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
