Difference between revisions of "Help Article"

From Engineering_Policy_Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
|}
 
|}
  
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".   
+
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".   
{|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===
+
==Organization==
  
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]].   
+
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 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]].   
  
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 information.  This allows the reader to effectively navigate.
+
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:
 
 
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:
 
  
 
* [[: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 29: 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.
  
===How best to view the articles===
+
==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 48: 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 66: 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.
 +
 
 +
:'''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 MoDOTInclude 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.
  
:'''2) Sponsor.''' The name of the sponsor from within the division proposing the revision is required.  The sponsor is the person most knowledgeable or central to the proposal.
+
:'''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.  
  
:'''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.
+
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.)
  
:'''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.
+
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'''.
  
:'''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.
+
===After the proposed EPG revision is submitted===
  
Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Policy and Innovations Engineer based on the following guidelines:  
+
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 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===
 +
<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="padding: 0.3em; margin-right:20px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="965x" align="center"  
 
|-
 
|-
!style="background:#99efff" colspan="5"| 2019 Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule
+
!style="background:#99efff" colspan="5"| 2020 Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule
 
|-
 
|-
 
!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
 
!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
 
|-
 
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 21, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 28, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|September 28, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|October 22, 2018 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|January 1, 2019
+
|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
 
|-
 
|-
|December 21, 2018 ||December 28, 2018 ||December 28, 2018 ||January 22, 2019 ||April 1, 2019
+
|December 20, 2019 ||December 27, 2019 ||December 27, 2019 ||January 20, 2020 ||April 1, 2020
 
|-
 
|-
|style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 22, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 29, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|March 29, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|April 22, 2019 ||style="background:#FFFFFF"|July 1, 2019
+
|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, 2019 ||June 26, 2019 ||June 26, 2019 ||July 22, 2019 ||October 1, 2019
+
|June 19, 2020 ||June 26, 2020 ||June 26, 2020 ||July 20, 2020 ||October 1, 2020
 
|-
 
|-
|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"|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
  
 
|}
 
|}
  
====Style Guide for Submitting Proposed EPG Revisions====
+
==Division Contacts==
 
 
When a division proposes a revision to the Engineering Policy Guide (EPG), what should be submitted to Engineering Policy Services?
 
 
 
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.
 
 
 
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.
 
 
 
===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:
 
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:
  
Line 169: Line 146:
 
::'''''Construction and Materials:'''''
 
::'''''Construction and Materials:'''''
  
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett, Leonard Vader
+
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett
  
:::Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Randy Hitt
+
:::Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Randy Hitt, John Donahue
  
 
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Kevin McLain
 
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Kevin McLain
Line 177: Line 154:
 
:::Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
 
:::Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
  
::'''''Design:'''''  
+
::'''''Design:''''' Troy Hughes, Tim Schroeder, Dave Simmons
 +
 
 +
:::Bid & Contract Services: Llans Taylor
 +
 
 +
:::CADD Services: Steve Atkinson
  
:::Environmental & Historic Preservation: Mike Meinkoth
+
:::Environmental Compliance: Melissa Scheperle
 +
 
 +
:::Historic Preservation: Mike Meinkoth
 +
 
 +
:::LPA: Laura Ellen
  
 
:::Right of Way: Mendy Sundermeyer, Greg Wood
 
:::Right of Way: Mendy Sundermeyer, Greg Wood
  
::'''''Maintenance:''''' Tim Jackson
+
::'''''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
  
::'''''Motor Carrier:'''''
+
:::Freight & Waterways: Cheryl Ball
  
::'''''Multimodal:''''' Michelle Kratzer
+
:::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: