New MUTCD Requirements for Operations Todd Shields March 8, 2011

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 • Compliance Methods • 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 • 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)

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