MINUTES CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES COMMITTEE (CTCDC) MEETING San Rafael, May 06, 2004 The second CTCDC meeting of year 2004 was held in San Rafael, on May 06, 2004. Chairman John Fisher opened the meeting at 9:45 a.m. with the introduction of Committee Members and guests. Chairman Fisher thanked Farhad Mansourian for hosting the meeting. The following Members, alternates and guests were in attendance: ATTENDANCE ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE Members (Voting) John Fisher League of CA Cities (213) 580-1189 Chairman City of Los Angeles Farhad Mansourian CA State Association of Counties (415) 499-6570 Vice Chairman Marin County Gerry Meis Caltrans (916) 654-4551 John Olejnik CHP (916) 657-7222 (Alternate) Ed von Borstel League of CA Cities (209) 577-5266 City of Modesto Merry Banks California State Automobile (415) 565-2297 Association Jacob Babico CA State Association of Counties (909) 387-8186 San Bernardino County Hamid Bahadori Auto Club of Southern California (714) 885-2326 ALTERNATES ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE Mark Greenwood League of CA Cities (760) 776-6450 City of Palm Desert Gian Aggarwal League of CA Cities (707) 449-5349 City of Vacaville gaggarwal@ci.vacaville.ca.us ATTENDEES ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE/E-Mail Johnny Bhullar Caltrans Johnny_Bhullar@dot.ca.gov Ted Cohn U.C. Berkeley tecohn@berkeley.edu Scott Roesener P.G & E sxrp@pge.com Maurice Palumbo Golden Gate Bridge mpalumbo@goldengate.org Hwy & Transportation Dist. Pat Echols Town of Tiburon pechols@ci.tiburon.ca.us Kevin Schumacher CPUC shk@cpuc.ca.gov Dennis Anderson 3M d-anderson@mmm.com Steven Shladover UCB-PATH steve@path.berkeley.edu Jim Misener UC Berkeley-PATH misenes@path.berkeley.com Christopher Nowakowski UC Berkeley-PATH chrsn@path.berkeley.com Michelle Tobias AAA michelle_tobias@csaa.com Jerry Williams BlinkerStop jerrysmail@pacbell.net Rick Bergholz Tapco rickb@tapconet.com Dale Jones BlinkerStop dale@newlite.com David Royer Univ. of California droyer@earthlink.net Debra Sue Johnson Town of Corte Madera djohnson@ci.corte-madera.ca.us Frank Markowitz San Francisco Parking & Traffic frank.morkowitz@sfgov.org Hassan Aboukhadigeh Caltrans haboukha@dot.ca.gov Matt Schmitz FHWA Mathew.schmitz@fhwa.dot.gov Ed Campbell Polara Engineering Traffic ed_campbell@sbcglobal.net Safety corp. Roger Bazely SF, PTA bazely@earthlink.net Jack Baker Marin Co. DPW David Parisi ITE-San Francisco david@parisi-associates.com Bay Area Section (415) 388-8978 MINUTES Adoption of January 22, 2004 CTCDC meeting minutes. Motion: Moved By Jacob Babico, seconded by Ed von Borstel, to adopt the Minutes of January 22, 2004 CTCDC meeting held in San Bernardino. Motion carried 8-0. Public Comments: Sergeant Donna Douglass, California Highway Patrol (CHP) stated that the CHP has initiated a “drive safely” program that is called neighborhood traffic safety program. Under this program a sign, “Warning Community Traffic Enforcement Area, Drive Safely” would be installed on local streets in neighborhoods which participate in the program. This is a cooperative effort between the CHP and residents of California to promote public safety, service to the public, community involvement in traffic safety, and safety education. This program was created in response to community concerns relative to traffic safety. The program is focused on working together in a cooperative effort to enhance public safety in communities. The CHP and residents develop a strategic plan to reduce traffic violations and associated motor vehicle collisions. The program involves both education and enforcement, with a simple, but imperative objective to ensure communities are in a safe place to drive and live. The neighborhood traffic safety program places CHP resources in areas where residents desire and have requested enhanced law enforcement presence. CHP involvement can include attendance at neighborhood meetings, traffic safety education, assistance in developing strategic neighborhood traffic safety plans, working with news media to increase public awareness and enhance enforcement programs and CHP presence. This program also provides an opportunity for residents to become actively involved in traffic safety and in directing CHP resources and enforcement efforts in their community. The mission of this program is to ensure safety and provide services to the public as they utilize the highway transportation system and to assist local government during emergencies when requested. The objectives of this program are accident prevention, emergency incident/traffic management, law enforcement services and assistance to local residents. Gerry Meis commented that he does not support the sign, because every roadway is subject to enforcement and it does not have a clear traffic message. Fewer signs are better for motorists to deal with and understand the message. The sign will not be installed on State Highways. Chairman Fisher agreed with Gerry’s comments, however he also appreciated CHP’s efforts and suggested that the sign might be useful in safety corridors. Jacob Babico asked how would the CHP implement this program if a roadway is under the enforcement of a local police department. John Olejnik responded that the program primarily would be implemented in unincorporated areas where the CHP has an enforcement agreement. Chairman Fisher suggested that the CHP request placing this item on the next CTCDC meeting agenda as a “discussion item.” Chairman Fisher asked for other public comments. Mike Sallabery, San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic took the opportunity to update Committee members on the bicycle pavement marking experiment. Mike provided a handout to Committee members which contained suggested language for the California Supplement to the MUTCD. Suggested language is: Option: To improve bicyclists’ positioning on roadways, encourage cycling in the correct direction, discourage cycling on sidewalks, and to inform motorists where to expect cyclists (especially on roadways where bike lanes are not possible or desirable) the Class III Bikeway Marking shown in Figure 1 may be used. Guidance: When used on routes with on street parking, the Class III Bikeway Marking should be placed so that its centerline is at 11’ from the curb to face, to encourage cyclists to ride in a location that prevents them from being struck by a suddenly opened car door (see Figure 2). On streets with no on-street parking, the marking should be placed so that it directs cyclists away from conditions alongside the curb face or road edge that compromise cyclists’ safety. Chairman Fisher apprised the Committee and audience that he has spoken with the national bicycle committee and there are ongoing experiments underway in other areas, such as Colorado and Chicago. The national committee would like to see results from other areas before making a final decision. He suggested reviewing the guidance from the national committee to keep uniformity. He asked Mike to initiate dialogue with the national Committee so a final decision could be made. Jacob pointed out a discrepancy in the overall height of the BPM shown on the handout versus the illustration shown in the January 22, 2004 meeting minutes. Mike responded that to be a typographical error. Public Hearing: 99-11 MUTCD Adoption by Caltrans Chairman Fisher stated that agenda item 99-11 MUTCD adoption along with a California Supplement was first placed on the agenda during the year of 1999 and asked Gerry Meis to provide a summary and status on the process. Gerry Meis stated that a few years back he initiated a discussion within Caltrans and with CTCDC members in regards to the adoption of the Federal “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD) along with a California Supplement. He believes that motorists should see similar traffic control devices when they travel from state to state. California will be different in certain cases because of legislation, however the focus should be to keep uniformity throughout the nation as much as possible. Gerry invited Johnny Bhullar, who was primarily responsible for the task of developing a California Supplement to provide an update to the Committee members and audience. Gerry stated that Johnny has done an outstanding job of developing the Supplement Johnny asked the CTCDC to make a recommendation to Caltrans to adopt the MUTCD 2003 along with the California Supplement (as posted on the Supplement web site) as the standard guidance for all official traffic control devices, in accordance with Section 214 00 of the California Vehicle Code. Johnny briefly discussed the history of the Caltrans Traffic Manual and added that in the early nineteen fifties it was known as the Maintenance Manual. Then in the sixties it was known as the Planning Manual, and in the seventies it was known as the Traffic Manual. The adoption of the MUTCD in California was placed on the agenda for the July 22, 1999 meeting as a “discussion item.” Since the MUTCD was undergoing a rewrite and was expected to be released by December 2000 this item was tabled. At the November 9, 2000 meeting, the CTCDC was informed that Caltrans had decided to adopt the MUTCD and would provide more details in future meetings. During the 2001 and 2002 years, a section by section comparison was made between the Caltrans Traffic Manual and the MUTCD 2000. Some other publications included in this review were Caltrans Traffic Sign Specifications, Caltrans new policies and internal memos, CTCDC's Light Rail Traffic Manual, Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000 (Bicycles), portions of Caltrans Maintenance Manual, Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual and Caltrans HOV Guidelines. Starting in early 2003, draft text was prepared for each part of the California Supplement and submitted to the CTCDC and Caltrans internal advisory committee for review. To help the review process, further discussions were held in two separate workshops over a period of 4 days with CTCDC members in July and September 2003. Based on these reviews, discussion, and recommendations, the draft text was finalized for all parts and made available and open to the public for comment in November 2003, through the California Supplement web site. The draft text was further edited and finalized based on public input through the public comment period, which closed on December 31, 2003. Although the draft text for the California Supplement to the MUTCD 2000 was completed in early 2003, it was agreed (at the January 22, 2004 CTCDC meeting) to adopt the MUTCD 2003 Edition (which had recently been released by FHWA) rather than the 2000 Edition. This resulted in postponing the MUTCD adoption for California to May 2004. A CTCDC workshop was held in Sacramento on March 25 and 26, 2004 to discuss the 2003 Edition changes. Based on these workshop discussions, the draft text for the California Supplement was finalized and made available and open to public comment through the California Supplement web site. Johnny stated that to satisfy the public comment period requirement, the draft text would be open for comments until May 16, 2004. Any editorial comments will be incorporated, however any comments in regards to policy changes would be brought back to the Committee for review and action. Johnny added that he, along with Matt Schmitz, FHWA, would be going throughout the State to provide training to traffic engineers, Caltrans Districts and ITE on the use of the MUTCD 2003 along with the California Supplement. Local agencies will be invited to attend this training. Farhad Mansourian stated that the Marin County Public Works Directors meet every month, and asked if Johnny would be available to attend one of the meetings and educate the directors on the use of these two documents? Johnny responded that he is open to any invitation as long as there is appropriate time allocated for a presentation. Gerry added that he would make Johnny available as asked by Farhad to attend Public Works Directors meetings. The goal is to familiarize as many engineers as possible on the use of the California Supplement with the MUTCD 2003. Farhad Mansourian stated that on May 20, 2004, Caltrans will adopt the MUTCD 2003 as amended by the California Supplement. In other words, after May 20, 2004, these documents will become the standard for all the official traffic control devices used in California. Johnny responded that that is correct and Caltrans will post this information on the MUTCD Supplement web site. Chairman Fisher stated that the Committee is set to make a historical change by recommending Caltrans adopt the MUTCD 2003 as amended by the California Supplement which will make California’s Traffic Manual obsolete. He asked whether Caltrans is considering taking the next step that would be to combine the two documents into a single document. Gerry responded that the ultimate goal is to make the California Supplement thinner and combine both documents into a single document. However, at this time Caltrans does not know exactly when this will be accomplished. Johnny added that his next task is to combine the work zone and school zone parts. These two parts will give him an idea about the time frame required to combine the two documents into a single document. He added that by the next CTCDC meeting, he would be able to provide a time frame to complete this task. Hamid asked if the Committee makes a recommendation today for the adoption, and if the public comments period is open until May16, 2004, would this create any legal conflict? Johnny responded that the Committees’ recommendations would be to adopt the MUTCD 2003 along with the California Supplement as posted on the web site. Any editorial comments will be incorporated, however any significant comments which involves policy change will be brought back to the Committees’ attention. It will require the same process as any other revision, such as modification or addition of a traffic control device. Secondly, revisions and updates would be a continuous process as occurred in the past with the Traffic Manual. Hamid stated that Caltrans has done a tremendous job and he requested that Caltrans take it to the next level by combining of the two documents into a signal document. This could be achieved by partnering with other organizations, such as ITE, ATSSA, and AAA. Johnny responded that he will find out how much time is needed to consolidate the two documents into a single document by the next CTCDC meeting. Jacob Babico noted that the Caltrans website has posted the California Supplement only, and we are adopting the MUTCD 2003 along with the California Supplement. By doing this, are we fulfilling the requirements of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21400 by just posting the California Supplement? Should not both the documents be posted side by side? Gerry responded that the California Supplement web site is linked to the MUTCD 2003 and both documents could be viewed side by side. Secondly, the law requires Caltrans to discuss with local agencies and the public before adopting standards and specifications for traffic control devices, and the final decision and responsibility ends with Caltrans. The Caltrans Legal Division is in agreement with the process. Chairman Fisher added that the Committee could assist Johnny in accomplishing the task of combining the two documents into a single document. Meanwhile, these two documents are dynamic documents and a lot of effort has been invested in the development. Chairman Fisher asked for public comments. Gian Aggarwal, alternate member, stated that Johnny and the CTCDC have done a great job. He stated that after the adoption of the MUTCD 2003, along with the California Supplement there will be new traffic control devices introduced in California and due to budget constraints, it will be a hardship on local agencies to comply with new standards immediately. He asked if there would be a grace period to comply with new devices. Johnny responded that there would be a phase out period. If an agency proposed a new project or a rehabilitation project, then new standards will apply. Other wise, there will be a compliance period for the implementation of new devices, which will vary from 0-15 years. Johnny stated that he will create a table identifying the compliance period for the implementation of new devices by the upcoming workshop (August 11, 2004) for the Committees’ review and it will be posted on the MUTCD Supplement web site. David Royer, Consulting Traffic & Highway engineering, provided written comments and gave few verbal comments to Committee members. The California Supplement needs to be published as a combined document with the MUTCD. It is impossible to shuffle back and forth between two manuals. David noted that where there are special standards for state highways, the standard should also have the wording “local jurisdictions are exempt from this special standard.” Also, all diagrams should be shown as the local jurisdiction method with special standards for state highways only noted on the plan. David submitted the following written comments: Part III Marking, Figure 3A-106 and Section 3B.04 should have a note that “raised reflectorized pavement markers shall not be used on right edge markings.” Figure 3B-103 and Section 3B-16 should have a note that “if a paved sidewalk exists, the limit line should be placed in advance of the unmarked crosswalk area.” Vehicles need to initially stop before they enter the pedestrian area. Part IV – Traffic Signals, Section C4B.01 through C4B14 should be removed from the supplement since they have nothing to do with the uniformity of traffic control devices, these procedures are an internal Caltrans document. Section 4D.15 add the wording “or suspended above” to the sentence: “A signal face, containing a circular green indication, may be located in or suspended above a far median only when:” the location of a signal head mounted in, or suspended above a far median creates the same degree of confusion to motorists. Construction warning sign should be shown on the diagrams with the “Ahead” message, rather than the federal “XXX Feet” message. The “Ahead” message is approved and is what is typically used in California construction zones. The 6C-2 Table for taper length need to call for 1000 foot tapers for freeways and expressways situations with speed limit of 55 MPH or greater. Section 6F.42 Uneven Lane (W8-11) sign, the special guidance wording of “two inch or more” should be deleted. Vertical pavement discrepancies of ½ inch pose a problem for bicycles and 1 ½ inch pose a problem for motorcycles. Anytime there are uneven lanes the W8-11 sign should be used. Johnny responded briefly to David’s comments. Caltrans will not publish the California Supplement, it will be available on the web site and can be downloaded or printed. In regards to the reference of State highways only, this issue was discussed extensively during the CTCDC workshops. Caltrans is focused on eliminating wherever differences exist in standards for the State highways and local streets. The comments related to the signal chapter will be forwarded to the Electrical Branch and any unclear text will be revised. The project report process will need to be addressed later. David Parisi, Vice President, Bay Area Section of ITE San Francisco, stated that their organization had invited Johnny Bhullar and Matt Schmitz to attend an ITE meeting and both Johnny and Matt gave a very informative overview on the use of the MUTCD 2003 along with the California Supplement. There was positive feedback from the members. He encouraged this type of meeting be used to spread the word about the adoption of the California Supplement. He added that they plan to invite them again to provide information to their members on the use of new standards. Matt Schmitz, FHWA, asked the Committee to make a recommendation to Caltrans for the adoption of the MUTCD 2003 along with the California Supplement. He added that tremendous efforts were expanded by Caltrans, the CTCDC, and FHWA in the development of the MUTCD 2003 and the California Supplement. He shared that there were excellent comments from practitioners and local agencies, and he hopes that those individuals continue to review these documents and send their comments to Caltrans. He agreed that there are some concerns about having a single document instead of two documents. He added that based on his personnel experience, he is not convinced having one document is better than two documents and that time will tell us which way to go. Matt suggested that there is work to be done to make these two documents friendlier for users. Chairman Fisher asked Matt whether any of the states have adopted the MUTCD 2003. Matt responded that some of the States strictly follow the MUTCD and it means, by default, they adopt the new version of the MUTCD automatically. Of the States that have their own Supplement, California will be the first one to adopt the MUTCD 2003 along with a State Supplement. Roger Bazeley, San Francisco Parent Teachers Association, stated that he has concerns on the overall strength and weakness of the language used in regards to the school chapter, particularly on pedestrian crossings. He stressed having better school signing and pavement markings. Intersections near schools should have “yellow fluorescent” signs with ladder crosswalks. The transportation system should be more community friendly and new technology should be used to provide information 24hours a day, 7 days a week. He added that the use of pedestrian countdown signal heads reduced congestion at intersections in the City of San Francisco. He advocated more friendly devices be used to provide safer routes to schools and for pedestrian safety. He requested that the school chapter be published separately. Johnny responded that Roger’s comments are general, and that if he provides specific comments/suggestions on any of the policy, then Caltrans will act accordingly. Chairman Fisher opened discussion among Committee members. Farhad Mansourian stated that he would propose four different motions related to this item. One of these will be the adoption of the MUTCD along with the California Supplement, and the other three would be as a request to Caltrans on different issues that are tied to the new documents. Motion: Moved by Farhad Mansourian, seconded by Ed von Borstel, recommend that Caltrans adopt the MUTCD 2003 and the California Supplement as the standard for all traffic control devices in California pursuant to CVC 21400. Chairman Fisher asked for discussion on the motion. Chairman Fisher suggested rewarding the motion, to adopt the MUTCD 2003 as amended by the California Supplement. Farhad agreed with the revised language. Motion: Moved by Farhad Mansourian, seconded by Ed von Borstel, recommend that Caltrans adopt the MUTCD 2003 as amended by the California Supplement as the standard for all the traffic control devices in California pursuant to CVC 21400. Chairman Fisher inquired about the “status of Caltrans actions on the past items”, such as 01-1, 01-6, 00-4 and 02-3. Gerry Meis asked Devinder Singh, Secretary CTCDC, to provide an update on Chairman Fishers’ comment. Devinder responded that item 01-6 has been incorporated in the Supplement and on the other three items (01-1, 00- 4, and 02-3), Caltrans will act shortly and will then inform the Committee. Jacob reiterated that Caltrans should come up with a time frame to consolidate the two documents into a single document that would be more user friendly. He added that there are some sections in the Supplement that required editorial changes for clarification. Farhad Mansourian added that this is a living document and it will be constantly changed and updated by Caltrans with the assistance of the CTCDC. Chairman Fisher suggested that if there are any editorial changes considered necessary as pointed out by Jacob, the Committee authorized Caltrans to make those changes by May 20, 2004, before sending an adoption letter to FHWA. Hamid Bahadori asked whether voting on the first motion has any bearing on the other motions. Farhad suggested that the other motions are as a request to Caltrans to consider the Committee’s suggestions. They are not tied to this motion. Hamid noted that as Gerry Meis earlier mentioned, due to the budget constraints, it is not possible to consolidate the two documents at this time into a single document. Hamid suggested that all the effort invested in the development of the California Supplement will be successful only if Caltrans continues working on this task and makes this document friendlier to the end users. Jacob asked, would you not require a completed document as an attachment to the motion presented? He further added that the California Supplement contains additions, subtractions or more clarification than the MUTCD 2003. In the past, engineers were looking at one document, which was the Traffic Manual. Now you must consult both documents for correct interpretation, and that is a difficult practicality. Gerry Meis responded that the motion is to adopt the MUTCD 2003 as amended by the California Supplement and as posted on the web site. Both documents are extensively reviewed by the CTCDC and by the public. Any editorial changes will be made with a good faith and any policy changes/suggestions from individuals or from local agencies will be brought back to the Committee for considerations. He added that he always consulted both manuals in past, even though the Traffic Manual was the only official document in California. Chairman Fisher asked for other comments. There were none. Motion carried 8-0. Farhad Mansourian suggested he will request the Committee to recognize services of Johnny Bhullar in this effort and he would like to propose a motion. Motion: Moved by Farhad Mansourian, seconded by Ed von Borstel, that an item be placed on the agenda for the next CTCDC meeting, commending Johnny Bhullar for the tremendous job he has done in last three years to get to this point. Chairman Fisher asked discussion on the motion. Gerry Meis offered his services to put together a resolution. Farhad Mansourian added that he would help Meis in this effort. Motion carried 8-0. Farhad Mansourian presented a third motion: Motion: Moved by Farhad Mansourian, seconded by Ed von Borstel, that Caltrans is requested to consolidate the two documents into a single document and provide a time table of when that can be accomplished during the next CTCDC meeting. Chairman Fisher asked for discussion on the motion. Jacob Babico suggested changing the wording to say, “the Committee urged Caltrans to consolidate two documents to a single document as early as possible, but not later than the end of this year.” Gerry Meis responded that he does not agree with the requirement of a timetable, however, the task will be to look into it. The first step is to combine the work zone and school zone parts. That is a priority, because of the demand from end users. Gerry invited Matt Schmitz, FHWA, to add to this topic based on his experience with other states. Matt stated that he is not sure which is the best way, having a single document or two documents. He suggested that this should not be a barrier and that time will possibly dictate us which way to go. He pointed out that Texas has a single document. Farhad asked Johnny Bhullar whether he would like to add to the consolidation topic. Johnny Bhullar added that he will be working on combining the work zone and school parts, and that will give him an estimate about the time needed to combine two documents to a single document. He should have a pretty good idea by the next CTCDC meeting. In addition, he will have few samples of the format to discuss which is the better way to consolidate. Gerry Meis asked about the timetable to complete this task. Johnny responded that he should have a pretty good idea by the next meeting. Realistically, it can be achieved within a year, without any interruption it could be done by the end of this year. However for the next few months, he will be travelling throughout the State with Matt Schmitz giving presentations to traffic engineers on the use of these two documents. Chairman Fisher asked for other comments. There were none. Motion carried 7-1. Gerry Meis abstained. Farhad Mansourian stated that the fourth item is to consider compliance dates for the various new devices. He suggested having a discussion item for the next meeting or a workshop to discuss compliance dates. He asked Johnny whether he has any idea how this information will be disseminated to the public agencies. Johnny responded that after the adoption of the MUTCD 2003 as amended by the California Supplement, he will be making a list of the new devices which will be adopted in this process and then the compliance date for each device. The Committee’s input is needed to finalize the compliance dates. If a particular device requires extension beyond the compliance date, then Caltrans and the Committee together will discuss this with the FHWA. Chairman Fisher advised that Kevin Schumacher, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has requested a half-day meeting with Committee members to address issues related to the railroad crossings. If the Committee agrees to have a “workshop”, then a one-day workshop before the next CTCDC meeting could be used to address compliance dates and CPUC comments in regards to the railroad crossings. Gerry Meis agreed having a workshop to address compliance dates and CPUC issues. Jacob Babico stated that the comment period is open until May 16, 2004, and if comments are directed to Johnny, how will this Committee be involved in the review of those comments. Johnny responded that if comments are editorial, then, they would be incorporated. If a comment is related to a policy change or it has a major impact, then it will be brought back to the Committee for consideration. Chairman Fisher asked for other comments. There were none. Motion: Moved by Farhad Mansourian, seconded by Merry Banks, recommend having a workshop the day before the next CTCDC meeting to discuss compliance dates for implementation of new devices. Motion carried 8-0. Action: Item completed. Caltrans will adopt the MUTCD 2003 as amended by the California Supplement on May, 20,2004. On the other three motions, Caltrans will work with the Committee. Request for Experimentation: 01-9 Proposal to Modify approved Experiment, “In-roadway Warning Lights (IRWL) at R/R Crossings” Chairman Fisher asked Gerry Meis to address agenda item 01-9, proposal to modify an already approved experiment with IRWLs at a R/R crossing. Gerry introduced Kent Christianson, UC Berkeley, to the Committee and asked him to address the proposal to modify an approved experiment for R/R crossings. Kent Christianson, The Visual Detection Laboratory (VDL) at U.C. Berkeley, stated that he is requesting approval to slightly change an already approved experiment with IRWLs at a R/R crossing. The proposal is to test a different flash pattern for two weeks and then switch back to the original approved experiment. The approved experiment will use five red LED lights embedded in the roadway (protruding less than ½ an inch) near the highway-railroad grade crossing and three amber lights upstream in the approach lane. When a train approaches the intersection, all the lights flash simultaneously. The pattern of the two-week proposal will be a “wig-wag” type pattern. The pattern starts with two lights coming on for 150 milliseconds. All lights are then off for 110 milliseconds. The remaining three lights (out of the five) will then come on for 150 milliseconds. All lights are then off for 110 milliseconds. The cycle then repeats. The intent is to simulate a “wig-wag” by alternating between “even” and “odd” lights. In other words, if the lights are numbered 1 through 5 looking left to right, then lights 2 and 4 light up, turn off and then (after a short gap) lights 1, 3 and 5 light up. They in turn go out and are followed by a short gap, etc. Kent added that the VDL has been conducting research into whether spatial and temporal patterns of traffic warning lights can elicit a better driver response to those lights (e.g. a faster reaction time for braking) than “straight flashing” or a “constant” light. For example, the VDL research with the light bars on the rear of buses indicated that having the bus bar turn on in segments results in a faster reaction time to that warning, even though the segmented display takes longer to fully light the bar than the “all on at once” mode. The VDL would like to see whether various spatial/temporal patterns could improve reaction time in comparison to the standard pattern (simultaneously flashing). The objective behind the requested modifications is to extend these tests to the field. Kent asked for approval of his request. Chairman Fisher asked comments from Committee members. Gerry Meis asked how the lights would be activated. How will you measure the success/failure of the experiment? If purpose is to improve drivers’ reaction time, how will you measure that? Kent responded that the train would activate the lights. To measure the success/failure part is difficult to analyze, however the driver reaction time will be a basic factor to determine which pattern best gets motorists attention. Jacob Babico asked whether a flashing red light would confuse motorists, because it means stop and go. Kent responded that the lights are consistent with currently used flashing beacons, red with red and yellow with yellow. Red flashing lights are currently used at R/R crossings and if there is a confusion, it needs to be addressed universally. The request is to use a different flash pattern for two weeks as a part of an already approved experiment. Chairman Fisher asked whether the proposal is to use a flash rate that turns the lights on for 150 ms, off for 110 ms, and then it will be repeated. The 2070 controller does not have the capability to turn lights on and off at that flash rate. Are you open to consider other flash rates that also work with the companion flashing beacons placed at R/R crossings? If you conduct an experiment with 100 ms on and off flash rate, and the wig-wag-flashing pattern is found to be better than the simontantously-flashing pattern, agencies could use the 2070 controller. Kent responded that he followed the MUTCD Section 4L.02 guidelines for the flash rate. He could adjust the flash rate, if that is what the committee wants. Hamid Bahadori stated that he agreed with Chairman Fishers’ comments. The purpose of the experiment is to see which pattern provides a better response by motorists. The minor change in the timing of a flash rate would not have much effect because the change will be very minor from 150/110 ms to 100/100 ms on and off. If the experiment is conducted with a flash rate which could be programmed with other controllers then it will have greater application. An unidentified speaker from VDL stated that the location does not have a 2070 controller. The controller for the embedded lights will be supplied by LightGuard Corporation, which gives a variety of options for the flash rate. On the other hand, he agreed with the suggested flash rate because it would have wider implementation. Kent agreed with the comments made by Chairman Fisher and Hamid Bahadori and added that he is open to the suggestion. Merry Banks asked how many times the lights would be activated in a two-week period. Kent responded that he has not looked in that, but that it would not be very much activation. Kevin Schumacher, CPUC, stated that the location does not have a 2070 controller and for this experiment it will be a different controller. Chairman Fisher asked for other comments. There were none. Motion: Moved by John Fisher, seconded by Hamid Bahadori, approved the experiment by changing the flash rate from 150/110 ms on/off to 100/100 ms on/off. Chairman Fisher asked for discussion on the motion. Chairman Fisher stated that if the wig-wag pattern of embedded lights proved beneficial, then the modified flash rate could be used in more general applications. Kent agreed with the proposed flash rate timing. Motion Carried 7-0. Action: Item approved for experimentation. 00-6 Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads (PCSHs) Chairman Fisher asked Merry Banks to address the agenda item on PCSHs. Merry Banks introduced Frank Markowtiz, City of San Francisco, and asked him to provide an update on the experiment with PCSHs. Frank Markowtiz, Traffic Parking Manager, City of San Francisco, stated that the CTCDC gave authorization in 2000-01 to conduct experiments with PCSHs. Even though the Committee already had made a decision on this device to be an official device in California, the City wants to keep their promise to provide results of the experiment. Frank provided a brief summary on the results of the experiment. Frank stated that the public viewed the PCSHs very favorably. The “post” pedestrian incidents were reduced at the intersections with PCSHs compared to the “before” incidents. The pedestrians were able to finish their crossing before signals turned to red. The devices did not encourage pedestrians to start crossing during the pedestrian clearance phase. The City has positive maintenance and operation experiences. The pedestrians finishing their crossing on red dropped from 14% pre installation to 9% post-installation. Pedestrians running or aborting crossings dropped from 13% to 8% in 2001 and to 4% in 2003. There was a slight decrease in drivers entering the intersection on red. About 92% of pedestrians preferred the countdown system when compared with conventional pedestrian signals. Frank added that installation is very simple for field personnel. Pedestrians understand the system. The City has 660 intersections equipped with PCSHs and within two years the number will be 850. The City is considering testing animated eye signals with countdown. Gerry Meis asked when the countdown numerals go to zero, at the beginning of yellow or at beginning of the green phase. Frank responded that the countdown numerals go to zero at the beginning of the yellow phase. Chairman Fisher asked if the countdown is equally valuable for wide and narrow intersections. Frank responded that PCSH’s at narrow intersections (25-30’) would not be particularly beneficial because the pedestrian clearance time would be too short. In his opinion and based on the study, the wider intersections would be a better use for countdown signals. Chairman Fisher asked that if there is a vendor that produce animated eyes signals with the countdown feature. Frank responded yes. There were no other comments. Motion: Moved by Merry Banks, seconded by Ed von Borstel, to accept the final report on the experiment with pedestrian countdown signal heads as submitted by the City of San Francisco. Motion carried 7-0 Action: Item completed. Note: Please note that on May 20, 2004, Caltrans adopted the MUTCD 2003 as amended by the California Supplement, therefore, pedestrian countdown signal heads are an official traffic control device in California. Off the Agenda Item Internally Illuminated “No Left Turn” sign Chairman Fisher asked the California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH) Program, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, to present an “off the agenda item” relating to intersection safety. Steven Shladover, Research Engineer, California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH) stated that the PATH Program in coordination with the Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation and the FHWA have initiated a project to reduce intersection crashes by giving drivers information to help them better judge available turning gaps, and potential conflicts. The project is at a very early stage, however, PATH wants to share the concept with the Committee. At a latter stage a field test will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the device. The project is to use intelligent transportation system (ITS) technology and sensors to detect approaching vehicle locations and speeds by using a computer to predict gaps and conflicts and initiate warnings. In the longer term the project would be to develop wireless data communication to/from vehicles to activate warning devices, particularly dynamic and variable displays. The project is a USDOT Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) research project and is funded 80% by the FHWA with 20% from State funding. Future steps are to include field testing and vehicle-infrastructure cooperation. Virginia and Minnesota are also evaluating primary intersection conflicts and their remedies. The California areas of interest are conflicts at signals with both directions having green signals and a left turn yield. PATH is testing a system in the their Richmond Field Station facility and have also collected pre observation data at the intersection of Shattuck and Hearst Street in Berkeley. The pre data will be collected by using a variety of devices such as loop detectors, video detectors and radar systems. Collected data will be analyzed to predict gaps, conflicts or violations and information will be sent drivers via a dynamic sign or signal controller. The experiment will also evaluate the preferred warning system designs. A final product will recommend design for the infrastructure elements and system and provide estimates of effectiveness in reducing intersection crashes. Steven introduced his partner Jim Misener. Jim discussed various sign concepts with the Committee members. The presentation can be downloaded from the following web site: http://path.berkeley.edu/~misener/CTCDC/ Committee members thanked Steven Shladover, Jim Misener and the PATH program for their efforts to find ways to reduce intersection incidents. Committee members suggested not developing too many variations of signs to confuse motorists. They also suggested that a warning type of sign may be an appropriate device. Committee members encouraged the PATH efforts and stated that they will be looking forward to results of the field experiment. Adjourn: Motion: Moved by Gerry Meis, seconded by Merry Banks, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held on August 12, 2004 in Caltrans District 11 Office, 2829 Juan Street, San Diego, CA 92186. CTCDC Minutes May 6, 2004 Page 15 of 15