Detailed Evaluations of Alternative(s Sample Clauses

Detailed Evaluations of Alternative(s. The Consultant will further evaluate each design alternative and the null alternative with specific engineering analyses and considerations. Analyses will be conceptual and limited to determining the relative suitability of each design alternative, and will include: • Design geometry, including the identification and comparison of alignment constraints and (where applicable) justification for retaining nonstandard design features, per the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual. • Environmental constraints and potential environmental impact mitigation measures (identified under Section 4 tasks). • Traffic flow and safety considerations, including signs, signals, and level of service analysis for intersections.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Detailed Evaluations of Alternative(s. The Consultant will further evaluate each design alternative and the null alternative with specific engineering analyses and considerations. Analyses will be conceptual and limited to determining the relative suitability of each design alternative, and will include: • Design geometry, including the identification and comparison of alignment constraints and (where applicable) justification for retaining nonstandard design features, per the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual. • Environmental constraints and potential environmental impact mitigation measures (identified under Section 4 tasks). • Traffic flow and safety considerations, including signs, signals, and level of service analysis for intersections. • Structures, including bridges, retaining walls, major culverts, and building alterations (limited to establishing basic concepts, accommodating clearances and stream flow, and estimating costs). Bridge investigative work (inspection, deck coring, etc.) is covered under Section 2. • Drainage. • Maintenance responsibility. • Maintenance and protection of traffic during construction. • Soil and foundation considerations. • Utilities. • Right-of-way acquisition requirements. • Conceptual landscaping (performed by a Registered Landscape Architect). • Accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists and the disabled. • Lighting. • Construction cost factors.
Sample 1
Detailed Evaluations of Alternative(s. The Consultant will further evaluate each design alternative and the null alternative with specific engineering analyses and considerations. Analyses will be conceptual and limited to determining the relative suitability of each design alternative, and will include:  design geometry, including the identification and comparison of alignment constraints and (where applicable) justification for  retaining nonstandard design features, per Chapter 2, Section 2.8  of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual.  environmental constraints and potential environmental impactmitigation measures (identified under Section 4 tasks).  traffic flow and safety considerations, including signs, signals, and  level of service analysis for intersections.  pavement.  structures, including bridges, retaining walls, and major culverts  {limited to establishing basic concepts, accommodating clearances  and stream flow, and estimating costs).  drainage.  maintenance responsibility.  maintenance and protection of traffic during construction.  soil and foundation considerations.  utilities.  right-of-way acquisition requirements.  conceptual landscaping  accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists and the disabled. The Consultant will prepare the following drawings for each design alternative analyzed:  1" = 20' plans showing (as a minimum) stationed centerlines;  roadway geometrics; major drainage features; construction limits;  cut and fill limits; and proposed right-of-way acquisition lines.  profiles, at a scale of 1" = 20' horizontal and 1" = 4' (maximum)  vertical, showing (as a minimum) the vertical datum reference;  significant elevations; existing ground line; theoretical grade line;  grades; vertical curve data including sight distances; critical  clearances at structures; centerline stations and equalities;  construction limits; and superelevation data.  typical sections showing (as a minimum) lane, median, and shoulder widths; ditches; gutters; curbs; and side slopes.
Sample 1
Detailed Evaluations of Alternative(s. The Consultant will further evaluate each design alternative and the null alternative with specific engineering analyses and considerations. Analyses will be conceptual and limited to determining the relative suitability of each design alternative, and will include: - design geometry, including the identification and comparison of alignment constraints and (where applicable) justification for retaining nonstandard design features, per Chapter 2, Section 2.8 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual. - environmental constraints and potential environmental impact mitigation measures (identified under Section 4 tasks). - traffic flow and safety considerations, including signs, signals, and level of service analysis for intersections. - pavement. - structures, including bridges, retaining walls, major culverts, and building alterations (limited to establishing basic concepts, accommodating clearances and stream flow, and estimating costs). Bridge investigative work (inspection, deck coring, etc.) is covered under Section 2. - drainage. - maintenance responsibility. - maintenance and protection of traffic during construction. - soil and foundation considerations. - utilities. - right-of-way acquisition requirements. - accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists and the disabled. - construction cost factors. The Consultant will prepare the following drawings for each design alternative analyzed:
Sample 1
Detailed Evaluations of Alternative(s. The Consultant will further evaluate each design alternative and the null alternative with specific engineering analyses and considerations. Analyses will be conceptual and limited to determining the relative suitability of each design alternative, and will include: • Design geometry, including the identification and comparison of alignment constraints and (where applicable) justification for retaining nonstandard design features, per the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual.8 • Environmental constraints and potential environmental impact mitigation measures (identified under Section 4 tasks) • Traffic safety considerations including signs • Pavement • Drainage • Maintenance responsibility • Maintenance and protection of traffic during construction • Utilities • Right-of-way acquisition requirements • Conceptual landscaping • Accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists and the disabled • Lighting • Construction cost factors • Meeting/review with NYSDOT The Consultant will prepare the following drawings for each design alternative analyzed:
Sample 1

Related to Detailed Evaluations of Alternative(s

  • Performance Evaluations 34.1. The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • Contractor Performance Evaluations The Contract Administrator will evaluate Contractor’s performance as often as the Contract Administrator deems necessary throughout the term of the contract. This evaluation will be based on criteria including the quality of goods or services, the timeliness of performance, and adherence to applicable laws, including prevailing wage and living wage. City will provide Contractors who receive an unsatisfactory rating with a copy of the evaluation and an opportunity to respond. City may consider final evaluations, including Contractor’s response, in evaluating future proposals and bids for contract award.

  • Annual Evaluations The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assess and communicate the nature and extent of an employee's performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified below in this Policy. Except for those employees who have received notice of non-reappointment pursuant to the BOT- UFF Policy on Non- reappointment, every employee shall be evaluated at least once annually. Personnel decisions shall take such annual evaluations into account, provided that such decisions need not be based solely on written faculty performance evaluations.

  • Formal Evaluations The employer shall undertake formal evaluations of an employee’s performance of the various duties and responsibilities of a position only if one or more of the following conditions is present: • employee request • mutual agreement of hiring unit and employee • recommendation arising from informal evaluation • decision of Chair, Xxxx, Director or designate resulting from the processing of a complaint in accordance with Article 8.

  • Timing of Evaluations Annual performance evaluations shall normally take place near the anniversary date of completion of original probation. However, as to employees who have been rehired as a restoration or after a reduction in force, the date of rehire shall be the anniversary date for the annual evaluation. The Human Resources Department will attempt to secure agency cooperation in conducting the evaluation process in reasonable relationship to the above schedule. Failure to conduct a timely annual rating shall not be grievable. Deadline for Evaluation Meetings: A meeting to discuss an evaluation shall be held within forty- five (45) days after the applicable anniversary date, or after the end of any prescriptive period for remediation (“PPR”) or warning period. This deadline may be extended to accommodate the employee’s illness or injury. Where the deadline is not satisfied, the employee shall be granted an annual overall presumptive rating equal to their last annual overall rating, but not less than a Satisfactory (“S”) rating. However, if the time for annual evaluation falls during a PPR or warning period (See Disciplinary Action Article, Section 1(e)(ii) & (iii), the annual evaluation shall be waived, and the last evaluation in such process shall be deemed to be the annual evaluation. In the event the time for annual evaluation falls subsequent to the issuance of a notice of performance deficiency (Step 1) but prior to the commencement of a PPR, the employer may issue an evaluation which does not supersede the previously issued notice. A special evaluation may be used at any time except it shall not be used as a late annual evaluation. Written feedback furnished to an employee which would have constituted the annual evaluation had it been timely conducted, shall not be considered as an evaluation, shall not be placed in the employee’s file at the time of issuance, shall not be grievable and does not require the presence of a union representative when issued. An oral or written notice of performance deficiency (Step 1 in the order of progressive corrective action) shall not be grievable when issued, and, when issued, shall not require the presence of a union representative. However, once Step 2 of progressive corrective action has been implemented (a special or annual evaluation coupled with a PPR) such notice or a written record of such notice shall be placed in the employee’s personnel file and shall be fully grievable.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!