Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 25
25 APPENDIX B--SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Legal Question 1 Legal Question 2 State Has the agency used documentation gathered Was the department's defense suc- during the design process to later defend itself in cessful? Please give a brief description court or against other legal challenges? If so of the case. What attorneys were in- what type of information was used and how was volved? Please provide contact infor- it used? mation if available. Alabama Yes Yes Arkansas No N/A California Yes Unknown Colorado No N/A Connecticut No N/A Delaware Yes Yes Florida Yes Yes Georgia Yes N/A Illinois No N/A Iowa Yes Yes Kansas No N/A Kentucky No response No response Maryland Yes Yes Massachusetts Yes Yes Mississippi No N/A Missouri No N/A Nebraska No N/A New York Yes Yes Ohio Yes Yes Oregon N/A N/A Pennsylvania Yes Yes Tennessee Yes Yes Texas Unknown Unknown Utah No No Vermont Yes Yes Virginia No N/A Washington Yes Yes Wyoming Yes N/A
OCR for page 26
26 Legal Question 3 Legal Question 4 State Was the case reported anywhere? If Does your state have a statute that specifi- so please provide citation. cally allows or requires your design staff to consider factors such as cost, safety, histori- cal or environmental significance? For exam- ple, Hawaii has a statute that specifically allows the agency to use "flexible design." Alabama Yes No Arkansas N/A No California Unknown Yes Colorado No No Connecticut N/A Yes Delaware N/A Yes Florida Yes Yes Georgia N/A N/A Illinios N/A Yes Iowa Yes No Kansas N/A Yes Kentucky No response No response Maryland N/A Yes Massachusetts N/A No Mississippi N/A No Missouri N/A No Nebraska N/A Yes New York Yes No Ohio N/A No Oregon N/A Yes Pennsylvania Yes No Tennessee Unknown No Texas N/A No Utah N/A No Vermont Unknown No Virginia N/A No Washington Unknown Yes Wyoming N/A N/A
OCR for page 27
27 Legal Question 5 Legal Question 6 State If you have a law that Does your state have a statute that provides design or requires the balancing discretionary immunity to the state agency or the individ- steps be taken, has it yet ual employees of the agency? For instance, California has been challenged or re- a law that provides an affirmative defense of compliance viewed by a court? If so with standards or evidence of documented approval of a what happened? design exception based on sound engineering in a tort law- suit. If so, please provide the citation. What experience have you had in defending this statute or discretionary decisions the agency has made? Alabama N/A Yes Arkansas N/A No California Unknown Yes Colorado No Yes Connecticut No No Delaware N/A Yes Florida No Yes Georgia N/A N/A Illinois No Yes Iowa N/A Yes Kansas Unknown Unknown Kentucky No response No response Maryland N/A Yes Massachusetts No Yes Mississippi No Yes Missouri N/A Yes Nebraska N/A Yes New York No Unknown Ohio N/A No Oregon N/A Unknown Pennsylvania Yes No Tennessee N/A No Texas N/A Yes Utah N/A Yes Vermont N/A Yes Virginia N/A Washington N/A No Wyoming N/A Yes
OCR for page 28
28 Design Question 1 Design Question 2 State Does your agency have a If the agency does not have a specific written policy, written policy requiring does staff nonetheless consider and balance factors such as staff to consider and bal- cost, environmental, scenic and historical significance ance cost, environmental, when scoping and designing a project? If yes, please ex- scenic or historical signifi- plain. cance when scoping and designing a project? If yes, please provide. Alabama No Yes Arkansas No Yes California Yes N/A Colorado Yes N/A Connecticut No Yes Delaware Yes N/A Florida Yes N/A Georgia Yes N/A Illinios Yes N/A Iowa No Yes Kansas Yes Yes Kentucky No response No response Maryland Yes N/A Massachusetts Yes N/A Mississippi Yes N/A Missouri Yes N/A Nebraska No Yes New York Yes N/A Ohio No Yes Oregon Yes N/A Pennsylvania Yes N/A Tennessee No Yes Texas Yes No Utah Yes Yes Vermont Yes N/A Virginia Yes N/A Washington Yes N/A Wyoming No Yes
OCR for page 29
29 Design Question 3 Design Question 4 State Does the agency have a specific de- What documentation process is used by the sign exception policy and process? If agency for documenting decisions that do not yes please provide. comply with generally accepted guidelines such as the AASHTO Green Book, the Roadside De- sign Guide or internal policy? Alabama Yes Attached Arkansas Yes Attached California Yes Attached Colorado Yes Attached Connecticut Yes Attached Delaware Yes Attached Florida Yes Attached Georgia Yes Attached Illinois Yes Attached Iowa Yes Attached Kansas Yes Attached Kentucky No response No response Maryland Yes Attached Massachusetts Yes Attached Mississippi Yes Attached Missouri Yes Attached Nebraska Yes Attached New York Yes Attached Ohio Yes Attached Oregon Yes Attached Pennsylvania Yes Attached Tennessee Yes Attached Texas Yes Attached Utah Yes Attached Vermont Yes Not provided Virginia Yes Attached Washington Yes Attached Wyoming Yes Attached
OCR for page 30
30 Design Question 5 Design Question 6 State What documentation is developed Please provide examples of instances where while the project is being scoped and design decisions were made to achieve multiple designed? What forms used to work public policy objectives, such as balancing cost through the issues? How is the proc- and historical significance, or environmental ess memorialized? How is the infor- and safety concerns. mation stored and for how long? Please provide examples of associ- ated paperwork. Alabama Attached Attached Arkansas Attached No California Attached Attached Colorado Attached Attached Connecticut Attached Attached Delaware Attached Attached Florida Attached Attached Georgia Attached Attached Illinois Attached Attached Iowa Attached Unknown Kansas Unknown Unknown Kentucky No response No response Maryland Attached Not provided Massachusetts Attached Attached Mississippi Attached Attached Missouri Attached Attached Nebraska Attached Attached New York Attached Attached Ohio Attached Attached Oregon Attached Attached Pennsylvania Attached Attached Tennessee Attached Attached Texas Attached Not provided Utah Attached Attached Vermont Attahed Not provided Virginia Attached N/A Washington Attached Attached Wyoming Attached Attached