1. New MUTCD Requirements for Operations
Todd Shields
March 8, 2011

2. 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

3. Sign Retroreflectivity

4. 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

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

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

7. 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

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

9. Sign Retroreflectivity
Sheet Sign History – INDOT
Pre mid-1990’s = Type I Engineer Grade
Mid 1990’s – 2007 = Type III High Intensity
= 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)

10. 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

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

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

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

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

15. 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.

16. 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)

17. 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

18. Overhead Sign Study
Overhead study found acceptable visibility

19. 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

20. 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

21. Pavement Markings

22. 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

23. 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???

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

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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. INDOT Technical Services Manager
Questions???
Todd Shields
INDOT Technical Services Manager
(317)