Abreu questions DOT on defining disruptive work under Intro 866
Abreu asks how DOT defines disruptive work. Malamy says there is no defined standard and the bill's definition is quite broad, making signage requirements for minimal interruptions seem excessive. Abreu asks if DOT is open to conversations on defining triggers; Malamy agrees.
How does DOT define disruptive work generally?
Does it pertain to specific work being done, such as utility work, street resurfacing, and street reconstruction?
I think for, how do we define disruptive?
I think, I mean, it depends on the scope and scale of a project.
All of those tools in our toolkit that I mentioned don't get deployed for every single project.
But we have a good gauge working with your offices and your colleagues'offices and the community boards, understanding what the community would perceive as disruptive and then matching
the outreach materials to speak to that need.
So there's no defined standard per se?
For disruptive work?
No, no, not really.
And I think, I mean, the way that it's defined in the bill is quite broad.
And so kind of requiring signage to that extent for...
For the minimal interruption as described in the bill seems excessive to us and would get in the way of delivery.
You're open to having conversations on defining that and what would trigger a notice?
Sure, yeah, definitely.
Yeah, I think, I mean, just like our safety projects for an intersection or a corridor, it's not one size fits all.
So it really depends on, you know, the makeup and the interests of the community and how best to notify members of ongoing work, the scope and scale of it.
So we're happy to work with your offices to define that.
I'm sure the council members is up for working with you guys on that.