Tag Archives: LRRB

Traffic and Safety

What’s the life of a sign?

3 Comments

Traffic signs provide important information to drivers, and are a critical component of traffic safety. In order to be effective, their visibility and readability must be maintained under both day and night conditions.

Key to signs’ effectiveness is a quality known as retroreflectivity — the ability for signs to bounce light back toward a driver’s eyes, making them appear brighter and easier to read.  Retroreflectivity deteriorates with time, so transportation agencies need to actively maintain their signs.

A research project funded by the Local Road Research Board is developing a guide to help cities and counties better manage their signs, and also to meet a new Federal Highway Administration retroreflectivity management requirement while getting the lowest life-cycle costs.

Cities and counties have until June to establish a sign assessment or management method that will maintain minimum levels of sign retroreflectivity.

“Right now there’s a mixture of different management methods, with very little guidance as to what’s appropriate for your agency based on the signs you have and your labor force and equipment,” said Matt Lebens, a MnDOT research project engineer.

Since 1993, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has included guidelines for minimum retroreflectivity of pavement markings and signs. The standards are meant to ensure that drivers, especially the growing population of elderly drivers, are able to detect, comprehend and react to traffic signs. The LRRB project is designed to help fill certain knowledge gaps in this area.

Measuring retroreflectivity

Possible methods for ensuring retroflectivity include night-time inspection; use of a reflectometer; spot-checking a sampling of signs that are the same age; or blanket replacement of signs once they reach a certain age.

Although the retroreflectivity of a sign is  guaranteed by its manufacturer to last a certain number of years, it commonly lasts much longer.

“Currently, we don’t have expected sign life guidance for agencies to use. Through this project, we are establishing a control deck for sign sheeting used in the state, and an expert panel will make recommendations on expected sign life ranges,” Lebens said.

Researchers reviewed retro-reflectivity studies from other states and also measured the retro-reflectivity of signs out in the field across Minnesota using a retroreflectometer. As part of this project, MnDOT is providing training on the retroreflectometer and will also make it available for loan to local municipalities. (Watch a video demonstration.)

At MnDOT’s MnROAD site,  control decks contain dozens of signs. In addition to measuring retroreflectivity, the MnDOT Materials lab is monitoring color fade, which has been a larger issue in Minnesota.

“By getting better data as to the real life in-field life span of the signs, agencies will have a more realistic and better informed value for sign life expectancy, as well as potentially reducing costs,” said MnDOT Senior Engineer Mark Vizecky.

Expected life

There’s been no definitive studies to date as to what the life of a sign is, said lead project investigator Howard Preston of CH2M Hill, but the research so far shows it is in well excess of manufacturer warranties.

Cities and counties will be advised to pick an expected sign life that goes beyond the warranty – and then stay tuned.

“The notion is to watch these signs until they fail,” Preston said. “The sheeting material is better than it used to be. The failure might be 20 or 30 years out.”

There are two basic types of reflective sheeting material: beaded and prismatic.

Although beaded is guaranteed to last 10 years, researchers anticipate a retroreflectivity life of between 12 and 20 years old.

For the prismatic material – which has a 12-year warranty – the life cycle is anticipated to be 20 to 30 years.

“Nobody knows for sure, because nobody has actually followed this material to failure in a controlled condition,” Preston said. “On the road, there are so many variables: vandalism, knock-downs, etc.”

A test deck at MnROAD.
Researchers look at the test deck at MnROAD. The study panel includes city and county engineers.
Resources

Traffic Sign Life Expectancy study – Technical Summary (PDF, 1 MB, 2 pages); Final Report (PDF, 2 MB, 45 pages)

Pedestrian, Traffic and Safety

New guidebook, training to facilitate safer pedestrian crossings

Leave a comment

City and county engineers often struggle with how to respond to safety concerns about pedestrian crossings, with no scientific method for evaluating them.

In Long Lake, for example, the police department received numerous complaints about the safety of a particular pedestrian crossing. But when the crossing was videotaped, no one was observed using it.

This example — which was part of a research project funded by the Local Road Research Board — exemplifies the difficulties local governments face when they receive requests for a stop sign or signals at a crossing.

A pedestrian crossing control device.
A pedestrian crossing control device.

A new manual and June 5 training workshop being held by the Minnesota Local Technical Assistance Program will provide cities and counties with step-by-step tools for evaluating a pedestrian crossing and identifying whether improvements are warranted.

The soon-to-be released guidebook* recommends when to install marked crosswalks and other enhancements based on the average daily vehicle count, number of pedestrians, number of lanes and average vehicle speed. It guides users how to rate a crossing for pedestrian service, and includes a flow chart to assist in decision-making.

The training is unique because it is based on actual video footage of existing crosswalks and the pedestrians which use them.

No guidance

Although vehicles are legally required to stop for pedestrians crossing at intersections and within marked crosswalks, they don’t always yield the right-of-way. And areas with high traffic volumes may not have adequate gaps for pedestrians to cross safely, leading to risk-taking.

Alan Rindels, a MnDOT research engineer, had previously looked for a methodology to evaluate a crosswalk’s effectiveness, but could not find an appropriate engineering analysis.

“What I kept coming up with were results based on the experience of an engineer or planner for what they ‘felt’ was a better crosswalk, such as additional pavement markings, lights or maybe a signal system,” he said.

Rindels finally found guidance in a Transportation Research Board webinar two years ago. Based on that, he asked the LRRB to develop a training methodology for Minnesota practitioners.

Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings

Unless specifically marked otherwise, every intersection is a pedestrian crossing, regardless of the existence of crosswalk markings or sidewalks. At mid-block locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the pedestrian crossing. Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings (which the guidebook focuses on) are locations that are not controlled by a stop sign, yield sign or traffic signal.

Defining where to place pedestrian crossing enhancements — including markings, signs and or other devices — depends on many factors, including pedestrian volume, vehicular traffic volume, sight lines and speed.

The LRRB developed a worksheet that engineers can use to evaluate an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing location in a systematic way, in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. Users note the level of lighting, distance from the nearest all-way stop and whether another location might serve the same pedestrian crossing more effectively.

The guidebook’s 11-step evaluation can identify what level of treatment is appropriate, ranging from overhead flashing beacons and traffic calming devices, such as curb bump-outs, to more expensive options like building overpass or underpass.

Hennepin County Senior Transportation Engineer Pete Lemke, who went through pre-training, said the guidebook will help engineers measure the pedestrian experience by “quantifying the delay at non-signalized intersections.”

“It will inform how we respond to concerns — whether that response is ‘the crossing fits the needs of what’s there’ or ‘we need to make changes or enhancements,'” he said.

Further Resources

Putting Research Into Practice: A Guide for Pedestrian Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Intersections – Technical Summary (1 MB, 2 pages); Final Report.

Training workshop – June 5 (register here)

* Consultant Bolton & Menks prepared the guidebook with guidance from a 21-member project team that included University of Minnesota researchers and engineers from the city of Eagan, Hennepin County, Carver County, Scott County, MnDOT, the Center for Transportation Studies and the Federal Highway Administration.

Traffic and Safety

MnDOT looks for solution to noisy highway rumble strips

12 Comments

Rumble strips alert sleepy and inattentive motorists that they are about to veer off the highway or into the opposite lane of traffic. But the grating noise that prevents collisions can also be annoying to nearby residents.

Around Minnesota, more and more counties are facing push-back as they install shoulder rumble strips on roadways in populated areas. This is because county road shoulders are narrow — leading drivers to frequently hit the rumbles.

“There is a strong concern statewide that these noise complaints will raise enough concern that legislation may be passed reducing their use,” said technical liaison Ken Johnson of MnDOT’s Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology.

A European-developed style of rumble strip, called sinusoidal, could provide Minnesota a new means of warning drivers without as much stray highway noise.

Accident reduction

Rumble strips are patterns ground into asphalt that cause a vehicle to vibrate when its tires come close to the centerline or road edge. They help prevent lane departure crashes, which account for more than 50-percent of fatalities on the road system.

The sinusoidal rumble (below) has a sine wave pattern ground into the pavement, while the traditional rumble strip (top photo) doesn’t follow a wave pattern.

Photo courtesy of the Wirtgen Group
Creation of a Sinusoidal rumble strip. Photo courtesy of the Wirtgen Group

MnDOT’s Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology plans to test different designs of the Sinusoidal rumble strips to find the one with the highest level of interior vehicle noise and lowest level of exterior vehicle noise.

The navigability of sinusoidal rumbles by motorcycles and bicycles will also be evaluated. The project was recently funded with a research implementation grant from MnDOT’s Transportation Research Innovation Group.

If sinusoidal rumble strips are found to be effective, the chosen design will be used for centerlines and road shoulders in noise-sensitive areas throughout the state highway system. It is anticipated that counties will also adopt the design.

Unlike counties, most of MnDOT’s recent complaints have been for its centerline rumbles, which are required on all rural, high-speed undivided roads in Minnesota, Johnson said.

MnDOT has considered allowing more exceptions due to residential noise concern; however, doing so could result in more fatal and serious crashes. Sinusoidal rumbles are seen as a possible alternative for these noise-sensitive areas.

The Local Road Research Board is also studying different designs of sinusoidal rumble strips in Polk County.

Maintenance Operations

New Video: “Why Aren’t They Working on My Road?”

Leave a comment

A new video produced by the Local Road Research Board helps the public understand why some bad roads aren’t always fixed first.

The seven-minute video explains what causes road pavements to deteriorate and why, like the saying, “throwing good money after bad,”  it may be more cost-effective to put maintenance dollars into roads that still have life left in them versus roads that are in the worst condition.

In it, city and county engineers discuss how they use a pavement management program to decide which roads to fix when, in order to stretch limited resources in the most effective way possible.

“We’ve learned that if we wait for things to break and fall apart, they’re much more costly to replace than if we put a little bit into it during its life cycle,” says Mark Maloney, City of Shoreview public works director.

Bicycling, Traffic and Safety

Three common questions about bike lanes, answered

Leave a comment

If you’ve ever driven near a bike lane and not known what to do, you’re not alone.

A forthcoming video from the Local Road Research Board seeks to answer common questions about on-street bike lanes and help bicyclists and motorists better understand the rules. The video is due to be released this spring; in the meantime, we thought we’d give you a sneak preview by addressing three common misconceptions about bike lane rules and safety. 

1) Are bicyclists required to use a bike lane, when present?

No. Although bike lanes usually provide the smoothest, safest and most efficient method of transportation — for everybody — they are not required to use them. They are allowed to ride outside bike lanes to make turns or avoid debris, and they still have the option of using an adjacent trail where available.

2) Are vehicles allowed to enter bike lanes?

Yes, but only to park or turn onto a driveway or street. Motorists should treat bike lanes like any other lane of traffic and yield to approaching bicyclists, but they do have the right to enter bike lanes when turning.

3) Do bicyclists have to follow the same rules as motorists?

Yes. Bicycles are considered vehicles under Minnesota state law and have the same rights and responsibilities. Cyclists are required to obey stop signs and signal their turns, just like motorists.

A federal project funded 75 miles of new bike lanes in four communities, including Minneapolis.
A recent federal project funded 75 miles of new bike lanes in four communities, including the city of Minneapolis. Biking in these areas increased 50 percent; 7,700 fewer tons of carbon dioxide were emitted and gas consumption was reduced by 1.2 million gallons. (Source)

Watch for the LRRB’s new bike safety video on Crossroads this spring. In the meantime, check out MnDOT’s tips on bicycle safety.

Traffic and Safety

New technology aimed at making rural intersections safer

2 Comments

This video above showcases a new kind of intersection conflict warning system being developed for use primarily by local agencies at rural, two-way stop intersections. Called the ALERT System, it uses a simple but ingenious combination of radar, wireless communication and flashing LEDs to alert drivers to the presence of approaching vehicles, thereby helping them identify safe gaps in the cross traffic and avoid potentially deadly collisions.

These types of systems are nothing new; MnDOT and other state DOTs have been developing them for more than a decade under the ENTERPRISE pooled fund program. MnDOT also recently kicked off a three-year project to deploy 20–50 of its Rural Intersection Conflict Warning Systems at selected at-risk intersections across the state. The main difference with the ALERT System is that it’s designed to be cheaper and easier to deploy than existing ICWS technologies. While that might sound like an incremental improvement, the difference for cash-strapped local agencies could be huge.

Since the ALERT System uses solar power, it doesn’t have to be hooked up to the power grid — which means that, in theory, county public works crews could install it themselves. The system also uses a simplified controller that doesn’t require a traffic signal technician to install and maintain, and detects vehicles using radar rather than in-pavement sensors. These factors might encourage greater adoption of ICWS technologies, which studies have shown to reduce both the frequency and severity of crashes.

The project is now in its second phase. It still faces a number of hurdles before could be ready to deploy, but Vic Lund, the traffic engineer for St. Louis County and the project’s main champion, says the results so far have been encouraging. In the video below, Lund shares his thoughts on the project, its challenges and the future of Intelligent Transportation Systems in Minnesota.

Learn more: