1. 2004 Paving Conference
Joe J. Sanchez, P.E.
NMDOT
In collaboration with
Elias Archuleta, P.E.
Wilson & Company

2. Minimum Standards and
Congruence of Interests
 Two Distinct Areas
 During Design
 Engineering Responsibility (MUTCD, Engineers
Judgment, Designed Construction Phasing,
Minimizing Impact to the Traveling Public)
 Under Construction
 Contractor Responsibility ( Compliance with
Specification, Adjusting Construction Phasing,
Maintenance of Traffic Operations, Minimizing
Impact to the Traveling Public)

3. Design and Engineering
 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
 Sets Minimum Design Standards and Devices
 Engineers Judgment
 Experience and Knowledge to Adjust or Modify
Minimum Design Standards and Devices
 Designed Construction Phasing
 Anticipated Contractor Phasing for Construction
 Minimizing Impact to the Traveling Public
 Delays, Route Redundancy, Changes in MOT
Operations

4. Contractors Responsibility
 Compliance with the Project Specifications
 What Traffic Control or Traffic Operations Specification
Applies
 Adjustment of Construction Phasing
 How to Modify during Construction-TCP
 Maintenance of Traffic Operations
 Duration, Sequence, Locations, Devices, Engineering
Standards
 Minimizing Impact to the Traveling Public
 Detours, Route Redundancy, Travel Times/Distances,
Public Information/Notices

5. Congruence of Interests through
Areas of Conflict
 Construction Phasing
 Designers/Engineers need to Optimize
Flexibility in Traffic Control Plans and
Anticipated Phasing- Contractor/Design
Engineer Workshops (Means, Methods,
Costs)
 Contractors need to understand what is in
Project Specification Contract Documents
Direction, Limitations, Standards-
Design/Engineer/Contractor Workshops
(Design Standards, Phased EW, Costs of
Delays)

6. Why is Impact to the Traveling
Public Important
 For Engineer
 Contractor understands phasing-no change=perfect
TCP
 Minimal time delays for public-transparent between
construction and normal operations
 For Contractor
 Easy to Bid-easy to modify
 Minimal costs
 Good PR with the Citizens affected by the project

7. Original TCP

8. Revised TCP

9. Why was the Change “Win-Win”
 Contractor was able to work in an expanded
work zone (directly applicable to means and
methods, and costs)
 TCP change provided safer traffic
operations for users of intersection and
work zone ( directly applicable to reduced
traffic conflicts, associated time delays, and
costs-resulted in good PR)

10. Who else won
 The Department
 Increased safety at Intersection under
construction
 Contractor completed work more quickly
 Business Owners/Private Landowners,
and Roadway users were minimally
inconvenienced during construction

11. Where do we go from Here?
 Major area of unknown
 Actual Contractor Construction Phasing
 Affects - TCP, MOT, Revised TCP’s,
Earthwork, Time, and Costs

12. Your Chance to Affect Change
 Questionnaire
 Built around 2 conditions
 Full Reconstruction with complicated phasing
 Maintenance and rehabilitation
 Typical or Common areas of use
 Interstate and NHS routes
 State Oversight and State Routes

13. Mobility for Everyone