MINUTES CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES COMMITTEE (CTCDC) MEETING Costa Mesa, June 14, 2006 The second CTCDC meeting of year 2006 was held in Costa Mesa, on June 14, 2006. Chairman Farhad Mansourian opened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. with the introduction of Committee members and guests. Chairman Mansourian thanked Auto Club of Southern California for hosting the meeting. Steve Lenzi, Senior Executive Vice President, Auto Club of Southern California, thanked the Committee for holding meeting in their facility. He stated that the Auto Club has long working history with the CTCDC, particularly in the field of traffic control devices. He also stated that both the CTCDC and the Auto Club’s goal is to provide a safer roadway for the motoring public, pedestrians and bicyclists. He also invited the Committee to hold future meetings in their facility. The following Members, alternates and guests were in attendance: ATTENDANCE ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE Members (Voting) Farhad Mansourian CA State Association of Counties (415) 499-6570 Chairman Marin County Hamid Bahadori Auto Club of Southern California (714) 885-2326 Vice Chairman John Fisher League of CA Cities (213) 972-8424 City of Los Angeles Gerry Meis Caltrans (916) 654-4551 Capt. Joe Whiteford CHP (916) 657-7222 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 ATTENDEES ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE/E-Mail Joe Jeffrey Road-Tech Safety Services joe@road-tech.com (530) 676-7797, (909) 964-9512 Conard Lapinski Amador County (209) 223-6429 Ahmad Rastegarpour Caltrans ahmad_rastegarpour@dot.ca.gov George Allen City of Garden Grove Tony Aquino City of Garden Grove Jeff McRae Caltrans Jeff_McRae@dot.ca.gov Dennis Anderson 3M danderson@mmm.com Ken Kochevar FHWA ken.kochevar@fhwa.dot.gov George Mavrik Ryan Snyder Ryan Snyder Ass. Ryan@RSACC (213) 571-2910 Scott Bell CHP scbell@chp.ca.gov (916) 657-7222 Yogy Ruiz LA City, DPW yruiz@ladpw.org Paul Pooh CHRISP Co. pugh@ocsnet.net (661) 255-6556 David Royer Consultant droyerpe@earthlink.net Johnny Bhullar Caltrans johnny_bhullar@dot.ca.gov Marie Simon Auto Club Southern CA simon.marie@aaa.calif.com (714) 647-5645 Monica Suter City of Santa Ana msuter@ci.santa-ana.ca.us Matt Schmitz FHW Richard Haggstrom Caltrans richard_haggstrom@dot.ca.gov MINUTES Adoption of February 23, 2006 CTCDC meeting minutes. Motion: Moved by Ed von Borstel, seconded by Merry Banks, to adopt the minutes of the February 23, 2006 CTCDC meeting held in Sacramento, California. Motion carried 8-0. Membership Chairman Mansourian introduced Deborah Wong as an alternate member to Merry Banks, representing the California Automobile Association. Public Comments: Chairman Mansourian asked for public comments on any item not appearing on the agenda. George Mavrik stated that he had asked to place his request on the agenda, however Gerry Meis told him that his item would not be placed on the agenda. He stated that he requested a sign from Caltrans to be installed at the intersection of State Route 79 and County Road San Felipe (S22). Caltrans took eight month to install the sign. He further stated that he is asking Caltrans to install another sign at the same intersection that identifies that Route 76 is four miles south. Caltrans response was that the sign could confuse the motoring public. In his opinion, the sign will be helpful to motorists because they will know how to get to State Route 76. After Caltrans refused to install the sign, he was told to approach the CTCDC. He stated that he contacted Devinder Singh, CTCDC Secretary, and asked him the process to place an item on the CTCDC agenda. Devinder provided the guidelines to place a request on the CTCDC agenda and gave the member’s name who represents Southern California. George stated that he also contacted Jacob Babico who represents his area and asked him to sponsor his request for the agenda. He added that it is unconstitutional to deny his request, according to the Article 2, Section 1. He asked the Committee to place his request for the next meeting when it will be held in Southern California. Chairman Mansourian thanked Mr. Mavrik. There were no other open comments. Public Hearing: 04-E California MUTCD Adoption (FHWA’s MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended by for use in CA) Chairman Mansourian asked Johnny Bhullar to address the agenda item for the adoption of the California MUTCD. Johnny asked John Fisher if he would like to address it first since John was the sponsor of the item. John Fisher stated that Gerry Meis brought this item to the Committee to make the California manual comparative to Federal manual. The Committee has invested a lot of time in the adoption of the MUTCD 2003 along with the California Supplement. However, practitioners had difficulty consulting with two massive documents for implementation. After receiving comments from the Transportation community, the Committee requested Caltrans to combine both documents into a single document to make a more user-friendly document. The Committee and Caltrans have gone through the comments that were received from individuals. The combined document will strikeout the language which is not applicable in California and added text will be shown in a blue color as well as with two vertical bars. Johnny explained the process that was followed in the development of the California Supplement as well as the combining of the single document. Johnny stated that the California Supplement was adopted in May 20, 2004. Subsequent to that, the Committee requested Caltrans to combine the two documents to a single document, because of the numerous comments from practitioners and also their personal experience. Caltrans agreed with the Committee’s recommendations and started working on the task. The first combined portion of Part 1, and 5 through 10 were posted on the website and the comments pertaining to these parts were discussed during the November 16 workshop in Los Angeles. The remaining parts were posted on the website on May 15, 2006 and the comments were discussed during the June 1, 2006 workshop and on June 14, 2006 from 7:30 AM to 9:20 AM before the CTCDC meeting. The comments will be incorporated in the final document, and the comments that are received after the due date will be reviewed and discussed with the Committee. However, they will not be included in the final document. If a comment resulted in a policy change, that will be placed on the CA MUTCD website. Johnny asked the Committee if they would make recommendations to Caltrans for the adoption of the California MUTCD as was posted on the website with the inclusion of comments which were agreed upon. Chairman Mansourian asked members whether they had questions for Johnny or any comments. Gerry Meis thanked the Committee for their involvement in the development of the California MUTCD and asked Committee members if they would recommend that Caltrans adopt the California MUTCD. Gerry further stated that this will be a dynamic document, however, there will be changes at the federal level, California level and those changes can be kept separate on the website until the Committee determines that they need to be incorporated in the manual. Hamid stated that the first step is to adopt the combined document and move on, because the Committee and Caltrans have invested a tremendous amount of time in the development process. Hamid asked if the Committee recommends today for the adoption of the California MUTCD, then what is the plan for publication. Gerry Meis stated that he is working to secure the funding for publication, however, at this point, he is not sure whether there will be funds available or not. The first step is to adopt the California MUTCD and post it on the website. Gerry also stated that even though Caltrans Legal Division stated that the CA MUTCD would be a copyright, he would work to make it a public domain, in an event if Caltrans is not able to print hard copies. Johnny commented that when the final document is posted on the website, there will be no change until a major revision is needed. The ongoing new policies and changes can be posted on the California MUTCD website under new polices or revisions. Hamid stated that it is very critical to provide publication to practitioners. If Caltrans is not able to provide funding for the publication then Caltrans should make CA MUTCD a public domain. FHWA has allowed private individuals to print and sell the MUTCD 2003. Hamid asked Johnny, since the Part 5 Work Zones and Part 7 School Zones will be printed separately, would they also be included in the combined document. Johnny responded yes, they will be printed separately and they will also be included in the main document. Chairman Mansourian asked what the approximate cost for the printing would be. Gerry responded that the cost for printing would be around $800,000. Chairman Mansourian further asked Gerry whether the League of California Cities and California Association Counties could provide any assistance in this matter. Gerry stated that the joint effort by the local agencies and by his Office would be helpful to convince Caltrans that there is a need for the publication. There were no other comments from the Committee members. Chairman Mansourian asked comments from the public. Dave Royer, Consultant, stated that the availability of a hard copy is a necessity for the practitioners, because to use two huge document at the website is not convenient. He further stated that the document should be made a public domain so that any private company can print it, and sell it. He appreciated Committee’s hard work in the development of California MUTCD. Monica Suter stated that she noted the word “accident” used in the old manual would be replaced with the word “collision” throughout the CA MUTCD. This is good for consistency. She stated that on behalf of the City of Santa Ana, she has submitted two comments on the proposed California MUTCD. The first is about the collision data used for the signal warrants justification. Most of the time the collision data reported to the local agencies is not accurate. Most of the time property damaged only (PDO) collisions are often not reported by the law enforcement agencies. If there is an accurate reported collision data available then more locations could be warranted for safety improvements. She suggested that the Committee may want to consider modifying the warrant so that local agencies or jurisdictions where collision reporting practices to do not reflect all collisions (particularly PDO collisions), an optional correction factor may be applied to adjust the threshold of collisions listed while using this warrant for signal justification. The other issue is a school zone signing. There may be good intent when the sign package was developed, however, it needs a closer look. There is real challenge to place all the school zone signs. The school zone signs are so crowded that sometimes it is difficult to accommodate. Hamid stated that the comments in regards to the reported collisions are correct, however any flexibility will also be misused by the agencies. Some agencies may use that flexibility to lower the speed limits. He suggested that if the Committee considers revisiting a collision warrant, it must be evaluated carefully and especially it should be noted that this flexibility could not be used in the establishment of speed limits. He sited the example of minimum yellow timing, how the agencies used to follow different justification to lower the timing at the intersection where red light cameras were used. John Fisher appreciated Monica comments and agreed with her concern in regards to not having complete data on the property damage collisions. John stated that local jurisdictions have more stringent guidelines on the interpretation of warrants. Johnny talked about the publication and he shared the opinion of the Caltrans Legal Division. He stated that even though the majority of the document is the Federal manual, when Caltrans adopts it under the California MUTCD, it becomes a Caltrans document. Therefore, the Caltrans Legal Division says it would be a copyright. He added that when the final document will be posted on the website, after that he will spend more time on this issue and ask Caltrans Legal Division to make it public domain in the event that Caltrans is not able to print hard copies. He stated that the comments received from Monica Suter were after the due date and the Caltrans Electrical Division had not reviewed the comments. These comments and any comments that would be received after the adoption of California MUTCD will be an on-going process and will be discussed and if there are any policy changes that take place then it would be posted on the website. There were no other comments from audience. Chairman Mansourian brought back the item for discussion amongst the Committee members. Gerry Meis stated that he disagrees with the Caltrans Legal Division’s opinion that the California MUTCD will be a copyright. He believes that if FHWA can allow MUTCD publication by private companies, then why not Caltrans. He further stated that there was an earlier comment made by Hamid Bahadori that this will be a final document for a couple of years until a major revision takes place. He stated that there will be ongoing changes, which could resultant in new policies, and Caltrans will work with this committee and determine how to share with public agencies. If there is a need to incorporate it to the manual, the changes can be inserted. John Fisher stated that he strongly recommends that Caltrans should print the California MUTCD after it is completed and posted on website. Caltrans should find the resources to provide funding for the publication. Chairman Mansourian stated that Gerry Meis is putting his efforts either to printing this manual or making it a public domain. There were no other comments. Motion: Moved by John Fisher, seconded by Ed von Borstel, recommends Caltrans to adopt the California MUTCD as reviewed and discussed during the various workshops and that Caltrans identify the most appropriate method for its timely publication and distribution. Motion carried 8-0 Chairman Mansourian appreciated the hard work done by Johnny Bhullar, other Caltrans employees who worked behind the scenes, Committee members who devoted their valuable time and especially to John Fisher for providing the leadership during the whole process. Gerry Meis thanked the Committee members for devoting their valuable time to complete the task, and that without them, it would not be possible to complete this document. Note to Readers: CA MUTCD will be posted on the website (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/index.htm) by the end of August 2006. 06-4 Older California Traffic Safety Task Force (OCTSTF), Proposal for Inclusion into the California MUTCD Chairman Mansourian asked Gerry Meis to address agenda item 06-4 OCTSTF. Gerry Meis asked Johnny Bhullar to address this item because he was a member of OCTSTF and as well as the author of the proposed language which is included in the agenda packet. Gerry stated that he regrets not being able to attend the last workshop with the OCTSTF on February 22, 2006. He stated that he has concerns on a few of the items as they have been proposed, because he believes that there was not enough research to support these items as guidance. He suggested that he would wait for the FHWA recommendations on these items. Johnny Bhullar stated that the OCTSTF was structured under the leadership of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to address pedestrians and older driver issues related to the roadways. The purpose of the taskforce was to study the guidelines published by FHWA in 1998 and make a recommendation to Caltrans for the adoption in California. These guidelines were also part of the SAFETEA-LU Program enacted by Congress. There were a total of 125 recommendations in which 102 were related to traffic control devices. Out of the 102 recommendations, 57 were already included in the MUTCD 2003 and they were adopted in California with the MUTCD 2003 along with the California Supplement. The OCTSTF studied the remaining 45 items and planned to place them on the CTCDC agenda for adoption in California. The OCTSTF plan was to bring 2-3 items during each meeting. The CTCDC recommended discussing all the items in a special workshop and placing only those items on the agenda that were agreed to during the workshop. A workshop was held on February 22, 2006 in Sacramento. There were 41 items to discuss. During the workshop, 26 items were supported for recommendation as a guidance, option or support. Fifteen items were deferred to FHWA rulings. Johnny Bhullar stated that the recommendations suggested during the workshop have been included in the agenda packet as a proposed language. Chairman Mansourian opened discussion amongst the Committee members. John Fisher commented that he has some editorial nature suggestions. He pointed out page 15 of the agenda packet and suggested that sign R15-8 (LOOK with Arrows symbol) should have the message “FOR TRAINS”. Johnny Bhullar stated that the federal sign has message “LOOK with Arrows” only, if Committee decided to add words “FOR TRAINS”, it would be a CA sign. See illustration of the sign as shown on the next page: 40 - (V.A.(1b)) Section 8B.08 STOP (R1-1) or YIELD (R1-2) Signs at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Hamid Bahadori stated that this would be the only sign that would have the message “LOOK with arrows” and no warning about what to look for. Most other signs have “look for pedestrians, look for opposing traffic or look for falling rocks”. He suggested adding “FOR TRAINS”. Without the word “FOR TRAINS” the message will be confusing to motorists. The “LOOK” signs always has a supplemental message. Jacob Babico commented that the combined message as shown on page 15 would be very low to the ground and would not meet the minimum requirement for height. Chairman Mansourian stated that during the break he has discussed the agenda item with Gerry Meis. He would like sharing that discussion with Committee members and the audience. Gerry Meis pointed out that there are legal issues with some of the items as they have been proposed. He believes that the Committee will make recommendations for adoption of the proposed language with minor editorial changes. After listening to Gerry’s concern, he proposed three options: ? Do nothing today and establish a Sub Committee, who works with Caltrans to sort out the legal issues and bring back this item to the full committee. Or; ? Separate the items with no concerns and vote on those items today. The items with concerns would be discussed in the future. Or; ? The Committee hears all the concerns today and then takes no action today, however work on the concerns raised by Gerry and bring it back to the Committee. Chairman Mansourian further suggested that the 3rd option is not viable. He asked the Committee members their opinion on option 1 and 2 and asked how they would like to pursue this item. The Committee members suggested proceeding with option number 2. Hamid Bahadori stated that public opinion should also be considered. Chairman Mansourian asked for public comments. Ken Kochevar, FHWA, stated that he was surprised to hear the legal issues. He added that the product in the agenda packet is the work of years spent by the task force. He suggested that if there are issues at the 11th hour, he would suggest going along with option 2 as suggested by the Committee members. At least the Committee can act on some of the items. He stated that he heard comments earlier that the next update of the CA MUTCD will be after a few years, which means the items not enacted by the Committee today would not be incorporated in to the CA MUTCD for few years. Chairman Mansourian stated he proposed that the items that are not enacted today be resolved by a Sub- Committee, comprised by a representative from AAA, counties, cities, task force, and to meet with Caltrans to resolve the outstanding issues. John Fisher stated that the items that are not enacted today would not be included in the final CA MUTCD document. Hamid Bahadori asked why the guidelines adopted by FHWA would have legal issues. Hamid further added that these items have been reviewed for the last 2-3 years and Caltrans was a part of that group. Why hasn’t Caltrans raised any concerns during those meetings? Caltrans should have stated that these items will not be adopted in CA until FHWA adopts the items in the Federal manual. Gerry Meis responded that some of the traffic control devices from these guidelines have been included in the MUTCD 2003 and on others FHWA has not taken any action. He added that he has concerns on those items that have not been adopted by the FHWA or they still have uncertainty to make any ruling on them. There was not enough experiment/study on these items. Ken Kochevar responded that there are two versions of the guidelines that were published by the FHWA. The big version does have background on each item in details for the justifications. The task force has spent a lot of time studying those backgrounds and came up with the recommendations. Chairman Mansourian stated that he agrees with Ken Kochevar’s comments as well as with Gerry’s concerns. He asked Gerry Meis if he could identify the items he has concerns with so the Committee can discuss the remaining items. Gerry Meis identified items 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 41with concerns. Chairman Mansourian stated that the Committee will not vote on the items that were mentioned by Gerry Meis, however, he would like participants comments on all the items, because the comments will be helpful for the Sub Committee during future discussions. John Fisher stated that he has editorial comments on item 29, page 11 of 45. The edited language would be as follows: 29 - (III.A.(2)) Section 3B.01 Yellow Centerline Pavement Markings and Warrants Support: On horizontal curves with radii less than 1000 m (3280 ft) and without street lighting, Detail 22 instead of Detail 21 can be helpful in improving the delineation for centerline markings as it includes retroreflective raised pavement markers. Detail 22 can be applied in advance of the approach to the curve per Table 2C-4 and continued throughout the length of the curve. Chairman Mansourian asked comments from the public. Joe Jeffery, Traffic Safety, stated that he was a member of the task force and he does not believe there is any legal issue with the items identified by Gerry Meis. He stated that other states have been using similar devices, and if there is no legal problem in those states, then what would be the problem in California. He added that these devices are not just for older drivers, they would be helpful for the entire motoring public. He requested the Committee to make recommendations on all the items. David Royer, Consultant, stated that he has sent comments to Johnny Bhullar and he believes the Committee members have seen those. He stated as a Traffic Engineer in California he was greatly concerned that the CTCDC is considering adopting the recommendation of the “Older California Traffic Safety Task Force” without proper (or any) study, experimentation, or evaluation. Senior problems are not unique to California; as such, recommendations on senior problems should start with/and be adopted for inclusion in the National MUTCD, as are all other traffic control devices. Some senior problems have been substantiated by proper NCHRP or similar studies. “Minimum Maintained Levels Of Sign Retroflectivity”, “Clear View Sign copy fonts”, and “the use of prismatic sign copy on overhead guide signs”, are examples of solutions to senior problems that have been substantiated through proper studies. These substantiated solutions to senior problems should be immediately adopted by both the Federal and California MUTCDs. However, many of the recommendations of the Older California Traffic Safety Task Force are only based on conjecture and personal opinions. He stated that he would discuss only three of the recommendations (items 33, 36 and 37) because he has personal knowledge of work zone subjects and he does not know of any research on the recommendations: ? The use of 36-inch high traffic cones will cause stability problems from passing trucks, due to the increased height; as such, the base will need to have significant weight added. Can a Caltrans or contractor cone setting crews handle a taller and heavier cone, and will the added cost offset the benefit? – Needs formal research. ? What is the benefit of widening a Type I or Type II barricades to 36 inches? If a senior needs better visibility of the barricade increase the height of the reflectorized panel, or use higher performance reflective sheeting, or use two barricades. A wider California only barricade will cost a fortune! Is the added cost worth the benefit? – Needs formal research. ? Is there a problem with the existing cone spacing that is used throughout the United States? Cone tapers are set to correspond with 48 foot (high speed) and 24 foot (low speed) striping patterns on the road. If closer spacing is used the cone setter will have no way to judge where to set the cones from the truck. Also, the cone pattern recommended will double the number of cones used and significantly increase the cost! Is there a real problem? Needs formal research. He stated that he has no problem with input from senior citizens. He is a senior citizen with bad eyesight. However, he has no problems operating on the roadway system because he compensates for old age disabilities. He does not expect the world to cater to his disabilities unless formal research shows that he cannot adequately compensate for his limitations. Ryan Snyder, LA Walks, and Transportation Planner, stated that he support the adoption of the leading pedestrian interval phase at signalized intersections. This tool will be helpful for public agencies to provide extra walk time at intersection that are used by disables and older pedestrians. This will be helpful in school zones too. Ken Kochevar stated that he agrees with Hamid’s comments about the “LOOK FOR TRAINS” sign. He stated that Transportation workgroup was one of the eight groups of the OCTSTF. He stated that the transportation task group met every other month since April 2003. First they studied all the recommendations included in the “Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians”. The group went through all the 125 recommendations and 41 were presented to the CTCDC on February 22, 2006 during the workshop. The items were discussed in detail in the workshop and 26 items were recommended to place on the CTCDC agenda. He stated that these guidelines are a part of the Federal SAFETEA-LU Program. Other states are using similar devices, and if they have not encountered any legal problems, how come California anticipates any legal problems. In his opinion, California always took a leadership role in adopting innovative devices and he believes that California should continue with that practice. Ken Kochevar also addressed David Royer’s comment. He sited that the “Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians” published by FHWA contains the background research and studies on each item. Ken stated that he would send a copy of the publication to David so he can review the background literature on each item. He added that the task force did not came up with any of the recommendations on their own, that all the recommendations are supported by the literature and different studies outlined in the federal publication. Richard Haggstorm, Caltrans, stated that he was a member of the transportation group and represented the pedestrians. He stated that he was disappointed to see that some of the items are not going to be recommended today because of the concerns raised by Gerry Meis. He supported the adoption of the pedestrian lead interval phase. He indicated that research shows a significant reduction in conflict between pedestrians and vehicles where pedestrian lead interval phase has been used. Scott Bell, CHP, stated that a great deal of time has been spent in the development of proposed guidelines and now there are last minute concerns raised on some of the items. He added that no one raised any issues during the last two-year meetings. Now, 10 items from 26 items are withdrawn. If the Committee does not vote today on these items, they will not be part of the California MUTCD. He questioned legality concerns raised on some of the items. Manual, Marin County Traffic Department, raised concern about the guidance statement for item 18, “A signal backplate should be used on all signal faces for all roadways”. He stated that certain geometric does not allow the use of backplates. He also talked about item number 20, “Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases”. He sated that the proposed language will create long leading pedestrian interval in a case of an intersection having a 10-foot parking and 12-foot traffic lane line. In this case, lead interval will be based on a 22-foot moving lane. He suggested coming up with a “specific number” for lead interval phase. Chairman Mansourian responded that the Committee does not recommend a “number” without any study. A “number” will be difficult to defend without a proper study and documentation. It is up to local jurisdiction to use their judgement when they calculate lead interval for the geometric as described by the Manual. Chairman Mansourian asked Johnny Bhullar if he could address Manual’s questions. Johnny stated that it is guidance and if the geometric does not allow the installation of signal backplate, then it is a justification itself. Also, during the workshop on February 22, 2006 Caltrans stated that they were considering a backplate at all the signals even though it is not mandatory. In addition, the Committee members in attendances during the workshop agreed upon the guidance statement. Monica Suter, City of Santa Ana, stated that she has not had the opportunity to review the proposals for the older drivers and pedestrians. She stated that even some of the proposals are great ideas, however, most of the practitioners are not even familiar with the MUTCD 2003 and California Supplement. These new changes are related to the regulatory signs, signals, temporary traffic control devices and most of the practitioners probably have not even seen these proposals. She stated that she is catching up with the new changes of the CA MUTCD and there are more in the pipeline. She commented that to solve one problem we should not create three new problems. Let the practitioners know that these are good tools for the older drivers and pedestrians and use them as support statements. Let the national committee review these proposals and include them in the MUTCD. There were no other public comments. Chairman Mansourian stated that there is a proposal in front of the Committee to adopt 16 items out of 26 and the Sub Committee will discuss the remaining 10 items. He stated that there were comments raised on items 18, 20 and 40. The comments on items 18 and 20 were responded and proposed language was justified. Item 40, LOOK FOR TRAINS sign, the Committee members Hamid Bahadori and John Fisher would like to see the sign as shown in the agenda packet on page 15 of 45. There was a lengthy discussion by the Committee on the sign message. The federal standard is without the word, “FOR TRAINS”. The Committee members Hamid Bahadori and John Fisher advocated adding the message, “FOR TRAINS”. Chairman Mansourian asked the opinion of Committee members whether they support having the message “FOR TRAINS”. The majority of members preferred having a sign that says “LOOK with ARROWS and FOR TRAINS”. Chairman Mansourian stated that the Committee has discussed the issues and comments raised by the public and Committee members and reached a resolution adopting 16 items. He asked for a motion. Motion: Moved by Hamid Bahadori, seconded by Merry Banks, recommends that Caltrans adopt items which were discussed during the February 22, 2006 workshop excluding items 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 41. Items 29 and 40 to be revised as recommended by the Committee. Item 40, the revised sign will be as follows: Section 8B.08 STOP (R1-1) or YIELD (R1-2) Signs at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Guidance: If used, the YIELD (R1-2) sign should be part of a sign assembly consisting of the Crossbuck (R15-1) sign and the LOOK FOR TRAINS (R106(CA)) sign, as shown in the figure above. Chairman Mansourian asked for discussion on the motion. Hamid Bahadori talked about the status quo. He stated most of us do not except changes easily. There is always resistance to change. John Fisher stated that he was not pleased with the last-minute changes, however at the same time after listening to the comments raised by David Royer, he believes that some of the items may need more research. He stated that comments raised by Royer are very practical and he would like to see if the task force could counter his comments with effects. He added that all other proposals are good ideas except temporary traffic control devices. Chairman Mansourian asked for vote on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. Chairman Mansourian stated that he is not concluding this item yet, because he wants to establish a Sub- Committee to address the remaining items and bring back to the full Committee. Gerry Meis stated that he is in favor of the safety of older drivers and pedestrians. However, as a public employee, he has responsibilities to address any tort liability that could be a reason due to the adoption of a device without proper evaluation. My concern is about the “should” statements that are considered a very strong requirement by the law of courts. He will support 10 items that are not voted if they are changed from “guidance to optional”. Hamid Bahadori asked Gerry Meis if the proponent is willing to change “may” conditions would you be willing to reconsider 10 items that you flagged earlier. Gerry stated that for the three items to be made as “support” statements, six items to a “may” condition, and item 37, he would recommend waiting for FHWA ruling. Chairman Mansourian stated that he would continue this item after the lunch break. He stated that he is not concluding this item. George Allen, City of Garden Grove asked how could you not conclude an item when a motion is moved and seconded. Chairman Mansourian stated that the motion was to consider 16 items and the motion has voted and accepted. This proceeding will deal with the remaining items that were excluded from the previous motion. George Allen agreed with the Chairman. Chairman Mansuorian stated that he would like to report to the audience and Committee members about the remaining items that were deferred to discuss after lunch. He stated that Item 37, page 14 of 45 of the agenda, will not be addressed today, however it will be deferred to a future meeting. He informed the Committee that Items 25, 32, 38 and 39 will be optional, which means a “may” condition instead of “guidance” conditions. Items 33, 34, 36 and 41 will have “support” statements instead of “guidance” conditions. Chairman Mansourian asked for comments from the Committee members. There were no comments from the Committee members. Chairman Mansourian asked for comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion: Moved by Hamid Bahadori, seconded by Ed von Borstel recommends Caltrans adopt remaining items as outlined by the Chairman Mansourian. The recommendation was as follows: Item 37, page 14 of 45 of the agenda, will not be addressed today, however it will be deferred to a future meeting. Items 25, 32, 38 and 39 will be an optional “may” condition instead of “guidance” conditions. Items 33, 34, 36 and 41 will have “support” statements instead of “guidance” conditions. Item 30 will be adopted as was proposed in the agenda, because Gerry Meis withdrawn his objection to the proposal. Motion carried 8-0. Chairman Mansourian asked Johnny Bhullar to make changes as suggested and email him. He will share the information with other Committee members. The proposed changes are from “guidance” conditions to “may” or “support” conditions. Johnny Bhullar thanked the Committee for their support in the adoption of the recommendations proposed by OCDSTF. Johnny further stated that there were 26 items discussed by the Committee and out of the 26 items, 25 items have been recommended by the Committee for adoption. Request for Experimentation: 03-6 Radar Speed (Speed Feedback) Display Sign The City of San Jose was on the agenda to share the experimental report conducted on radar speed signs, however they were not able to attend the meeting. The item will be placed on a future agenda, after consultation with the City. 06-5 Clear The Way Signage (Drive Damaged Vehicle to Shoulder) Chairman Mansourian stated that Committee Member Joe Whiteford requested to defer this item to a future meeting. Discussion Items: 06-6 Wildlife Corridor Signs Chairman Mansourian asked Jacob Babico to address agenda Item 06-6, Wildlife Corridor Signs. Jacob requested to deferred Wildfire Corridor Signing to a future meeting. Hamid Bahadori commented that the request came to the Committee from a non-profit organization. According to the guidelines, if this is a request to conduct an experiment, it should be submitted by the local agency having jurisdiction over the roadway. Chairman Mansourian agreed with Hamid Bahadori's comment. 06-7 MUTCD 2003 Revision No. 1 (Pharmacy Signing) Chairman Mansourian asked Gerry Meis to address the agenda item “Pharmacy” signing. Gerry stated that two years ago, the Committee decided not to adopt the pharmacy signing in California that was adopted by FHWA through revision 1 of the MUTCD 2003. Gerry informed the Committee that a Walgreen’s representative approached him and requested to reopen this item. He asked to place the item under discussion items, and if the Committee agreed, the item could be placed under action items for the next meeting. Gerry asked the representative of Walgreen’s to address this item. Eric Douglas, Public Affairs Department, Walgreen’s, informed the Committee that a number of other states has adopted the pharmacy signing. The pharmacies that are opened 24-hours, seven days a week, with the presence of a licensed pharmacist are eligible for the signage. He stated that it is good for the consumer, because if a traveling motorist needs medical help he could get help from a licensed pharmacist. He gave examples, such as if a motorist is diabetic and he needs a syringe for insulation, he will get one. If a child gets sick all of sudden while traveling and you do not know what is wrong, the medical help can be received from a pharmacist. He stated that states such as Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming have adopted pharmacy signs. He requested the Committee to place the pharmacy signing item on the agenda as an action item. Chairman Mansourian asked for comments from the Committee members. Hamid Bahadori asked whether the licensed pharmacist would be present 24-hours, seven days a week. Eric Douglas responded yes, and that this is one of the main requirements. John Fisher asked what would be the administrative methods to notify the State that a particular pharmacy meets the requirements for signing? He further asked who would take the lead, the highway agency or the pharmacy? Eric Douglas responded that every state has a different process. If a pharmacy falls within the criteria (3- miles from the highway), then the pharmacy can request the State to install signs, however the cost will be covered by the pharmacy. He did not know who takes the lead. Hamid Bahadori stated that a sign illustration distributed by Eric shows the Walgreens logo on the bottom of the sign, and questioned if it is acceptable. Gerry Meis stated that there is a logo program in rural areas, however the urbanized areas do not have a logo program. Hamid Bahadori stated that hospital signs have trail blazer signs, and wondered if the pharmacy signing could have a similar program. Secondly, three miles is a long stretch, and there will be a number of signs required to direct motorists. Gerry Meis stated that the State would not install signs on the highway unless the trail blazer signs are up. John Fisher stated that there would be number of signs in the 3-mile stretch. Gerry Meis stated that this is a discussion item and Walgreens is requesting to place it on the agenda under the action items. Jacob Babico stated that the Fire Department sign program was created by legislation. Is there a need for legislation for pharmacy signing? Gerry responded no. Matt Schmitz, FHWA, stated that normally the Pharmacy Symbol (D9-20) sign with “24 HR” (D9-20a) plaque sign would be appropriate. However, in rural areas, a logo program may be used. George Allen, City of Garden Grove, stated that if there are four pharmacies within a few blocks, how would those pharmacies be signed? He suggested to the Committee, before taking action on this item, review all the potential problems. He sated that there will be confusion and a lot of cost would be involved. Hamid Bahadori stated that he recommends to place the pharmacy signing request on the next CTCDC agenda under the action items, however, he is not sure how to address all the concerns. John Fisher asked Eric Douglas to come up with a draft proposed policy which would address all the concerns raised by individuals. The Committee suggested placing this item on the agenda under the action items. 06-8 FHWA’s Interim Approvals for Optional Use of Traffic Control Devices Chairman Mansourian stated that during the last CTCDC meeting, he requested to place this item on the agenda. There are five interim approvals issued by FHWA. He suggested California might consider blanket approval for all the agencies. He asked Johnny Bhullar whether he would like to provide his thoughts on this item. Johnny Bhullar stated that the MUTCD is a dynamic document and FHWA does incorporate changes every three to five years. The California MUTCD will follow the same process for updates. FHWA has created an interim approval category, which is posted on the MUTCD website and eventually these interim approvals will be included in the future MUTCDs. These approvals are not official yet, however agencies could use the devices by simply writing to the FHWA. FHWA advises that the requesting agency must inform their State DOT. He stated that some of these devices might not be adopted in California, and he would like to ask Committee how they would like to communicate with local agencies about that. The Committee may want to review the interim approvals and see which ones they will be adopting in California and then might ask for statewide interim approval. Chairman Mansourian stated that there are a number of cities inquiring for the use of these devices. He suggested placing this item on the agenda under the action items, and the Committee might consider requesting Caltrans to apply for a blanket approval statewide. Gerry Meis stated that after receiving recommendation from the Committee, Caltrans could apply for the approval from FHWA for all the devices or on a case by case basis. Hamid Bahadori asked whether it is possible for Caltrans to ask FHWA to not approve the request for California until this Committee agrees with the device? Because, if a device is used by local agencies based on interim approval and later on this Committee does not recommend for use in California, then the device would be illegal according to the California Vehicle Code. John Fisher stated that the Committee may consider administrative approval such as countdown signal heads and speed feedback signs. Hamid Bahadori recommended placing the item under the action items for the next meeting. Johnny Bhullar requested to place another item on the agenda under discussion items about “how to deal with interim approvals in California”. Chairman Mansourian agreed with Johnny’s suggestion. Information Items 03-13 Variable Speed Limit The City of Campbell approached the CTCDC to install an experimental device manufactured by 3M. The device was a variable speed limit sign to be installed on Hamilton Avenue, a six-lane major arterial with 35-mph speed limit. The sign was to show “Speed Limit 25” during school admission and dismissal hours, and to blank out during other hours. The Committee approved the installation of the 3M sign in late September 2003. The plan was to have the sign go blank during the school hours except the admission and dismissal hours. The proposed sign was not capable to go dark when school was not in session. The City had decided not to proceed with the experiment because it was not capable of being programmed as suggested by the Committee. Off the Agenda Items: Wildfire Sign Jacob Babico stated that the County of San Bernardino and Caltrans District would like to install "Wildfire” signs on certain routes to inform the travelling public about fire danger. The County of San Bernardino has developed a fire protection plan and now they want to implement it. The “Wildfire” signs are the ones on the fire protection plan item. The proposed sign will be installed at Route 138 and I-15. The signs would be a tool for public information. Hamid Bahadori stated that he has seen similar types of sign on the public roadways. Gerry Meis stated that most of these signs are out of the State right of way and they are installed by the National Forest Services. Chairman Mansourian stated that this item is not an action item. If San Bernardino County or Caltrans wants to bring the item as an action item, then the Committee will act. Gerry Meis suggested that he will work with Jacob Babico on this proposal and if there is a need they will approach the Committee. Letter from Board of Supervisors, County of San Luis Obispo Chairman Mansourian shared a letter written by the Board of Supervisors, San Luis Obispo County to the Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee in regards to amending the current California Vehicle Code (CVC) as it pertains to the establishment of speed limits on local roads. He added that the letter also seeks clarification from the California Traffic Control Devices Committee on the speed limit establishment process, particularly, the Board of Supervisors requested legislation to amend the CVC Section 22352. Hamid Bahadori stated that he was not able to find any documentation for the established of the prima face speed. There is no data available that supports different prima face speeds. Committee members stated that the Committee in their meeting in Los Angeles late last year discussed this at length, and no further discussion is needed at this time. The County is asking for the CVC amendment, and the Committee should stay out of this issue. Standard Highway Sign Book (SHSB) Johnny Bhullar stated that from various comments he believes that there is a need to combine the SHSB and California signs to make a complete package with the California MUTCD. Because the practitioners are asking for that and this issue was discussed a few times in the CTCDC workshops. He asked the Committee’s opinion on this subject. Gerry Meis asked Johnny if he seeking recommendation from the Committee. Johnny Bhullar responded that he has received a number of requests from Caltrans, Consultants and from local agencies to combine the SHSB and California signs to make it friendlier for the practitioners. He wants to know what the Committee thinks about this task, and if there is a need, the Committee may want to make a recommendation on this matter. John Fisher and other Committee members stated that there is need to combine the SHSB and the California signs to support the California MUTCD and make friendly documents for the end users. Chairman Mansourian and the Committee unanimously requested Caltrans to put efforts to combine the SHSB and the California signs after the completion of California MUTCD. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held in Southern California on October 26, 2006. The meeting will be held in Caltrans District 11 Office, Wallace Room, in Building 1, First Floor at 4050 Taylor Street, San Diego, CA 92110 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 2PM. CTCDC Minutes June 14, 2006 Page 16 of 25