Design Report Review Checklist - NYSDOT Home



|PIN: |      |Dates: |      |Regional |      |

| | | | |Reviewer[1]: | |

|Project Description: |      |Design Approval |      |

| | |Grantor: | |

|Functional Classification: |      |Design |      |

| | |Classification: | |

|NHS[2]: |Yes No |Requested Action: |      |

|Part of 16-foot Vertical |Yes No Cannot readily determine |Report Prepared by:| Region DSB Consultant |

|Clearance Network: |Consult RPPM or MO Structures | | |

| |to determine vertical clearance | | |

|Designated Qualifying and |Designated Qualifying Highway Designated Access Highway |

|Access Highway: | |

| |Within 1 mile of a Qualifying Highway |

| |Neither |

|NEPA |Clas|Class III (EA) |Class I (EIS) |

|Class:|s II| | |

| |(CE)| | |

| |‘c’ | | |

| |list| | |

| |‘d’ | | |

| |list| | |

| | | | |

| |Dete| | |

| |rmin| | |

| |atio| | |

| |n by| | |

| |NYSD| | |

| |OT | | |

| |FHWA| | |

|1 | |Report content is in accordance with the Project Development Manual (PDM) | |

| | |Appendix 7 and all applicable appendices are included? Approval authorities|      |

| | |are accurately identified on Project Approval Sheet? | |

| | |Project Approval Sheet includes a signature line for the CE Determination by|      |

| | |the Regional Director (as determined by the FEAW – see item 11 below)? | |

| | |BRJR completed and attached for bridge rehabilitations? |      |

|2 | |Project Objectives are clear and in accordance with PDM Appendix 4? |      |

| | |Stakeholder’s input on project objectives is indicated? | |

|3 | |A Public Involvement (PI) Plan is prepared and followed in accordance with |      |

| | |PDM § 2.2.6.1? Copy included? | |

| | |Public outreach efforts are adequate and documented in the report? |      |

| | |Is there a need for a public hearing? If so, is the public hearing type |      |

| | |documented in the PIP and discussed in the DAD? Has the appropriate hearing| |

| | |certification been provided on the Project Approval Sheet? | |

|4 | |Location maps with project location/limits are included? | |

| | | |      |

|5 | |All reasonable alternatives adequately evaluated/analyzed? | |

| | | |      |

|6 | |Design speed is either the maximum functional class speed or reflective of | |

| | |anticipated off-peak 85th% speed per HDM § 2.6.1.1 (or § 4.4 or § 7.5.2.1 or|      |

| | |§ 7.5.2.2)? Regional Traffic Engineer concurred with the design speed | |

| | |chosen? Basis for the selection of design speed is included per HDM § | |

| | |2.6.1.1? | |

|7 | |Design criteria for all roads and/or ramps established using the proper | |

| | |standards per HDM Chapters 2, 4, or 7? Design Criteria Table used (HDM Table|      |

| | |2-16)? HDM and Bridge Manual references included? Design criteria for | |

| | |shared-use path established per AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities? | |

| | |Other Design Parameters established per HDM Chapters 5, 17 and 18 as |      |

| | |discussed in HDM §2.1? | |

| | |Bridge Projects – bridge roadway width standards selected from BM table 2-1?|      |

| | |Is there any planned improvement within project limits? | |

|8 | |Non-Standard Features to be created, worsened, or retained are identified? | |

| | |Associated safety concerns are discussed and explained? |      |

| | |Non-Standard Features are justified in accordance with HDM § 2.8? Associated| |

| | |safety concerns are clearly addressed? |      |

|9 | |Capacity of each feasible alternative analyzed per HDM § 5.2 using a design | |

| | |year per PDM Appendix 5? |      |

|10 | |Crash analysis performed using HDM §5.3 (using current data or data | |

| | |representative of current conditions)? |      |

| | |Crash mitigation measures considered and either incorporated or an | |

| | |explanation provided? |      |

|11 | |Prerequisites to environmental determinations are complete? (Check all | |

| | |appropriate boxes below) |      |

| | |FEAW included and completed for Federal aid, NEPA Class II projects? (Pick | |

| | |one below) |      |

| | | |The FEAW indicates that the NEPA Determination will be made by FHWA | |

| | | |The FEAW indicates that the NEPA Determination will be made by NYSDOT | |

| | | |(Regional Director). | |

| | |FHWA Sign-off stating requirements of 36 CFR Part 800 (Fed-Aid w/ Cultural | |

| | |Resources) have been met and concurrence with SHPO effect determination |      |

| | |included? | |

| | |Individual 4(f) draft or final evaluation completed (if applicable) |      |

| | |Environmental permits/coordination identified and in process? |      |

| | |Environmental studies complete (Ref. PDM Appendix 1)? | |

| | | |      |

| | |If applicable, proposed mitigation measures discussed? | |

| | | |      |

| | |For Design Approval requests, has environmental determination been made? |      |

|12 | |ROW acquisitions are adequate and necessary? Abstract Request Maps are |      |

| | |prepared on time? | |

| | |Are any acquisitions considered non-de minimis? (If so, confirm that the |      |

| | |NEPA class is correctly identified.) | |

| | |If acquisitions are non-de minimis, is an EDPL hearing planned? Is the need |      |

| | |for the hearing documented in the PIP and discussed in the DAD?  Have the | |

| | |steps for holding an EDPL hearing in PDM Chapter 4 been followed? Has the | |

| | |appropriate hearing certification statement been provided on the Project | |

| | |Approval Sheet?  Has the Region taken the appropriate follow-up actions | |

| | |below? | |

| | |Hearing record made available per EDPL §203? | |

| | |Determination and Findings prepared per EDPL §204? | |

| | |Notice of Determination and Findings published and mailed to all affected | |

| | |property owners? | |

|13 | |Plans, profiles and sections for highway, bridge, and detours included per | |

| | |PDM Appendix 7? |      |

|14 | |Preliminary WZTC alternatives are evaluated for social, economic, | |

| | |environmental impacts to the community? Has the most likely WZTC scheme |      |

| | |been identified? | |

|15 | |Project cost and schedule are reasonable? Project Cost Table included per | |

| | |HDM Chapter 21 (EB 18-042)? |      |

|16 | |Utility involvements are clearly defined? Utility conflicts identified? |      |

| | |Coordination with utilities initiated? | |

|17 | |Complete Streets Checklist included per HDM § 18.5.1 and results are |      |

| | |discussed in the report? | |

|18 | |Bicyclist and pedestrian needs are discussed? |      |

| | |Has characterization of the anticipated pedestrian use and anticipated |      |

| | |predominant pedestrian trip type (recreational, utilitarian, etc.) been | |

| | |made? Does pedestrian WZTC provision make sense based on the | |

| | |characterization? | |

| | |Has determination of the level of bicycle use (low or high) been made? Are |      |

| | |the lane and/or shoulder width standards from HDM §2.7 appropriate for the | |

| | |determination? | |

|19 | |ITS needs are identified and discussed in the report? Coordination with |      |

| | |Regional ITS Coordinator? | |

| | |SERF completed and FHWA’s risk determination included? (For all projects |      |

| | |with ITS elements) | |

|20 | |Regional Construction Group is on board? Constructability review sought? If |      |

| | |yes, discussed in the report? | |

|21 | |Final Design Report contains stamp and legal note from the preparer per PDM |      |

| | |Appendix 7 § 6.1? Final Design Report sealed and signed by the Group | |

| | |Director responsible for the project per EI 08-001? | |

|22 | |Region’s transmittal memo identifies the action being requested, and the |      |

| | |information provided is consistent with the information provided in the | |

| | |Report? | |

-----------------------

[1]: The DQAB Project Development Section tracks time allotted for reviews.

[2]: The NHS has been expanded to include all Principal Arterials, along with some additional routes. Consult with your RPPM for expanded/updated NHS information.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download