20211026 Ver 1_Email_20130327

Ward, Garcy
From:Hart, Kevin
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:26 PM
To:Ward, Garcy
Subject:FW: R-2511 CP 2A Follow Up for Site 2
….

From: McInnis, Jay
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:28 AM
To: Bill Biddlecome ([e-mail]); Gary Jordan ([e-mail]); Wainwright, David;
Gledhill-earley, Renee; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Wilson, Travis W.; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Brittingham, Cathy; Williams, Paul C; Hart, Kevin
Cc: Miller, Joseph H; Capehart, Bob; Eatmon, Bryce E; Atkinson, Paul; Lovering, Gary R; Moore, Kevin E
Subject: R-2511 CP 2A Follow Up for Site 2

Merger Team Members,

st
We had the CP 2A field meeting for R-2511 (US 17 in Beaufort and Martin Counties) on January 31. At the meeting, the
team reached agreement on structure types for all of the crossings but Site 2 (Gum Swamp/Latham Creek). At Site 2,
the NCDOT recommendation was a 3-barrel culvert to replace the existing 22-foot long bridge. A culvert was
recommended because providing a bridge would require realigning a nearby intersection and potentially relocate a
house.

We were asked to investigate a bridge further and make sure there wasn’t some way a bridge could be provided at this
crossing without affecting the intersection and house. If we couldn’t fit a bridge in, then the suggestion was to provide a
single barrel culvert at this location.

We’ve looked again at a bridge and have investigated the possibility of a one barrel culvert. Our recommendation now
is to construct a one barrel 31’-5“ by 7-3” aluminum box culvert. There are issues with a bridge that we think make a
culvert a better option.

Roadway Design figured out a way to fit the guardrail on the outside of the southbound bridge in with only a minor
adjustment to the intersection, but the guardrail on the median side of both bridges would conflict with the left turn
lane for the intersection. No guardrail would be needed in the median with a culvert, which would provide an
opportunity for someone that ran off the road into the median to recover without hitting something (guardrail,
attenuator or bridge rail). Also, US 17 is in a curve in this area so both sets of lanes are superelevated. The left turn lane
has a different cross slope than the through lanes. This different cross slope would be carried across the northbound
bridge because the left turn lane extends across the bridge. The different cross slope isn’t a major issue, but it further
complicates the design of the bridge.

In addition, the 100-year flood overtops US 17 in this area, the bridge rails would impede the flow more than guardrail
would, making it more difficult to prevent a rise in the flood elevation.

Again, our recommendation is to provide a one barrel aluminum culvert at Site 2. Please let me know if you have any
questions or need more information. If everyone is in agreement with this, we will distribute the concurrence form for
signatures.

Thanks,
1

Jay McInnis

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2