1 / 7

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Work Zone Safety and Mobility

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Work Zone Safety and Mobility. Update on AASHTO’s Comments Jim McDonnell, P.E. AASHTO. Original NPRM. Released in Summer 2003 State DOTs had significant concerns, including: flexibility in the development of work zone policies and procedures

huyen
Download Presentation

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Work Zone Safety and Mobility

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Work Zone Safety and Mobility Update on AASHTO’s Comments Jim McDonnell, P.E. AASHTO

  2. Original NPRM • Released in Summer 2003 • State DOTs had significant concerns, including: • flexibility in the development of work zone policies and procedures • scalability of those policies and procedures to a wide range of projects • potential for litigation • cost and time commitments potentially required

  3. AASHTO’s response to the NPRM • AASHTO submitted significant comments • Requested another chance to review a draft rule, through the release of a “supplemental” NPRM • Supplemental rule released in mid-May 2004 for a 30-day comment period • Ad-hoc task force that developed original comments reviewed and commented on the supplemental

  4. Supplemental NPRM • Supplemental rule accommodated a vast majority of AASHTO’s comments • Gave back to the states the ability to make decisions based on their own policies and engineering judgment • Still a few minor points that need to be clarified, on which AASHTO will comment

  5. Concerns with Supplemental Rule • Biggest concern involves project “significance” • Determination leads to varying degrees of work and documentation related to the work zone impacts • For most projects, significance is determined based on sustained impacts that are anticipated to be greater than that considered tolerable based on agency policy or engineering judgment • For Interstates, however, any work zone with lane closures for more than 3 days would be considered “significant”

  6. Other Concerns • A few remaining inconsistencies • Requirements for specific participants in various procedures • A few “shall” statements • Some confusion regarding the requirement that “preexisting roadside safety features be maintained” during construction • “Cooperation” or “coordination” used where “consultation” would be preferred

  7. Next Steps • Draft version of AASHTO’s response was sent to the Chief Engineers yesterday • AASHTO encourages all states to submit comments, either by supporting AASHTO’s position, expanding on AASHTO’s comments, or submitting comments of their own • Responses are due Monday, June 14

More Related