New MUTCD Requirements for Operations Todd Shields March 8, 2011

Overview Sign Retroreflectivity Requirements Compliance Methods Sheet Signs – Age Study Panel Signs – Age Study Overhead Panel Sign Lighting Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Requirements Proposed Rule Paint Line Study

Sign Retroreflectivity

Sign Retroreflectivity Compliance Dates (Table I-4) Implementation of Management Method = January 22, 2012 Replacement of Signs Found Deficient according to above management method, EXLCUDING street name and overheads = January 22, 2015 Replacement of street name and overheads = January 22, 2018

Sign Retroreflectivity Compliance Methods (2A.08) Visual Nighttime Inspection – calibrated eyeball Measured Retroreflectivity – instrument

Sign Retroreflectivity Compliance Methods (2A.08) Expected Sign Life – Installation date marked on sign, must have established life and method of identifying locations

Sign Retroreflectivity Compliance Methods (2A.08) Blanket Replacement – All signs in a corridor/region replaced on a cycle. Still need established life. Control Signs – sample signs that are monitored, all signs of the same type as the control are replaced. Other Methods – based on engineering studies

Sign Retroreflectivity INDOT’s method of compliance: Combination of Measured Retroreflectivity Expected Sign Life Blanket Replacement

Sign Retroreflectivity Sheet Sign History – INDOT Pre mid-1990’s = Type I Engineer Grade Mid 1990’s – 2007 = Type III High Intensity 2007 + = Type IV High Intensity Prismatic (HIP) Age Replacement Cycle Prior to 2007 = 10 years 2007 to 2011 = 14 years 2011+ = 18 years (20 years for Panel Signs)

INDOT Sheet Sign Study Type I signs are virtually phased out Majority of existing signs are Type III, and signs installed since 2007 are Type IV Looked at signs of all colors (white, green, yellow, red), facing all directions, northern and southern Indiana Total of 211 signs were evaluated Retro, color, sheeting type

INDOT Sheet Sign Study Results indicated Type III sheeting can meet MUTCD requirements at 18 years

INDOT Sheet Sign Study Results indicated Type IV sheeting will likely last MUCH longer Followup study down the road…

INDOT Sheet Sign Study Results indicated Green and White performed better than yellow and red

Overhead Signs MUTCD requirements are HIGHER for overhead Headlights are aimed down/side, less light goes up

Overhead Signs - Background INDOT has (had?) over 6,000 overhead lights The cost to operate these lights was over $1,000,000 per year! New sheeting (Type IX) was advertised as having high enough retro to not need lighting. Special Provision allowed this.

Overhead Sign Study Study evolved… Started looking at 3M and Avery Dennison Type IX sheeting on unlit overhead signs Results encouraged us to expand to Type IV (new and overlay) Results encouraged us to look at EXISTING Type III and button copy Combine results of another panel sign study (to establish age replacement cycle)

Overhead Sign Study Study included Age-diversity (20’s to 60’s) Vehicle diversity (Dodge minivan, Kia Rondo, Dump Truck) Panel sign study found (Type I G, III W at 20 years) White = 280 Green = 35 Overhead study found acceptable visibility

Overhead Sign Study Overhead study found acceptable visibility

Overhead Signs INDOT issued spec, design, operational guidance: Only Type IV + sheeting (applies to ALL signs) No new lighting Procedure for Districts to do nighttime evaluation, documentation, deactivation of existing lighting

Pavement Markings Currently, MUTCD has no requirements for retroreflectivity of pavement markings However, FHWA is proposing a new rule to establish Will be Section 3A.03

Pavement Markings

Pavement Markings Items of note Minimums only apply to locations where such markings are warranted Centerlines Paved Urban Arterials/Collectors > 20’, > 6,000 ADT Edgelines INDOT policy is for all highways to have edgelines Minimums don’t apply if the road has RPM’s Continuous roadway lighting Rule does not apply to special, transverse, curb, parking area markings

Pavement Markings Timeline: April 22, 2010 – FHWA issues NPA August 17, 2010 – AASHTO submits letter challenging NPA August 20, 2010 – NPA comment period closed Rule adopted???

Pavement Marking Rule Allowable Methods of Compliance Calibrated Visual Nighttime Inspection Consistent Parameters Nighttime Inspection

Pavement Marking Rule Allowable Methods of Compliance Measured Retroreflectivity Service Life based on Monitored Markings Blanket Replacement “Other” methods

Pavement Marking Rule INDOT will use combination of Service Life based on Monitored Markings Blanket Replacement INDOT is targeting 100 as the minimum retro value for markings Applies to ALL situations

Paint Study INDOT traditionally repaints all lines annually Exceptions – durable markings Can our lines actually last longer? Conducted paint study in 2010 Findings: Yellow (centerlines) probably need repainted annually to stay > 100 White (edgelines) can make it 2 years under certain situations

Paint Study Results White lines can last 2 years under the following conditions: Asphalt roadways (concrete, chip seal don’t last as long) ADT < 5,000 Districts need to monitor and record roads that will go 2 years In addition, CO will conduct followup reflectivity evaluations on certain roads after 1 year

Summary INDOT can comply with MUTCD requirements, while still cutting costs Estimated savings: Overhead Sign Lighting Elimination = $1,000,000 Sheet Sign Age Extension = $360,000 2 Year Edgeline Paint Cycle = $700,000

INDOT Technical Services Manager Questions??? Todd Shields INDOT Technical Services Manager (317) 233-4726