Transcript Slide 1

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
Compliance Methods
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



Panel sign study found (Type I G, III W at
20 years)



Age-diversity (20’s to 60’s)
Vehicle diversity (Dodge minivan, Kia Rondo,
Dump Truck)
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


Edgelines


INDOT policy is for all highways to have edgelines
Minimums don’t apply if the road has



Paved Urban Arterials/Collectors > 20’, > 6,000 ADT
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
Questions???
Todd Shields
INDOT Technical Services Manager
(317) 233-4726