Ms. Gaisser mentioned that defining

the splice vaults across agencies would be helpful too, noting her preference for having different splice

vaults.

Mr. Yazdani brought up the issue of installing closed-circuit television cameras, asking if the RTC or

FAST stocks them anywhere, as his jurisdiction has to wait a long time for them to arrive. Ms. Gaisser

said this was unusual, but she could look into it in the interest of coming up with a better system. Mr.

Damiani agreed, stating that the RTC could purchase them ahead of time and have them delivered to

FAST. It would be better for the RTC to give out contracts to procure for these types of issues.



Item:


Comments: No comments were made.



ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:21 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.




ssf


for

6529

Agenda Item Requestor: Regional Transportation Commission

Agenda Item Recommendation (as submitted):DISCUSS A REGIONAL GIS DATA SCHEME FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION)

Regional Transportation Commission

AGENDA ITEM DEVELOPMENT REPORT

Comments: Ms. Theresa Gaisser, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) Manager of Engineering, described the progress of this discussion. There are certain attributes listed in the FAST GIS map, including mapped conduits, facilities, camera devices, dynamic message signs, location of ramp meters, and integrated devices included in the tool. These attributes are currently in the GIS scheme, though more could be added or removed as needed moving forward. Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, noted the assets could be organized better to outline each asset and its associated attributes. Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), stated that this is just a collection of what had been received thus far. Ms. Gaisser agreed, stating that this represents what FAST had been compiling internally since tracking these attributes. Then, Mr. Yazdani asked if FAST had a draft list of assets and associated attributes that it would like to track. Ms. Gaisser replied that FAST did not, and this item was meant to get the opinions of other agencies on whether a list like this could form the basis of a regional master plan. Mr. Yazdani suggested seeing if the City of Las Vegas had done anything like this and to reference work done so far, if possible. Ms. Julia Uravich, Senior Project Engineer for the RTC, mentioned that she believed the City of Las Vegas sent out a request for proposals, so it was still in a preliminary stage. Mr. Damiani said that this could still be a viable strategy, utilizing that project and viewing reports as a way to direct progress on a regional basis. Mr. Yazdani said that he did not see Clark County using this information, but it would be helpful to collect it for FAST. Chair Eric Hawkins, City of Henderson (Henderson), stated that Henderson has a different system that involves a valley-wide inventory, but it does not have the capacity for this approach currently. Mr. Yazdani then mentioned a labeling issue for pull boxes, noting that this could create some problems. Ms. Gaisser agreed that this could be clarified, as there were multiple lid options in the field with different details. For best practices for future plans, it would be good to note these with more clarity. Mr. Damiani stated that for now, staff recommended keeping this item while coordinating with other jurisdictions on how to proceed on a larger scale. Chair Hawkins asked how involved the RTC has been with projects like this. Mr. Damiani said the RTC has not been involved, but that it could get as involved as was necessary to help. Mr. Damiani recommended continuing this discussion as a standing item for future meetings. The Operations Subcommittee can receive an update from the City of Las Vegas, and at some point make a recommendation on how to proceed with a Las Vegas Valley-wide master plan.


Discussion:

*Approval Disapproval Item HeldAdvisory Action (check one):

*Conditions (if applicable):

Meeting Date: 1/21/2020 Operations Subcommittee

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.

Discussion:



6529

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



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

Discussion:



6529

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. 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


6529

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 identifyoverall gaps (not necessarily at the regional level yet) and plan for development to fill in those gaps in a rational 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.


6529

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.

Motion:No motion was necessary



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

Discussion:



6529

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 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

Discussion:



6529

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:



Meeting Date: 2/26/2019 Staff

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 designated by members of the Operations Subcommittee.

Discussion:








ssf

6949


SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM


SUBJECT: PRESENTATION





OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE RECEIVE A PRESENTATION REGARDING THE TRAFFIC

SIGNAL PERFORMANCE METRICS SYSTEM



FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

A representative from the Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) will present the

Traffic Signal Performance Metrics System with the goal to enhance the agency’s online presence and

data sharing capabilities. This will also allow member agencies to focus on fixing signal operation issues

that FAST is finding.


for




ssf

6915


SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM


SUBJECT: PRESENTATION





OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM NEXAR REGARDING

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS WORK ZONE AND ROADWAY INVENTORY

DETECTION PLATFORMS



FISCAL IMPACT:

None

BACKGROUND:

Representatives from Nexar Inc. (Nexar) will provide a demonstration of its updated CityStream and

Live Map platforms, which will enable Las Vegas Valley (Valley) traffic engineers to monitor

construction zones and roadway inventory from their desktops in near real time. Nexar will also give an

overview of its virtual closed-circuit television capabilities, which will allow for a more intensive

monitoring of work zones, bus stops, approaches to high-volume signalized intersections, and other

areas of interest throughout the Valley.


for

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




ssf


for




ssf

6666


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)

GOAL: INCREASE SAFETY FOR BOTH MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED USERS

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

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, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada 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.

The revised drawings are recommended for approval.


for

6666

Agenda Item Requestor: Regional Transportation Commission

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)

Regional Transportation Commission

AGENDA ITEM DEVELOPMENT REPORT

Comments: Mr. Joe Damiani, Manager of Engineering for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), explained that this item involved reviewing the next batch of drawing revisions to the Uniform Standard

Drawings related to Public Access Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), primarily related to driveways. He suggested going through each drawing and allowing each jurisdiction to make comments on the revisions, if they so desired. After the drawing revisions are approved, it will go out for industry review, followed by approval from the Specifications Subcommittee, Executive Advisory Committee (EAC), and RTC Board of Commissioners.

Drawing 222 “Residential Driveway Geometrics” Mr. Damiani described how this revision was meant for a better representation of driveways. Ms. Julia Uravich, Senior Project Engineer for the RTC, mentioned that this drawing and others in the list had mistakenly been printed without dimensions. Mr. Damiani asked the Operations Subcommittee (Subcommittee) if this would need to be brought back with the missing dimensions attached or moved on at the present meeting. Mr. Jim Keane, City of Boulder City (Boulder City), mentioned that the Subcommittee members would all be copied on the changes, so he was comfortable moving it forward.

Drawing 222.1 “Commercial and Multi-Family Driveway Geometrics” Mr. Damiani stated that this revision involved vertical discontinuities and standard routes.

Drawing 223 “Residential Driveway” Ms. Uravich explained that on this drawing, Clark County was removed as it did not support the minimum five-foot sidewalk width. As a result, a supplemental drawing would be added to compensate for a four-foot wide minimum sidewalk width with an additional note on consistent interval spacing. Mr. Keane asked if any other entity was using the wedge-style driveway. Mr. Damiani said he believed the particular driveway was currently in use. Chair Eric Hawkins, City of Henderson (Henderson), mentioned that Henderson does notallow R-type curbs, instead using roll curbs. Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, mentioned that Clark County does use them.

Drawing 223.1 “Residential Driveway Without Adjacent Sidewalk” Mr. Damiani said that this drawing was slated for removal, per previous discussions. Mr. Keane asked if this drawing was being replaced with anything, as Boulder City still uses the design. He remarked that if necessary, Boulder City could simply make its own standard. Mr. Damiani agreed with this.

Drawing 224 “Commercial and Industrial Driveway (Option A)” Mr. Yazdani expressed confusion about why Drawings 223.S1 and 224 were listed as different standards. Mr. Damiani replied that one was for commercial use, the other for industrial use. Then, Mr. Yazdani clarified, stating that within the residential drawing, there were two specifications, with a four-foot minimum requirement, and the other with a five-foot minimum requirement. Since Clark County was the only entity using the four-foot minimum requirement, the drawing could be combined to make it simplerand list only the five-foot minimum requirement drawing while adding a note for the four-foot minimum requirement forClark County use. Mr. Damiani agreed that this could be done.

Drawing 225 “Commercial and Industrial Driveway (Option B)” Mr. Yazdani asked if the two percent cross slope went through three-quarters of the valley gutter, as it was unclear. Ms. Uravich confirmed this. Mr. Damiani said that would need to be addressed as he was confident this was not consistent with the valley gutter. Mr. Damiani suggested moving the accessibility ramp into the driveway. Mr. Yazdani mentioned that this causes the accessibility ramp to interfere with the crossing. This could create issues for developers. The Subcommittee members spent a few moments discussing the logistics of vehicles stopping near curb lines and the locations of stop signs. Chair Hawkins said that this may need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Damiani pointed out that there were many issues that could not be solved with this revision, and he agreed that these other problems would need to be addressed case by case. Drawings 226.S1 “Commercial and Industrial Driveway (Option C),” 226.S2 “Light Duty Commercial Driveway,” and

226.S3 “Heavy Duty Commercial Driveway” Mr. Damiani stated that these series of drawings were recommended forremoval due to lack of use.Mr. Damiani remarked that RTC staff’s recommendation was to approve these drawing revisions and sent out forindustry review.

Motion: Mr. Kaizad Yazdani, Clark County Public Works, made a motion to follow staff recommendation

Discussion:



6666

Vote/Summary: 4 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.



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 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.

Discussion:



6666

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.

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.

Discussion:



6666

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 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


6666

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:



Meeting Date: 6/13/2019 Staff


R3-17

6" SOLID WHITE LINE

SEE NOTE 1

BIKE LANE DELINEATION AND LEGEND

BIKE LANE SIGNAGE

SEE NOTE 2

LINE 8' ON CENTER

6" X 2' SKIP WHITE

14"

6'

6"

6'

2'

SEE

NOTE 3

TR

AN

SIT

IO

N Z

ON

E

SEE

NOTE 3

W"

H"

6'

(BLACK AND WHITE)

SEE NOTE 5

SE

E N

OT

E 5

BIKE LANE DELINEATION AT DROP INLET

SIDEWALK, CURB

AND GUTTER

20'

SEE NOTE 7

20'

SEE NOTE 7

DROP INLET

6" SOLID WHITE LINE

SEE NOTE 2

BEGIN 6" WHITE LINE

ALONG LIP OF CURB

END 6" WHITE LINE

ALONG LIP OF CURB

NOTES

1. BIKE LANE LEGENDS SHALL BE APPROVED TYPE I PAVEMENT MARKING FILM AND SHALL BE SLIP RESISTANT.

2. BIKE LANE LINES SHALL BE APPROVED TYPE II PAVEMENT MARKING FILM AND SHALL BE SLIP RESISTANT.

3. BIKE LANES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET WHEN ADJACENT TO A PARKING LANE, 4 FEET MINIMUM IN OTHER CASES

AND NO GREATER THAN 8 FT WIDE; HOWEVER A WIDTH OF 5 FEET IS PREFERRED.

4. BICYCLE LANE DELINEATION, LEGEND, AND SIGNING SHALL CONFORM TO THE MUTCD LATEST EDITION.

5. SIGN SIZE AND PLACEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MUTCD, LATEST EDITION.

6. THE BIKE LANE SIGNAGE SHALL BE TYPE XI SHEETING.

7. A CONTINUOUS 6" WHITE LINE SHALL EXTEND 20' ON EACH SIDE OF THE DROP INLET.

8. INSTALL "DO NOT RIDE IN GUTTER" SIGN IN THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, SIGN WIDTH TO MATCH R3-17.

9. THE WIDTH OF THE BICYCLE LANE SHALL EXCLUDE THE GUTTER PAN.

10. SIGN PLACEMENT SHALL CONFORM WITH STANDARD DRAWING NO. 249.

R3-17B

(BLACK AND WHITE)

SEE NOTE 8

LAGENCY APPROVED

SPECIFICATION REFERENCE

UNIFORM STANDARD DRAWINGS

CLARK COUNTY AREA

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWING

BICYCLE LANE DELINEATION,

LEGEND, AND SIGNAGE

DATE 01-01-16 DWG. NO. 244.9.S1


2"

28"

2"

SEE NOTE 3

TOP OF

SIDEWALK

2-1/2" X 18" SLEEVE

2-1/4" X 18"

2-1/4" X 30" ANCHOR

ANCHOR

2" SIGN POST

TOP OF ANCHOR

AND SLEEVE

GROUND

SURFACE

10' 0"

ATTACH STREET NAME

SIGNS TO POST WITH

3/8" DIA. DRIVE RIVETS

POP-RIVET ENDS

OF SIGN

SIGNS ON END:

1-3/4" SQUARE TO SLIP

LENGTH = SIGN HEIGHT + 4"

INSIDE 2" POST

M

B C H M NLAGENCY APPROVED R

DWG. NO. 249

STANDARD STREET NAME

SIGN POST INSTALLATION

DATE 5-20-04


CLARK COUNTY AREA

631


STREET NAME SIGNS

NOTES

1. ALL COMPONENTS SHALL BE SQUARE POST, PERFORATED ON ALL FOUR SIDES.

2. ATTACH ANCHOR AND SLEEVE TOGETHER PRIOR TO DRIVING INTO GROUND. LEAVE AT LEAST

ONE HOLE, BUT NO MORE THAN TWO, ABOVE GROUND OR ABOVE SIDEWALK.

3. FOR SIDEWALK INSTALLATION, DRILL SIDEWALK WITH A 3" HOLE, THE CENTER TO BE 6" FROM

BACK OF SIDEWALK.

4. ATTACH POST TO ANCHORING SYSTEM BY USING AT LEAST TWO 3/8" DIA. DRIVE RIVETS.

5. PROVIDE 4" MINIMUM LAP BETWEEN POST AND THE ANCHOR/SLEEVE ASSEMBLY.

6. ALL STREET NAME SIGNS SHALL BE 9 INCH STANDARD IN THE CITY OF MESQUITE ONLY.

7. IF SIGN POST IS INSTALLED IN SIDEWALK, A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CLEAR WIDTH OF 48" AND A

MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 7' SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON THE SIDEWALK FOR

COMPLIANCE WITH ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.


26" M

IN

TOP OF

SIDEWALK

2-1/2"x18" SLEEVE

2" SIGN POST

TOP OF ANCHOR

AND SLEEVE

GROUND

SURFACE

7'-0"

ATTACH SIGNS TO

POST WITH 3/8" DIA.

DRIVE RIVETS AND

OR 24"x24"x4"

CONCRETE PAD

SEE NOTE 3

7'-0"

(1-3/4" ACCEPTABLE

FOR SIGNS SMALLER

THAN 30" x 30")

3" MIN

4" MAX

NOTE:

DO NOT SET

ANCHORS IN

CONCRETE

27" M

AX

3" MIN

4" MAX

(2-1/4" FOR 1-3/4" POST)

2-1/4"x30" ANCHOR

(2" FOR 1-3/4" POST)

DO NOT SET SIGN ANCHORS

IN CONCRETE - CONCRETE

SIDEWALK/PAD IS TO BE

DRILLED WITH HOLE

REMAINING OPEN AROUND

THE ANCHOR

NOTE:

WASHERS.

SEE NOTES 6 & 8.

SEE NOTE 9 (NO LANDSCAPING)

URBAN INSTALLATIONS RURAL INSTALLATIONS


NOTES

1. ALL COMPONENTS SHALL BE MINIMUM 12 GA. SQUARE POST WITH 7/16" PUNCHED THRU HOLES @ 1" ON CENTER, ON

ALL FOUR SIDES. ANCHORS SHALL BE TWO PIECE BREAKAWAY ANCHORS.

2. ATTACH ANCHOR AND SLEEVE TOGETHER PRIOR TO DRIVING INTO GROUND. LEAVE AT LEAST TWO HOLES, BUT NO

MORE THAN THREE HOLES ABOVE GROUND OR ABOVE SIDEWALK.

3. FOR SIDEWALK INSTALLATION, DRILL SIDEWALK AND CONCRETE PAD INSTALLATION, DRILL A 3" TO 4" DIA. HOLE

(DEPENDENT UPON ANCHOR SIZE), THE CENTER TO BE 6" FROM THE BACK OF SIDEWALK.

4. ATTACH POST TO ANCHORING SYSTEM BY USING AT LEAST TWO 3/8" DIA. DRIVE RIVETS.

5. PROVIDE 4" MINIMUM LAP BETWEEN BOTTOM OF POST AND THE BOTTOM OF THE ANCHOR/SLEEVE ASSEMBLY.

6. SIGNS LARGER THAN 24"x30" REQUIRE 3/8" x 1-1/2" FENDER WASHERS UNDER DRIVE RIVETS.

7. "U-CHANNEL" POSTS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

8. BOLTS IN LIEU OF DRIVE RIVETS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

9. ALL URBAN SIGN INSTALLATIONS ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN A CONCRETE SIDEWALK, OR IN A CONCRETE PAD

(24"x24"x4") WHEN NO SIDEWALK EXISTS.

10. INSTALLATION OF SIGNS SHALL MEET LATEST ADA REQUIREMENTS. IF SIGN POST IS INSTALLED IN SIDEWALK, A

MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CLEAR WIDTH OF 48" AND A MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 7' SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON

THE SIDEWALK FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

11. SIGNS SHALL HAVE A STICKER AT THE BACK WITH THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR AND THE DATE OF INSTALLATION.

SIGN INSTALLATION DETAIL


CLARK COUNTY AREA


631 STREET NAME SIGNS

DWG. NO. 249.1DATE 11-10-04


255.2

TYPICAL TRANSITION SECTION

7-10-03

FROM SHARED USE PATH ALONG

NOTES:

USE ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT TO APPLY THIS DETAIL TO SIMILAR SCENARIOS.1.

SIDEWALK

TRAVEL LANESSHARED USE PATH

SIDEWALK RAMP

SEE DRAWING NO. 235, CASE III, FOR SIDEWALK RAMP DETAILS.2.

UTILITY (ABOVE

(SEE NOTE 2)

633

628 PAINTING TRAFFIC STRIPING

PAVEMENT MARKERS

DWG. NO.DATE

CLARK COUNTY AREA



R5-6

GROUND) CORRIDOR

GROUND) CORRIDOR

UTILITY (ABOVE

10'5'

25'

5'

ROADWAY TO SIDEWALK


R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G


DE

PT

H

DE

PT

H

60"

24

" M

IN

.

22"

17"

12"

6"

24

"

24

" M

IN

.

36

"

36"

31"

(EASEMENT

MAY BE

NECESSARY)

MIN.

PROFESSIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER STAMP ON FILE



CLARK COUNTY AREA

TYPE "I" FOUNDATION


PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

TRAFFIC SIGNALS & STREETLIGHTING

501

623

NOTES

1. FOR CONDUIT SIZE, LOCATION AND QUANTITY, SEE PLANS.

2. ANCHOR BOLTS 3/4" X 18" X 3" SHALL BE HOT-DIP

GALVANIZED COMMERCIAL GRADE STEEL WITH NUT AND

WASHER.

3. ANCHOR BOLT PROJECTION ABOVE FOUNDATION SHALL BE

3-1/2" MIN., 4-1/2" MAX.

4. CONDUIT PROJECTION ABOVE FOUNDATION SHALL BE 2"

MIN., 4" MAX.

5. CONTINUOUS BARE COPPER GROUNDING WIRE SHALL BE

LOOPED AROUND ANCHOR BOLTS ONE TIME AND

CONNECTED TO EACH ANCHOR BOLT BEFORE CONTINUING

DOWN TO THE GROUNDING PLATE.

6. WHERE FOUNDATION IS INSTALLED IN SIDEWALK, A CLEAR

WIDTH OF 48'' SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SIDEWALK.

DWG. NO. 724DATE 9-14-00

8" X 8" HOLLOW CORE. DEPTH

VARIES. USE AROUND EXISTING

PIPE PEDESTAL WHEN APPLICABLE.

2" PVC CONDUIT TO

BE ADDED IN EVERY

FOUNDATION FOR

FUTURE USE.

POINT TOWARD

INTERSECTION.

6' OF #4 AWG SEVEN (7)

STRAND BARE COPPER

GROUNDING WIRE ABOVE

FOUNDATION CONNECT

GROUNDING WIRE TO

GROUNDING POINT

BRONZE GROUNDING CONNECTOR

STD. GROUNDING

PLATE PER NEC 250-83

15# FELT (2

LAYERS)

BRONZE

GROUNDING

CONNECTOR UL

LISTED FOR

UNDERGROUND

USE (ONE PER

BOLT) SEE NOTE 5


3" M

IN

. T

YP

E "J"

18

" M

IN

. T

YP

E "K

"

60" MIN.

12"

30"

40-3/4"

48"

18-1/2"

30"

24" M

IN

.

PROFESSIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER STAMP ON FILE


NOTES

1. FOR CONDUIT SIZE, LOCATION, AND

QUANTITY SEE PLANS REFER TO

CONDUIT LAYOUT ON STANDARD

DRAWING 725.1 FOR DETAILS.

2. 3/4" X 18" X 3" HOT-DIP GALVANIZED

ANCHOR BOLTS. LOCATE WITH

TEMPLATE.

3. ANCHOR BOLT PROJECTION ABOVE

FOUNDATION SHALL BE 3-1/2" MIN.,

4-1/2" MAX.

4. CONDUIT PROJECTION ABOVE

FOUNDATION SHALL BE 1" MIN., 4" MAX.

5. LOCATION OF FOUNDATION MUST BE

APPROVED BY ENGINEER IN FIELD.

6. CONTINUOUS BARE COPPER

GROUNDING WIRE SHALL BE

CONNECTED TO EACH ANCHOR BOLT

WITH BRONZE GROUNDING

CONNECTOR BEFORE CONTINUING

DOWN TO THE GROUNDING PLATE.

7. WHERE FOUNDATION IS INSTALLED IN

SIDEWALK, A CLEAR WIDTH OF 48''

SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SIDEWALK.


CLARK COUNTY AREA

TYPE "J" & "K" FOUNDATIONS

DWG. NO. 725DATE 10-9-08


PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

TRAFFIC SIGNALS & STREETLIGHTING

501

623

15# FELT (2 LAYERS)

STD. GROUNDING PLATE PER NEC 250-83

(EASEMENT MAY BE

NECESSARY)

6' OF #4 AWG SINGLE STRAND

BARE COPPER GROUNDING

WIRE ABOVE FOUNDATION.

CONNECT GROUNDING WIRE

TO GROUNDING POINT

2" PVC COND. TO BE ADDED IN

EVERY FDN. FOR FUTURE USE.

POINT TOWARDS INTERSECTION

BRONZE GROUNDING CONNECTOR

UL LISTED FOR UNDERGROUND

USE (ONE PER BOLT)

SEE NOTE 6

SIDEWALK


17

' M

IN

.

SA

ME

A

S D

WG

. 8

08

(S

HE

ET

3

O

F 6

)

30

' R

OU

ND

T

YP

E X

X-A

T

AP

ER

ED

S

TE

EL

S

HA

FT

5° MFG. RISE

LE

NG

TH

"L" S

EE

NO

TE

S O

N S

IGN

AL P

LA

NS

OR

CO

NT

RA

CT

15' ARM LENGTH MAX

15"

18

'-6

"

FRONT VIEW

7' M

IN

.

(SEE PLANS)

~35' MTG. HT.

SCHOOL

FLASHING

SPEED LIMIT

WHEN

SCHOOL

FLASHING

SPEED LIMIT

WHEN

*

*

BACK VIEW OF SIGN

SPEED LIMIT TO BE INDICATED ON PLANS

~

*

M-2A

M-2B

REMOVABLE MAST ARM END CAP

NOTES

1. ALL POLES TO BE HOT-DIP GALVANIZED BY MANUFACTURER

OR PRIME PAINTED BY MANUFACTURER AND FINISH PAINTED

BY CONTRACTOR PER SPECIFICATIONS AND AS REQUIRED BY

THE ENTITY.

2. FOR MAST ARM TENON MOUNTING AND SPACING AND

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REFER TO STANDARD DRAWING

NO. 746

3. MULTI SIDED POLE AND MAST ARM WITH A MINIMUM OF 16

SIDES MAY BE USED IF DIRECTED BY THE ENTITY ENGINEER.

4. WHERE POLE FOUNDATION IS INSTALLED IN SIDEWALK, A

CLEAR WIDTH OF 48'' SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SIDEWALK.


30 FT. POLE WITH SCHOOL

FLASHING SIGN



CLARK COUNTY AREA

DATE 9-14-06 DWG. NO. 745

BASE COVER

4" X 7" (INSIDE DIM.)

HANDHOLE AND COVER

(SHALL FACE AWAY FROM

ONCOMING TRAFFIC)

PROVIDE WIRE

GUIDE INTO SHAFT

PROVIDE WIRE

GUIDE INTO SHAFT

11 GA. ROUND

TAPERED ARM

REMOVABLE

POLE TOP

LUMINAIRE PIPE TENON AS REQUIRED

FOR "H" TYPE FOUNDATION SEE

DRAWING NO. 721

FOR OTHER DETAILS SEE DRAWING NUMBER 808 SHT 2 & 6

IN THE CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, USE ONLY XX-A POLE DWG. 808 SHT 3 & 6

FOR "L" FOUNDATION SEE DWG. 722


AND PULL BOX DETAIL

ITS COMMUNICATION CONDUIT

SHEET 1 OF 2

CLARK COUNTY AREA



EX

IS

TIN

G C

UR

B A

ND

G

UT

TE

R

EXISTING CONCRETE

RIGID CONDUIT BEND

CONSTRUCTION JOINT

TO NEAREST EXISTING

4" PVC

CONDUIT

SAWCUT

A

3' MINIMUM RADIUS

CONSTRUCTION JOINT

TO NEAREST EXISTING

FIBER OPTICS

A

P30 ITS COMMUNICATION

CABLE

FIBER OPTIC

PULL BOX

SEE NOTES ON

OBSTRUCTION

1'

CONDUIT BEND

1'

10'

10'

10'

1'

CLEARANCE

12"MIN

(FOR EXISTING CURB & GUTTER)

5' TYP.

10' TYP.

SHEET 2

REMOVE/REPLACE CURB AND GUTTER

WHEN NEEDED TO SATISFY THE CONDUIT

MINIMUM BEND RADIUS

SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED AND

REPLACED PER SECTION 202 OF

THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS

SIDEWALK


DWG. NO. 763

DATE 3-13-08


SHEET 2 OF 2

FLOWABLE BACKFILL

12"MIN

REQUIRED

DEPTH AS

5"

5"

10"

SIDEWALK

1/2" DRAIN ROCK

SECTION A-A

CONDUIT

PVC

PULLBOX IF NECESSARY

THE BOTTOM OF THE

CONDUIT ENDS MAY ENTER

5"

8"MIN

/

1

32

4

"

BACK OF

4" MINIMUM CLEARANCE

12"

MIN.

FIBER OPTIC CABLE

12" DEPTH

NOTES

1. P30 PULL BOX SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL ITS COMMUNICATIONS PER APPLICABLE

STANDARDS.

2. PULL BOX COVER SHALL BE INSCRIBED "FIBER OPTICS".

3. APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF THE PROPOSED P30 ITS COMMUNICATION PULL BOXES ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MARKING THE LOCATIONS OF THE PROPOSED ITS

COMMUNICATION PULL BOXES IN THE FIELD PER STANDARD STANDARD SPECIFICATION INTERVALS AND THESE

LOCATIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER BEFORE INSTALLATION.

4. DETAIL SHOWS METHOD OF INSTALLATION WHEN FIBER OPTIC CABLE IS REQUIRED.

5. TOP OF UTILITY BOXES INSTALLED IN SIDEWALK SHALL HAVE NO VERTICAL SURFACE DISCONTINUITIES GREATER

THAN 1/4" WITH ADJACENT SIDEWALK, HAVE NO GAPS GREATER THAN 1/2", REGARDLESS OF CONSTRUCTION

TOLERANCES, AND BE FIRM, STABLE, AND SLIP RESISTANT.



CLARK COUNTY AREA


AND PULL BOX DETAIL

(FOR EXISTING CURB & GUTTER)


PULL BOX MAY ALSO BE PLACED

NEAR THE BACK OF CURB WITH

A MIN. 8" CLEARANCE

DATE 3-13-08

DWG. NO. 763


3" INTO THE BOX

EXTEND CONDUIT

P30 ITS COMMUNICATION

FIBER OPTIC

INTERCONNECT

INTERCONNECT

CAP

DEPTH AS

REQUIRED

PVC CONDUIT

CABLE

CABLE

CLEARANCE

4" MIN.

TYPE 2 GRAVEL

CABLE

SEE NOTES - DRAWING NO. 711

PULL BOX

NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK

BACK OF

SIDEWALK

8"MIN

PVC CONDUIT

FIBER OPTIC CABLE

12" DEPTH



CLARK COUNTY AREA


AND PULL BOX DETAIL

INSTALLED UNDER NEW SIDEWALK


NOTE

TOP OF UTILITY BOXES INSTALLED IN SIDEWALK SHALL HAVE NO VERTICAL SURFACE

DISCONTINUITIES GREATER THAN 1/4" WITH ADJACENT SIDEWALK, HAVE NO GAPS GREATER

THAN 1/2", REGARDLESS OF CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES, AND BE FIRM, STABLE, AND SLIP

RESISTANT.

DWG. NO. 764DATE 3-13-08


PLAN OF BASE

8'-6"

SIGN BY ENTITY FORCES

PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON

SEE DRAWING NO. 838

PROVIDE 5" X 7-3/4" SIGN

THIS POST ONLY

2-1/2" I.P.S.

INCLUDE 5/8" X 12" X 3"

HOT-DIP GALVANIZED

2-1/2" I.P.S. CAP

(THREAD OR WELD)

5"

SQ

.

4-1/2" DIA. B.C.

PIPE

BASE

(3/8")

PL.

POST SHALL BE HOT-DIP GALVANIZED BY MANUFACTURER OR PRIME PAINTED BY MANUFACTURER

AND FINISH PAINTED BY CONTRACTOR PER SPECIFICATIONS AND AS REQUIRED BY

FOR TYPE "A" FOUNDATION SEE DRAWING NO. 715

NOTES:

1.

2.

3.

THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROL SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 LB.

PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SHALL NOT BE LOCATED MORE THAN 24" FROM THE

BACK OF WALK. IF DISTANCE FROM BACK OF WALK TO PUSH BUTTON IS 20" TO 24",

THE BUTTON SHALL BE LOCATED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 44" FROM THE SURFACE

OF THE WALK; OTHERWISE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE 48".

SE

E N

OT

E 1

SE

E N

OT

E 1

ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN PUSH

BUTTON, IF REQUIRED.

THE ENTITY.

ANCHOR BOLTS.


CLARK COUNTY AREA

PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POST FOR

SPECIAL SIGN (8 FT.- 6 INCHES HIGH)

DATE 08-09-18 DWG. NO. 805 SHEET 1 OF 2


B C H M NAGENCY APPROVED R

R

E

M

O

V

E

S

H

E

E

T


PLAN OF BASE

PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON

2-1/2" I.P.S.

5"

SQ

.

4-1/2" DIA. B.C.

PIPE

BASE

(3/8")

PL.

PROVIDE 5" X 7-3/4" SIGN

THIS POST ONLY.

PEDESTRIAN PUSHBUTTON

FOR 2 1/2" POSTTOP MOUNTING

SE

E N

OT

E 1

SE

E N

OT

E 1

ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN PUSH

BUTTON, IF REQUIRED.

B C H M NAGENCY APPROVED R

DATE 08-09-18 DWG. NO. 805 SHEET 2 OF 2

PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POST FOR

2 1/2 INCHES POSTTOP MOUNTING


CLARK COUNTY AREA


NOTES

1. PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SHALL NOT BE LOCATED MORE THAN 24" FROM THE BACK OF WALK. IF

DISTANCE FROM BACK OF WALK TO PUSH BUTTON IS 20" TO 24", THE BUTTON SHALL BE LOCATED AT A

MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 44" FROM THE SURFACE OF THE WALK; OTHERWISE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE

48". FACE OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SHALL NOT BE LOCATED MORE THAN 10" FROM EDGE OF PUSH

BUTTON CLEAR SPACE. PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS SHOULD BE MOUNTED 42" ABOVE THE FINISHED

SURFACE BUT SHALL NOT BE MOUNTED MORE THAN 48" ABOVE THE FINISHED SURFACE.

2. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROL SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 LB.

3. POST SHALL BE HOT-DIP GALVANIZED BY MANUFACTURER OR PRIME PAINTED BY MANUFACTURER AND

FINISH PAINTED BY CONTRACTOR PER SPECIFICATIONS AND AS REQUIRED BY THE ENTITY AGENCY.

9" X 12"

R10-3e

9" X 12"

FOR TYPE "A" FOUNDATION SEE DRAWING NO. 715

INCLUDE 5/8" X 12" X 3" HOT-DIP

GALVANIZED ANCHOR BOLTS.

(REFER TO STD. DWG. NO. 715 FOR

TYPE "A" FOUNDATION)


(TWO POLE)

POLE LOCATION & SIGNAL

MOUNTING AT INTERSECTION

CURBSIDE SIDEWALK

7-10-03 885 1 OF 2

MOUNT SIGNAL

ASSEMBLIES ON SIDE

OF POLE, 180 OPPOSITE OF

CURB LINE AS SHOWN. SEE

P.T.

PED. PUSH BUTTONS

ON TYPE 1-A OR 1-B POLE.

SEE DRAWING NO. 806

FOR DRILLING DETAILS.

SIDEWALK AREA

BA

CK

O

F C

UR

B

BA

CK

O

F S

ID

EW

ALK

DRAWING NO. 823 FOR

DRILLING DETAILS.

P.C

.

SHEETDWG. NO.DATE

CLARK COUNTY AREA



1.

NOTE:

ALTERNATE LOCATIONS FOR THE POLES MAY BE APPROVED BY THE AGENCY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

o

AGENCY APPROVED CB H L M N

R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G


(SINGLE POLE)



CURBSIDE SIDEWALK

7-10-03 885 2 OF 2

MOUNT SIGNAL ASSEMBLIES

OF CURB LINE AS SHOWN. SEE

DRAWING NO. 808 FOR DRILLING

P.T.

SIDEWALK AREA

BA

CK

O

F C

UR

B

BA

CK

O

F S

ID

EW

AL

K

ON SIDE OF POLE OPPOSITE

PED. PUSH BUTTONS.

SEE DRAWING NO. 808


P.C

.

OF RETURN

FROM CENTER

3' MIN. OFFSET

SHEETDWG. NO.DATE

CLARK COUNTY AREA



1.

NOTE:

ALTERNATE LOCATIONS FOR THE SIGNAL POLE MAY BE APPROVED BY THE AGENCY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

DETAILS.


R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G


(TWO POLE)


MOUNT SIGNAL

ASSEMBLIES ON SIDE

OF POLE, 180 OPPOSITE OF

CURB LINE AS SHOWN. SEE

P.T.

PED. PUSH BUTTONS

ON TYPE 1-A OR 1-B POLE.

SEE DRAWING NO. 806


UTILITY (ABOVE

BACK OF CURB

SIDEWALK

DRAWING NO. 823 FOR

DRILLING DETAILS.

P.C

.

SHEETDWG. NO.DATE

CLARK COUNTY AREA



1.

NOTE:

ALTERNATE LOCATIONS FOR THE POLES MAY BE APPROVED BY THE AGENCY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

GROUND) CORRIDOR


OFFSET SIDEWALK

7-10-03 886 1 OF 2


R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G


(SINGLE POLE)



OFFSET SIDEWALK

7-10-03 886 2 OF 2


OF CURB LINE AS SHOWN. SEE

DRAWING NO. 823 FOR DRILLING

P.T.

UTILITY (ABOVE

BACK OF CURB

SIDEWALK

ON SIDE OF POLE OPPOSITE

PED. PUSH BUTTONS.

SEE DRAWING NO. 808


P.C

.

OF RETURN

FROM CENTER

3' MIN. OFFSET

SHEETDWG. NO.DATE

CLARK COUNTY AREA



1. ALTERNATE LOCATIONS FOR THE SIGNAL POLE MAY BE APPROVED BY THE AGENCY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

NOTE:

GROUND) CORRIDOR

DETAILS.


R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G




CLARK COUNTY AREA

DATE DWG. NO.

POLE LOCATION AND SIGNALS

887

MOUNTING ON RIGHT TURN ISLANDS


ON SIDE OF POLE, 180 OPPOSITE

OF CURB LINE AS SHOWN. SEE DWG.

823 FOR DRILLING DETAILS.

PED. PUSH

BUTTONS. SEE

DWG NO. 808 FOR

DRILLING DETAILS.

(TYP.)

6'

4' MIN.

12-12-96

SIDEWALK RAMPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWING NO. 235 SHALL BE

CONSTRUCTED. HANDICAPPED ACCESS MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH

NOTE:

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA).

MIN

. (T

YP

.)

o


R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G




CLARK COUNTY AREA

DATE DWG. NO.

FUTURE POLE LOCATION

P.C

.

P.T.

P.C.

P.T

.

1.

888.1

EQUAL TO 50 FT.

2.

NOTES:

LESS THAN 50 FT.

CASE II

3.

4.

5.

6.

TYPICAL LOCATION FOR

ALL ROADWAYS OTHER

THAN 100' ROW

TYPICAL LOCATION FOR

ALL 100' SECTION

LINE ARTERIALS

C

L

C

L

TYPE XX

OR XX-A

07-01-14

POLE

TYPE XX

OR XX-A

POLE

(SEE NOTE 2, 3 & 4)

(S

EE

N

OT

E 3

&

4

)

GREATER THAN OR

EQUAL TO 50 FT.

GREATER THAN OR


FYA

FYA

THE AREA SHALL REMAIN ACCESSIBLE FOR THESE FOUNDATIONS.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLES SHALL REMAIN AT THE MIDDLE OF THE

RETURN BEHIND THE SIDEWALK SO THAT THE OUTSIDE SIGNAL

HEAD IS DIRECTLY ABOVE THE LEFT TURN LANE.

A TYPE "H" OR "L" FOUNDATION IS REQUIRED FOR MAST ARMS 45' OR

LESS. SEE DRAWING NO. 721.

A TYPE "L" FOUNDATION IS REQUIRED FOR MAST ARMS LONGER

THAN 45'. SEE DRAWING NO. 722.

A MINIMUM OF 48" SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN TRAFFIC SIGNAL

POLE FOUNDATION "CRASH CAP" AND THE BACK OF THE CURB FOR

WHEELCHAIR CLEARANCE.

THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER WILL MAKE THE FINAL DETERMINATION

FOR THE LOCATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLES.

R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G




CLARK COUNTY AREA

DATE DWG. NO.

CASE I

888.S1

P.C.

P.T

.

P.C.

P.T

.

P.C.

P.T

.

P.C.

P.T

.

SEE PLANS FOR FOUNDATION TYPE.

NOTE:

12-12-96

FUTURE POLE LOCATION

AGENCY APPROVED CB H M N

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWING

R

E

M

O

V

E

D

R

A

W

I

N

G


6762


SOUTHERN NEVADA

AGENDA ITEM







OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF

REVISIONS TO THE UNIFORM STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS



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 Subcommittees, Executive Advisory

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




ssf


for

Uniform Standard Drawings

Drawing No.

Sheet NameAssociated Specification

OPS Sent to IR SPEC Sent to IR* EAC RTC

244.9.S1 Bicycle Lane Delineation, Legend and Signage 5/19/20

249 Standard Street Name Sign Post Installation 631 5/19/20

249.1 Sign Installation Detail 631 5/19/20

255.2Typical Transition Section From Shared Use Path Along Roadway to Sidewalk

628, 633 5/19/20

724 Type "I" Foundation 501, 623 5/19/20

725 Type "J" & "K" Foundations 501, 623 5/19/20

745 30 ft. Pole w/School Flashing Sign 5/19/20

763 S1ITS Communication Conduit and Pull Box Detail (For Existing Curb & Gutter)

5/19/20

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

5/19/20

764ITS Communication Conduit and Pull Box Detail Installed Under Sidewalk

5/19/20

805 S1Pedestrian Push Button Post for Special Sign (8 ft.‐6inches high)

5/19/20

805 S2Pedestrian Push Button Post for 2 1/2 Inches Posttop Mounting

5/19/20

885 S1Pole Location & Signal Mounting at Intersection (Two Pole) Curbside Sidewalk

5/19/20

885 S2Pole Location & Signal Mounting at Intersection (Single Pole) Curbside Sidewalk

5/19/20

886 S1Pole Location & Signal Mounting at Intersection (Two Pole) Offset Sidewalk

5/19/20

886 S2Pole Location & Signal Mounting at Intersection (Single Pole) Offset Sidewalk

5/19/20

887Pole Location and Signals Mounting on Right Turn Island

5/19/20

888.1 Future Pole Location Case II 5/19/20

888.S1 Future Pole Location Case I 5/19/20

Drawings Pending Ops

Drawings Pending Spec

Spec Drawings in IR

Ops Drawings in IR

1


Uniform Standard Drawings

Drawing No.

Sheet NameAssociated Specification

OPS Sent to IR SPEC Sent to IR* EAC RTC

222 Residential Driveway Geometrics 1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

222.1 1 Commercial and Multi‐family Driveway Geometrics 1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

222.1 2 Commercial and Multi‐family Security Gate Geometrics 1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

223 Residential Driveway 302, 501, 502, 707 1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

223.S1 Residential Driveway 302, 501, 502, 707 1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

223.1 Residential Driveway without Adjacent Sidewalk 302, 501, 502, 707 1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

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

1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

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

1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

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

1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

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

1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

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

1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

227.S1 Depressed Alley Driveway 1/21/20 2/4/20 3/11/20 ‐ 4/30/20 5/21/20

Drawings Pending RTC Board

Drawings Pending EAC

2


Uniform Standard Specifications

Spec No. Name OPS Sent to IR SPEC Sent to IR* EAC RTC

401 Plantmix Bituminous Pavements ‐ General ‐ ‐ 1/8/20 1/30/20 4/30/20 5/21/20

404 Hot Plant Mix Recycled Bituminous Pavement ‐ ‐ 1/8/20 1/30/20 4/30/20 5/21/20

702 Concrete Curing Materials and Admixtures ‐ 1/8/20 1/30/20 4/30/20 5/21/20

703 Bituminous Materials ‐ ‐ 1/8/20 1/30/20 4/30/20 5/21/20

Specifications at RTC Board

Specifications Pending Ops

Ops Specficiations in IR

Specifications Pending Spec

Spec Specifications in IR

Specifications Pending EAC

3


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.




ssf


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.




ssf


for

Documents

OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 1:30 P.M. MAY 19, 2020€¦ · 19/05/2020 · Theresa Gaisser, Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) Manager of Engineering Julia Uravich,