MINUTES
CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES COMMITTEE (CTCDC)
MEETING
Oakland, December 5, 2002
The fourth and last CTCDC meeting of 2002 was held in the Caltrans Office in Oakland, on December 5, 2002.
Chairman Jim Larsen opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. with the introduction of Committee members and guests.  
Albert Yee, Deputy District Director, Traffic Operations, welcomed the CTCDC members for holding the meeting 
in their Office and guests for their participation.  The following members, alternates and guests were in attendance:
ATTENDANCE			ORGANIZATION					TELEPHONE
Members (Voting)

Jim Larsen			CA State Association of Counties 				(559) 733-6291
Chairman			County of Tulare

John Fisher			League of CA Cities					 (213) 580-1189
Vice Chairman			City of Los Angeles
			
Gerry Meis			Caltrans							(916) 654-4551

Farhad Mansourian		CA State Association of Counties				(415) 499-6570
				Marin County
	
Julie Page 			CHP							(916) 657-7222
(Alternate Member)

Ed von Borstel			League of CA Cities					(209) 577-7222
City of Modesto 

Dwight Ku			California State Automobile				(415) 241-8904
(Alternate Member)		Association

Richard Backus			Auto Club of Southern California				(714) 885-2326


ALTERNATES			ORGANIZATION				TELEPHONE

Jacob Babico			CA State Association of Counties			(909) 387-8186
				San Bernardino County

John Presleigh			CA State Association of Counties			(831) 454-2160	
Santa Cruz County

Gian Aggarwal			League of CA Cities				(707) 449-5349		
				City of Vacaville
	
ATTENDEES			ORGANIZATION				TELEPHONE

Bill Wald			Caltrans, HQ-ITS					(916) 651-9048

Michael Harrison			LightGuard System, INC				(707) 542-4547

Johnny Bhullar			Caltrans/Traffic Ops				(916) 654-7312

Christopher Bailey		City of Vacaville

Si Lau				City of Berkeley					(510) 981-6403

Gary Tsutsumi			City of Stockton					(209) 937-8611

Nevin Sams			Caltrans D5					(805) 547-3017

Dario Senor			Caltrans D5					(805) 542-4793

Jerilyn Struven			Caltrans D4					(510) 286-4613

Dennis Dunn			Sacramento County				(916) 875-5415

Joe Jeffery			Road- Tech Safety Services			(530)-676-7797

Stephen Ford			Mendocino County				(7070 463-4351

Roger Bazeley			SF PTA, School Safety				(415) 693-3652
				Improvement Project
													
		 




MINUTES
Adoption of August 22, 2002 CTCDC meeting Minutes.
MOTION:	Moved by Dwight Ku, seconded by Gerry Meis, to adopt the minutes of the CTCDC meeting, held 
on August 22, 2002 in San Diego.  Motion carried 8-0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Larsen asked for any public comments related to the items that will not be discussed as an agenda item.

Gary Tsutsumi, City of Stockton, submitted the first and final report to the Committee on experimentation 
conducted with the Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads (PCSHs).  Gary also gave a brief summary on the 
experimentation with PCSHs.  Gary noted that the field survey conducted by the City staff and feedback from 
schools, businesses and residents in the test area indicated that the PCSHs have had a positive effect on traffic signal 
operations.  All of the pedestrians surveyed stated that they understood the meaning of the countdown timer and felt 
that it was more helpful than the standard “flashing hand” signal heads.  Gary added that based on their experience 
with the devices, the City of Stockton recommends that the PCSHs be adopted as a standard traffic control device.  
When this device becomes standard, the City plans to install PCSHs on all new traffic signals if pedestrian 
provisions are warranted.
There were no other public comments.
AGENDA ITEMS (Public Hearings)
02-7 Push Button For Crosswalk Warning Lights (R62E) Sign, Cross with Caution
Chairman Larsen noted that this item is a continuation from the last meeting and asked Gerry Meis to brief the 
Committee and audience about this item. 
Gerry Meis noted the proposed sign will be installed where the “in-roadway warning lights” (IRWLs) activated by 
pedestrians are using a push button. The message  (cross with caution) will remind pedestrians about their 
responsibility while crossing the roadway.  During the last meeting, Committee members suggested replacing the 
words, “watch for traffic” with  “cross with caution”, and the visually impaired suggested adding the same message 
in Braille.  The revised message on the sign has incorporated the suggestions that were made during the last CTCDC 
meeting.  Gerry further added that the proposed sign is open for discussion and that further modifications could be 
made if they are meaningful.
Chairman Larsen opened the public hearing.
Gian Aggarwal, Alternate member, stated that the message is too long.  He suggested that the message should be 
short and concise.  He recommended changing the message from “Push Button for Crosswalks Warning Lights, 
Cross With Caution” to “Push Button for Crosswalks.”  
Chairman Larsen asked for other comments from the public.  There were none.  Chairman Larsen closed the public 
hearing and opened the discussion to Committee members.
Gerry Meis partially agreed with the previous comment and added that the sign is not for the motorists, it is for the 
pedestrians and they should have enough time to read the message.
Chairman Larsen commented that in other situations, when a pedestrian uses the push button, they receive the 
message to proceed or stop, for example the pedestrian signal heads.  In this case, the messages is for the motorists 
(flashing IRWLs) and there is no message for the pedestrian except “cross with caution”.  			
											(continued)
Farhad Mansourian commented that even though the message is wordy, it is not for the motorists, it is for the 
pedestrians and they would have adequate time to read it.  The lights are warning the motorists and the sign alerts 
pedestrians and reminds them of their responsibility to “cross with caution.”  Farhad further added that although the 
public agencies are vulnerable to sue in any case, it is the responsibility of an agency to provide enough information 
for safe traffic movements.
Dick Backus noted that the sign could be made more meaningful by using the word “cross with caution” below the 
two-way arrow.  The message will then break into two sentences and it will be more comprehensible for the 
pedestrians. 
John Fisher agreed with Dick’s suggestion and proposed a change to “Push Button For Pedestrian Warning 
Lights”, then a “Two Way Arrow” followed-up with “Cross With Caution”.
Chairman Larsen asked for the other comments.  There were none.
MOTION:	Moved by Farhad Mansourian, seconded by John Fisher, recommending Caltrans to adopt the 
sign, “Push Button For Pedestrian Warning Lights, Two way Arrow, Cross With Caution.”  
Chairman asked for discussion on the motion.  John Fisher noted that the message in Braille should be the same as 
in English.  Dwight Ku also suggested the Braille message should be a copy of the English message.   Farhad added 
that if there is a problem in accommodating the message on the sign as recommended, then Caltrans would bring the 
issue back to the Committee for further discussion.
Motion carried 8-0.
ACTION:	Item completed.
02-8	Fines Higher (Red Light Violation Fine) Sign
Chairman Larsen noted that this item is also a continuation from the last meeting and asked Gerry Meis to brief the 
Committee and audience about this item. 
Gerry Meis briefed the Committee that during the last meeting, the County of Santa Clara requested experimentation 
with the “Red Light Violation Fine” sign.  The Committee recognized that this type of sign has been installed by 
public agencies in different colors and formats.  Committee members acknowledged that experimentation is not 
needed for this sign and recommended that Caltrans develop standards and specifications for the sign.  Gerry further 
added that Caltrans has developed standards and specifications, which were included in the agenda packet for the 
review and hearing.
Chairman Larsen opened the public hearing.  There were no comments.  Chairman Larsen closed the public hearing 
and opened discussion among Committee members.
There was discussion back and forth between the Committee members and audience about the color of the sign.  An 
unidentified audience member suggested that this is a warning message and the color should be “black on yellow”.  
Another unidentified audience member suggested that since the sign can be installed only by passing a local 
ordinance, it should be proposed as a regulatory sign.
Gerry Meis noted that the proposed color is consistent with the MUTCD Revision 2.  Gerry further added that the 
existing sign, which is not consistent, should be replaced with a standard sign as they near the sign's useful life.
John Fisher commented on the second sentence of the policy statement, “This sign may be placed on State highways 
with an Encroachment Permit when requested by the local agencies.”  By policy public agencies are required to 
have an Encroachment Permit when they install signs on State highways.  Therefore, the second sentence in the 
policy statement is redundant and should be deleted. 						(continued)
Gerry Meis agreed with John’s comments and asked if the words Encroachment Permit should be deleted and the 
second sentence of the policy amended to read as “This sign may be placed on State highways when requested by the 
local agencies.”
John agreed with Gerry’s suggestion.
Jacob Babico asked why local agencies are responsible for the installation of signs on the State highways and not 
Caltrans.
Farhad Mansourian stated that it depends upon who initiates a request.  If Caltrans initiates a request and a local 
agency passes the ordinance, then Caltrans installs the sign.   If a local agency initiates a request, then the local 
agency is required to get an Encroachment Permit to install that sign.
Roger Bazely, Parent Teaches Association, San Francisco, working with the San Francisco School District, 
suggested a graphic message is a better way to communicate with pedestrians than a verbal message.  He added that 
the red light violation signs installed in the San Francisco illustrate a “signal head” graphic with the “fine amount”, 
and they are very effective.  He suggested using a similar format.
There was a discussion on Roger’s suggestion. 
John Fisher asked if you see a symbol displaying Green, Yellow and Red Circles, with a “fine amount” what would 
that means to a motorist.  What symbol represents the actual violation.
Roger stated that the red symbol is a violation.
Gerry Meis stated that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is strict on States developing their own 
symbols without going through the federal process.  They only want symbols to be used that are recognized at the 
national level or reviewed and approved at the national level and adopted by the FHWA.
Johnny Bhullar also added that the FHWA does not encourage States to develop their own sign symbols without 
going through the federal process.
Chairman Larsen asked for other comments.  There were none.
MOTION:	Moved by Gerry Meis, seconded by John Fisher, recommended Caltrans adopt the proposed sign 
with an amendment to the policy deleting the words, “Encroachment Permit”.
Motion carried 8-0.
ACTION:	Item completed.
REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENTATION
02-10	Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads (PCSHs)
Chairman Larsen briefed the Committee and audience that the PCSHs item is not an experimentation request.  The 
purpose of this item on the agenda was for the Committee to review the ongoing experiment and find ways to bring 
the item to a close.  He pointed out the proposed MUTCD Revision 2 has included text on the PCSHs, which is 
similar to the recommendations provided to the experimental agencies by the Committee.  At this point, seven public 
agencies have installed these devices under experimentation and there is interest shown by others to install these 
devices.  At some point, the Committee will make recommendations that Caltrans adopt this device in California.  
Chairman Larsen asked for input from the Committee members.
											(continued)
Gerry Meis agreed with Jim's articulation and noted that he would like to know at some point if California wants to 
adopt the MUTCD text or if different standards should be developed.  
John Fisher questioned if the language proposed in the MUTCD Revision 2 is adequate.  Data submitted to the 
committee shows that the devices are helpful in improving pedestrian crossing.  This morning, Garry Tsutsumi, City 
of Stockton, suggested that PCSHs are a useful device on wider roadways, because information given on the 
countdown is helpful for a pedestrian to make the decision whether to proceed or not.  The data also indicated that 
more pedestrians are stepping off the curb during the  “flashing hand” (don't walk), and at the same time, more 
pedestrians are completing their cross within countdown signals.  He suggested seeing more data and input from the 
experimental agencies.  That may trigger the use of different guidelines in California compared to the MUTCD 
Revision 2.  The proposed text in the MUTCD was included in a rush, and California might come up with better 
guidelines.
Farhad Mansourian shared that there are public agencies under the impression that this is an approved traffic control 
device and they are installing these countdown devices.  He further added that there are vendors too, who are telling 
cities that this is an approved traffic control device.  He asked the Committee to communicate with local agencies to 
inform them that this is not an approved traffic control device and at the same time, the Committee should look into 
ways to come up with final guidance.
Gary Tsutsumi stated that the PCSHs were programmed so that the countdown display begins at the start of the 
flashing “upraised hand” (Don’t Walk) interval.  The Traffic signal controller was programmed in such a way that 
the countdown timer reaches “zero” at or prior to the beginning of the yellow vehicle clearance interval.  The City of 
Stockton uses a one-second “all red” interval at the end of the yellow interval.  Therefore, the pedestrians are 
provided the “yellow clearance” interval and “all red” interval in addition to the “walk” and “walk clearance” 
interval prior to a conflicting phase receiving the green indication.
Dennis Dunn, County of Sacramento, stated that the County of Sacramento was the first local agency to install 
PCSHs and submitted their final report a few years back.
Gerry Meis noted that the Committee has not received any final report from the County of Sacramento.  The only 
information the County has submitted to this Committee was that the County decided to terminate collection of the 
data due to the shortage of personnel and that the County would submit a final report after getting data from other 
jurisdictions who are experimenting with PCSHs.
There was lengthy discussion by the Committee on how to inform public agencies that the countdown is not an 
approved traffic control device yet.  There was an opinion to issue “interim guidelines” with the help of agencies 
conducting experimentation with countdown signals.  Others asked about the legality of the “interim guidelines.”
The Committee suggested including the following statement in the minutes:
? The pedestrian countdown signal head is not an “officially approved traffic control device” in California.
? The Federal Highway Administration also has a draft text in the MUTCD Revision 2, on PCSHs, under Section 
4E.07.  The final text is anticipated to be published in the latter part of 2003.
? Local agencies are encouraged to receive approval from the CTCDC, if they plan to install PCSHs or wait for 
the Committee to issue a final decision on completion of the on-going experimentation.
Action:	Item Tabled
02-14 Speed Feedback (Radar Speed) Sign
Chairman Larsen asked Farhad Mansourian to introduce this item.  
Farhad noted that the County of Mendocino has requested permission to conduct an experiment using “Electronic 
Speed Display” signs as non-standard traffic control devices to determine their effectiveness in reducing vehicle 
speeds in rural school zones.  The County is particularly concerned about speeding                           (continued) 
in school zones on rural roads.  Farhad introduced Steve Ford, Civil Engineer, County of Mendocino, and asked him 
to brief the Committee about their request.								
Steve Ford stated that the County of Mendocino has requested a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), State 
of California, to install “Electronic Speed Display” signs.  The OTS wants to make sure that the County receives 
approval from the CTCDC and FHWA before they release the funding.  The County is considering 3M's “Electronic 
Speed Display” sign for installation in school zones.  The sign will supplement the “Installation C” (school assembly 
sign) and may be placed above or below Installation C.  The County has planned to install signs at three school 
locations.  There would be a fourth location in the near future.  The County is collecting preliminary data and plans 
to install signs in late December 2002 or in January 2003, since OTS wants data before October 2003.  Steve asked 
the Committee for approval for the experimentation.
Chairman Larsen asked the Committee members if they have questions for Steve.
John Fisher inquired whether the speed feedback sign has a white or yellow background.
Steve responded that the sign would have a white background.
Jacob Babico stated that their jurisdiction had experimented with a smaller version of the sign and motorists did not 
pay attention.
Steve stated that the sign would be the same size as the school speed limit sign.
Roger Bazely inquired about whether there are marked or unmarked school crossings, and if there are stop signs or 
signals present at the school crossings.
Steve responded that one of the schools does not have any marked crossing and others do have marked crosswalks 
without the signals/stop.
Juli Page inquired about the operations timing of the speed feedback sign.
Steve responded that he has not worked out the timing yet, but it would be consistent with the school's hours.
Garry Tsutsumi, City of Stockton, stated that they have installed the sign from a different vendor, not a 3M sign.  
The sign was installed on a separate post and supplemental to the installation C (school crossing signs).  The sign 
blacks out during non-school hours.  The sign has a positive affect on reducing speed in school zones.
Roger Bazely briefed the Committee about the efforts he had used in San Francisco and Ventura County to reduce 
speeds in school zones by using radar speed display signs.  He added that this type of sign would be helpful in 
downhill areas also.
Chairman Larsen pointed out to Committee members that there is a text on the speed display sign in the proposed 
Revision 2 of the MUTCD, under Section 2B.11.   
Gerry Meis supported the County of Mendocino's approach and commented that the data collected by the County 
would be helpful for the Committee to reach a decision about this device.
Dwight Ku inquired whether, in order to save time for Mendocino County, there is anything preventing the 
Committee from giving authorization for the fourth location, subject to the written notification addressed to the 
Committee Chairman?
Chairman Larsen stated that could be done and asked for other comments.  There were none.	(continued)
MOTION:	Moved by Farhad Mansourian, seconded by Dwight Ku, to authorize experimentation with “speed 
feedback” signs for three school locations.  The fourth location will require written notification from the County, to 
the Committee Secretary addressed to the Committee Chairman.				
Chairman Larsen commented that the sign should be consistent with the experimentation approved for the City of 
Garden Grove during the August 22, 2002 CTCDC meeting.  The speed feedback display will be “yellow LED on a 
white background.”
Motion carried 8-0.
ACTION:	Item approved for experimentation.
02-15 Radar Guided Dynamic Curve Warning System
Chairman Larsen asked Gerry Meis to introduce the “Radar Guided Dynamic Curve Warning System” (DCWS).  
The request was submitted by Caltrans District 5 (San Luis Obispo) Office.
Gerry Meis stated that the California Department of Transportation requests permission to conduct experimentation 
using a “Radar Guided DCWS”.  Gerry noted that this type of sign has been used, but data has not been collected to 
show whether the sign has contributed to improving the safety/operation of the highway.  District 5 has volunteered 
to collect before and after data and submit the information to the CTCDC with recommendations.  Gerry introduced 
Dario Senor, Caltrans District 5 Office, and asked him to brief the Committee about this proposal.
Dario stated that many motorists heading southbound on Route 17 between San Jose and Santa Cruz are descending 
the summit at a high rate of speed and are not able to judge the tight radius curve that follows a tangent segment of 
the highway.  The collision rate for this curve over the last five years has been higher than the statewide average rate 
for similar curves.   To inform the motorist about their speed, the Radar Speed DCWS will be installed.  This is a 
smart sign and could be programmed with various messages.  The sign will be linked with the District 5 Traffic 
Management Center and it could also be linked with the District 4 Traffic Management Center if needed.  The “45 
mph Curve Ahead” message will be displayed and if a vehicle is going over the advisory speed limit, the sign will 
display “vehicle speed--”.  Dario added that the District will monitor the operation closely and if changes are 
needed, they would be made accordingly.
Chairman Larsen asked whether the same message would be repeated and that no animation would be displayed on 
the sign.
Dario responded that the message will be “Curve Ahead” followed-up with “45 mph” advisory speed and if a 
vehicle is over 45, the sign will display, “vehicles actual speed" with “your speed” display message.
John Fisher commented that it is actually a large version of the speed feedback sign.  John inquired whether the sign 
is capable of being programmed in such a way that if an aggressive driver wants to see how fast they could negotiate 
the curve.  In that type of situation, could the message displayed be “slow down” instead of the vehicle's actual 
speed.
Dario responded that the sign could be programmed the way the operator wants.  The sign could be programmed to 
display the speed only within a certain range.
Chairman Larsen noted that since the District has the capability of recording the operation of the sign, would it be 
possible at a certain phase of the experiment for the operation of the sign to be shown to the Committee?
Dario responded that could be achieved.
Farhad Mansourian noted that the picture included in the agenda packet shows that the proposed sign is ahead of the 
stationary curve warning sign.  This will not provide the right message.  			(continued)
The motorist first needs to see the curve sign and then the supplemental information.  The stationary curve warning 
sign should be either ahead or offset to the Radar Speed DCWS.
Dario responded that the actual location would be determined in the field.  The picture in the agenda packet was 
superimposed on an aerial.
John Fisher asked whether the before and after experimentation data would measure the speed at the beginning of 
the curve.  What type of device or devices will be used to measure the speed?  Are there ways to collect speed data 
without being conspicuous to the motorist?
Dario responded that the speed survey will be one part of the study and a radar gun will be used for this.   The speed 
survey is done in such a way that motorists are not aware of the activity and they travel at their normal speed or 
flow.
Roger Bazely inquired whether there is the ability to use different messages such as, slow, icy condition, etc.
Dario responded that the system has the capability to program any message.  However, the main message will be 
“curve ahead” followed-up with “45 mph” advisory speed display.
Dick Buckus asked if there were a number of vehicles speeding which vehicle would be picked for the speed 
display.
Dario stated that they would program the display either to take the average speed or the highest speed.  There will be 
a number of adjustments throughout the process as they learn.
Chairman Larsen asked for other comments.  There were none.
MOTION:	Moved by Gerry Meis, seconded by Julie Page, to authorize experimentation with the “Radar 
Speed Dynamic Curve Warning System” as requested by the Caltrans District 5 Office.
Motion Carried 8-0.
ACTION:	Item approved for experimentation.
02-17	Speed Feedback (Radar Speed) Sign
Gerry Meis, sponsor of this item, withdrew the experimentation request submitted by the Caltrans District 5 Office.
00-3	Jake Brake Sign
Jim Larsen asked Gerry Meis to update the Committee about the Jake Brake sign report submitted by the Police 
Department, City of Auburn.  
Gerry Meis stated that “Jake Brake” is a trade name, and the company pointed out the violation of the use of their 
trade name.  Therefore, the sign installed in the field was changed from “Jake Brake” to “Engine Brake”. 
Gerry pointed out the report that was included in the agenda packet.  The Police Department conducted random 
interviews of people who live in the immediate area of Route 80 and Route 49 which is most affected by traffic 
noise.  Half of the individuals interviewed said that the noise from engine brakes was about the same, and the other 
half said the noise was less.  The pre and post noise data indicated a reduction in the noise level.  Gerry further 
stated that he does not believe the sign is effective in changing truck driver behavior.  Gerry suggested to table this 
item until more data is available for the committee to make a final decision.  Other agencies have shown interest in 
installing this sign on an experimental basis.							(continued)
The Committee agreed to table this item.
ACTION:	Item Tabled.
99-18	Ground Mounted LED Lights On Stop Bars
Chairman Larsen asked Gerry Meis to update the Committee on this item.
Gerry Meis noted that the City of Anaheim has submitted the fifth and final report on LEDs installed at the limit line 
of a signalized intersection.  The City made mixed recommendations.  The use should be limited to unique locations.  
The City also pointed out that they are expensive to install and difficult to maintain.  Gerry further added that he 
does not recommend the use of LEDs at signalized intersections, except in unique conditions, such as the one that 
existed in the City of Anaheim.  He commented that the future use of LEDs at signalized intersections should be 
brought before the Committee.
Chairman Larsen inquired whether the condition of the intersection has changed as compared to when LEDs were 
originally installed.
Farhad Mansourian suggested that the Committee could accept the report and request the City to attend the next 
CTCDC meeting to share their experience with the device.
Gerry Meis stated that if the Committee does not recommend adoption of the device, then the City is obligated to 
remove the LEDs as outlined in the “Experimental Guidelines”.
Roger Bazely stated that the installation of LED IRWLs at signalized intersections would confuse motorists.
Mike Harrison, LightGaurd, stated that during the two-year test period, there were no reported traffic accidents 
compared to six accidents in the 14 months prior to installation.  The report indicated that LED IRWLs had 
significantly reduced the “stop line” violation from 31% to 25% of the vehicles.  Vehicles running the red light have 
been significantly reduced.  Mike suggested the system should be recommended for installation where red light 
running problems exist, and that his company requests the Committee make recommendations to Caltrans to develop 
guidelines.  The guidelines would eliminate the experimental request from the CTCDC, and agencies would be able 
to receive approval or denial by writing to Caltrans, as was done for IRWLs at crosswalks.
Chairman Larsen asked whether this report was submitted to the FHWA.  If not, this could be submitted as a 
completed experiment.
Mike stated that there are several cities interested in installing LED’s where red light running problems exist.   All 
new requests could follow the FHWA process.  
John Fisher asked whether conditions changed or geometric improvements were made at the intersection during the 
experimentation process.
Mike responded that there were other improvements that took place simultaneously, but red light violations would 
not have been impacted by the other improvements.  Mike further added that he is not sure whether the “Disney 
Tram” was still running through that intersection.
John Fisher commented that since conditions have changed and if the City of Anaheim would like to continue the 
use of LED’s, they should conduct the experiment all over again and include FHWA in the process.  They can 
simply disconnect the LEDs, collect before data, and then reconnect to collect the after data.  This would show if 
there are improvements by using LEDs to reduce red light running violations.				
Mike responded that there are other cities which have intersections with more problems then the City of Anaheim, 
where the device was originally installed.							(continued)
Chairman Larsen agreed with John’s comments and added that this would extend the experimentation process in 
California and at the same time the City could get approval from the FHWA.			
Mike asked about the process for other cities that wished to use LEDs at controlled intersections.
Chairman Larsen responded that all new requests should come to the Committee and the individuals should present 
their justification to the Committee.  He further commented that he is not prepared to recommend this to be a traffic 
control device in California.  If the City of Anaheim wishes to continue the use of LEDs at the controlled 
intersection, they could further pursue the experimentation and involve FHWA as the Committee discussed earlier.
Farhad Mansourian suggested inviting the City of Anaheim during the next CTCDC meeting so they would have an 
opportunity to discuss their report.  Farhad further added that their presence would clear the issue, whether or not 
they would like to keep the devices in place and that they might be willing to collect data as John and Jim suggested.
Dick Backus noted that the problem at the intersection was that motorists were stopping beyond the stop limit line 
and interfering with the Disney Tram and by using the LED, the problem was reduced.
Chairman Larsen stated that the City of Anaheim should be contacted and invited to the next CTCDC meeting to 
provide their opinion on the experimentation and whether they would like to pursue experimentation at the national 
level.
Note:	The Committee Secretary was directed to contact the City of Anaheim to receive an update on LEDs 
and request them to attend the next CTCDC meeting.  The City has confirmed that the LEDs have been 
removed and they will attend the next CTCDC meeting to provide their experience on LEDs used at a 
controlled intersection.
ACTION:	Item to be continued.
02-12	WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT (R72) SIGN
Chairman Larsen noted that this item is a continuation from the August meeting and asked Gerry Meis to update the 
Committee.
Gerry Meis noted that a Judge in Santa Clara County has made a comment that the sign “speed limit 25 mph, when 
children are present” is not consistent with the intent of California Vehicle Code (CVC), Section 22353 (b).  During 
the August 2002 meeting, the Committee suggested that Caltrans review the MUTCD for guidance and come up 
with suggestions that are consistent with the CVC.  Gerry added that the current MUTCD has a similar sign and 
California is consistent with the MUTCD.  There are two alternatives in the agenda packet for your review.  Gerry 
commented that he personally does not like Alternative 1.  It is too wordy.  Gerry added that there was only one 
complaint within the past 5-7 years and suggested not making any change to the current sign.  He stated that 
sometimes it is not practical to come up with a sign message that exactly illustrates the CVC.
Chairman Larsen asked for comments from the Committee members and audience.
Farhad Mansourian commented that he spoke to their legal council and they did not see any problem with the 
current sign.  Farhad agreed with Gerry’s analogy that there is only one complaint and the current sign is adequate.
John Fisher agreed with previous speakers and added that the signs are always an approximation or a condensed 
version of the law. 
Roger Bazely suggested that the 25-mph sign should be applicable during school hours from Monday to Friday and 
the sign hours should be consistent with the school hours.			
											(continued)
Chairman Larsen suggested that there are many different activities involved with schools, such as Saturday school, 
make-up school and PTA meetings.									
Julie Page, Committee Member, Representing the California Highway Patrol, commented that there was one 
incident in one area and one judge had made that comment.  She does not see this as a major problem, except in the 
one incident and suggested not changing the current sign.  If the sign is working, there is no need to make a change.
Chairman Larsen observed that all the comments were to leave the sign as it is, and no further discussion was 
needed.
02-16 Traffic Signal Warrants I & II
Chairman Larsen asked Jacob Babico, Alternate Member, CTCDC, to address the traffic signal warrants issue.  
Jacob Babico noted that the current Traffic Manual, “Signal Warrants I & II” do not have footnotes as were listed in 
the 1991 Traffic Manual.  The footnote allows adding left-turn traffic volumes from the major street to the minor 
street volume to satisfy the Signal Warrants for the installation of signals.  It also increases the delay time for the 
left-turn movement from the major street because of the heavy volumes of the opposing traffic. SANBAG supports 
having the option available in the Signal Warrants 1 & 11.
Chairman Larsen inquired whether the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) has a similar option.
Jacob noted that the MUTCD does not include left-turn volume of the major street to the minor street volume in the 
signal warrants study.
Bill Wald of Caltrans told the Committee that the footnote “Heavier left-turn movement from Major Street included 
into the Minor Street volume when left-turn phasing is proposed” was deleted from the current Traffic Manual due 
to the following reasons:
? The MUTCD does not consider heavier left-turn movement from Major Street into the Minor Street volume 
when left-turn phasing is proposed.
? The other reason was the misuse of the left-turn volume to justify signal warrants when they were not justified.
Chairman Larsen noted that this could be discussed during the California Supplement development process. 
Jacob Babico reiterated that with the deletion of the note, agencies cannot justify Warrants I & II, which are the two 
main warrants for justification of the signals.  Jacob advocated that there are numerous intercessions in San 
Bernardino County where the left-turn traffic faces excessive delay, because signals cannot be justified.  The option 
that was available in the 1991 Traffic Manual was a good option to improve the operation of an intersection.
John Fisher inquired whether SANBAG has records showing excessive delay for the left-turn movement because 
signals cannot be justify due to the deletion of the note.  John added that if SANDBAG identified a problem and it is 
documented by a traffic study, that would be helpful for this Committee to recommend modifications or even an 
additional warrant.  That information could also be submitted to the FHWA for reevaluation of the current signal 
warrants system.  Over time, signal warrants have been added to address operational and safety problems.  If there is 
a problem under current warrants, more information would be helpful in addressing that problem.
Chairman Larsen agreed with John’s suggestion and asked Jacob to come up with evidence that shows there are 
intersections that could be improved with the 1991 Traffic Manual version.
Jacob stated that he would submit evidence to the Committee during the next meeting. 
The Committee Secretary will contact Jacob to find out if there is information available for the Committee to 
review.  In that case, the item will continue on the agenda under “Discussion Items.” 
Two Day Meetings
This item was placed on the agenda to discuss whether there is a need for having a two-day CTCDC meeting.  
Frequently in the past, the meeting agenda was too long and there was not enough time to discuss all the items 
properly.  A few times, items were deferred for the next meeting.  The Committee members suggested that the 
length of the meeting should be determined based upon the Items on the Agenda.  If the CTCDC Secretary believes 
that the agenda for a particular meeting could not be heard properly during a one-day meeting, then the Secretary 
would discuss this with the Chairman of the Committee.  If the Chairman agreed, then the meeting could be 
extended for a second day.  It would be determined based on need.
INFORMATION ITEMS
99-11	MUTCD Adoption by Caltrans
Johnny Bhullar updated the committee on the status of the MUTCD adoption by Caltrans.  He distributed to 
committee members and the public, a handout containing the status outline.  He informed the committee that 
Caltrans had completed a thorough review of the entire Traffic Manual, Caltrans Traffic Sign Specifications, 
MUTCD 2000, Caltrans new policies, CTCDC's Light Rail Traffic Manual, Caltrans Highway Design Manual 
Chapter 1000 (Bicycles), Caltrans Maintenance Manual, Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual, Caltrans HOV 
Guidelines, etc.  This review consisted of weekly (2 to 3 times per week) meetings with Caltrans experts and FHWA 
to discuss items identified in a preliminary review.  He further stated that Caltrans was currently working on the 
individual parts of the Supplement, which include writing the text portion, modifying, revising and creating new 
figures and graphics and incorporating policies from the various manuals.
Johnny Bhullar then apprised the committee on what needs to be accomplished.  He stated that the draft text for each 
part needs to be completed and submitted to Caltrans and the CTCDC for review.  The plan is to complete the draft 
text for each part on a monthly basis (see attached schedule) starting in January and being completed by June of 
2003.  The draft text for each part would be discussed in a series of CTCDC workshops.  The draft text for each part 
will be amended per review and posted on the MUTCD Supplement web site.  The Supplement would then be 
finalized and the MUTCD will be adopted for California.
Johnny Bhullar informed the committee that Caltrans would be requesting FHWA approval of Caltrans MUTCD 
adoption plan.  This adoption plan was included in the handout and has a timeline for each part’s completion with 
the completion of the entire Supplement and adoption of the MUTCD by December of 2003.

02-13	PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 9 – TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING OF THE 
TRAFFIC MANUAL
Chairman Larsen noted this is an information item and asked John Fisher to provide an update on the proposed 
editorial changes to Chapter 9 (Traffic Signals and Lighting) of the Traffic Manual.
John Fisher indicated that he worked with Devinder Singh, Johnny Bhullar and Bill Wald to incorporate suggestions 
and comments made during the August 22, 2002 CTCDC meeting.  John appreciated Caltrans efforts, especially Bill 
Wald, ITS Branch, working with him to incorporate comments and suggestions.  John added that Caltrans has 
incorporated all the editorial changes and has posted changes to the website, therefore, no further action is needed on 
this item. 
Chairman Larsen noted that during the last meeting a “motion” was adopted requesting Caltrans to incorporate 
editorial changes as suggested.  If there was any disagreement on the comments and suggestions, Caltrans should 
bring back those disagreements to the Committee.  Since there is no disagreement, the item should be considered 
completed.										

00-1	Bicycle Pavement Markings
Due to early ending of the CTCDC meeting, the item was not discussed.  The item will be placed on the agenda for 
the next CTCDC meeting.
02-9	MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS (APSs)
Chairman Larsen noted that during the last meeting a recommendation was made to establish a Sub-Committee to 
develop guidelines for Accessible Pedestrian Signals system.  John Fisher, Vice-Chairman, CTCDC, agreed to chair 
the Sub- Committee. The other members are Gerry Meis, Farhad Mansourian, Ed von Borstel and Jacob Babico.  
Gene Lozano, Helen Elias and Ezio Elviti will be representing the Visually Impaired community.
NEXT CTCDC MEETING
The next meeting will be held on March 13, 2003, at 320 W 4th Street (Carmel Room A), Los Angeles 90012.  There 
will be a Sub-Committee meeting in the same facility on March 12, 2003.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
CTCDC MINUTES
December 5, 2002
Page 14 of 144