1 Vol. 30/No. 4/Winter 2017 FHWA Issues Revised Pro- posal for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity .................. 1 From the Director ............... 2 Small Town and Rural Multi- modal Network .................... 3 Shoulder and Center Line Rumble Strips on Non- Freeways ............................. 4 MUTCD - Clarifications of Existing Standards and Guidance on New and Innova- tive Control Devices ........... 5 Tennessee Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity Survey ..... 6 In this issue... continued on page 3 by Matt Cate, P.E. A supplemental notice of proposed amendments (SNPA) addressing minimum retroreflectivity levels for pavement markings was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2017. The SNPA modifies the April 2010 proposal for minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity levels by offering a simplified set of standards. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is currently seeking comments regarding the proposed changes to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). If adopted, the proposed amendments will add new language to the MUTCD that will require transportation agencies to maintain some markings at or above a specified level of retroreflectivity. These rules will be similar to those added to the MUTCD to address traffic sign retroreflectivity in 2008. The new standard will apply only to longitudinal markings (including center lines, edge lines, and lane lines) and only on roadways with a regulatory speed limits of 35 mph or greater. Where applicable, longitudinal markings should be maintained so that their measured retroreflectivity does not fall below 50 millicandelas per square meter per lux (mcd/m 2 /lx). Retroreflectivity values should be established using 30-meter geometry (entrance angle of 88.76 o observation angle of 1.05 o ). A number of guidance, option, and support statements accompany this standard. These statements provide additional information above and beyond the standard (mandatory practice) described above. • Longitudinal markings should be maintained at or above 100 mcd/m 2 /lx on roadways with a speed limit of 70 mph or greater (guidance). • Agencies should use one or more FHWA-approved methods to maintain pavement marking retroreflectivity. If using a method which has not been tested by FHWA, it should be the result of an engineering study which has demonstrated the ability to maintain markings at or above applicable retroreflectivity levels (guidance). • Agencies may exclude certain types of markings from the minimum retroreflectivity levels described above (option). Examples include: 4markings in areas where ambient lighting assures visibility, 4markings on roadways where ADT is less than 6,000 vehicles per day, 4dotted line extensions at intersections, major driveways, or interchanges, 4curb markings, 4parking space markings, and 4shared-use path markings. • Some special circumstances may cause markings to fall below minimum acceptable levels, but do not permanently exempt marking from these standards. Agencies will be considered to be in compliance if action is taken to restore retroreflectivity to appropriate levels in a timely fashion (support). These circumstances include: 4isolated locations of unusual marking degradation, 4periods preceding imminent resurfacing or reconstruction, 4unanticipated events (including equipment breakdown and material shortages), and FHWA Issues Revised Proposal for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
8
Embed
FHWA Issues Revised Proposal for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivityttap.utk.edu › techtransfer › issues › 30 › 2017winter.pdf · A supplemental notice of proposed amendments
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Vol. 30/No. 4/Winter 2017
FHWA Issues Revised Pro- posal for Pavement MarkingRetroreflectivity ..................1From the Director ...............2Small Town and Rural Multi-modal Network ....................3Shoulder and Center Line Rumble Strips on Non-Freeways .............................4MUTCD - Clarifications of Existing Standards and Guidance on New and Innova-tive Control Devices ...........5 Tennessee Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity Survey .....6
From the Director AsIwritethiscolumnonFebruary22,itappearsthatourshort,mildwintermightalreadybebehindusdespitethefactthatspringdoesnotofficiallyarriveuntilMarch20.EverywhereIlookflowersandtreesarebloomingandIfearthatmylawnmowerwillsoonbeemergingfromhibernation.HopefullythisearlyescapefromtheclutchesofOldManWinterdoesnotforeshadowanotherhot,drysummer. Regardlessofthesummerforecast,wehaveahottopiccomingupinNashville.GovernorHaslamhasproposedthestate’sfirstgastaxincreasesince1989.TheIMPROVEActwouldpavethewayformorethan960transportationprojectsacrossthestate.Asproposed,theplanwouldalsobring$39millioninnewtransportationfundingforcitiesand$78millioninnewfundingforcounties.InWashington,theTrumpAdministrationhasraisedthepossibilityofamajor(upto$1trillion)infrastructureinitiativethatwouldaddressground,air,rail,andwaterwaytransportationneedsacrossthenation.Whilefewwouldarguethatourtransportationsystemsneedmoresupport,thetaxincreasesandcreditswhichwouldbringnewfundingandinvestmentateitherthestateornationallevelarelikelytomeetsomeresistance. RoadwaysafetycontinuestobeanareaofemphasisinTennessee.Seatbeltuseisatitshighestobservedlevel(89%)sincestatewideobservationalsurveysbeganin1986.Newcarsarebuilttoprovidemorecrashprotectionthaneverbefore,andinmanycasestheyincludeadvancedtechnologydesignedtohelpdriverspreventcrashes.Muchemphasishasbeenplacedonsaferroadwaysandimprovedguidancefordrivers.Lawenforcementagenciesacrossthestatedevotetimeandenergytotrafficenforcementinanefforttoreducethefrequencyandseverityofcrashes.Despitetheseadvances,Tennessee’syear-to-datetrafficfatalitytotal(125)standsat11morethanonthesamedatein2016.Someofthisproblemcanbeattributedtohistoricallyhighvehiclemilesoftravelacrossthenation.Somemaybetheresultofdistracteddriving.Regardless,wecannotaffordtorelaxoureffortstomakethestate’sroadssaferforallTennesseans. Finally,Iamexcitedthatourtrafficsignretroreflectivitysurveyprovidedavaluablelookattheongoingsignmaintenanceeffortsofmanyagencies.Inatimeofspam,unsolicitedemails,andoverflowinginboxes,thenumberofresponsestothesurvey(77)indicatesthatthisisstillanimportantissue.Whilemostsurveyparticipants(82%)areawareoftheMUTCD’sminimumretroreflectivitystandards,only12%indicatedthattheiragencyiscurrentlyinfullcompliance.Mostarestrugglingtoattainfullsignretroreflectivitycompliancewithoutincreasedfunding,andproposedretroreflectivitystandardsforpavementmarkingswillonlymakethistaskmoredifficult.TTAPwillcertainlyusethisinformationtoguideourfutureactivities. That’sallfornow.PleasedonothesitatetocontactmeifthereisanythingthatTTAPcandotohelpyoumeetyourcommunity’stransportationneeds.
3
FHWA Issues Revised Proposal for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity, continued from page 1
Inmanysmalltownsandruralcommunities,activetransportation(anyformofhuman-poweredtransportation)isevenmorecommonthanitisinurbanareas.However,infrastructuretosupportactivetransportationisoftenlimitedorabsent.Manysmall and rural communities are located on State and countyroadwaysthatwerebuilttodesignstandardsthatfavorhigh-speedmotorizedtraffic,resultinginasystemthatmakeswalkingandbicyclinglesssafeanduncomfortable.Theseroadwayscanberetrofittedandredesignedovertimetoprovideatransportationnetworkthatbetterservesthesafety,health,andeconomicinterestsofthecommunity. ThisFHWAguideisaresourceforpractitionersdevelopingandpromotingmultimodalnetworksinsmallandruralcommunities.Theopportunitiesforroaddesignhighlightedinthisdocumentbuildonabroadrangeofexistingnationaldesignguidelinesandreferences.Thisguidetranslatesexistingstreetdesignguidanceandbestpracticesforbicycleandpedestriansafetyandcomforttotheruralcontext,andprovidesexamplesofhowtointerpretandapplythesedesignpracticestocreatesafe,accessible,andcomfortablemultimodalnetworks. Someofthecommontransportationchallengesinsmalltownsandruralareasincluderoadwayoperationsofagriculturalvehiclesonautoorientedroadways,lackoftransportationoptions,constrainedterrain,statehighwaysbeingoftenthemainstreet,climateandmaintenance.Toaddresstheseissues,thisFHWAguideproposesseveralmixedtrafficfacilities,forexamplebicycleboulevards,yieldroadwaysandtheuseofadvisoryshoulders.Inadditionvisuallyandphysicallyseparatedfacilitiesarealsoproposedaswellasopportunitiesforspeedmanagement,schoolconnections,multimodalmainstreetsandbridgeretrofits.
Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks
by Airton Kohls (Source: FHWA)
To download a free copy of FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks, go to:
Bicycle Lane Markings Through Intersections: ExtensionsofbicyclelanesarecompliantwiththeMUTCDandcanbemarkedaswouldbeanextensionofanyotherlane.TheprovisionsofSection3B.08-ExtensionsThroughIntersectionsorInterchanges-applytobicyclelanes.Amongotherguidance,Section3B.08statesthat“Wherehighwaydesignorreducedvisibilityconditionsmakeitdesirabletoprovidecontrolortoguidevehiclesthroughanintersectionorinterchange…dottedlineextensionmarkingsconsistingof2-footlinesegmentsand2-to6-footgapsshouldbeusedtoextendlongitudinallinemarkingsthroughanintersectionorinterchangearea.”Itshouldbenotedthatchevronmarkingsarenotpermittedtobeusedinbicyclelanesorbicyclelaneextensions,norareshared-lanemarkings.Bicyclelaneextensionsthroughintersectionscanincludestandardbicyclelanearrows,bicyclesymbols,orpavementwordmarkings.Additionally,green-coloredpavementcanbeusedtoenhanceconspicuityiftheinstallingjurisdictionhasreceivedapprovalunderInterimApproval14(seebelow).
High Visibility Crosswalk Markings: Sincethepublicationofthe2009MUTCD,astudyoncrosswalkmarkingswascompletedonbehalfoftheFHWA.Thisstudy,CrosswalkMarkingFieldVisibilityStudy(FHWAPublicationFHWA-HRT-10-068),producedseveralrecommendationsforrevisionstotheMUTCD.Theserecommendationsweretoaddbarpairsasa“usablecrosswalkpattern”,toprovidetypicaldimensionsformarkingpatterns,andtoconsider
Edge Line Markings at Highway-Rail and Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings: EdgeLineMarkingsextendingthroughthetrackareaatrailgradecrossingsarepermittedunderthe2009MUTCD.InMarch2016,theFHWAissuedOfficialRuling8(09)-21(I),whichclarifiedthattheextensionoftubularmarkerswaspermittedacrossthetrackarea,buttherequesteratthattimedidnotinquireaboutedgelinesinsimilarsituations.Edgelinesarepermittedtobeextendedthroughthetrackareaunderthe2009MUTCDwithoutanyadditionalapprovals.
Almost82%ofsurveyparticipantssaidthattheywerefamiliarwiththeMUTCD’sminimumrequirementsfortrafficsignretroreflectivity.Thosewhoanswered“yes”tothisquestionwereaskedtoidentifysourceswherethisinformationwasobtained.TheTennesseeDepartmentofTransportationwasthemostfrequentresponse(54%),followedbyTTAP(48%),andUT’sMunicipalTechnicalAdvisoryServiceorCountyTechnicalAssistanceService(46%collectively).Finally,participantswereaskedhowtheywouldprefertolearnmoreaboutthistopic.Themostfrequentresponsewas“brochuresandtechnicalguides”(39%),followedby“classroomtraining,”“onlinetrainingandwebinars,”and“newsletterarticles and email bulletins”at36%each. TTAPwillusethesurveytoguidefuturetrainingandtechnologytransferefforts,andwehavealsosharedtheseresultswithinterestedpartiesatTDOT,FHWA,andeventheTennesseeGeneralAssembly.Someofthemostinterestingsurveyresultsaresummarizedontheright.Toseecompletesurveyresults,pleasevisitourwebsiteathttp://ttap.utk.edu/techtransfer/pdfs/retro_survey.pdf
Tennessee Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity Survey, continued from page 6
TALK TO TTAPWearealwayslookingforyourcomments,ideasandsuggestionstohelpmaketheTTAPProgrammoreusefultoyou.PleasefilloutandfaxtheformbelowtoTTAPat(865)974-3889ormailtoTTAP;Suite309ConferenceCenterBuilding,Knoxville,TN37996-4133.