Difference between revisions of "Help Article"

From Engineering_Policy_Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(29 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="480px" align="right"  
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="480px" align="right"  
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Helpful EPG Videos'''  
+
|'''[http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]'''
 
|-
 
|-
|[[media:Logging into the EPG.wmv|Logging into the EPG]]
+
|Form to Propose [[#Level 1 Approval|Level 1, 2 and 3 Revisions]] for the EPG and other MoDOT Standards
|-
 
|[[media:Help Finging EPG Info.wmv|Finding Info in the EPG]]
 
|-
 
|[[media:Article History and Receiving.wmv|Article History & How to Receive EMails When Articles are Revised]]
 
|-
 
|'''Form to Propose [[#Level 1 Approval|Level 1, 2 and 3 Revisions]] for the EPG and other MoDOT Standards'''
 
|-
 
|[http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]
 
 
|}
 
|}
  
The Engineering Policy Guide (EPG) contains MoDOT policy, procedure and guidance for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of roadway and related facilities.  It also includes specific technical topics of right of way, bridge, traffic and materials. The information is presented in numerous articles having as simple a layout as possible.  These articles are numbered to reflect as closely as possible the pay items and divisions from the spec book, ''Missouri Standard Specifications for Highway Construction''.
+
The Engineering Policy Guide (EPG) contains MoDOT policy, procedure and guidance for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of roadway and related facilities.  It also includes specific technical topics of right of way, bridge, traffic and materials. These articles are numbered to reflect as closely as possible the pay items and divisions from ''Missouri Standard Specifications for Highway Construction''.
 
 
The EPG is not a contract document and EPG articles are referenced as EPG XXX.X or "articles" - not "sections" - to avoid confusion with MoDOT specs.  Where a conflict exists between the EPG and a contract, the contract document rules. References and links to the ''Missouri Standard Specifications'' are given as "Sec XXX.XX" or "Section XXX.XX of the Standard Specifications."  References and links to the ''Missouri Standard Plans for Highway Construction'' are "Standard Plan XXX.XX". 
 
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="280px" align="right"
 
|-
 
|'''EPG articles are not referenced as "sections" but as EPG XXX.X or "articles" to avoid confusion with MoDOT specs.'''
 
|}
 
  
===Organization===
+
The EPG is not a contract document and EPG articles are referenced as EPG XXX.X or "articles" - not "sections" - to avoid confusion with MoDOT specifications.  Where a conflict exists between the EPG and a contract, the contract document rules. References and links to the ''Missouri Standard Specifications'' are given as "Sec XXX.XX" or "Section XXX.XX of the Standard Specifications."  References and links to the ''Missouri Standard Plans for Highway Construction'' are "Standard Plan XXX.XX". 
  
Articles are grouped into the spec book’s divisions (for example, the EPG articles in [[:Category:100 GENERAL|EPG 100 General]] mirror Division 100 specs, articles in [[:Category:300 BASES|EPG 300 Bases]] mirror Division 300 specs, etc.).  Many articles have been subdivided into additional articles.  For example, the reader may notice that [[903.6 Warning Signs|EPG 903.6 Warning Signs]] and other EPG 903 articles are listed at the bottom of [[:Category:903 Highway Signing|EPG 903 Highway Signing]]. 
+
==Organization==
  
In most articles the reader will notice numerous words in <font color=#0033ff>blue</font color>These words are links to another article, figure or website with related informationThis allows the reader to effectively navigate.
+
Articles are grouped into the specification book’s divisions (for example, the EPG articles in [[:Category:100 GENERAL|EPG 100 General]] mirror Division 100 specifications, articles in [[:Category:300 BASES|EPG 300 Bases]] mirror Division 300 specifications, etc.)Many articles have been subdivided into additional articlesFor example, the reader may notice that [[903.6 Warning Signs|EPG 903.6 Warning Signs]] and other EPG 903 articles are listed at the bottom of [[:Category:903 Highway Signing|EPG 903 Highway Signing]].
  
While every effort has been made to base the article numbers on MoDOT pay items and specs, not all articles in the EPG are reflected in the pay items and specs.  For example, many EPG “100 General” articles are important to the design and construction of roadway facilities but do not directly correspond to specific pay items.  Some of these are:
+
While every effort has been made to base the article numbers on MoDOT pay items and specifications, not all articles in the EPG are reflected in the pay items and specifications.  For example, many EPG “100 General” articles are important to the design and construction of roadway facilities but do not directly correspond to specific pay items.  Some of these are:
  
 
* [[:category:121 Project Planning, Prioritization and STIP Commitments|EPG 121 Project Planning, Prioritization and STIP Commitments]]
 
* [[:category:121 Project Planning, Prioritization and STIP Commitments|EPG 121 Project Planning, Prioritization and STIP Commitments]]
Line 37: Line 23:
  
 
* [[:Category:132 Safety|EPG 132 Safety]]
 
* [[:Category:132 Safety|EPG 132 Safety]]
 
* [[:Category:133 Snow and Ice Control|EPG 133 Snow and Ice Control]]
 
  
 
Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.
 
Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.
  
===[[media:Help Finging EPG Info.wmv|Searching the EPG]]===
+
==How best to view the articles==
 
 
'''Google.''' 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 on the left near the top of every article.  It functions in the same manner as a conventional search engine on the worldwide web and is very effective!
 
 
 
'''Find (on This Page).''' Once the reader has used the Google search engine to arrive at an article, it may still be difficult to find the reference’s exact location since some EPG articles are large.  In the upper left of each EPG article, next to “File”, we recommend the reader click “Edit”, then, in the drop-down menu, “Find (on This Page)” and type in the desired key word(s).  The hot key for "Find (on This Page)" is "Ctrl-F".  If the entry is in the article, it will be highlighted.
 
 
 
===How best to view the articles===
 
  
 
The articles are best viewed on your computer monitor with the following settings:
 
The articles are best viewed on your computer monitor with the following settings:
Line 62: Line 40:
 
|}
 
|}
  
===How to Easily Select and Print an Entire Article or a Portion of an Article===
+
==How to Easily Select and Print an Entire Article or a Portion of an Article==
  
 
:'''1)''' Highlight the selected article or portion of article
 
:'''1)''' Highlight the selected article or portion of article
[[image:Help Article Print 1.jpg|center|800px]]
+
[[image:Help Article Print 1.jpg|center|600px]]
  
 
:'''2)''' Click “File”
 
:'''2)''' Click “File”
[[image:Help Article Print 2.jpg|center|500px]]
+
[[image:Help Article Print 2.jpg|center|440px]]
  
 
:'''3)''' Click “Print Preview”
 
:'''3)''' Click “Print Preview”
[[image:Help Article Print 3.jpg|center|450px]]
+
[[image:Help Article Print 3.jpg|center|400px]]
  
 
:'''4)''' Select “As selected on screen”
 
:'''4)''' Select “As selected on screen”
[[image:Help Article Print 4.jpg|center|700px]]
+
[[image:Help Article Print 4.jpg|center|630px]]
  
 
:'''5)''' Should your selection include a large table or figure that creates an undesirable appearance, you may want to click the “Shrink To Fit” tab and perhaps select “85%”.   
 
:'''5)''' Should your selection include a large table or figure that creates an undesirable appearance, you may want to click the “Shrink To Fit” tab and perhaps select “85%”.   
Line 80: Line 58:
 
:'''6)''' Print the selection.
 
:'''6)''' Print the selection.
  
===Use of Terms in the EPG===
+
[[image:Help Article Request Form title.jpg|right|350px]]
:'''Shall''' and '''Will''' indicate a required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice. Shall and will statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study.
 
:'''Should''' indicates a recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations.  Deviations are allowed if [[:Category:900 TRAFFIC CONTROL#Engineering Judgment|engineering judgment]] or [[:Category:900 TRAFFIC CONTROL#Engineering Study|engineering study]] indicates the deviation to be appropriate.
 
:'''May''' indicates a permitted practice and carries no requirement or recommendation.
 
  
===EPG Approval Process===
+
==EPG Approval Process==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="360px" align="right"
+
 
|-
+
Revisions to engineering policy are proposed using the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. Revisions to forms used in the EPG are also proposed by using the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form.
|style="background:#99ffff"|<center>'''I would like to propose a specific, authoritative revision. What do I do?'''</center>
+
 
|-
+
'''Any other standard affected by a proposed EPG revision?'''
|Proposed revisions are submitted on the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. Just copy and paste the affected portion of your division's EPG article into a Word file.  Place the Word file into revision mode and make your proposed changes to the file. (If your division’s info is already in the EPG, do not email Word files of revisions to your division’s old manual.  Base your division's proposed revisions on EPG text, not the old manuals.) Attach this proposal to the form with the "Click here to attach a file" button. Along with the actual proposed textual revision of the EPG, provide:
+
 
|-
+
Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT standards (other EPG articles, any Standard Plans, specifications, JSPs, etc.) impacted by the EPG proposal.  Word files in revision mode are required for textual changes. Dgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.
| 1) Any other standard affected by the revision,
+
[[image:Help Article Request Form Issue Name.jpg|right|350px]]
|-
+
===Completing the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form===
| 2) The name of the proposal's sponsor,
 
|-
 
| 3) The proposal's summary,
 
|-
 
| 4) The proposal's fiscal impact and
 
|-
 
| 5) A description of any effort to engage industry and FHWA in the revision development.
 
|}
 
Revisions to engineering policy are proposed using the [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Item/newifs.aspx?List=8224cbb0%2D2570%2D419a%2Da4a0%2D4eb7416e97d3&RootFolder=&Web=c952a564%2D1467%2D40b5%2Da053%2D422131a2ca38 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. Submittals are evaluated and processed on a quarterly schedule. Final decisions on proposed ballots are submitted to the Policy and Innovations Engineer for disposition. The Assistant Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 2 revisions and the Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 3 revisions. 
 
  
 
Every submittal must document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to the EPG:
 
Every submittal must document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to the EPG:
  
:'''1) Any other standard affected by the revision.'''  Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT standards (Standard Plans, specs, JSPs, etc.) impacted by the proposal.  Word files in revision mode are required for textual changesDgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.
+
:'''Contact.'''  The name of the sponsor from within the division proposing the revision is required.  The contact is the person most knowledgeable or central to the proposal.
  
:'''2) Sponsor.'''  The name of the sponsor from within the division proposing the revision is requiredThe sponsor is the person most knowledgeable or central to the proposal.
+
:'''Summarize.'''  Provide the reason why the idea should be carried out (why it is necessary or its benefit)This justification may be critical in the decision to approve the proposal or not.
  
:'''3) Summary.'''  Provide the reason why the idea should be carried out (why it is necessary or its benefit).  This justification may be critical in the decision to approve the proposal or not.
+
:'''Fiscal Impact.'''  Provide a dollar estimate for the proposal’s costs or savings to MoDOT.  Include necessary calculations (initial savings or life cycle savings, for example) or assertions to accurately convey the proposal’s financial impactThe fiscal impact must be a numeric dollar value.
  
:'''4) Fiscal Impact.''' Provide a dollar estimate for the proposal’s costs or savings to MoDOT. Include whatever calculations (initial savings or life cycle savings, for example) or assertions are necessary to accurately convey the proposal’s financial impact.  The fiscal impact must be a numeric dollar value, not simply a vague financial discussion.
+
:'''External Involvement.''' Provide a summary of efforts undertaken during the development of the item to engage affected industry groups and the FHWA. Provide specific examples of who was involved and how the involvement occurred. This is not applicable to every submittal, but is critical for the determination of the associated approval level for borderline items.  
  
:'''5) Involvement.''' Provide a summary of any efforts undertaken during the development of the item to engage affected industry groups and the FHWA. Provide specific examples of who was involved and how that the involvement occurred. This may not be applicable to every submittal, but is critical for the determination of the associated approval level for borderline items.  
+
The Engineering Policy Revision Request Form also requires the '''date''', '''issue name''' and a '''listing of all affected publications'''.  (For instance, should a proposal for EPG 606.1 also require revisions to Sec 606 and Std. Plan 606.30, the section and standard plan as well as their proposed revisions would be specified along with the proposed revisions to the EPG article.)
  
Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Policy and Innovations Engineer based on the following guidelines:  
+
It is also optional to enter information about whether the proposal involves an '''Administrative Rule''' or '''LPA''' guidance, the submitter's '''tracking number''' (if any) and the submitter's '''desired effective letting date'''.
 +
 
 +
===After the proposed EPG revision is submitted===
 +
 
 +
Submittals are evaluated and processed on a quarterly schedule. Final decisions on proposed ballots are submitted to the Policy and Innovations Engineer for disposition. The Assistant Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 2 revisions and the Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 3 revisions. Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Policy and Innovations Engineer based on the following guidelines:  
  
 
<div id="Level 1 Approval"></div>
 
<div id="Level 1 Approval"></div>
Line 124: Line 94:
 
|align="center"|'''Tips on Text'''
 
|align="center"|'''Tips on Text'''
 
|-
 
|-
|While the Engineering Policy Group edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines for the EPG include:
+
|While Engineering Policy Services edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines for the EPG include:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Assure/Ensure/Insure:'''  The word “assure” is a personal guarantee based on reputation.  “Ensure” is used when the party is to make certain of something or to be careful.  “Insure” refers to actions protected by insurance, and indicates that money is involved.
 
|'''Assure/Ensure/Insure:'''  The word “assure” is a personal guarantee based on reputation.  “Ensure” is used when the party is to make certain of something or to be careful.  “Insure” refers to actions protected by insurance, and indicates that money is involved.
Line 138: Line 108:
 
|'''High/Tall:'''  Use “high” to express a lofty position, such as the clouds are high.  Use “tall” to express a great vertical dimension, such as the tall post.
 
|'''High/Tall:'''  Use “high” to express a lofty position, such as the clouds are high.  Use “tall” to express a great vertical dimension, such as the tall post.
 
|-
 
|-
|Also refer to [[Help:Contents#Use of Terms in the EPG|Use of Terms in the EPG]], above.
+
|'''Until:''' Do not use "til".
 
|}
 
|}
  
'''Level 2 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division, the proposal is processed as a Level 2 Ballot item.  The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 7 days to provide their comments to the Assistant Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is given 10 working days to provide comment or approve the Engineering Policy Administrator. The revision is submitted on the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form. Upon approval any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.   
+
'''Level 2 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division, the proposal is processed as a Level 2 Ballot item.  The District Engineers and Division Directors/Engineers are provided 10 business days to provide their comments to the Assistant Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing a decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is given 10 working days to provide comment or concurrence with the Policy and Innovations Engineer. Upon approval any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.   
  
'''Level 3 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business, the proposal is processed as a Level 3 Ballot item.  The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 7 days to provide their comments to the Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is provided 10 working days to provide comment or approve the proposal. Upon approval, any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.
+
'''Level 3 Approval.''' If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business, the proposal is processed as a Level 3 Ballot item.  The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 10 business days to provide their comments to the Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is provided 10 business days to provide comment or concur with the proposal. Upon approval, any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.
  
Changes to the Standard Specification, Standard Drawings, Pay Items and significant changes to JSPs are documented by [https://spexternal.modot.mo.gov/sites/de/DSL/Forms/ByYear.aspx Design Standards Letters]  and posted both internally and externally.  Substantive EPG changes are documented on the EPG Main Page under the heading “Recent Changes”.  
+
Changes to the Standard Specification, Standard Drawings, Pay Items and significant changes to JSPs are documented by [https://spexternal.modot.mo.gov/sites/de/DSL/Forms/ByYear.aspx Design Standards Letters]  and posted both internally and externally.
  
====EPG Ballot Cycles====
+
===EPG Ballot Cycles===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-right:20px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="545x" align="center"  
+
<font size : 20%><font color = "white">.</font color = "white">
 +
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-right:20px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="965x" align="center"  
 
|-
 
|-
!style="background:#99ffff"| ||style="background:#99ffff"|Deadline for Revision Proposal to Engineering Policy Group||style="background:#99ffff"|Approved Revisions Available for Use but not Effective||style="background:#99ffff"|Revisions become Effective for all Subsequent Lettings
+
!style="background:#99efff" colspan="5"| 2020 Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule
 
|-
 
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF" width=90|'''Cycle 1'''||style="background:#FFFFFF"| 24-Dec||style="background:#FFFFFF"| 1st week of Feb ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|1-Apr
+
!style="background:#99ffff" width="250"| Engineering Policy Revision Requests Due to CO Engineering Policy Services  !!style="background:#99ffff" width="200"| Ballot Items Due to Asst. Chief Engineer !!style="background:#99ffff" width="200"| Ballot Items Due to FHWA !!style="background:#99ffff"|Publish Revisions !!style="background:#99ffff"|Effective Date
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Cycle 2'''|| 25-Mar|| 1st week of May ||1-Jul
+
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 20, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 27, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 27, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|October 21, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|January 1, 2020
 
|-
 
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|'''Cycle 3'''||style="background:#FFFFFF"| 24-Jun|| style="background:#FFFFFF"|1st week of Aug ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|1-Oct
+
|December 20, 2019 ||December 27, 2019 ||December 27, 2019 ||January 20, 2020 ||April 1, 2020
 
|-
 
|-
|'''Cycle 4'''|| 23-Sep || 1st week of Nov ||1-Jan
+
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 20, 2020 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 27, 2020 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 27, 2020 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|April 20, 2020 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|July 1, 2020
 +
|-
 +
|June 19, 2020 ||June 26, 2020 ||June 26, 2020 ||July 20, 2020 ||October 1, 2020
 +
|-
 +
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 18, 2020 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 25, 2020 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 25, 2020 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|October 19, 2020 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|January 1, 2021
 +
 
 
|}
 
|}
  
 +
==Division Contacts==
 +
Since the divisions provide authoritative input, consulting with their liaisons or contacts may provide the help you require or receive your input.  Below is a listing of divisional personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:
  
====Style Guide for Submitting Proposed EPG Revisions====
+
::'''''Bridge:''''' Darren Kemna
  
When a division proposes a revision to the Engineering Policy Guide (EPG), what should be submitted to the Engineering Policy Group?
+
::'''''Chief Counsel's Office:''''' Terri Parker
  
The division should usually begin by referencing the current contents of the EPG article to be revised.  Submit a Word document in revision mode showing both proposed additions and deletions to the EPG article.  The proposed revision should use complete sentences and paragraphs as much as possible.  Bullets are permissible, but they are typically used sparingly.
+
::'''''Construction and Materials:'''''
  
If changes are proposed to EPG figures, provide the new .jpg files for photos and .pdf or MicroSoft Word documents for the textual figures.  The EPG wiki can accommodate a number of other types of files, but .jpg, .pdf and .doc files tend to be most efficient.
+
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett
  
===[[media:Logging into the EPG.wmv|Logging into the EPG]]===
+
:::Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Randy Hitt, John Donahue
[[image:Help Article EPG Login.jpg|550px|right]]
 
Just viewing the EPG, without logging into it, opens the single reference for all MoDOT engineering and engineering-related guidance.  But logging into the EPG permits the reader access to a number of capabilities including viewing the history of an article, leaving comments on a discussion page, tracking revisions through "my watchlist", accessing a printable version of an EPG article and viewing the "what links here" (that shows all the other articles linked to the chosen article).
 
[[image:Help Article Log in.jpg|right|125px]]
 
To log in to the EPG, MoDOT employees simply click the "Log in" (located at the top of any EPG article).  The "Username" required by the EPG is the same as the username entered when logging into a MoDOT computer.  The "password" required by the EPG is also the same as your computer password.  Yes, every time your computer's password changes, so will your EPG password.
 
  
====Benefits of Logging into the EPG====
+
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Kevin McLain
Your engineering and engineering-related information is already incorporated into the EPG, but logging into the EPG will make this information handier and more useful.
 
[[image:Help Article history.jpg|right|175px]]
 
=====History=====
 
Would it be useful for you to be able to find when and how an article that you are interested in changed?  Or view exactly what an EPG article stated and how it looked in the past?  Log into the EPG and a “History” tab is available at the top of every article, providing a view of any previous versions of the EPG article or comparing any two versions of the article on a line-by-line basis.
 
  
Many of the revisions will have a brief explanation.  A bold “m” indicates a minor change (either a [[Help Article#Level 1 Approval|Level 1 Approval]] or editorial change).
+
:::Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
[[image:Help Article watch.jpg|right|375px]]
 
=====Watch and My Watchlist=====
 
  
Would you find it useful to easily gather the articles in which you are interested and also be able to view the changes to these articles?
+
::'''''Design:''''' Troy Hughes, Tim Schroeder, Dave Simmons
  
Log into the EPG and  a “watch” tab is located at the top of every article in the EPG.  By simply clicking the “watch” tab (and causing it to become “unwatch”), the article is added to your watchlist (those articles of which you want to keep track). 
+
:::Bid & Contract Services: Llans Taylor
  
How are the revisions to your watchlist articles viewed?  At any time you may open “my watchlist”, located above the EPG article’s tabs, and choose whether you want to view the changes to your selected articles that occurred during the past hour, 2 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, day, 3 days, 7 days or all the changes that have occurred.  Minor changes to a “My watchlist” article are identified with a bolded “m”.  New articles are identified with an “N”.  A brief description is provided for notable revisions.
+
:::CADD Services: Steve Atkinson
  
=====My Preferences=====
+
:::Environmental Compliance: Melissa Scheperle
Would you find it useful to have an email inform you every time an EPG article of interest to you has been changed? 
 
  
This email would not provide the details of the revision, but that the article was revised in some manner.  Log in to the EPG and you will be able to check the article’s history to view the actual revision.
+
:::Historic Preservation: Mike Meinkoth
[[image:Help Article my preference.jpg|right|375px]]
 
To obtain an email alert every time an EPG article of interest has been revised, click “My Preferences”, located above the EPG article’s tabs.  This leads to a “User Profile” tab.  Near the bottom of the “User Profile” is the “E-mail” portion in which you may choose the various revision situations to send you an email.
 
  
=====Discussions and Suggestions =====
+
:::LPA: Laura Ellen
Those logged into the EPG are encouraged to use the discussion capability of the EPG.  If you have a question, it is likely others may, too.  Any suggestions you have may also be very helpful to another reader, as well.  Use the “Discussion” capabilities of the EPG to contribute questions and suggestions for all other readers. The Engineering Policy staff monitors all articles so that your comment can be addressed.
 
[[image:benefit discussion.jpg|left|275px]]
 
After logging in, simply go to the article of concern and select the “Discussion” tab at the top of the article.  If your comment or question is the first discussion for the article, you will be shown an edit screen.  Type in your comment or question.  Otherwise, an existing discussion will be shown.  Additional comments can be added by selecting the “+” tab.
 
  
====Division Contacts====
+
:::Right of Way: Mendy Sundermeyer, Greg Wood
Since the divisions provide authoritative input, consulting with their liaisons or contacts may provide the help you require or receive your input.  Below is a listing of divisional personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:
 
  
::'''''Bridge:''''' Greg Sanders
+
::'''''Highway Safety & Traffic:''''' Lisa Vieth
  
::'''''Chief Counsel's Office:''''' Adam Brown
+
:::Safety Engineering: Ray Shank
  
::'''''Construction and Materials'''''
+
:::Signals: Ashley Buechter, Lisa Vieth
  
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett, Leonard Vader
+
:::Signs: Tom Honich, Andrew Briedwell
 
 
:::Construction Engineering: Jeremy Kampeter
 
 
 
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Kevin McLain
 
 
 
:::Materials:
 
 
 
:::Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
 
  
::'''''Design:'''''
+
:::Work Zones: Dan Smith
  
:::Environmental & Historic Preservation: Mike Meinkoth
+
::'''''Maintenance:''''' Ken Warbritton
  
:::Right of Way:
+
::'''''Multimodal:''''' Michelle Kratzer, Jenni Hosey
  
::'''''Maintenance:''''' Tim Jackson
+
:::Aviation: Amy Ludwig
  
::'''''Motor Carrier:'''''
+
:::Freight & Waterways: Cheryl Ball
  
::'''''Multimodal:''''' Michelle Teel
+
:::Railroads:  Eric Curtit
  
::'''''Planning:''''' Machelle Watkins
+
:::Transit:  Joni Roeseler
  
::'''''Traffic:'''''
+
::'''''Planning:'''''

Latest revision as of 11:54, 2 December 2019

Engineering Policy Revision Request Form
Form to Propose Level 1, 2 and 3 Revisions for the EPG and other MoDOT Standards

The Engineering Policy Guide (EPG) contains MoDOT policy, procedure and guidance for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of roadway and related facilities. It also includes specific technical topics of right of way, bridge, traffic and materials. These articles are numbered to reflect as closely as possible the pay items and divisions from Missouri Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.

The EPG is not a contract document and EPG articles are referenced as EPG XXX.X or "articles" - not "sections" - to avoid confusion with MoDOT specifications. Where a conflict exists between the EPG and a contract, the contract document rules. References and links to the Missouri Standard Specifications are given as "Sec XXX.XX" or "Section XXX.XX of the Standard Specifications." References and links to the Missouri Standard Plans for Highway Construction are "Standard Plan XXX.XX".

Organization

Articles are grouped into the specification book’s divisions (for example, the EPG articles in EPG 100 General mirror Division 100 specifications, articles in EPG 300 Bases mirror Division 300 specifications, etc.). Many articles have been subdivided into additional articles. For example, the reader may notice that EPG 903.6 Warning Signs and other EPG 903 articles are listed at the bottom of EPG 903 Highway Signing.

While every effort has been made to base the article numbers on MoDOT pay items and specifications, not all articles in the EPG are reflected in the pay items and specifications. For example, many EPG “100 General” articles are important to the design and construction of roadway facilities but do not directly correspond to specific pay items. Some of these are:

Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.

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
17-in. Monitors:
1024 x 768 pixels screen area
Medium text size in wiki "View" settings
Wide Screen Monitors:
1680 x 1050 pixels screen area
Medium text size
Larger text size in wiki "View" settings
125% zoom in wiki "View" settings

How to Easily Select and Print an Entire Article or a Portion of an Article

1) Highlight the selected article or portion of article
Help Article Print 1.jpg
2) Click “File”
Help Article Print 2.jpg
3) Click “Print Preview”
Help Article Print 3.jpg
4) Select “As selected on screen”
Help Article Print 4.jpg
5) Should your selection include a large table or figure that creates an undesirable appearance, you may want to click the “Shrink To Fit” tab and perhaps select “85%”.
6) Print the selection.
Help Article Request Form title.jpg

EPG Approval Process

Revisions to engineering policy are proposed using the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form. Revisions to forms used in the EPG are also proposed by using the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form.

Any other standard affected by a proposed EPG revision?

Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT standards (other EPG articles, any Standard Plans, specifications, JSPs, etc.) impacted by the EPG proposal. Word files in revision mode are required for textual changes. Dgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.

Help Article Request Form Issue Name.jpg

Completing the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form

Every submittal must document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to the EPG:

Contact. The name of the sponsor from within the division proposing the revision is required. The contact is the person most knowledgeable or central to the proposal.
Summarize. Provide the reason why the idea should be carried out (why it is necessary or its benefit). This justification may be critical in the decision to approve the proposal or not.
Fiscal Impact. Provide a dollar estimate for the proposal’s costs or savings to MoDOT. Include necessary calculations (initial savings or life cycle savings, for example) or assertions to accurately convey the proposal’s financial impact. The fiscal impact must be a numeric dollar value.
External Involvement. Provide a summary of efforts undertaken during the development of the item to engage affected industry groups and the FHWA. Provide specific examples of who was involved and how the involvement occurred. This is not applicable to every submittal, but is critical for the determination of the associated approval level for borderline items.

The Engineering Policy Revision Request Form also requires the date, issue name and a listing of all affected publications. (For instance, should a proposal for EPG 606.1 also require revisions to Sec 606 and Std. Plan 606.30, the section and standard plan as well as their proposed revisions would be specified along with the proposed revisions to the EPG article.)

It is also optional to enter information about whether the proposal involves an Administrative Rule or LPA guidance, the submitter's tracking number (if any) and the submitter's desired effective letting date.

After the proposed EPG revision is submitted

Submittals are evaluated and processed on a quarterly schedule. Final decisions on proposed ballots are submitted to the Policy and Innovations Engineer for disposition. The Assistant Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 2 revisions and the Chief Engineer submits the final decision on Level 3 revisions. Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Policy and Innovations Engineer based on the following guidelines:

Level 1 Approval. If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Policy and Innovations Engineer without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary.

Tips on Text
While Engineering Policy Services edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines for the EPG include:
Assure/Ensure/Insure: The word “assure” is a personal guarantee based on reputation. “Ensure” is used when the party is to make certain of something or to be careful. “Insure” refers to actions protected by insurance, and indicates that money is involved.
Dimensions: Typically use “high”, “wide” and “long” instead of “in height”, “in width” and “in length”.
Farther/Further: Use “farther” to express a physical distance, such as 10 miles farther, and “further” for a non-physical dimension, such as further thought.
Fewer/less: Use “few” or “fewer” for something comprised of a small number of countable components (such as fewer dollars, fewer gallons of water, etc.). Use “less” for amounts that are not being counted (less money, less water, etc.).
Gender: Minimize the use of “he/she”, “he and she” and “she or he”.
High/Tall: Use “high” to express a lofty position, such as the clouds are high. Use “tall” to express a great vertical dimension, such as the tall post.
Until: Do not use "til".

Level 2 Approval. If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division, the proposal is processed as a Level 2 Ballot item. The District Engineers and Division Directors/Engineers are provided 10 business days to provide their comments to the Assistant Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing a decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is given 10 working days to provide comment or concurrence with the Policy and Innovations Engineer. Upon approval any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.

Level 3 Approval. If, upon submittal in the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form, a proposed revision is determined to be a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business, the proposal is processed as a Level 3 Ballot item. The District Engineers and select Division Directors/Engineers are provided 10 business days to provide their comments to the Chief Engineer who will consider the idea before providing their decision to the Policy and Innovations Engineer. The Federal Highway Administration is provided 10 business days to provide comment or concur with the proposal. Upon approval, any associated documents and the EPG will be revised as necessary.

Changes to the Standard Specification, Standard Drawings, Pay Items and significant changes to JSPs are documented by Design Standards Letters and posted both internally and externally.

EPG Ballot Cycles

.

2020 Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule
Engineering Policy Revision Requests Due to CO Engineering Policy Services Ballot Items Due to Asst. Chief Engineer Ballot Items Due to FHWA Publish Revisions Effective Date
September 20, 2019 September 27, 2019 September 27, 2019 October 21, 2019 January 1, 2020
December 20, 2019 December 27, 2019 December 27, 2019 January 20, 2020 April 1, 2020
March 20, 2020 March 27, 2020 March 27, 2020 April 20, 2020 July 1, 2020
June 19, 2020 June 26, 2020 June 26, 2020 July 20, 2020 October 1, 2020
September 18, 2020 September 25, 2020 September 25, 2020 October 19, 2020 January 1, 2021

Division Contacts

Since the divisions provide authoritative input, consulting with their liaisons or contacts may provide the help you require or receive your input. Below is a listing of divisional personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:

Bridge: Darren Kemna
Chief Counsel's Office: Terri Parker
Construction and Materials:
Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett
Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Randy Hitt, John Donahue
Geotechnical Engineering: Kevin McLain
Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
Design: Troy Hughes, Tim Schroeder, Dave Simmons
Bid & Contract Services: Llans Taylor
CADD Services: Steve Atkinson
Environmental Compliance: Melissa Scheperle
Historic Preservation: Mike Meinkoth
LPA: Laura Ellen
Right of Way: Mendy Sundermeyer, Greg Wood
Highway Safety & Traffic: Lisa Vieth
Safety Engineering: Ray Shank
Signals: Ashley Buechter, Lisa Vieth
Signs: Tom Honich, Andrew Briedwell
Work Zones: Dan Smith
Maintenance: Ken Warbritton
Multimodal: Michelle Kratzer, Jenni Hosey
Aviation: Amy Ludwig
Freight & Waterways: Cheryl Ball
Railroads: Eric Curtit
Transit: Joni Roeseler
Planning: