AGENDA CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES COMMITTEE (CTCDC) May 8, 2002 MEETING 1727 30th Street, Sacramento, CA 95816 TIME 9:00 AM ORGANIZATION ITEMS Estimated Time 1. INTRODUCTION 9:00 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (January 31, 2002 MEETING) 9:10 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 9:15 At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. Matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the Committee at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public is invited to make comments at the time the item is considered by the Committee. Any person addressing the Committee will be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes so that all interested parties, have an opportunity to speak. At all times, please use the microphone and state your name, address, and business or organization for the record. AGENDA ITEMS 4. PUBLIC HEARING 9:30 Prior to adopting rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices placed pursuant to Section 21400 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC), Caltrans is required to consult with local agencies and hold public hearings. 02-3 RIGHT EDGELINE (Proposal to amend Section 6-02.4 (Introduction) 9:40 Edgelines of the State Traffic Manual (Meis) 01-11 PORTABLE OR TEMPORARY SPEED DISPLAY SIGN (Continued) 10:30 (If the speed feedback sign is a traffic control device or not) (Meis) 01-5 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS (Continued) 11:00 (Proposal to adopt MUTCD language into the Traffic Manual) (Fisher) Lunch Break 12:30-1:30 5. REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENATION 02-4 PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL HEADS (Introduction) 1:30 (Experiment request by the County of San Luis Obispo) (Larsen) 01-3 PEDESTRAIN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL HEADS (Continued) 2:00 (Request to expand the experiment, City of Fountain Valley) (Fisher) 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS 02-5 ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMIT ZONES BASED ON THE (Introduction) 2:30 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (Babico) 02-6 AFFECT OF ADA REQUIREMENTS ON TRAFFIC (Introduction) 3:00 CONTROL DEVICES (Tanda) 7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 00-8 PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL HEADS (Continued) 3:30 (Final study report by the City of San Jose) (Tanda) 99-11 MUTCD ADOPTION BY CALTRANS (Continued) 4:00 (Update by Caltrans) (Meis) 8. Correspondences/ Miscellaneous Letter from Mr. Michael Mankin, Manager, Access compliance Policy, division of the State of the Architect to California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) and response from CBSC to Mr. Mankin. Resolution # 2001B-5 submitted by the California Council of the Blind. Resolution #99-11 passed by the National Federation of the Blind A Story from Sacramento Bee on the ongoing Experimentation with Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads 9. NEXT MEETING 10. ADJOURN ITEM UNDER EXPERIMENTATION 99-10 TACTILE PEDESTRIAN INDICATORS (Folkers) (Experiment Agency-City of Los Angeles) (Fisher) Status: No update received. 99-12 SPEED STRIPING FOR SMART CROSSWALKS (Meis) (Experiment Agency-Caltrans D7) Status: No update received. 99-13 ILLUMINATED PAVEMENT MARKERS ON (Meis) MEDIAN BARRIERS (Experiment Agency-Caltrans D7) Status: No update received. 99-18 GROUND MOUNTED LED LIGHTS ON STOP BARS (Meis) (Experiment Agency-City of Anaheim) Status: The City of Anaheim submitted a fourth progress report dated June 2001. The City of Anaheim will collect further data and submit to CTCDC. 00-1 BICYCLE PAVEMENT MARKING (Banks) (Experiment Agency-City of San Francisco) Status: The city has received approval to hire a consultant to do the study. 00-3 JAKE BRAKE SIGN (Meis) (Experiment Agency-City of Auburn) Status: The signs were installed during the summer of 2001. The post study will be conducted during the summer of 2002. 00-6 PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL HEADS (Banks) (Experiment Agency-City of San Francisco) Status: No further update, the interim report was submitted during the 01/31/02 meeting. 00-8 PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL HEAD (Tanda) (Experiment Agency-City of San Jose) Status: The City San Jose will provide final study report during the May 2002 meeting. 00-9 PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL HEAD (Tanda) (Experiment Agency-City of Stockton) Status: Countdown signals were insalled in January 2002. City has received positive comments. The City will provide a before and after study. 01-3 PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL HEADS (Fisher) (Experiment request by the City of Fountain Valley) Status: The City has submitted their final report to the Committee. 01-4 TACTILE PEDESTRIAN INDICATORE WITH AUDIBLE (Tanda) INFORMATION (Experiment request by the City of Santa Cruz) Status: No update. 01-7 PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL HEAD (Tanda) (Experiment Agency-City of Oakland) Status: The city has received approval from the HHWA and working to acquire funds in the FY 2002-03 budget. 01-9 IN-ROADWAY WARNING LIGHTS AT R/R CROSSINGS Meis) (Experiment requests by CPUC in cooperation Kern Co. & City of Fresno) Status: CPUC is in process to hire consultant firm to conduct study. 01-12 BLINKERSTOP SIGN (Experiment request by Caltrans) (Meis) Status: Report was sent to members by e-mail. STATUS OF CALTRANS ACTION ON PAST ITEMS Item 90-7 BICYCLE SIGNAL HEADS (BSH) The Traffic Manual will be changed to reflect the BSH warrants, so that the public agencies will be able to use the Warrants to install these devices on their roadways. The Committee will be notified, when Caltrans develop the standard plans for BSH. Item 93-18 CROSSWALKS, SEQUENTIAL LIGHTING (In-Roadway Warning Lights (IRWL) at Crosswalks) The final text will be posted on the Traffic Operations website as soon as finalized. Item 99-3 AUDIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL POLICY Caltrans will work with the CTCDC, the California Council of the Blind (CCB) and other individuals interested in this item to resolve these issues along with Agenda Item 01-5, "Accessible pedestrian Signals." Item 01-1 U-TURN SIGNAL HEADS INDICATOR Caltrans will develop appropriate standards to ensure visibility and make the U-turn signal head indicator an official traffic control device by inclusion in the Caltrans Traffic manual. 01-6 SUPPLEMENT SIGNS ON CHANNELIZERS Caltrans will work with the Committee on this item. 02-3 RIGHT EDGELINE During the last CTCDC meeting, the Committee members discussed the draft verbiage on Item 00-4, "use of raised pavement markers in a transverse pattern." The verbiage was as follows: "Raised pavement markers (RPMs) may be used to supplement transverse or longitudinal pavement markings, except retroreflective raised pavement markers should not be used for right edgelines. The use of retroreflective RPMs on the right edgeline may lead the motorist to believe there is another lane to the right of the markers. RPMs should not be used for right edgelines unless other available options have been considered, such as raised and inverted profile thermoplastic stripe, ground-in or rolled-in rumble strip. If either retroreflective or non-reflective RPMs are used on a right edgeline, an engineering study should be conducted documenting the reasons for their use." After the discussion, the committee members recommended including a portion of the proposed verbiage under Section 6-01.3 Material and adopted that portion as a resolution "Raised pavement markers (RPMs) may be used to supplement transverse or longitudinal pavement markings. RPMs shall not be placed either on or within the marked crosswalks. If either retroreflective or non-reflective RPMs are used on a right edgeline, an engineering study should be conducted documenting the reasons for their use." The Committee further recommended that the remaining portion of the original draft to be included in the Section “Right Edgeline” and Caltrans bring draft back to the Committee for review and discussion. Caltrans recommends the Committee to consider deleting the last sentence from the adopted resolution “If either retroreflective or non-reflective RPMs are used on a right edgeline, an engineering study should be conducted documenting the reasons for their use” and include this with the remaining portion of the original draft to the Section “Right Edgeline”. To clarify, the verbiage to be included in to the Section 6-01.3 Material is as follows: "Raised pavement markers may be used to supplement transverse or longitudinal pavement markings (for right edgeline, see Section 6-02.4). RPMs shall not be placed either on or within the marked crosswalks.” And; The following verbiage shown in Italic and underlined is suggested to be included under the Section “Right Edgeline.” Two alternatives that were suggested in the original draft are not recommended to include under the Section “Right Edgeline.” 2. RIGHT EDGELINE A right edgeline shall consist of a solid 100 mm wide white line. The edgeline should be placed 50 mm in from the edge of traveled way, approximately 3.6 m from the laneline or centerline on highway mainlines, ramps, and connectors. See Figure 6-6, RIGHT EDGELINE AND RIGHT EDGELINE EXTENSION THROUGH INTERSECTIONS. “In general, raised pavement markers (RPMs) are not used to supplement the right edgeline. The use of RPMs on the right edgeline may lead the motorists to believe there is another lane to the right of the markers. If either retroreflective or non-retroreflective RPMs markers are used on a right edgeline, an engineering study should be conducted documenting the reason for their use.” Generally, the solid edgeline should be dropped at the beginning of intersection flares. In heavy fog areas, or locations where additional guidance would be beneficial, a dashed 100 mm wide white right edgeline may be continued across an intersection. Edgeline is not used at turnouts. See Figure 6-22, SIGNING AND MARKING TURNOUTS The following are the current Sections in the Traffic Manual and in the MUTCD, which discussed the “Right Edgeline.” 6-02.4 Edgelines Edgelines delineate the edge of traveled way for motorists. They have a unique value as a visual reference during adverse weather and visibility conditions. They also are used to reduce driving on paved shoulders or refuge areas of lesser structural strength than the adjacent pavement. Where more emphasis is required, 45° diagonal 300 mm wide lines may be added on shoulders. Diagonal lines, if used, shall be the same color as the edgeline. Edgelines are generally not continued through intersections and are not broken for driveways. Edgelines shall be used on all State highways, except urban type streets with curbs, parking provisions, etc. Edgelines may be used on streets and highways under local jurisdiction. 1. LEFT EDGELINE A left edgeline shall consist of a solid 100 mm wide yellow line, yellow reflective pavement markers or a combination of line and markers as shown in Figure 6-5, LEFT EDGELINES FOR DIVIDED HIGHWAYS. Solid double yellow lines may be used for more emphasis when motorists tend to use the shoulder for a through lane or where encroachments onto the shoulder occasionally occur. Left edgeline patterns for median islands are shown in Figure 6-7, MEDIAN ISLANDS. 2. RIGHT EDGELINE A right edgeline shall consist of a solid 100 mm wide white line. The edgeline should be placed 50 mm in from the edge of traveled way, approximately 3.6 m from the laneline or centerline on highway mainlines, ramps, and connectors. See Figure 6-6, RIGHT EDGELINE AND RIGHT EDGELINE EXTENSION THROUGH INTERSECTIONS. Generally, the solid edgeline should be dropped at the beginning of intersection flares. In heavy fog areas, or locations where additional guidance would be beneficial, a dashed 100 mm wide white right edgeline may be continued across an intersection. Edgeline is not used at turnouts. See Figure 6-22, SIGNING AND MARKING TURNOUTS MUTCD 2000: Section 3B.04 White Lane Line and Right Edge Line Pavement Markings and Warrants Standard: When used, lane line pavement markings delineating the separation of traffic lanes that have the same direction of travel shall be white. Support: Typical applications of lane line markings are shown in Figures 3B-2, 3B-3, 3B-7 through 3B- 13, 3B-21, 3B-23, and 3B-25. Standard: Where crossing the lane line markings with care is permitted, the lane line markings shall consist of a normal broken white line. Where crossing the lane line markings is discouraged, the lane line markings shall consist of a normal solid white line. Option: Solid white lane line markings may be used to separate through traffic lanes from auxiliary lanes, such as uphill truck lanes, left- or right-turn lanes, and preferential lanes. They may also be used to separate traffic lanes approaching an intersection. Wide solid lane line markings may be used for greater emphasis. Standard: Where crossing the lane line markings is prohibited, the lane line markings shall consist of two normal solid white lines. Lane line markings shall be used on all freeways and Interstate highways. Guidance: Lane line markings should be used on all roadways with two or more adjacent traffic lanes that have the same direction of travel. Lane line markings should also be used at congested locations where the roadway will accommodate more traffic lanes with lane line markings than without the markings. Standard: If used, the right edge line pavement markings shall consist of a normal solid white line to delineate the right edge of the roadway. 01-11 PORTABLE OR TEMPORARY SPEED DISPLAY SIGN During the last CTCDC meeting, there was a brief discussion between Committee members, either to bring this item back for further discussion or leave it the way it was decided during the September 2001 CTCDC meeting. Wayne Tanda suggested that it is not a traffic control device and his jurisdiction has been used in school zones to calm traffic. He is planning to share that success with other agencies. John Fisher noted that if the Committee did not give any guidance, there might be a number of different vendors, providing different types of formats for the sign. Wayne responded that there are already different types of formats, maybe different colors too. Wayne further stated that the speed feedback sign in his opinion are not a traffic control device. Mark Greenwood stated that during the last meeting the motion failed. Ray Mellen and Wayne Tanda suggested placing this item, again, on the agenda to make a decision whether it is a traffic control device or not. John Fisher and Jim Larsen also supported placing it on the agenda. Further, John requested that Caltrans provide a statement as to whether it believes the speed feedback sign is a traffic control device and if it seeks the Committee’s guidance on standardization. The item on the agenda would be: "If the Speed Feedback Sign is A Traffic Control Device or Not." Following is an information from CVC, and FHWA proposal on Speed Display Sign CVC440 (Official Traffic Control Device) 440. An "official traffic control device" is any sign, signal, marking, or device, consistent with Section 21400, placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic, but does not include islands, curbs, traffic barriers, speed humps, speed bumps, or other roadway design features. FHWA Proposal The MUTCD team is proposing to specifically include the "YOUR SPEED XX" dms/cms speed trailer in the speed limit signs section of Part 2B of the MUTCD in the NPRM (Revision #2); that will make the "sign" portion of a speed display trailer a traffic control device within the approved colors for signs/CMS displays in Table 2A-4 which will include white, yellow, FYG as colors (also includes reverse screens); orange LED's are for Part 6 application only. Opinion of a Individual: A traffic control device, by definition, is a devise place by the Department of Transportation and local authorities in their respective jurisdictions to control, direct or the facilitate traffic flow. Only appropriate sign, signals or other traffic control devices that are necessary to carry out the provisions of the California Vehicle Code or local ordinances should be placed. The messages on these traffic control devices are controlled by their respective jurisdictions. Speed Feedback sign provide a message that is in direct response to actions of the motorists and singly controlled by the motorists, therefore, it cannot be considered a traffic control device. 01-5 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS During the last CTCDC meeting, Chairman Larsen stated that the item would be continued for hearing during the next meeting. Theresa Gabriel, Caltrans, ITS Branch, commented that she prefers that the requirement to install these devices should be based on the need. The MUTCD 2000 and current Traffic Manual guidelines are in harmony on the installation of these devices. Theresa further stated that if the APS is integrated to all intersections automatically at new signal installations or during modifications, we might be ignoring the safety of the pedestrian and/or drivers. Theresa raised the following concerns: ? A survey needs to be completed to assess the actual needs of APS and/or Audible Pedestrian Signal. ? Ignoring other facts/factors related to the intersections geometrical restriction ? Ignoring factors related to authorized/restricted pedestrian movements for certain approaches at the intersection. ? Ignoring the ambient noise level at the intersection and other types of surroundings (trucks, birds mimicking the device sounds, industrial area, rural area, urban area, surrounding business, neighboring hospitals, fire house, buses, etc.). ? Ignoring the special needs for the surrounding residents at the intersection (elder residents, school, presence (or lack) of citizens needs with any other types of mobility. restriction/impairment. ? Ignoring the engineering decision/judgment for the appropriate intersection design. Theresa further added that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is currently in harmony with the Traffic Manual for guidelines needed prior to the installation of similar devices (i.e., it should be installed as needed). It has been proven successful in the past for installation of the Audible Pedestrian provision upon request. Caltrans did not deny any request in the past to install the device at needed intersections. All the above factors do not include the financial burden on the districts to include the device for all intersections (installed or modified), and the related maintenance cost to maintain such devices. The Chairman continued the public hearing until the next meeting and opened the item for the Committee’s discussion. Wayne Tanda asked if Caltrans could identify the fundamental differences on APSs among the MUTCD 2000, State Traffic Manual and the suggested language submitted by the CCB under Resolution 2001B-5 before the next CTCDC meeting. Devinder responded that he would make an effort to summarize the main differences. John Fisher noted that the primary fundamental differences between CCB and the MUTCD 2000 on APSs are as follows: ? The CCB recommended that all accessible pedestrian signals must have an auditory tone to announce the walk interval, where in the MUTCD 2000 it is optional. ? The CCB recommended that whenever the State or a local agency installs new or upgrades to the existing traffic signals, the signal system shall be equipped with APSs, where in the MUTCD 2000 it is based on the need. ? The CCB recommended that the desirability of the APSs at specific existing locations, the professional to be consulted in this matter shall be an orientation and mobility instructor certified by the Academy of Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals (ACVREP), not the agency staff. In the MUTCD 2000, it is a joint effort by the agency staff and by the requestor. The resolution received from the California Council of the Blind and resolution passed by the National federation of the Blind are included under the Agenda Item, Correspondences/ Miscellaneous. ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS, COMPARISON OF REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN TRAFFIC MANUAL, MUTCD AND CCB PROPOSAL (PARAPHRASED) Subject: General Philosophy Traffic Manual APS may be considered when an engineering study and evaluation have been conducted. There must be a demonstrated need in the form of a request. MUTCD Many signalized locations will not require APS, as persons with visual difficulties often can depend on the stop-and-go noise of traffic. However, at signalized intersections that present "difficulties" (seven types are cited), an engineering study should be conducted. The installation of APS should be based on an engineering study. CCB Proposal The merit of the installation of APS must be determined by the safety and accessibility needs of the requestor. New Signals - Shall be automatically equipped.Signal Upgrades - Shall be automatically equipped. Existing Signals -- Must be addressed within a reasonable period of time. Subject: Outside Experts Traffic Manual Individual or group requesting the device should agree to train visually impaired. MUTCD Local organizations can often act as important advisors to the traffic engineer. Additionally, orientation and mobility specialists might be able to provide a wide range of advice. CCB Proposal The professional to be consulted shall be an orientation and mobility instructor certified by ACVREP. Agreement among the various outside organizations shall not be required. Subject: Bird Chips Traffic Manual "Recommended". "Cuckoo" for north/south direction and "Peep Peep" for east/west direction. MUTCD Audible tones, including bird chirps, are among the several APS options. When choosing audible tones, possible extraneous sources of sound (such as ... birds) shall be considered in order to eliminate potential confusion. Audible tones should be carefully selected to avoid misleading pedestrians when there is: an unsignalized, channelized right turn; multi-leg approaches; complex signal phasing; or exclusive pedestrian phase. CCB Proposal Where APS is used, there must be bird chirps or verbal messages. If bird chirps are used, they must be "Cuckoo" for north/south direction and "Peep Peep" for east/west direction. Where bird chirps are used, all striped crosswalks at the intersection shall be outfitted with these devices. Subject: Verbal Messages Traffic Manual (Silent) MUTCD Verbal messages are among the APS options. The message shall use the words, "Walk Sign" and may include the name of the street to be crossed. CCB Proposal If bird chirps are not used, then verbal messages shall be used. Where used, verbal messages shall provide a clear message that the walk interval is in effect, as well as to which crossing it applies. Where verbal messages are used, all striped crosswalks at the intersection shall be outfitted with these devices. Subject: Vibrotactile Devices Traffic Manual (Silent) MUTCD Vibrotactile devices are among the APS options. By inference, they would be considered where audible tones might cause potential confusion, as described under "Bird Chirps". CCB Proposal Mandatory, even with bird chirps or verbal messages. Subject: Pushbutton Locator Tones Traffic Manual (Silent) MUTCD Pushbuttons should be audibly locatable. If used, they shall have a repetition rate slower than that of the audible tone. They should no more than 5 db louder than the ambient sound. CCB Proposal Mandatory. Subject: Pedestrian PushButtons (PPB’s) Traffic Manual PPB’s should be provided. MUTCD Pushbuttons or passive pedestrian detection may be used. At locations with pre-timed signals or non-actuated approaches, PPB’s may be used to activate APS. See Figure 4E-2 for PPB locations. CCB Proposal Mandatory. Indicates concurrence with MUTCD Figure 4E-2. REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENATION 02-4 PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL HEADS DISCUSSION ITEMS 02-5 ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMIT ZONES BASED ON THE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Jacob Babico apprised the Committee that the County of San Bernardino CHP area enforce the speed limit established based on the Radar Speed Survey. The CHP do not use the traffic study as justification to enforce the zone. CVC section 627 has a clear definition of "ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY" which states: "as used in this code, means a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance to methods determined by the Department of Transportation for use by state and local authorities." What happened in their case that County have posted a 45 M.P.H. speed limit signs based on engineering study rather than radar speed survey, but the 85th percentile was over 55 M.P.H. Jacob requested for Committee comments on this issue. CORRESPONDENCES/MISCELLANEOUS MEMORANDUM Date: October 15, 2001 To: STAN NISHIMURA Executive Director California Building Standards Commission 1525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833-2936 From: MICHAEL J. MANKIN, AIA Manager, Access Compliance Policy Division of the State Architect Department of General Services Subject: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION The Division of the State Architect, Access Compliance (DSA/ C) is requesting a determination from the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) if regulations adopted by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are Building Standards and subject to the CBSC adoption process. Specifically the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publishes the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which contains national design, application, and placement standards for traffic control devices. These devices include signs, signals, and pavement markings. Caltrans publishes a Traffic Manual, which is in substantial conformance with the MUTCD. Our concern is those provisions adopted by Caltrans in their Traffic Manual are Building Standards and in conflict with those standards adopted in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2. Caltrans has a California Traffic Control Devices Committee which will be meeting on September 27, 2001, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, at 9:00 AM. Our particular concern is the following items may be building standards: 1) 01-5 Accessible Pedestrian Signals (Proposal to adopt MUTCD language into the Traffic Manual); 2) 01-10 Red Flags Use At Pedestrians Crosswalks (Experiment request by the City of Berkeley); 3) Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads (Experiment Agency-County of Sacramento) and 4) 99-11 MUTCD Adoption by Caltrans (Update by Caltrans). Our mandate by Government Code Section 4450 is to ensure that all buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs, and related facilities, constructed in this state by the use of state, county, or municipal funds, or the funds of any political subdivision of the state shall be accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Stan Nishimura -2- October 15, 2001 Our office is mandated to develop and submit proposed building standards to the California Building Standards Commission for approval and adoption pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. Our request for determination is to clarify if those standards adopted by Caltrans fall into the definition of a building standard and subject to CBSC review, and publication in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24. For your information, DSA/AC is including a copy of the September 27, 2001 agenda for the California Traffic Control Devices Committee as well as MUTCD Supplement adoption by Caltrans. Your determination will be of great interest to the DSA/AC as many of those standards currently published in California Code of Regulations, Title 24 would seem to fall in the same standards category as those adopted by Caltrans. Perhaps all of these standards should be relocated to the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11 to ensure uniformity and enforcement of standards within California. Nonbuilding regulations would still need to be enforced by the building official under the law, perhaps through Part 11 not Part 2. We look forward to your determination and thank you for your forthcoming decision. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (916) 322-4700, or by email at, HYPERLINK mailto:michael.mankin@dgs.ca.gov michael.mankin@dgs.ca.gov MJM:ma Enclosures cc: David Cordova, Sr. Transportation Engineer, ADA, Caltrans Doug Ford, ADA/Disability Program Administrator, Caltrans Richard Skaff, Deputy Director, S.F. Mayor’s Office on Disability DGS Legal This story is taken from news at sacbee.com. For pedestrians, a countdown to the future By Matthew Barrows -- Bee Staff Writer - (Published March 16, 2002) The traditional "Walk/Don't Walk" signs that control the ebb and flow of pedestrian traffic in American cities are marking their 50th anniversary this year. Whether they'll remain for another 50 years, however, seems unlikely given a challenge from a new pedestrian-friendly device that has been popping up on California street corners. Called countdown signals, the new signs take the guesswork out of crossing the street by ticking down the seconds a walker has to make it to the other side. Stockton is one of six California cities participating in a pilot program to test the new signals. The city has installed them at five points along Hammer Lane, a thoroughfare that grows to 11 lanes at some intersections. And while crossing 11 lanes on foot is tough, it's a heart-thumping adventure in a wheelchair, said resident Pat Shay. "It can get spooky," said Shay, 58, who revs her electric wheelchair to its highest setting just before crossing. "You get midway and you don't know if the cars are going to start up." But halfway across Hammer Lane on Thursday, Shay knew she still had 15 seconds -- plenty of time -- to reach the other side. "This is much better," she said. Traffic engineers are reaching the same conclusion. The state Transportation Department's Traffic Control Devices Committee, which sets standards for everything from pedestrian signals to street signs, has been receiving positive feedback from the test cities and is expected to give the countdown signals its seal of approval within the next year. Sacramento County was the first in California to experiment with the signals, installing them at six intersections in 1998. A plan to place them throughout the county, however, had to be put on hold when the state's energy crisis forced the county to spend its signal funds elsewhere. The city of Sacramento intends to place its first countdown signal on Stockton Boulevard near Fruitridge Road next year. And a yearlong test at eight intersections in San Francisco was such a success that the city plans to install 3,000 countdown signals at nearly 600 intersections. A flood of countdown signals, of course, would wash away conventional "Walk/Don't Walk" signs that, as far as transportation officials can tell, first were installed in New York City in 1952. At that time Victor Ross was beginning a career with New York's fledgling Transportation Department, which had been charged with curbing an alarming number of pedestrian fatalities. Despite a soaring population in the early 1950s, Ross said, New York City was geared for automobiles. Traffic signals had only two colors -- red and green -- and pedestrians had no protection. "People crossed with great fear," said Ross, 78. "People were getting knocked off left and right. It was awful for pedestrians." In 1952, Ross said, a city electrical engineer named Lawrence Lawton developed a signal that had a white "WALK" light and red "DON'T WALK" light that coordinated with the traffic signals. One set was placed at 44th Street near the New York Times building, and another set at Herald Square near Macy's -- two areas with heavy foot traffic. Ross said the signals survived New York's snow and rain and soon became part of not only New York's landscape but also of every other urban area's as well. But despite their universal appeal, traffic engineers say they have always been baffled by how many people don't understand "WALK/DON'T WALK" and its counterpart, the walking white-lit man and the flashing red hand. Jose Alire, with the city of Fountain Valley in Orange County, said that when the red hand starts flashing, many pedestrians -- especially older walkers -- abort their crossing and turn back, unaware that a flashing hand means they still have time to get across. Conversely, others leave the curb during a flashing hand even though there isn't sufficient time to cross. Most cities give pedestrians at least one second for every 4 feet of intersection. "To traffic engineers, it's always been puzzling," Alire said. "We've tried to educate the public, but there's never been a clear understanding." Fountain Valley's countdown signals have been a hit, Alire said, because pedestrians automatically seem to understand how they work. When the hand starts flashing on countdown signals, it is accompanied by red numerals that tick -- second by second -- down to zero. During San Francisco's study, Pedestrian Program Manager Frank Markowitz said the number of pedestrians caught in the intersection when their light turned red decreased significantly because people tended to quicken their pace as the clock wound down. The percentage of people who aborted their crossing also was reduced. Henri Arcand works for GELcore, a Montreal-based company that manufactures the signals. Arcand said countdown signals have been especially popular near schools and senior centers. One reason is that those areas tend to have heavy foot traffic. But more importantly, children and senior citizens are the two groups most likely to be killed in a pedestrian accident. Arcand said older walkers often lack the confidence to cross large intersections. The countdown signals, he said, give them information they lacked with the conventional devices. And he said most children intuitively realize what the countdown means. When conventional and countdown signals were shown to Montreal-area schoolchildren, Arcand said, about 30 percent knew how to interpret the conventional devices as opposed to an 85 percent comprehension rate with the countdowns. Said Arcand: "When you put a timer on the street corner, they immediately know what it means." About the Writer --------------------------- The Bee's Matthew Barrows can be reached at (916) 321-1008 or mbarrows@sacbee.com . CTCDC Agenda May 8, 2002 Page 32 of 32