w05 sign retroreflectivity-made_easy-norkus
TRANSCRIPT
MUTCD Sign Retroreflectivity Made Easy
Exclusive RoadVista 922 USA Distributor
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Presented by:
Steve NorkusProfessional Pavement Products, Inc
2
Audience Poll
Are you using (or plan on using) more than 1 method?• Yes• No• Not with an agency
Today’s Agenda
• The Latest on the MUTCD “Retro Rule” • Considerations & Keeping Up with the Joneses• Understanding the Sign Lifecycle Management
Process• Available Retroreflectometers• Real World Usage of Retroreflectometers
Today’s Agenda
• The Latest on the MUTCD “Retro Rule” • Considerations & Keeping Up with the Joneses• Understanding the Sign Lifecycle Management
Process• Available Retroreflectometers• Real World Usage of Retroreflectometers
May 2012 MUTCD Revision – Changes to Compliance Dates
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/09mutcdproposedrev/compliance_dates/index.htm
A.K.A.June 13, 2014
What the Changes Mean
KTC Roadway Related Tort Liability & Risk Management Study
Analysis of roadway related lawsuits against agencies, 1981 thru 2009
Pg 36- “The largest total number of claim amounts were related to inadequatesigns or markings, lack of a stop sign, orInadequate warning on a stop approach. The total dollar amount claimed in this category was substantially higher than any other with approximately 23% of the amount for all claims involving this reason.”
Category # Claims Amount of Claim Avg Claim $ Claims > $50K Amount Paid % Paid
Inadequate/improper signs/ markings 357 $21,554,666 $60,377 188 $2,110,969 10.8
Inadequate signing at stop approach 46 2,643,312 54,463 28 218,672 8.3
Lack of stop sign 43 3,633,941 84,508 37 489,875 14.9
Traffic Control Devices 698 34,256,454 $49,148 314 $3,350,207 10.6
Tables 3-11 and 3-10
KTC Study: # of Claims over $50,000
Inadequate/Improper signs/markingsInadequate/Improper drainage
Lack of guardrailTraffic control devise - Work Zone
Shoulder Drop OffCrash due to pavement defect
Traffic signal malfunction - inadequateSubstandard guardrail
Crash involving DOT vehicleHit object on right of way (clear zone)
Shoulder related defectView obstructedLack of Stop sign
Crash due to debris in roadFalling rock/rock slide
Inadequate signing at Stop approachImproper drainage property
Contruction zone/otherPedestrian fall
Improperly designed curveHit tree/falling tree
Work zone/flagger related
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
37
188
9
Audience Poll
What is the current status of your agency’s retroreflectivity monitoring program?• Still deciding on what method(s)• Have made a decision, but haven’t implemented yet• Currently implementing a method(s)• Way ahead of ya – We are up & running!• Not with an agency
KTC: Average Claim $ Amount
Contruction zone/otherHit tree/falling tree
Crash due to pavement defectInadequate/Improper signs/markings
Crash due to debris in roadLack of guardrail
Pedestrian fallView obstructed
Falling rock/rock slideImproperly designed curve
Crash involving DOT vehicleHit object on right of way (clear zone)
Work zone/flagger relatedTraffic signal malfunction - inadequate
Inadequate/Improper drainageShoulder Drop Off
Lack of Stop signSubstandard guardrail
Shoulder related defectInadequate signing at Stop approach
Traffic control devise - Work ZoneImproper drainage property
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000
$111,131
$97,297
Sign Color
Additional Criteria
Sheeting Type (ASTM D4956-04)
Beaded Sheeting Prismatic Sheeting
I II III III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X
White on GreenOverhead white not
approved; green> 7white not approved; green> 15
white not approved; green> 25
white > 250; green > 25
Ground-mounted white not approved; green> 7 white > 120; green > 15
Black on Yellow or Black on
Orange
For text and fine symbol signs measuring > 1200mm (48 in) and
all bold symbol signsyellow/orange not
approved yellow > 50; orange > 50
For text and fine symbol signs measuring < 1200mm (48 in)
yellow/orange not approved yellow > 75; orange > 75
White on RedMinimum sign contrast ratio > 3:1
(white retroreflectivity / red retroreflectivity)
white > 35; red > 7
Black on White --- white > 50
MUTCD Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels Quick Reference Guide
Sign Color
Additional Criteria
Sheeting Type (ASTM D4956-04)
Beaded Sheeting Prismatic Sheeting
I II III III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X
White on GreenOverhead white not
approved; green> 7white not approved; green> 15
white not approved; green> 25
white > 250; green > 25
Ground-mounted white not approved; green> 7 white > 120; green > 15
Black on Yellow or Black on
Orange
For text and fine symbol signs measuring > 1200mm (48 in) and
all bold symbol signsyellow/orange not
approved yellow > 50; orange > 50
For text and fine symbol signs measuring < 1200mm (48 in)
yellow/orange not approved yellow > 75; orange > 75
White on RedMinimum sign contrast ratio > 3:1 (white / red
retroreflectivity)white > 35; red > 7
Black on White --- white > 50
MUTCD Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels Quick Reference Guide
Minimums for Retroreflectivity
Prismatic Sheeting REDNEW = 200 – 300 vs.
MIN = 7
Prismatic Sheeting WHITENEW = 500 – 900 vs.
MIN = 35
Sign Color
Additional Criteria
Sheeting Type (ASTM D4956-04)
Beaded Sheeting Prismatic Sheeting
I II III III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X
White on GreenOverhead white not
approved; green> 7white not approved; green> 15
white not approved; green> 25
white > 250; green > 25
Ground-mounted white not approved; green> 7 white > 120; green > 15
Black on Yellow or Black on
Orange
For text and fine symbol signs measuring > 1200mm (48 in) and
all bold symbol signsyellow/orange not
approved yellow > 50; orange > 50
For text and fine symbol signs measuring < 1200mm (48 in)
yellow/orange not approved yellow > 75; orange > 75
White on Red Minimum sign contrast ratio > 3:1 (white / red retroreflectivity) white > 35; red > 7
Black on White --- white > 50
MUTCD Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels Quick Reference Guide
Signs in the Field
Pass• DG Speed Limit• South facing• BG = 257 (min 50)• L = Black (non-reflective)• July ‘98
– 13 years old (when pic taken)
Today’s Agenda
• The Latest on the MUTCD “Retro Rule” • Considerations of the Approved Methods &
Keeping Up with the Joneses• Understanding the Sign Lifecycle Management
Process• Available Retroreflectometers• Real World Usage of Retroreflectometers
The 5 MUTCD Approved Sign Management Methods
1. Visual nighttime inspections using calibrated signs and performed by a certified individual
2. Replacement based on individual manufacturer suggested sign life
3. Blanket replacement of all signs in an area
4. Use a sampling of control signs that represent field signs
5. Actual sign retroreflectivity levels measured using a retroreflectometer
19
Audience Poll
What retroreflectivity inspection method(s) are you currently?• Visual Nighttime Inspection• Suggested Sign Life• Blanket Replacement• Control Signs• Retroreflectometer Readings
Not yet there? Not with an agency? Please DO NOT answer this poll!
20
Audience Poll
For those who use Visual Inspection as your primary method, are you currently using day or night time inspections?• Nighttime Inspections• Daytime Inspections• Both
PPP Survey• Data collected between January 2011 – April 2012 as part of various
Professional Pavement Products’ sales and marketing efforts• All answers are self-reported and unconfirmed• Efforts were made to reduce duplicate agency reports
498AgencyRespondents
Respondents by # of Signs in Jurisdiction
14.26%
43.17%
25.10%
5.42%
12.05%
Under 2,0002,000 - 10,00010,000 - 25,00025,000 - 50,00050,000 +
498
Primary Method of Sign Inspection
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
50,000 +
25,000 - 50,000
10,000 - 25,000
2,000 - 10,000
Under 2,000
A Closer Look at Visual Inspections…
Both Daytime Inspections Nighttime Inspections0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
50,000 +25,000 - 50,00010,000 - 25,0002,000 - 10,000Under 2,000
Start Up Costs Annual Costs Hidden Costs
Visual Nighttime Inspections
• Min 2 Person Night Salary + Benefits
• Training of 65+ Individuals • Specialized Vehicle Setup• Comparison Plates Kit
• Expect 10-30% Sign Replacement• Specialty Employee Salaries &
Benefits
• Human Error• Continued Training• Specialized Vehicle Maintenance
Blanket Replacement
• 10-100% of Signs Maintained • 10-100% of Signs Maintained • Cost of Unnecessary Replacement of Signs still Performing Well Above Minimums
• Liability assoc. with Signs in Need of Early Replacement
Manufacturer's Suggested Life
• 10-100% of Regulatory and Warning Signs
• 10-100% of Signs Maintained • Cost of Unnecessary Replacement of Signs still Performing Well Above Minimums
• Liability assoc. with Signs in Need of Early Replacement
Control Signs• Retroreflectometer• Control Sign Setup in Sign Yard• Process Development for
Identifying Like Signs
• Expect 5-30% of Signs Maintained• Annual Maintenance of
Retroreflectometer
• Cost of Unnecessary Replacement of Field Signs Out-Performing Like Sign in Sign Yard
• Liability assoc. with Signs in Need of Early Replacement
Retroreflectometer• Retroreflectometer• Initial Inventory & Measurement
Process
• 2-10% of Signs Monitored• Annual Maintenance of
Retroreflectometer
• SAVINGS from Keeping Usable Signs in Service Longer
• SAVINGS from Efficiently Allocating Resources based on Sign Performance and Priority
Methods Comparison:
Expected Costs
Key Benefit(s) Key Drawback(s)
Visual Nighttime Inspections
• Signs viewed in natural surroundings • Nighttime driving is more dangerous• Can't immediately replace signs deemed failure
Blanket Replacement• Easy implementation • Expensive capital outlay
• Higher likelihood of unnecessary replacements• Signs are not actively monitored for performance
between scheduled replacements
Manufacturer's Suggested Life
• Easy implementation if system in place already tracking sign age and suggested life
• Need system in place to track age and suggested life• Expensive capital outlay• Higher likelihood of unnecessary replacements• Signs are not actively monitored for performance
between scheduled replacements
Control Signs
• Not very labor intensive • Need to have adequate sign sampling• Higher likelihood of unnecessary replacements• Signs are not actively monitored for performance
between scheduled replacements• Requires retroreflectivity measurement equipment
Retroreflectometer
• Simultaneous daytime physical inspection of general sign and hardware condition
• Eliminates unnecessary sign replacement• Eliminates human error and subjectivity• Minimum training required• Signs close to failure can be replaced on same visit• Enables efficient prioritization of resources
• Requires retroreflectivity equipment• Initial program launch can be time consuming
Methods Comparison:
Key Considerations
Signs in the Field
Replace if using Sign Life / Blanket PASS using Retro Readings• HI Guide Sign• BG = 60.2 (min 15)• L = 296 (min 120)• 1988
– 23 years old (when pic taken)
Cost of Sign Replacement
15,000 10 1,500
years average sign life
signs under jurisdiction
average annual sign replacements
1,500 $150 $225,000average sign
replacement cost
average annual sign
replacements
jurisdictional annual sign replacement
expense
Cost of Sign Replacement
Avg Sign Life = 10 yrsNational Avg Sign Replacement Cost = $ 150
Signs Under Jurisdiction: 5,000 10,000 15,000 25,000 50,000
Avg Annual Replacements 500 1,000 1,500 2,500 5,000
Annual Costs Jurisdiction Wide $ 75,000 $ 150,000 $ 225,000 $ 375,000 $ 750,000
To be compliant, on average only about 30% of all signs in a jurisdiction have to meet the minimum standards of retroreflectivity as laid out in the MUTCD compliance deadlines: “all red and white or white and black “regulatory” signs (such as STOP signs and Speed Limit signs), yellow and black “warning” signs,
and ground-mounted green and white “guide” signs (except street name signs).
Today’s Agenda
• The Latest on the MUTCD “Retro Rule” • Considerations & Keeping Up with the Joneses• Understanding the Sign Lifecycle
Management Process Available Retroreflectometers• Real World Usage of Retroreflectometers
More Survey Findings…
•79% of PPP survey respondents currently have a Management Program in Place; however,
–6% of those with a Program haven’t incorporated retroreflectivity monitoring into their management program yet!
What is Your Program Goal?
ARE YOU SIMPLY LOOKING TO CYA?
--OR--
DO YOU WANT TO TRULY MANAGE
AND MAINTAIN YOUR SIGN
INVENTORY?
Order or Fabricate Signs
Repair and Replace Signs
Generate Work Plan
Periodic Assessment and
Maintenance
Update Inventory
Post ProcessingData Collection Initial Action Plan
Sign Management Lifecycle
What is GIS?
Geographic Information SystemWeb-based or locally hosted software and/or processes that – Captures,– Stores,– Analyzes,– Manages, and– Presents
data that is linked to a geographic location(s)…
35
Audience Poll
Does your agency already utilize GIS software?• Yes, for sign management and mapping• Yes, but only for sign management• No, but we use Excel spreadsheets and such• No, we are in the stone ages over here still• I don’t know
GIS Software Adoption
Inventoried and managed via GIS
Inventoried manually Neither0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
50,000 +25,000 - 50,00010,000 - 25,0002,000 - 10,000Under 2,000
Sam
ple
CSV
Dat
a Fi
le
Note, if you use Pass as Comment 1 and Fail as
Comment 2, KML will auto color the markers accordingly!
Sam
ple
KML
Dat
a Fi
le
Some of the GIS on the Market
• AquiSIGN• iTracSigns (by TCR Software)• ESRI’s ArcGIS Suite• D-Ware• ibisTRAX• Cartegraph
Signs in the Field
F A I L• EG Symbol Sign• BG = 2.4 (min 75)• L = Black• 2008
– 3 years old (when pic taken)
Today’s Agenda
• The Latest on the MUTCD “Retro Rule” • Considerations & Keeping Up with the Joneses• Understanding the Sign Lifecycle Management
Process• Available Retroreflectometers• Real World Usage of Retroreflectometers
RoadVista 922 Delta RetroSign GR3Manufactured In USA Denmark
Device Type Annular – Single Measurement per Reading on PrismaticsUS Patent 7,961,328
Point – Two Measurements per Reading on Prismatics Req’d
(at 0⁰ and 90⁰)
Angles 2 angles: .2, .5 GR3 = 3 angles: .2, .5, 1.0GR1 = 1 angle: .2
Inventory System Built-in Barcode Reader Attachable RFID Reader or Attachable Barcode Reader
Battery Standard 12V Rechargeable Power Tool, ~$70
Bosch Special Order, ~$330
Display Touchscreen facing User LCD on side of unit
Reading Time 1 Second Per Reading 2 Seconds Per Reading
GPS Standard Internal Standard InternalBluetooth Standard Internal Standard Internal
Approved Handheld Retroreflectometer Devices
Side-by-Side: Point vs. AnnularPOINT Technology(used by Delta GR3/GR1)
ANNULAR Technology(Used by RoadVista 922)
• Averages infinite point measurements around the light source
• Developed in 1980’s specifically for newly introduced micro-prismatic materials
• Most reliable way to test prismatic sheeting• Best for reliable readings in the field
• Takes a single point measurement just above the light source
• Developed in 1970’s• Rotationally sensitive on prismatic sheeting• Widely used in Lab testing • 0⁰ and 90⁰ rotational readings on prismatic
are required to match ASTM Lab results
Image Source: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/retrotoolkit/pdfs/measurement.pdf
Side-by-Side: Inventory Barcode Readers
Road Vista 922Delta GR3/GR1
Side-by-Side: Navigation
Side-by-Side: Data Integration Software
Delta GR3/GR1 RoadVista 922
48
Audience Poll
Does your jurisdiction currently own a handheld retroreflectometer?• Yes• No• I don’t know
Today’s Agenda
• The Latest on the MUTCD “Retro Rule” • Considerations & Keeping Up with the Joneses• Understanding the Sign Lifecycle Management
Process• Available Retroreflectometers
• Real World Usage of Retroreflectometers
Today’s Agenda
• The Latest on the MUTCD “Retro Rule” • Considerations & Keeping Up with the Joneses• Understanding the Sign Lifecycle Management
Process• Available Retroreflectometers• Real World Usage of Retroreflectometers
How Agencies with Programs in Place are Utilizing the Sign Data Collected
Budgeting Decisions
Determining Field Sign Life
Setting Reevaluation Dates for Retroreflectivity Measurements
Creating a Prioritized Punch list for Maintenance / Replacement
Sign Inventory Mapping
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
40%
46%
16%
51%
53%
Types of Sign Attributes Agencies with Programs are Collecting
View-able DistanceWarranty Expiration
Sign Material CostSign Installation Cost
Special AttributesAsset Barcode
Distance from the RoadSign Height
Inventory NumberCross-roads / Closest Street Address
Last Inspection DateRetroreflectivityDirection Facing
MUTCD / DOT Icon CodeSign Sheeting
Sign SizeInstallation Date
Sign Post TypeGPS Location
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Under 2,000 2,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 25,000 25,000 - 50,000 50,000 +
PPP CUSTOMER PROGRAM SNAPSHOTS
NYC Overhead Sign Project
• 1,283 Overhead Structures – 2,000 Signs• Sign sheeting ranges 3-15 years old• Currently just over 50% Project Completion
Results so far at 1,000 Signs Tested to Date…• 1.5% Retro Fail Rate• Averaging 100-115% higher than MUTCD
minimums
Iowa Region XII Pilot
• 2 Summer High School Interns; 1 RV922; 60 days• 5,000 signs - Averaged 140 signs/day• Created full sign inventory from scratch– Retro readings– Sign type– Height– Distance from road– Direction facing– GPS location
Portland Scope Study
• Relatively small sample of 398 signs– Random sample method– Split 50/50 between Stop Signs and black & white Regulatory Signs only – Average sign age of 10 years, ranging from New (0) to 26 years– 1st pass was daytime physical inspections; 2nd pass was retro readings
• 67% of sample showed some kind of damage – either human or environmental (dirt / algae)– 40% of sample had graffiti-related damage– 12% of sample had been stolen or knocked down and not reported
• 65% of sample read with retroreflectometer– 1.5% Retro Failure Rate (of those actually read) = 4 signs– No correlation could be observed between Visual Inspection and Retro Readings
• Results suggest 33x more likely to replace signs due to Physical Damage than due to low Retroreflectivity
• Paper-based collection system, took months to complete study
Observations In General…
• Sign Inspections as part of a Pilot or Study have a lower signs/day– Reports range from 8 – 19 an hour– Consultants’ report 15 – 30 an hour– All say distance between signs is the biggest determinant of
inspection efficiency
• Regulatory and warning signs make up 30-40% of total sign inventories
• HI sheeting is out lasting predictions in the field by 2-3x expected sign life
57
Observations In General…
• Reports of as much as 20-25% of signs being inventoried made of EG sheeting
• Much more likely to have a sign failure due to physical damage than due to retroreflectivity issues
• Laptop with GIS/Mapping versus Paper-based manual reference in field increases productivity by as much as 50%
• Reported savings of 30-40% using Retroreflectometer Inspections versus Expected Sign Life replacement
58
PPP Off ers
• Free MUTCD Retro Rule Whitepaper–www.pppcatalog.com/922/white-paper
&Exclusive distributor of RoadVista 922 in USA.
Over 700 roadway maintenance and construction products in stock, available online and our six warehouse locations:
Jacksonville | Miami | Orlando | Houston | Charlotte | Raleigh
Q ASteve NorkusDirect 904.838.0195
Professional Pavement ProductsToll Free 1.888.717.7771 | www.pppcatalog.com