Idea Transcript
1
.;
1.'
... . .
*
.
.
. '
. ...
ARTEFACT. PROJECTS LTD, . Project Management Consullantr, Conwiling Engineers & Planners
.
. .. . .
-
Site Office : . . Plot No. 46; 812 Anlrolikar Nagar, Behind Kinara Hotel, Hqtgi Road.
.
.
-.:
.
Ref: APLINH9-SMWIEIC12014-151286
i
. " . ,
.
..
.
.
:
%
..
.,..
,
..
I..
.
- :
.
.
. . . . , . .... . . : . .& . . ., .
1
.
,
...
.
:.
.
. . . ,
1:
.
. .. .. .
Flat No.2, Is' Floor. Vaishnavi Enclave Apartments. Plot No. 58 +, 59A. Antrolikar Nagar. Part-I . , Soiapur - 413003 Maharashtra, India
.
. . ,
Contract:
'
'.
Sub:
,
:
. ~.
..
'
'
.
.
.
. . .
.*
~ i u Laning r of Solapur - ~ a h a r i s ~ t I r Karnatab a border Section of "-9 from Km 249+000 to Km 348+800 in !he state of Maharashtra on Desigv, Build, Finance, , ' Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) Basis under NHDP Phase Ill. .
Submission of ~ e v i s e dPlan8 Profile Drawings for Main ca%age w a y 8 service ?bed.
: , '
.
. .
-.
Dear Sir,
.
...
.
2015
,
...
'.
Date: 08,'"an
'?he SPV Head
. . . ,
.
.
1
.
. . MIS Solapur Tollways PVI Ltd
,
..
1
.
.
.. . .
. .
TO
.
. ..
. ,
.
Solaour - 413 003..Phone : 0217 - 2607260.09370875602.
.
. .
.. . ..
This is in response to your 'communication on the subject matter cited. above .and the modificationlobservatlonsuggested 16 the Concessionaire in recent joint review meeting inpresence of PD NHAl and requested to resubmit the revised design plan and profile drawings incorporating all iE's ~ O m m e n t ~ l o b ~ e ~ a tThe i O ncompliances ~. submitted by the Concessionaire in this rega1.d have been reviewed by I€ and the commentslobservations are as under:
in line with the provisions staled ,under IRC: SP: 23, IRC: 66, IRC: 88 and t6e IRC: 73, we would like . . .. . . . to draw your kind attention towards the adoption of design criteria referredwjder ciauses.pro.vi~edby. . . .. .. . . . , tke'~oncessionaireare' minimum. And the moralitierarising put under these clauses doeso'l abide or , . . . ., . . . . s d nlaximum for finalization and safe design of projkct highway alignment which can be inferred from . . .. , . . . . . lollbwing provisions of IRC standards. . , . . . . . : . . . IRC: 66 - 1976: RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR SIGHT DIS~ANCEONMRAL . HIGHWAYS ... . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .:: , . : . . . . .. . As per"dause 1.3 of IRC:'~~:-In applying this, itandams, efforf sho"l$rid be to lijnit flie . . design OF any highway to the minimum values laid dolun. Where.conditib~~s are Favori~hle. :.' ...' ( ' -; : . . . ' . good erlgineeririg practice will lie in.adobting more b e m l values, parficula~ly lor stopping , . . .. . . sight distance. . . . . .
.
.
,
...
.
.. . . . .
*
'
.
~.
. ,
r
. .
. .. . ... . . . . .. . . .. .
:
. .. . ..
.
. . .. . .. , . ..
.
i
:
.
>
.
the valley curves. his visibility sha'll be least equalsto minimum deqirable sight distance (360 m) as per IRC: SP: 84,2009.
;
RECEIVED ,
. $, , , . . .-I.: ~ . .: ~ d :.Corp. &. Olf. . . . . . . .
....' . .
..
. .. ... . .,
.
.
SOLAPUR:T