Public comments for: Amendment of Highway Rules


RULE CHANGE Section 2-11(e)(11)(iv) is amended to prohibit substituting asphalt for concrete, and to require all concrete-base roadway restorations to be the same depth and greater than or equal to the existing strength as the original base. The consistency and stability of asphaltic material is not the same as concrete. This change will better protect the integrity of city streets. COMMENT By eliminating our ability to use binder base, you eliminate our ability to complete a job in efficient manor, on the same day or even in two days. You have created a need for a ready mix concrete company. The dilemmas are; A) Concrete companies, do not want to sell small quantities. When you order small quantities, they will make you wait until their finished the larger orders causing our smaller jobs to go into overtime, increasing costs & prolong hours. B) They overcharge for the material & have a charge for a "short load", 4 or 5 hundred dollars per order. You are creating a huge cost increase to the contractors & ultimately the consumers. C) You are also doubling our costs by requiring us to bring roadway plates to the job to cover the wet concrete. We will need to transport the plates & bring in our backhoes to lift & move the plates. We must pin & ramp & sometimes countersink these plates adding more additional expense. Wouldn't it be easier & faster to bring the binder. D) You are also creating a need to extend & renew DOT permits. Again adding additional cost to the contractors & consumers. RULE CHANGE Section 2-11(e)(12)(ii) is amended to require a maximum settlement of half an inch for permanent restoration pavement during the life of the guarantee period. COMMENT This change does not allow for any tolerance & can be misinterpreted. There should be more clarity. Anytime an excavation has been made, there is always a potential for some settlement, especially when there are areas under the roadway that are undermined, water leaks, infiltration from rain & other contractors cut into our restorations. What if a corner or one edge is down a half inch, does that make it necessary to redig & be fined. These are easy fixes & part of normal maintenance. Something as little as a 1/2 inch settlement must not be considered a redig & fined, but should be considered part of our guarantee & requirements to maintain & repair the defect. Since the department has made the rule for redigs at 2", has the number of redigs increased or decreased? Has the quality & performance of the contractors improved or gotten worse? Unfortunately, it appears the department is looking for ways to raise money from this type of enforcement. Perhaps the guarantee period can be made shorter, 18 months like the DDC regulations.
Agency: DOT