|
|
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ===Introduction===
| + | #redirect [[Help Article]] |
| − | This document contains the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) policy, procedure and guidance for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of roadway and related facilities in our state. It also includes specific technical topics of right of way, bridge, traffic and materials. The information is presented in numerous “articles” with the use of “Key Points” and “Discussion”. The Key Points represent a summary of the most important policy and guidance items described in each article. These articles are grouped in “Categories” based as closely as possible on pay items and the divisions contained in the publication Missouri Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Organization===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Although this document has been organized in a logical manner (at least to the writers), it does contain a huge amount of information that can make finding a specific idea difficult. Therefore, a Google search engine is available to the left of the top of an article. It is very effective!
| |
| − | | |
| − | Each category is numbered and the articles within each category are numbered in a manner that ties them to specific categories. These articles are listed at the bottom of each category’s page. For example, 903.5 Regulatory Signs is an article within the category 903 Highway Signing. In each article the reader will notice numerous words in <font color=#0033ff>blue</font color>. These words are linked to another article, figure or website with related information. This allows the reader to “navigate” the document in an effective manner.
| |
| − | | |
| − | While every effort has been made to base the category and article numbers on MoDOT pay items and specs, not all categories and articles in the EPG are reflected in the pay items and specs. For example the “100 General” Category contains many articles that are important to the design and construction of roadway facilities but do not relate well to the specific pay items which govern the organization of the specification book. Some of these are:
| |
| − | * Needs identification, prioritization and State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) commitments.
| |
| − | * Project estimates and the bidding process
| |
| − | * MoDOT’s environmental process and activities.
| |
| − | * Public involvement
| |
| − | * Value analysis
| |
| − | * Use of consultants
| |
| − | * The MoDOT and FHWA relationship
| |
| − | * Bicycle and pedestrian issues
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some articles have numbers that are not pay items numbers such as:
| |
| − | * 750.1 Hydraulic design, Bridge design, and Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
| |
| − | * 760.1 Construction activities for structures and
| |
| − | * 770.1 Maintenance activities for bridges
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''How best to view the articles'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | The articles are best viewed on your computer monitor with the following settings:
| |
| − | {''click on any picture to view'')
| |
| − | {|
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Image:Help Section Screen Resolution.GIF|thumb|1024 x 768 pixels screen area]]||[[Image:Help Section Text Size.gif|thumb| “medium” text size]]||[[Image:Help 17 inch monitor.gif|thumb|17” monitor size]]
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | '''Use of Terms'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | The following definitions apply throughout the Engineering Policy Guide:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :'''May''', optional practice(s) with no requirement or recommendation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :'''Shall''' and '''Will''' are used in statements of mandatory practice. Contract documents often contain independent definitions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :'''Should''', is expected or typically necessary. The use of should indicates a practice that is not absolutely mandatory but deviation from this practice calls for engineering documentation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Engineering Policy Guide is not a contract document and where a conflict exists between the EPG and a contract, the contract document rules.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===How the EPG will be revised when necessary===
| |
| − | | |
| − | An engineering technical group with members from the divisions of Design, Bridge, Traffic, Construction and Materials, Maintenance, Planning, and Right of Way has been created to assist Engineering Policy Group personnel with maintenance of the Engineering Policy Guide (EPG). This technical group only meets when a member offers an idea for a revision. The meeting can be via e-mail, phone or even face to face. The member of the technical group must submit a proposed revision that is detailed, complete with revised wording (or figures or charts or tables). In addition, the idea must have justification (why is it necessary, what is the benefit), cost analysis (initial savings or life cycle savings) and an implementation schedule.
| |
| − | | |
| − | After the group considers the idea and reaches consensus, it is sent to the Engineering Policy Administrator for acceptance and editing of the EPG. There will be three levels of consideration for this acceptance.
| |
| − | | |
| − | If the idea is a routine technical matter, an errata change or a clarification it can be approved by the Engineering Policy Administrator without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary.
| |
| − | | |
| − | If the idea is a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structual design, etc.) or if it greatly impacts a specific functional unit then it will be reviewed by the district and division engineers. They will have five working days to provide their comments to the appropriate System Delivery Director(s). Following the comment period, the directors have one week to consider the idea before providing their decision to the Engineering Policy Administrator. The EPG will be revised as necesary.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Finally, if the idea is a complex technical change, if it is contentious, if it has high cost or if it impacts MoDOT's conduct of business it goes directly to the Chief Engineer after initial review and comment. The EPG will be revised to reflect the Chief Engineer's decision.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will be given an opportunity to provide comment to the Engineering Policy Administrator on any idea under consideration for revision to the EPG.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Speed in this process is important. Revision approval can take from a few days to perhaps a month. Those in the process govern the speed of the process. Each district and division engineer must have at least one "alternate" team member with full authority to act when they are absent.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Once a revision is approved, a notice (with effective date if required) will be posted on the EPG Main Page under the heading “Recent Changes”.
| |
