Help Article: Difference between revisions

From Engineering_Policy_Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
Smithk (talk | contribs)
Modot, modot
20,986 edits
 
(54 intermediate revisions by 3 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"
|-
|'''[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]'''
|-
|Form to Propose [[#Level 1 Approval|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. 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 30: Line 18:
* [[: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.
 
==How to Easily Select and Print an Entire Article or a Portion of an Article Using Microsoft Edge==
 
:'''1)''' Highlight the selected article or portion of article
[[image:Help_Article_Print01_2022.jpg|800px]]
 


Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.
:'''2)''' Right-click on the select text and select '''Print''' (You can also use the shortcut Ctrl+P)
[[image:Help_Article_Print02_2022.jpg|800px]]
 
:'''3)''' Change your print options as needed
[[image:Help_Article_Print03_2022.jpg|250px]]
 
:'''4)''' Should your selection include a large table or figure that creates an undesirable appearance, you can select More settings to change your paper size or change the scale of your print
[[image:Help_Article_Print04_2022.jpg|243px]]
 
:'''5)''' Once you have selected your settings just select the Print Button
 
==Signing Up for E-Updates==
 
To Sign up for the Engineering Policy Guide E-updates [https://modotweb.modot.mo.gov/eUpdatesPublic CLICK HERE].
 
1) Either select New Subscriber or Returning Subscriber.
:[[image:Subscribe image.png|400px]]
 
2) If you are a New Subscriber you will need to fill out all the account information.
 
3) Make sure you select how you want to receive the updates.
:[[image:Subscribe2 image.png|500px]]
 
4) Scroll down towards the bottom to the Engineering Policy Section and check the box that says '''Engineering Policy Guide (EPG)'''.
:[[image:Subscribe3 image.png|650px]]


===How best to view the articles===
5) Check any other items you would like to receive E-updates on.  Once you are done select '''Submit''' at the bottom of the page.


The articles are best viewed on your computer monitor with the following settings:
==EPS Approval Process==
[[image:Revision-request_2022.png|right|450px|link=https://modotgov.sharepoint.com/sites/DE/Lists/EPGResponse/NewForm.aspx?ID=1]]
Revisions to engineering policy are proposed using the [https://modotgov.sharepoint.com/sites/DE/Lists/EPGResponse/NewForm.aspx?ID=1 Engineering Policy Revision Request Form]. Revisions to forms used in the EPG are also proposed by using the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form.


<center>''Click on any picture to view''</center>
'''Any other policy affected by a proposed EPS revision?'''  


{|align="center"
Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT policies (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.
|-
|'''17-in. Monitors:'''||[[Image:Help Section Screen Resolution.GIF|175px|thumb|<center>'''1024 x 768 pixels screen area'''</center>]]||[[Image:Help Section Text Size.gif|175px|thumb|<center>'''Medium text size in wiki "View" settings'''</center>]]|| ||
|-
|'''Wide Screen Monitors:'''||[[image:Help, Resolution Wide Screen.jpg|180px|thumb|<center>'''1680 x 1050 pixels screen area'''</center>]]||[[image:Help, Text Size Wide Screen.jpg|180px|thumb|<center>'''Medium text size'''</center>]]||[[image:Help, EPG Text Size Wide Screen.jpg|180px|thumb|<center>'''Larger text size in wiki "View" settings'''</center>]]
||[[image:Help, View Zoom.jpg|180px|thumb|<Center>'''125% zoom in wiki "View" settings'''</center>]]
|}


===How to Easily Select and Print an Entire Article or a Portion of an Article===
===Completing the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form===


:'''1)''' Highlight the selected article or portion of article
Every proposal must document the following:
[[image:Help Article Print 1.jpg|center|800px]]


:'''2)''' Click “File”
* '''Date -''' Enter the date you are submitting your request.
[[image:Help Article Print 2.jpg|center|500px]]


:'''3)''' Click “Print Preview”
* '''Issue Name -''' Please provide a brief description of the issue.  
[[image:Help Article Print 3.jpg|center|450px]]


:'''4)''' Select “As selected on screen”
* '''Contact -''' The name of the sponsor(s) from within the division submitting the revision request is required.  
[[image:Help Article Print 4.jpg|center|700px]]


:'''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%”.   
* '''Summary''' Provide the reason why the proposed revision(s) is necessary or its benefit to the Department.  This will help with the approval process.


:'''6)''' Print the selection.
* '''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 should be a numeric dollar value.


===Use of Terms in the EPG===
* '''FHWA Involvement -''' FHWA should be involved with major policy revisions.  Describe efforts to engage FHWA in the development of this policy revision.  Attach specific documentation regarding reviews, comments, etc. below.  If FHWA was not part of this policy review, please explain why not.
:'''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===
* '''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.
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="360px" align="right"
|-
|style="background:#99ffff"|<center>'''I would like to propose a specific, authoritative revision. What do I do?'''</center>
|-
|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:
|-
| 1) Any other standard affected by the revision,
|-
| 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:
* '''Administrative Rule -''' Select if this revision request is associated with an administrative rule. (optional)


:'''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 changes.  Dgn files are preferred for Standard Plan revisions although a redlined hard copy showing the proposed changes is also acceptable.
* '''Local Program (LPA) -''' Indicate if this relates to LPA policy (EPG 136). (optional)


:'''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.
* '''Tracking Number -''' (optional)


:'''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.
* '''Desired Effective Date -''' Provide the Desired Effective Letting Date (Desired timeframes or deadlines).  Please be aware, ballot items may take several months for approval. (optional)


:'''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.
* '''Affected Publications -''' 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.


:'''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.  
* '''Attachments -''' Attach all necessary revisions by selecting the "Attach File" button. Also attach all supporting and review documents from FHWA, other agencies, and Industry. MS Word documents should be submitted in revision/track changes mode; other documents can be "marked up" versions.


Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Policy and Innovations Engineer based on the following guidelines:
===After the proposed EPS revision is submitted===


<div id="Level 1 Approval"></div>
{|style="margin:10px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="485px" align="right"  
'''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. 
|-style="background: #000000; color: #ffffff"
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="485px" align="right"  
|align="center"|<big>'''Tips on Text'''</big>
|-style="background:#99ffff"
|align="center"|'''Tips on Text'''
|-
|-
|While Engineering Policy Services edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines for the EPG include:
|While Engineering Policy Services edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines 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 124: Line 112:
|'''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".
|}
|}
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 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 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.   
 
'''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.
 
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”.
 
====EPG Ballot Cycles====
{|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:#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
|-
|December 21, 2018 ||December 28, 2018 ||December 28, 2018 ||January 22, 2019 ||April 1, 2019
|-
|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
|-
|June 19, 2019 ||June 26, 2019 ||June 26, 2019 ||July 22, 2019 ||October 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


|}
'''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. 


====Style Guide for Submitting Proposed EPG Revisions====
'''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.


When a division proposes a revision to the Engineering Policy Guide (EPG), what should be submitted to Engineering Policy Services?
Changes to the Standard Specification, Standard Drawings and Pay Items are documented by [https://www.modot.org/design-standard-letters Design Standards Letters].


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.
===EPS Ballot Cycles===
<center>
<table style="border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse; width:900px>
  <tr style="background-color:black; color:white; padding:5px; font-size:26px">
    <th style="border: 1px solid black;"; colspan="4">Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule</th>
  </tr>
  <tr style="background-color:#b3b3b3; font-size:18px">
    <th style="width:315px; border: 1px solid black">Revision Requests Due</td>
    <th style="width:315px; border: 1px solid black">Ballot Items Due</td>
    <th style="width:275px; border: 1px solid black">Publish Revisions</td>
    <th style="width:275px; border: 1px solid black">Effective Date</td>
  </tr>
   
  <tr style="background-color:#f5f5f5">
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">March 7, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">March 20, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">April 22, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">July 1, 2024</td>
  </tr>
<tr style="background-color:#ffffff">
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">June 6, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">June 20, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">July 22, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">October 1, 2024</td>
  </tr>
  <tr style="background-color:#f5f5f5">
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">September 5, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">September 18, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">October 21, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">January 1, 2025</td>
  </tr>
  <tr style="background-color:#ffffff">
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">December 5, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">December 17, 2024</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">January 21, 2025</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">April 1, 2025</td>
  </tr>
<tr style="background-color:#f5f5f5">
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">March 6, 2025</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">March 18, 2025</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">April 21, 2025</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">July 1, 2025</td>
  </tr>
<tr style="background-color:#ffffff">
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">June 5, 2025</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">June 17, 2025</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">July 21, 2025</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">October 1, 2025</td>
  </tr>
<tr style="background-color:#f5f5f5">
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">September 4, 2025</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">September 16, 2025</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">October 20, 2025</td>
    <th style="border: 1px solid black">January 1, 2026</td>
  </tr>


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.
</table>
</center>


===Division Contacts===
==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 168: Line 191:


::'''''Construction and Materials:'''''
::'''''Construction and Materials:'''''
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett
:::Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Niall Jansson, Jason Blomberg
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Lydia Brownell
:::Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman


:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett, Leonard Vader
::'''''Design:''''' Laura Ellen, Jennifer Becker, Dave Simmons, Alvin Nieves-Rosario
:::Bid & Contract Services: Ryan Martin
:::CADD Services: Steve Atkinson
:::Environmental Compliance: Melissa Scheperle
:::Historic Preservation: Rachel Campbell
:::LPA: Andy Hanks
:::Right of Way: Mendy Sundermeyer, Greg Wood
 
::'''''Highway Safety & Traffic:'''''  Katy Harlan
:::Safety Engineering: Katy Harlan
:::Signals: Ray Shank
:::Signs: Tom Honich, Cayci Reinkemeyer
:::Work Zones: Dan Smith


:::Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Randy Hitt
::'''''Maintenance:''''' Paul Denkler 


:::Geotechnical Engineering: Kevin McLain
::'''''Multimodal:''''' Jerica Holtsclaw
:::Aviation: Kyle LePage
:::Freight & Waterways: Levi Woods
:::Railroads:  Troy Hughes
:::Transit:  Christy Evers


:::Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
::'''''Planning:'''''  Llans Taylor


::'''''Design:'''''
==FHWA Contacts==
Below is a listing of FHWA personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:


:::Environmental & Historic Preservation: Mike Meinkoth
::'''''ADA:''''' Lauren Paulwell


:::Right of Way: Mendy Sundermeyer, Greg Wood
::'''''Bridge:'''''  Scott Stotlemeyer


::'''''Highway Safety & Traffic:'''''  Jon Nelson
::'''''Construction and Materials:'''''  Félix González


:::Signs: Tom Honich
::'''''Design:''''' Brian Nevins (NE), Kevin Irving (KC & NW), Félix González (SL), Charles Pursley (CD, SE & SW)


:::Work Zones: Dan Smith
::'''''Environmental:''''' Rebecca Rost and Taylor Peters


::'''''Maintenance:''''' Tim Jackson
::'''''Pavements:''''' Félix González


::'''''Motor Carrier:'''''  
::'''''Right of Way:''''' Lauren Paulwell


::'''''Multimodal:''''' Michelle Kratzer
::'''''Safety and Traffic Control:''''' John Miller


::'''''Planning:''''' Machelle Watkins
::'''''Transportation and Planning:''''' Cecelie Cochran and Daniel Weitkamp

Latest revision as of 14:30, 23 September 2024

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 to Easily Select and Print an Entire Article or a Portion of an Article Using Microsoft Edge

1) Highlight the selected article or portion of article


2) Right-click on the select text and select Print (You can also use the shortcut Ctrl+P)

3) Change your print options as needed

4) Should your selection include a large table or figure that creates an undesirable appearance, you can select More settings to change your paper size or change the scale of your print

5) Once you have selected your settings just select the Print Button

Signing Up for E-Updates

To Sign up for the Engineering Policy Guide E-updates CLICK HERE.

1) Either select New Subscriber or Returning Subscriber.

2) If you are a New Subscriber you will need to fill out all the account information.

3) Make sure you select how you want to receive the updates.

4) Scroll down towards the bottom to the Engineering Policy Section and check the box that says Engineering Policy Guide (EPG).

5) Check any other items you would like to receive E-updates on. Once you are done select Submit at the bottom of the page.

EPS 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 policy affected by a proposed EPS revision?

Provide electronic files of all the revisions to other MoDOT policies (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.

Completing the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form

Every proposal must document the following:

  • Date - Enter the date you are submitting your request.
  • Issue Name - Please provide a brief description of the issue.
  • Contact - The name of the sponsor(s) from within the division submitting the revision request is required.
  • Summary Provide the reason why the proposed revision(s) is necessary or its benefit to the Department. This will help with the approval process.
  • 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 should be a numeric dollar value.
  • FHWA Involvement - FHWA should be involved with major policy revisions. Describe efforts to engage FHWA in the development of this policy revision. Attach specific documentation regarding reviews, comments, etc. below. If FHWA was not part of this policy review, please explain why not.
  • 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.
  • Administrative Rule - Select if this revision request is associated with an administrative rule. (optional)
  • Local Program (LPA) - Indicate if this relates to LPA policy (EPG 136). (optional)
  • Tracking Number - (optional)
  • Desired Effective Date - Provide the Desired Effective Letting Date (Desired timeframes or deadlines). Please be aware, ballot items may take several months for approval. (optional)
  • Affected Publications - 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.
  • Attachments - Attach all necessary revisions by selecting the "Attach File" button. Also attach all supporting and review documents from FHWA, other agencies, and Industry. MS Word documents should be submitted in revision/track changes mode; other documents can be "marked up" versions.

After the proposed EPS revision is submitted

Tips on Text
While Engineering Policy Services edits all submittals, a few grammatical guidelines 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".

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.

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 and Pay Items are documented by Design Standards Letters.

EPS Ballot Cycles

Engineering Policy Services Ballot Schedule
Revision Requests Due Ballot Items Due Publish Revisions Effective Date
March 7, 2024 March 20, 2024 April 22, 2024 July 1, 2024
June 6, 2024 June 20, 2024 July 22, 2024 October 1, 2024
September 5, 2024 September 18, 2024 October 21, 2024 January 1, 2025
December 5, 2024 December 17, 2024 January 21, 2025 April 1, 2025
March 6, 2025 March 18, 2025 April 21, 2025 July 1, 2025
June 5, 2025 June 17, 2025 July 21, 2025 October 1, 2025
September 4, 2025 September 16, 2025 October 20, 2025 January 1, 2026

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, Niall Jansson, Jason Blomberg
Geotechnical Engineering: Lydia Brownell
Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
Design: Laura Ellen, Jennifer Becker, Dave Simmons, Alvin Nieves-Rosario
Bid & Contract Services: Ryan Martin
CADD Services: Steve Atkinson
Environmental Compliance: Melissa Scheperle
Historic Preservation: Rachel Campbell
LPA: Andy Hanks
Right of Way: Mendy Sundermeyer, Greg Wood
Highway Safety & Traffic: Katy Harlan
Safety Engineering: Katy Harlan
Signals: Ray Shank
Signs: Tom Honich, Cayci Reinkemeyer
Work Zones: Dan Smith
Maintenance: Paul Denkler
Multimodal: Jerica Holtsclaw
Aviation: Kyle LePage
Freight & Waterways: Levi Woods
Railroads: Troy Hughes
Transit: Christy Evers
Planning: Llans Taylor

FHWA Contacts

Below is a listing of FHWA personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:

ADA: Lauren Paulwell
Bridge: Scott Stotlemeyer
Construction and Materials: Félix González
Design: Brian Nevins (NE), Kevin Irving (KC & NW), Félix González (SL), Charles Pursley (CD, SE & SW)
Environmental: Rebecca Rost and Taylor Peters
Pavements: Félix González
Right of Way: Lauren Paulwell
Safety and Traffic Control: John Miller
Transportation and Planning: Cecelie Cochran and Daniel Weitkamp
Retrieved from "https://epgtest3.modot.org/index.php?title=Help_Article&oldid=54263"