Difference between revisions of "Help Article"

From Engineering_Policy_Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (added "Finding Info" EPG video)
 
(112 intermediate revisions by 5 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="280px" align="right"
 
−
|-
 
−
|'''Helpful EPG Video:''' [[media:Help Finging EPG Info.wmv|Finding Info in the EPG]]
 
−
|}
 
−
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''.
 
−
{|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.'''
 
−
|}
 
−
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". 
 
  
−
===Organization===
+
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". 
  
−
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 information.  This 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 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]].
  
−
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 26: 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==
  
−
Similar examples are to be found in the EPG 200, EPG 300, etc. articles.
+
:'''1)''' Highlight the selected article or portion of article
 +
[[image:Help_Article_Print01_2022.jpg|800px]]
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:'''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.
  
−
===[[media:Help Finging EPG Info.wmv|Searching the EPG]]===
+
3) Make sure you select how you want to receive the updates.
 +
:[[image:Subscribe2 image.png|500px]]
  
−
'''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!
+
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]]
  
−
'''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.
+
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.
  
−
===How best to view the articles===
+
==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.
  
−
The articles are best viewed on your computer monitor with the following settings:
+
'''Any other policy affected by a proposed EPS revision?'''
  
−
<center>''Click on any picture to view''</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.
  
−
{|
+
===Completing the Engineering Policy Revision Request Form===
−
|-
 
−
|[[Image:Help Section Screen Resolution.GIF|225px|thumb|<center>'''1024 x 768 pixels screen area'''</center>]]||[[Image:Help Section Text Size.gif|225px|thumb|<center>'''Medium text size'''</center>]]||[[Image:Help 17 inch monitor.gif|thumb|225px|<center>'''17-in. monitor size'''</center>]]
 
−
|}
 
  
−
===Use of Terms in the EPG===
+
Every proposal must document the following:
  
−
:'''May''' is for optional practice(s) with no requirement or recommendation.
+
* '''Date -''' Enter the date you are submitting your request.
  
−
:'''Shall''' and '''Will''' indicate mandatory practice. Contract documents often contain independent definitions.
+
* '''Issue Name -''' Please provide a brief description of the issue.  
  
−
:'''Should''' indicates something is expected or typically necessary. The action is not absolutely mandatory but deviation from this practice calls for engineering documentation.
+
* '''Contact -''' The name of the sponsor(s) from within the division submitting the revision request is required.  
  
−
===EPG Approval Process===
+
* '''Summary'''  Provide the reason why the proposed revision(s) is necessary or its benefit to the Department.  This will help with the approval process.  
−
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="320px" align="right"
 
−
|-
 
−
|style="background:#99ffff"|<center>'''On behalf of my division, I am to propose a textual revision that clarifies (that is, does not greatly change policy) an EPG article.  What do I do?'''</center>
 
−
|-
 
−
|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.  
 
−
|-
 
−
|Then email the Word file, along with any other necessary information (such as the fiscal impact, why your division wants the change, etc.) to the Engineering Policy Group. 
 
−
|-
 
−
|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.
 
−
|-
 
−
|style="background:#99ffff"|<center>'''On behalf of my division, I am to propose an EPG revision that changes policy in an EPG article or affects more than one division or the districts.  What do I do?'''</center>
 
−
|-
 
−
|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 and
 
−
|-
 
−
| 4) The proposal's fiscal impact.
 
−
|}
 
−
Revisions are provided to the Chief Engineer and the Senior Management Team on a bimonthly schedule via electronic ballot.  Each District Engineer and Division Engineer has the opportunity to comment on revisions to their respective Director.  The Program Delivery and System Management Directors submit the final decision on Level 2 revisions to the Engineering Policy Administrator.
 
  
−
Proposed EPG revisions can also be submitted to the Engineering Policy Group from a division.  The proposal must reflect information approved by the division head.  Proposed revisions will be submitted for approval.
+
* '''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.
  
−
Every submittal must also document, along with the actual proposed textual revision to 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.
  
−
:'''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.
+
* '''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.
  
−
:'''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.
+
* '''Administrative Rule -''' Select if this revision request is associated with an administrative rule. (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.
+
* '''Local Program (LPA) -''' Indicate if this relates to LPA policy (EPG 136). (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.
+
* '''Tracking Number -''' (optional)
  
−
Proposed revisions will be categorized by the Engineering Policy Administrator based on the following guidelines:
+
* '''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)
−
<div id="Level 1 Approval"></div>
 
−
'''Level 1 Approval.''' If the idea is a routine technical matter, an errata correction or a clarification, it can be approved by the Engineering Policy Administrator without comment from the district engineers, the division engineers or the Chief Engineer. The EPG will be revised as necessary.  
 
  
−
'''Level 2 Approval.''' If the idea is a moderate technical change, if it requires specific expertise (e.g. structural design, etc.) or if it impacts more than one division then it will be reviewed by the district and division engineers. They will have five working days to provide their comments to the appropriate Director(s). Following the comment period, the directors have one week to consider the idea before providing their decision to the Engineering Policy Administrator. The EPG will be revised as necessary.  
+
* '''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.
  
−
'''Level 3 Approval.''' If the idea is a complex technical change, contentious, has high cost or impacts MoDOT's external conduct of business it goes directly to the Chief Engineer after initial review and comment. The EPG will be revised to reflect the Chief Engineer's decision.
+
* '''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.
−
The Federal Highway Administration will be given an opportunity to provide comment to the Engineering Policy Administrator on any proposed EPG revision.  
 
  
−
In order to speed the approval process, district and division engineers should have at least one alternate team member with full authority to act when they are absent.  This will avoid the districts' and divisions' forfeiting their right to comment.
+
===After the proposed EPS revision is submitted===
  
−
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="485px" align="right"  
+
{|style="margin:10px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="485px" align="right"  
−
|-style="background:#99ffff"
+
|-style="background: #000000; color: #ffffff"
−
|align="center"|'''Tips on Text'''
+
|align="center"|<big>'''Tips on Text'''</big>
 
|-
 
|-
−
|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 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 116: Line 107:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''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.).
 
|'''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.).
−
|-
 
−
|'''Gage/Gauge:'''  Gage is the size or thickness.  Gauge is the instrument for measuring.
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Gender:'''  Minimize the use of “he/she”, “he and she” and “she or he”.
 
|'''Gender:'''  Minimize the use of “he/she”, “he and she” and “she or he”.
Line 123: 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".
 
|}
 
|}
−
Once a substantive Level 2 or 3 revision is approved, a notice (with effective date if required) will be posted on the EPG Main Page under the heading “Recent Changes”.
+
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:
  
−
The Engineering Policy Group also receives proposed EPG corrections or improvements from districts, although most significant technical revisions would normally go through the divisions. We will gladly receive emails with your specific correction.
+
'''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 Guide for Proposed EPG Revisions====
+
'''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. 
  
−
When a division proposes a revision to the Engineering Policy Guide (EPG), what should be submitted to the Engineering Policy Group?
+
'''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.
  
−
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.  
+
Changes to the Standard Specification, Standard Drawings and Pay Items are documented by [https://www.modot.org/design-standard-letters Design Standards Letters].
  
−
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.
+
===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>
  
−
===Logging into the EPG===
+
</table>
−
[[image:Help Article EPG Login.jpg|550px|right]]
+
</center>
−
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====  
+
==Division Contacts==
−
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.
+
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:
−
[[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).
+
::'''''Bridge:''''' Darren Kemna
−
[[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?
+
::'''''Chief Counsel's Office:''''' Terri Parker
  
−
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). 
+
::'''''Construction and Materials:'''''
−
 
+
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett
−
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.
+
:::Construction Engineering: Dennis Brucks, Niall Jansson, Jason Blomberg
−
 
+
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Lydia Brownell
−
=====My Preferences=====
+
:::Physical Laboratory: Brett Trautman
−
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.
 
−
[[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 =====
 
−
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====
 
−
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
+
::'''''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
  
−
::'''''Chief Counsel's Office:'''''
+
::'''''Highway Safety & Traffic:''''' Katy Harlan
 +
:::Safety Engineering: Katy Harlan
 +
:::Signals: Ray Shank
 +
:::Signs: Tom Honich, Cayci Reinkemeyer
 +
:::Work Zones: Dan Smith
  
−
::'''''Construction and Materials'''''
+
::'''''Maintenance:''''' Paul Denkler 
  
−
:::Chemical Laboratory: Todd Bennett, Leonard Vader
+
::'''''Multimodal:''''' Jerica Holtsclaw
 +
:::Aviation: Kyle LePage
 +
:::Freight & Waterways: Levi Woods
 +
:::Railroads:  Troy Hughes
 +
:::Transit:  Christy Evers
  
−
:::Construction Engineering: Jeremy Kampeter
+
::'''''Planning:'''''  Llans Taylor
  
−
:::Geotechnical Engineering: Mike Fritz
+
==FHWA Contacts==
 +
Below is a listing of FHWA personnel with whom the Engineering Policy staff works and who may be helpful to you:
  
−
:::Materials:
+
::'''''ADA:''''' Lauren Paulwell
  
−
:::Physical Laboratory: Will Stalcup, Paul Hilchen
+
::'''''Bridge:'''''  Scott Stotlemeyer
  
−
::'''''Design:''''' Jay Bestgen
+
::'''''Construction and Materials:''''' Félix González
  
−
::'''''Maintenance:''''' August Timpe
+
::'''''Design:''''' Brian Nevins (NE), Kevin Irving (KC & NW), Félix González (SL), Charles Pursley (CD, SE & SW)
  
−
::'''''Motor Carrier:''''' Jan Skouby, Michelle Teel
+
::'''''Environmental:''''' Rebecca Rost and Taylor Peters
  
−
::'''''Multimodal:''''' Joe Pestka
+
::'''''Pavements:''''' Félix González
  
−
::'''''Planning:''''' Renate Wilkinson, Jenni Jones, Machelle Watkins
+
::'''''Right of Way:''''' Lauren Paulwell
  
−
::'''''Right of Way:''''' Lynette Happe, David Ordway
+
::'''''Safety and Traffic Control:''''' John Miller
  
−
::'''''Traffic:''''' Julie Stotlemeyer
+
::'''''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

Help Article Print01 2022.jpg


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

Help Article Print02 2022.jpg

3) Change your print options as needed

Help Article Print03 2022.jpg

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

Help Article Print04 2022.jpg

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.

Subscribe image.png

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.

Subscribe2 image.png

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

Subscribe3 image.png

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

Revision-request 2022.png

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://epgtest.modot.org/index.php?title=Help_Article&oldid=54263"