Minimum Sign Retroreflectivity Requirements Updated August 2012 with compliance date revisions New Retroreflectivity standards were added to the MUTCD.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Retroreflectivity: Raising the Nighttime Brightness of Traffic Signs and Markings Office of Technology Applications Peter Hatzi.
Advertisements

P RACTICES TO M ANAGE T RAFFIC S IGN R ETROREFLECTIVITY NCHRP Project Synthesis Topic Paul Carlson June 21, 2011.
September 2011 Webinar 2009 MUTCD NPAs on Compliance Dates & Standard Definition 2009 MUTCD – NPAs on Compliance Dates & Standard Definition MUTCD Proposed.
Elements of Effective Sign Maintenance
The MMUTCD New Compliance Dates Sign Retroreflectivity
CURVE SPEED ADVANCED WARNING SIGNS
2009 MUTCD (Final Rule) Revisions Incorporated into the 2009 MUTCD Revisions to Part 7 – Traffic Control for School Areas.
2008 Mid-States Highway–Rail Grade Crossing Safety Conference May 20, 2008 David Peterson.
Created by: Victor Lund, PEKen Johnson, PE, PTOE St. Louis CountyMnDOT.
Conducting Sign Retroreflectivity Inspections Training for Conducting Visual Sign Retroreflectivity Inspections and Measuring Retroreflectivity of Traffic.
Rules of the Road. Introduction This training will assist Spanish- speaking Motor Carriers in understanding some of the important traffic regulations.
NCHRP 07-21: Asset Management Guidance for Traffic Control Devices, Barriers, and Lighting 2014 ATSIP Annual Meeting Presented by Nancy Lefler Vanasse.
Overview of 2009 MUTCD. Tom McDonald, PE Safety Circuit Rider Iowa LTAP.
RETROREFLECTIVITY - UPDATE CLIFF REUER SD LTAP WESTERN SATELLITE – SDSM&T
Lec 14, Ch.8, pp : Intersection control and warrants (objectives) Know the purpose of traffic control Know what MUTCD is and what’s in it Know what.
Traffic Engineering Traffic Control Devices. Traffic Control Traffic engineers do not have any control over individual drivers need to develop devices.
June 2011 Statewide Traffic Engineers Meeting Interstate Guide Sign Upgrade Projects.
SIGN MANAGEMENT UPDATE Tracy Nowaczyk Pavement Management and Operations Section Engineer Meeting Fall 2013.
Matheu J. Carter, P.E. T 2 Engineer Delaware T 2 Center October 15, 2009.
Section Engineers Meeting Lake Cumberland March 2010.
MUTCD and Traffic Sign Requirements This information is confidential and may include proprietary and/or trade secret information. It is intended for this.
Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels for Traffic Signs New MUTCD Criteria.
Sign Retroreflectivity Requirements in the MUTCD Eric Green, PE, GISP University of Kentucky Kentucky Transportation Center.
Safety Solutions for the FHWA Minimum Levels of Retroreflectivity
Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology Chapter 2 Signing Overview Traffic Signs 101 November 20, 2014.
New MUTCD Requirements for Sign Retroreflectivity Matheu J. Carter, P.E. Delaware T 2 Center.
Wisconsin Contractor-Engineer Conference January 22, 2009 Safety Apparel, FHWA Work Zone Safety Subpart K Rule & Permanent Concrete Barriers Bill Bremer,
Primacy Revision Application The Arsenic Rule. Major Points Components of Primacy Revision Application Attorney General’s Statement Special Primacy Requirements.
2009 MUTCD (Final Rule) Revisions incorporated into the 2009 MUTCD 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Mid-States Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Conference Guan Xu, P.E. Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety Design.
MUTCD Adoption Delays/Status. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) KRS requires the Cabinet to adopt a manual of standards and specifications.
MUTCD Website: Nighttime Visibility Website:
October 25, 2015 Funding Your Program October 20, 2008 ATSSA Sign Maintenance and Management Workshop Addison, Texas.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE Nutrition Labeling of Single- Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped Meat.
A summary of the new rule and methods to be in compliance Sign Reflectivity Maintenance Standards.
Revisions to Chapter 2C – Warning Signs and Object Markers
Minimum Sign Retroreflectivity Requirements Updated August 2012 with compliance date revisions.
2009 MUTCD -- Compliance Dates NPA Notice of Proposed Amendments to MUTCD: Changes in Compliance Dates Table I-2.
MUTCD KEY Concepts for Traffic Control Applications.
Presented by Keenline Innovation Technology & Training Inc.
General Revisions to Part 2 – Signs
2003 MUTCD Chapter 2A Signs General. 2A.06 Design of Signs  Add to the support statement “General appearance” of sign legends, colors, and sizes shown.
Public Safety Committee September 28, 2015 David O. Brown Chief Of Police Pedestrian Safety.
Donald E. Howe, P.E. Division of Traffic Operations California Department of Transportation Minimum Sign Retroreflectivity Requirements New.
REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SIGNIFICENT REVISIONS TO THE 2011 VIRGINIA WORK AREA PROTECTION MANUAL Fall 2014 Virginia ATSSA Chapter Meeting October 1, 2014.
Jason J. Siwula, PE – Safety Engineer HSIP HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT SIGNING.
Copyright © Texas Education Agency, All rights reserved. 1 Web Technologies Website Planning and Design.
MUTCD Sign Retroreflectivity Requirements Peter Allain June
Lesson Plan For Day Two Power point presentation 30 min Video– AAA- signs, signals, etc. 20 min Quiz- Signs Etc 10 min Correct 10 min H/O- Signs 10 min.
MUTCD for Elected Officials Moderator: Dave Boruff, Indiana Department of Transportation Speakers: Karen Stippich, Federal Highway Administration 1 Purdue.
An Overview of Stakeholder Roles and Federal Legislation at Grade Crossings May 18, 2016 presentation to CPWA Saskatchewan Chapter, Saskatoon Railway Safety.
3 Research Design.
What's in the 2009 MUTCD For Bicyclists?
New MUTCD Requirements for Operations
Traffic Control Devices
Revisions to Part 7 – Traffic Control for School Areas
Review of Revised SP 150 – Traffic Control Dated February 01, 2017
Q3: How do we get there? Cohort A
Rules of the Road.
Irvine Traffic Research & Control Center (ITRAC)
Title: Owner: Ver: Date:
Safety Effects of Marked vs
Updates to Expedited Review Procedures
Linda M. Chatwin, Esq. RAC Business Manager, UL LLC
MPO/RPO Safety Performance Measures
HERO UNIT Training Module
Safety concept for automated driving systems
Example of cones and signs as traffic control at a roadway incident.
Concord Products Online
Presentation transcript:

Minimum Sign Retroreflectivity Requirements Updated August 2012 with compliance date revisions New Retroreflectivity standards were added to the MUTCD in December 2007 and related compliance dates were revised in May 2012. The standards are a result of many years of research regarding the needs of the drivers – how many have heard about retroreflectivity before? The intent of the standards are a solution that meets needs of most involved.

Why Do We Install Signs? Most are not Required by MUTCD? Engineering Decision? YES! Why? While some signs are required, most are not. The Manual describes application of TCDs (1A.09) Typically the decision to install a sign is based on Engineering Judgment. The standards/guidance/options come into play to promote uniformity in the application in an effort to help drivers safely navigate (regulate, warn, guide) Once the decision is made that a sign is needed, the MUTCD requires: Same shape and similar color day and night Retroreflective or Illuminated To help drivers (including older)

Night Travel and Crashes Why the big concern? Only about 25% of travel occurs in dark conditions, but 50% of crashes The nighttime crash rate is nearly three times that of daytime Both behavioral (fatigue, alcohol) and engineering contributors to this disparity between nighttime and daytime -- Improving visibility helps everyone Sources: Crash Data – NHTSA Fatal Accident Reporting System VMT – FHWA Highway Statistics

But, Retroreflectivity Degrades Over Time Signs Provide Critical Information to Drivers But, Retroreflectivity Degrades Over Time When Do We Replace Signs? Retroreflectivity Signs are generally adequate when installed. Signs degrade with sunlight, weather, environmental damage. Daylight and Nighttime degradation varies. Do you have a method in place to determine when to replace?

Final Rule to Establish Min Reto Published on Dec 21, 2007 Vol 72, No. 245 Revision #2 of the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD Effective Jan 22, 2008 Not all signs have been adequately maintained Now there are standards and guidance for all agencies to follow Some agencies may already be in compliance, for other agencies this may raise the visbility of their signs

MUTCD Language Section 2A.08 Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity “Standard: Public agencies or officials having jurisdiction shall use an assessment or management method that is designed to maintain sign retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels in Table 2A-3” New Language (standard) Major change is in Section 2A.08 Centers around a method to maintain retroreflectivity

Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels MUTCD Table 2A.3 Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels Sign Color Sheeting Type (ASTM D4956-04)  Additional Criteria Beaded Sheeting Prismatic Sheeting I II III III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X White on Green W* G ≥ 7 G ≥ 15 G ≥ 25 W ≥ 250; G ≥ 25 Overhead W ≥ 120; G ≥ 15 Ground-mounted Black on Yellow or Black on Orange Y*; O* Y ≥ 50; O ≥ 50  Y ≥ 75; O ≥ 75  White on Red W ≥ 35; R ≥ 7  Black on White W ≥ 50   The minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels shown in this table are in units of cd/lx/m2 measured at an observation angle of 0.2 and an entrance angle of -4.0.  For text and fine symbol signs measuring at least 1200 mm (48 in) and for all sizes of bold symbol signs  For text and fine symbol signs measuring less than 1200 mm (48 in)  Minimum Sign Contrast Ratio ≥ 3:1 (white retroreflectivity ÷ red retroreflectivity) * This sheeting type shall not be used for this color for this application. The numbers are also in the MUTCD (this was somewhat controversial) The chart is a little complex, so Example 1: a curve warning sign black on yellow *Type I (eng grade) should not be used Any other type okay and should have a yellow retro level of 50 or 75 (2) Since curve is not text or fine symbol, should meet 50 Black not retroreflective, so don’t have to measure it. Example 2: Stop Sign Any type sheeting meets initially Both white and red have to meet retro levels: White >35, Red>7 (3) Need contrast ratio > 3:1 (e.g. red=20, white must >60)

Methods to Maintain Retro Visual Nighttime Inspection Calibration Signs Comparison Panels Consistent Parameters Measured Sign Retro Expected Sign Life Blanket Replacement Control Signs Future Method Based On Engineering Study Combination Of Any Methods Intro So those are the numbers you need to meet, but remember the requirement is to have a method that maintains those minimums. The rule provided much versatility – many methods are available Basics are in the brochure (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/retro/sa07020/sa07020.pdf), Research details are in the “Methods Report” on-line at FHWA nighttime visibility site. Each method has some advantages and disadvantages that should be considered. Combining methods can help minimize the concerns/disadvantages. Keep in mind the goal is to have visible signs that at least meet the needs of drivers during nighttime.

MUTCD Language Section 2A.08 Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity “Support: Compliance… is achieved by having a method in place and using the method to maintain the minimum levels established in Table 2A-3. Provided that… a method is being used, an agency would be in compliance… even if there are some individual signs that do not meet the… levels at a particular point in time. This support statement helps to limit an agency’s liability: compliance is by implementing a maintenance method, even if some signs do not meet levels at a particular time. It is not meant as an easy out: the maintenance method must be designed to maintain the minimum requirements fro sign retroreflectivity.

Exempt Signs Parking/Standing/Stopping Walking/Hitchhiking Adopt-A-Highway Blue or Brown Backgrounds Exclusive Use of Bikes or Peds Note: Must still meet other requirements in MUTCD (inspections, retroreflective, etc,) Several signs are exempted. The research for blue and brown retroreflectivity has been completed since the standards were adopted. Report FHWA-HRT-08-029 provides minimum recommended retroreflectivity levels for blue and brown signs.

Compliance Date Final Rule May 14, 2012 Eliminated 46 items Revised 4 others items Safety related compliance dates maintained (8) Revision #2 of the 2009 MUTCD The final rule also adds a new Option statement exempting existing historic street name signs within a locally identified historic district from the Standards and Guidance of Section 2D.43 regarding street sign color, letter size, and other design features, including retroreflectivity. 2009 MUTCD Revision 1 deals with change in Engineering Judgment definition – not part of this presentation

Updated Sign Retroreflectivity Compliance Dates January 2012 June 2014 – Implementation and continued use of an assessment or management method that is designed to maintain traffic regulatory and warning sign retroreflectivity at or above the established minimum levels January 2015 - Replace identified regulatory, warning, ground-mounted guide signs (except street-name) January 2018 - Replace identified street name & overhead guide signs The dates for having a method selected and in use was extended 2.5 years. Guide signs have been removed from the first compliance dates…however, they are to be added to an agency's management or assessment method as resources allow. The compliance dates for signs below the minimums have been removed …. without these “target” compliance dates, each agency must prioritize and justify their schedule of sign replacement. Signs identified through an agency‘s maintenance method as being below the minimum established retroreflectivity levels have exhausted their useful service life and need to be replaced because they do not meet the needed function of being adequately visible at night. Agencies are expected to prioritize replacement of wornout signs based on engineering considerations, similar to other traffic control devices.

Why were guide signs removed from compliance dates ? Regulatory and warning signs constitute the highest priority for assessing retro of existing signs Including guide signs would increase the economic burden Section 2A.08 still requires a method for all signs, including guide signs

When do I have to replace my worn out signs? Agencies are expected to prioritize replacement of these signs based on engineering considerations, similar to other traffic control devices. It is expected that the use of the assessment or management method would serve to identify and program the replacement of signs that are found to or expected to be below the minimum retroreflectivity levels. Note: The compliance date of June 13, 2014 applies only to the implementation and continued use of an assessment or management method that is designed to maintain regulatory and warning sign retroreflectivity at or above the minimum retroreflectivity levels in Table 2A-3. Agencies are expected to add signs other than regulatory or warning to their method as resources allow, per the footnote to the Compliance Date Table (I-2).

Do guide signs and street name signs still have to meet the minimums? Yes. The standards for minimum retroreflectivity requirements still apply to guide signs. The compliance date for guide signs (including street name signs) have been eliminated. However, agencies are expected to add these signs to their method as resources allow.

More Information MUTCD Website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov Nighttime Visibility Website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/retro Regulations/Standards Technical Guidance Implementation Tools Frequently Asked Questions Research Here are some sources that you can easily access to gain further information on retroreflectivity. (Recommend handing out copies of the summary brochure: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/retro/sa07020/sa07020.pdf at any live presentation.) Note: This is a first draft. For review purposes only.