Hello, welcome to the talking operations Webinar offered by NTOC. The title of today's overview is the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. I will turn the session over to Darren Buck, he will serve as the moderator for today's seminar. The first hour and fifteen minutes of today's Webinar will consist of the presentation and the final fifteen minutes for Question and Answer. During the presentation, if you think of a question you can type it into the smaller text box on the chat box on the left side of your screen. Send the question to everyone instead of just the presenters. Some of these questions today will be used for the Question and Answer session today. A file containing the audio and video will be posted within the next week. I will type that web address into the chat box briefly. An e-mail will be sent of the availability of the recording and closed captioning. We encourage you to encourage others to access the Webinar. The presentation is available in the file download box. Click with your mouse on the name of the file you would like to download and click the button at the bottom of the download box saying save to my computer. I would like to introduce Darren Buck, the marketing specialist for the federal highway office of operations. His Prior to joining federal highway in 2008 Darren worked in similar roles within the bicycle community and at a small federal program creating jobs for people with disabilities. Darren received an MBA from the University of Maryland at college park, currently in the [indiscernible] regional planning program. Darren Buck: Thank you very much, this was a popular webcast. We look forward to providing great information to you. I am joined by five colleagues from federal highway, office of operations on the MUTCD team. Mr. Harry Coul a, lead erring the team, Fred Rank, safety engineer in the technical services team, Midwest, and Kevin Sylvester here at headquarters who is in charge of the provisions of the MUTCD related to guide motorists information and signage. Mr. Scott Wainwright in charges of parts 3 and 4 pavement marking and traffic, and Mr. Bruce Freedman in charge of [indiscernible] crossings and bicycle facilities. With that, I will turn it over, first to Mr. Harry Choler. The 2009 edition of the MUTCD, with me today are -- this is the MUTCD team member and our contact information is on our website. I should have listed the website here, but it's MUTCD.FHWA.DOT.gov. All the information we are presenting, as well as contact information and the 2009 edition is available from our website. You will find that very informative. Before I talk about the provisions of the 2009 edition of the MUTCD, let me take a minute to talk about the process we have use the to develop this edition. MUTCD is part of the federal regulation as result we have to follow the federal rule making process to issue the new edition of the MUTCD. As a part of this process we publish our proposal, notice of proposed amendment, MPA, Federal Register for public comment on January 2008. There was a seven-month comment period ended on July 31 of 2008, and as you can see, we received quite a large number of comments, about 15,000 comments. We reviewed, analyzed each of those comment and published the final rule in the Federal Register on December 16, 2009. The effective date of this new MUTCD is January 15. The next step is states now have two years from the January 15, 2010, to bring their supplements into substantial conformance. It's already been almost five months, the state now have a year and a half to bring themselves into conformance. As part of a previous rule making we defined what we mean by substantial conformance, all the states have to comply with the standards of the MUTCD, meaning the standards have to be included as standard in the state MUTCD. Same thing with the guidance statement. There are some exceptions and they are listed in the CFR, code of federal regulations. Now, let's talk about some of the key changes in the formatting and some of the global changes in the 2009 edition. I am having, Jocelyn, if you are having difficulty changing slides -- I am, would you like me to change them for you? Yes, if it you don't mind. Sure, no problem. One of the key formatting changes we have, this has been demanded from our practitioners for a while and adding the paragraph numbers will help practitioners, make it easier to reference MUTCD. Also -- Are you seeing the slides now? They are still the same, not seeing the next slide. Also, now the guidance statement are in italic font, all the standards are in the bold, and we added this new formatting where all the guidance statements are in italic form. Hopefully will make them stand out from the option and support statements. Also, when we publish our proposal, we received many comments regarding the user of metric units, many folks thought the -- metrics altogether, the should go first. What we have done, we have removed the metric values from the tax figures and tables because metric -- are not currently being used in it this country for the traffic control devices applications, and but, we did not want to lose all the soft conversion, metric conversion, we have created a new appendix, A 2, and in that appendix we are providing all the conversion tables for the metric units. There's a new concept, not that new, but the concept of electronic toll collection has tremendous potential to improve the capacity, as well as reduce congestion at the facilities. In addition to electronic toll collections, many agencies are now using this new concept of managed lanes. They are using all the new strategies such as the vehicle occupancy requirement, type restrictions that are variable, put in effect on real-time basis. To improve the consistency, uniformity, traffic control devices, we are adding a bunch of new provisions in the MUTCD. Most of these provisions were proposed in our NPA and we received a lot of comments. Many toll operators asked us to consolidate all this information into one part. Instead, what we have decided to do, we created new chapters for toll plazas in parts two, three and four, and the managed lane material into the new chapters in part two and three. The purpose here is to improve the uniformity and consistency. We will talk about the specific provisions later on. We have made a number of changes in the introduction of the MUTCD. We have added a clarification, introduction, as well as in the other parts of the MUTCD that for the purpose of the MUTCD application, the phrase open to public travel includes toll roads, and the private roads open to public travel. That includes the roads within the shopping center, airport, sport arenas, and as a result of the rule we did in 2006, defines the open to public travel, what the term means. That definition says open to public travel means any road where the public is invited, has the access, is considered the open to public travel for MUTCD application. The one thing which we have excluded from the MUTCD application is the parking areas and driving aisles. We think the principles, standard traffic control device design should be used in it the parking facilities, there are some MUTCD provisions that do not easily translate to conditions typically found in parking lot and garages. There's a lot of other, more discussion needs to take place before MUTCD can apply to parking areas, so for now, this edition, they are not subject to MUTCD requirements. All the new devices installed have to comply with this edition of standards and provisions of this edition. The compliance dates apply to the existing devices, into the field into compliance with the new standards I want to clarify that just because -- we have very limited compliance, dates for a number of standards for the standards, applications where we don't have compliance dates, the existing devices can stay in the field until the end of their service life. In this edition we have only 11 new compliance dates. Also, we have revised the date section to make it easier for practitioners, the dates are now all now in this table format. Also, the previous edition, the dates were listed as 10 or 15 from the effective date. This time around we specified specific dates, compliance dates in this edition, make it a lot easier for practitioners. Specific, key changes part one. Certain type of signs, devices within the public right of way are not traffic control devices. These devices such as the utility markers, fire hydrant markers, they are placed in public right of way with the permission of the road authority but don't serve the purpose of traffic control devices. We added a section to clarify that. Also, there's a standard saying devices shall not be located where they interfere with the official traffic control devices. In the 2009y edition we are adding a new color, purple, and assigning this color to indicate the facilities or lanes restricted to use by persons with a electronic restricted control account. Where you don't require registration, prior registration, you are not allowed to use the purple color. The purple color is only for the account registration, lanes where you need ETC registration. Again, we will talk in more detail later on. Now, we are moving to part two and I am turning it to Fred Ramping. Fred? Fred Rank: Thank you, and good afternoon everyone. I would like to start with part 2 on highway signs and the changes. First, I want to talk a little bit about the reorganization of the many chapters of part 2. We are about to run out of letters in the alphabet, for a good reason, to better organize the material. I call your attention to the third and fourth bullet and the last bullet. The significant additions, the chapter on toll road signs, preferential and -- guiding practitioners in the application of signing. We also relocated the information out of parts remarking on gates and barricades, came to chapter 2 B, and object markers, chapter 2 C. We divide in it a logical and organized manner the multitude of information signing for general information and general services, gave them a new chapter in order to better use and find between conventional roads and freeway and express ways. We have many new symbols added to the manual. I call your attention to, on the upper left, the black Chevrons on black rectangle are the new round-about directional marker for the center aisle, pedestrian push buttons, successful in Canada, the Wi-Fi access, as well as TDY, symbols for use in it rest areas. One of the major influences, the major bases for change to the MUTCD is on research on drivers and their, the older driver handbook and recommendations are being more fully implemented in the 2009 manual than the previous ones. This edition of the manual, we're making the move to 20/40 to the [indiscernible] assume legibility. Prior to 2000, all legend was based on 20/20 vision. We are making the move so that legibility of signs and their sizing conforms to how the states are licensing distance drivers, up to 20/40 static visual acuity. Street name signs, typical examples, to be mixed case, the first letter upper case followed by lower case lettering. From research, we know mixed case lettering has greater legibility and is processed faster than all block or capitol letters. Regulatory signs, barricade and gates, first of all, to address the needs in multi-lane streets to be able to adequately see important regulatory signs, we have added a new column of application sizes into the size tables of chapter 2 B, table 2-B-1, for larger sizes where -- only on the right-hand side of a multi-lane. Where there is a median available and placement can be done T [indiscernible] Larger size for stop signs. Again based on the older driver needs, recommendations, to be a 36-inch rather than 30 for multi-lane approach, for any multilane side road approaching at multi-lane road and any side road approach to a high-speed multi-lane road. An entire reorganization and upgrade of the material for establishing right of way controls for no controlled yield, stop control and all way stops is now included in chapter 2 B to more adequately address the full continuum of right of way forms in the [indiscernible] assignment. The use of the number plaque, two way, to 7-way is no longer allowed. The only plaque is all-way. Drivers at an all-way stop do not have to count the approaches and figure out if all of the approaches are controlled. The Fischer carols for lane uses at approach, based on human factors research carried out by FHWA, tested just as well in terms of motorists understanding, as to standard -- either allowed for use on lane use signs and approaches to round-about. We included an entire new section, sections in the MUTCD in chapter 2 B for regulatory signs for [indiscernible] intersections, included information before this time for round-about approximates round-about, other type of intersections, adding in the best practices, for jug handle intersections. I wanted to call your attention to the new requirements for the intersections of divided highways that have median widths of less than 30 feet. The requirement, mandatory one, either for one-way signs in the far left and near right position where we have a median width less than 30 feet, or to install keep rights on the media noses. This is older driver-based research and guidance. The new round-about directional arrows can be a two chevron, three or four panel, the new push-button signs based on the Canadian success employ experience for pedestrian push-buttons, plows note the arrow for the direction be included for the cross-walk the push-button applies to. A new symbolic form for the R 15 turning traffic, shields pedestrians, based on the New York City experience. form chapter 2 C, fluorescent yellow green green is required for school and school bus -- optional for like and playground signs. A new minimum size of -- to meet legibility. Certain symbol signs remained, because the size of symbol is adequate enough. The application of warning signs based on curve differential speed was included in the final rule. This is a function of how much differential speed the advisory speed is below the post speed limit. New [indiscernible] advisory speeds to change from the previous fourteen, 12, 10-degrees, to 16, 14, 12 based on research done by TTI, that adds to the research used by AASHTO and the green book for the design of horizontal curves. New table for recommended spacing of chevron signs, guidance, hence the sign spacing values in the far right column can be adjusted in the field. If you need a spacing for your curve of 85 feet for an advisory speed of 30, you most currently can do that as sign spacing is not a standard, but guidance. Speed reductions of 10 mph or more the warning sign is recommended to warn of the speed reduction. The and we have a new sign for the combination of pedestrian bicycle crossing, the combination trail crossing shows on one sign; the bicycle and pedestrian symbol all in one sign. With this I will turn it over to Kevin Sylvester of the MUTCD team to present to you the changes for guide signing. Thanks, Fred. Jocelyn, if you are on the line, I am having trouble advancing the slides. They are advancing on our end, but apparently not -- What slide do you see now? Revisions to chapter 2 D. In existing guidance, clarified to stay -- information the maximum, recommended amount on a sign. This does not include the action or distance messages or exit numbers. Similar revision in chapter 2 E, freeway and express way guides are also made. Next please. Provisions for the use of pictographs on the use of guide signs is included in the manual. The provisions are specific and noted in each applicable section where a pictograph is allowed employ it's not a blanket provision on any type of sign. These apply mainly to supplemental guide signs and jurisdictional guide signs and include provisions on the maximum size and placement of the pictograph. Next please. Grow a new requirement is added to expand and limit the allowable background colors on street name signs, alternatives to using green as the background color include blue, blue and brown with a white legend or black with a I white ledge end and allowing the border to be eliminated as is the common practice on street name signs. Next. New provision is added requiring guide signs indicating the direction of turn on an interchange entrance ramp to better position motorists on the approach to a junction with a freeway or express way interest, they know which lane to be in, to turn when they get to ramps. Next. New provisions on signing use of directional way, to key local, civic and visitor sites. The specific provisions added regarding their design, use, placement relative to primary guide signs. Some additional provisions restricting their use such as not for use on freeways and express ways or ramps, also not intended for primary destinations, those are still signed using traditional signs. Order of deft in addition included, as well as guidance on locating pedestrian way-finding signs so their [indiscernible] vehicle lar traffic is minimized, typically too small to be read by motorists. Next chapter 2 E, guide signs. New standard added requiring arrows to be positioned directly over the lane to which a apply. The intent is the arrow clearly relate to the lane to which it applies. The provision is placed in over approximately the center of the lane. Down arrows must point vertically down, angle arrows are not allowed. A new type of guide sign, the overhead arrow for lane -- a recent human factors -- this type of sign is required at new or reconstructed locations with option lanes on freeways. These include major interchanges and splits. There's a provision for conversion from existing diagrammatic type of design in which large -- allowing the exit direction signs at the -- to remain while changing [indiscernible] next. The existing diagrammatic sign concept is retained, however, it's limited to locations with an option lane, whereas previously they could be used with dedicated lanes, limited to existing facilities only. This was originally the NPA proposed eliminating this design altogether, however we are addressing the fact there are a lot of sign structures out there with a significant service life left well beyond the existing signs on them. To retrofit to the overhead arrow, slightly larger, might require new structures be installed as well as relocation of one of the structures. For intermediate, minor interchange, multi-lane exits with an option lane, a new recommendation is added on the type of signing that can be used. The signing illustrated here is one method of signing these, the overhead arrow lane style is preferred, encouraged, raught. However, we recognize this type of signing might not be practical for local service type interchanges in which it is option lane is present, serves only for capacity during week day peak periods during which most traffic would be familiar with the exit. For exit only messages for lane drops advance guidelines, guide sign required, legend, new provision that incorporates the diagonal exit direction arrow into the exit-only message is included. This change better relates the exit-only message to the lane below. Next. Designation of left side exits is now a requirement. The new provisions provide a uniform lay out as compared with the possible options in the 2003 edition, as a result of a recommendation made a few years ago. Next. A new exit Gore sign for narrow Gores is included, the distinction to note is that it's not a narrow exit gore sign option, it's an exit for an narrow Gore, the standard exit Gore sign, those will still be used in those locations. The use of this type of sign is limited to narrow Gores. Next. New expert 2 on toll road signs. Next. The purple background, color, has been adopted for ETC account information requirements. The important thing to note, the purple is for preregistered ETC accounts, only for those where you have to actively register in a program prior to using the facility It's also the use of purple, for the [indiscernible] registration requirement, it's not for destination information or other uses on the sign. Those would still, those portions would use the appropriate colors, white on green. New toll road plaques, the top examples are independent installations and the three bottom plaques are for use above guide signs. Next. New guide signs and optional toll collection symbols for canopies are included. The word ledge end on these is required, the use of symbols is optional, however if a symbol is used it shall be the design specified in the manual. These signs, one of these is required over the center of each toll lane. Next. This slide illustrates similar signing for the advance locations on the approach to a toll plaza, as well as the separation for open road ETC lanes that [indiscernible] next. Comment 2 G, preferential -- next. This is a brand-new chapter that incorporate some of the previous provisions for preferential lane [indiscernible] managed lanes. The slide riel illustrates -- HOV lane, the two signs shown at the bottom left, show the HOV exit and header panels. Next. New signs for price managed lanes are also included. These include guide and regulatory signs and are similar to other preferential lane signs. These are for use where pricing is used as operational strategy to reduce [indiscernible] through a corridor. Next. New toll rate and comparative travel for -- laps, included. These signs enable road users to decide whether to use the managed -- price-managed lane, pay a toll, the bike-congested or remain in general purpose lanes. The critical, one critical feature of these signs is that the intent is to limit the amount of information at one location, separate the information on to different signs in a sequence. What's shown here is two separate signs. One for the price information, the other for travel time information. Might be an inclination to try to -- combine this information, it's a lot of informational load at one location. That's obviously discouraged, the information needs to be separated out. We have new guide signs for prior price managed lanes, the two bottom signs illustrate the distinction between an all E TC type of lane where everyone is charged a toll through the ETC account on the right it shows the option for HOV eligibility for users to travel without paying a toll. chapters 2 H through N. New H, consolidating information previously contained in 2 D and E; one new section at the bottom on acknowledgement signs. New provisions on the design and use of acknowledgement signs is now included. The provisions are based primarily on a 2005 policy memo FHWA issued. The provisions include criteria on the maximum size of the sponsor logo, as well as maximum overall size of the sign. General service, road side service signs are in a separate chapter, 2 I. New general service symbol signs have been developed for additional uses such as the telecommunications device for the deaf, wireless Internet, and revised general service sign include revision to information sign, the question mark previously, and a new symbol for the truck parking sign. These are the result of a recent traffic control devices funded evaluation. As a result of a recent interim approval FHWA issued, 12 logos for any one specific service are now allowed, and in order to use 12 logos, the maximum number of signs is still four and maximum number of logos is limited to six. However, if all of the four signs available are not used, an additional sign among those can be used to carry logo panels for the same service One service can be displayed on two signs in the sequence; but still limited to four signs. Provisions for changeable message signs are included, legend height, color, number of phases per cycle, display time. This is a completely new chapter on this topic. Other types of electronic display, changeable message signs such as [indiscernible] legend, blank-out types for clarification and applicability of this section. Mainly relate to changeable message signs on which any type of message can be displayed as opposed to a blank-out type or static display such as rotating drum or back-lit scroll shown on the bottom. Updated, expanded set recreational cultural interest signs, based on the new symbols developed by the National Park Service. Memorial and dedication signing is now included in chapter 2 M, recreational and interest signs. More or less the same as they were previously, however they are clarified to state, emphasize only one sign per direction is allowed, and the information contained there upon should be limited to the dedication and person's name rather than additional information that's superfluous and decorative elements as well. The new tsunami evacuation route is included, studied in the -- designed in use in the West Coast states for several years. Finally, a new option for the use of fluorescent pink color background for emergency management signs is allowed when those signs are used in conjunction with an incident situation. With that, I am going to turn it over to Scott Wainwright who will move to part three. Thanks, Kevin, and hello everyone. Moving to part 3; one of the biggest changes concerning pavement markings has to do with non-continuing lanes. This includes lane drops, U I merging lanes, acceleration and de-acceleration lanes. The big change here, rather than normal broken lines, broken lane lines, the new requirement for these kind of non-continuing lanes is a dot the lane line. Most people are familiar with this it marking as it applies on freeways, the lane drop on a freeway, but this now also applies to lane drops on conventional roads. And also auxiliary lanes on conventional roads. The idea is using a different pattern of lane line gives the road user a better indication that something is changing up ahead, basically the lane is not going to continue through, you have to get out of the lane, basically. There's, in the proposals for the edition, we proposed that dot line be used in advance of lane reduction transitions. The thinking at that time was that, well, this lane doesn't continue. It's the same situation, let's give an advance warning by changing that lane line from broken to dotted as you approach this condition. There were a lot of comments to the docket, though, from agencies and individuals that were opposed to that change, saying that this really is a different type of situation with a lane drop, auxiliary, deceleration lane, you have someplace to go. If it you can't get out you can exit, you may be inconvenienced, but not have a safety problem. In this case you have to get out of the lane, the lane is ending in between intersections or exits. We decided to not make that change we had proposed, basically retain the same marking pattern that has been in the manual for quite some time. That is the normal dotted -- sorry, broken lane line ends a distance of D over 4 beyond that lane reduction sign. Arrows, the use of lane reduction arrows has been added as guidance for the higher speed roads. The use of red RPMs on the facing traffic going the wrong way on a divided highway has been in the manual for some time. The change in the 2009 edition is to expand that usage of red RPMs as an option. Even if it's an undivided highway, in other words the back side of the white RPMs, to the left of the yellow center line of undivided highway, those white RPMs can have red on the back to further emphasize if you are traveling the wrong way, even on an undivided highway it gives an extra warning of that. Also, the specific option to allow RPMs around the noses of medians or islands, many agencies are starting to do this to help road users see the islands at night. Now there's a specific provision in the manual that allows this. In terms of marked cross-walks. In between intersections, at uncontrolled locations. There was a study a few years back by Charlie Zag ire, down in North Carolina, supported recommendations about marked cross-walks should or should not be provided without other substantial measures to help reduce speed, short en crossing distance, what not. These are the conditions, four or more travel lanes with a speed limit higher than 40, or [indiscernible] 12,000 or 15,000, depending on whether or not there's a raised median. When you have those conditions, the guidance in the MUTCD is to not put in a marked crosswalk without having some other substantial measures to assist pedestrians. Speed reduction markings. Research over the past five, six years, found to have some benefits in terms of getting drivers to reduce speeds on approaches to curves. These are optional, but if they are used, then what the MUTCD has in part three now is some specific guidance and standard and options applying to the design of these markings and the lay out of these markings. There's a whole new chapter, 3 C, added to the manual, that goes into detail of pavement markings at round-about. There are a large number of figures that illustrate various geometries, numbers of lanes of approaches, numbers of lanes within the circulating road way, a lot of different types of round-about configurations. The types of layouts of pavement markings that are recommended for each of those type of configurations. One of the things that Fred already mentioned when talking about the regulatory signs, the lane use signs on the approaches to round-about, obviously the signs and markings need to complement each other, be consistent with each other, and so if lane use assignments are being made on the approach to a round-about, there is the choice, basically of which type of arrows to use, both on the signs and on the markings. The fish-hook arrows are allowed for either. But if you use one for the signs, then you should use that saim type of arrow for the markings. I will go along the same lines already mentioned concerning signs. We created a separate chapter in part 3 regarding markings for preferential lanes. That includes the price lanes and the managed lanes. Basically the information that had been in different places throughout part 3 is now consolidated. A number of different figures have been added to illustrate the type of marking used for these preferential lanes. Again, similarly, we created a new chapter in it part 3 for markings for toll plazas. The main new thing here is the use of purple markings. These are optional, no requirement, but some agencies have been interested in using purple markings with their lane lines to help identify the ETC-only lanes to help channel traffic into the right place. As noted on the slide here, the photo was taken, I believe, in New York or Pennsylvania, I don't recall which, but the pattern shown there with the purple in it between the two white borders is not what was adopted in the manual. In the 2009 edition, if purple markings are going to be used, the pattern shown to the right of the photo is what's required. Basically the white lane line is the primary marking and the purple borders are to supplement the white lane line. There's a new chapter 3 J the pavement markers used with rumble strips. It's an undecided issue of whether rumble strips themselves are traffic control devices or not. There are opinions on both sides of that issue, it basically hasn't been decided yet. But if marking material is used to create a rumble strip like shown in the right hand picture there, that's white thermo plastic marking material that's creating the transverses rumble strips this, chapter 3 J goes into detail about the colors of the marking material that can be used for rumble strips. The photo on the left shows a longitudinal rumble strip, it's a rumble stripe, the line, left Edgeline on this divided highway has been divided directly on top of a longitudinal rumble strip. Chapter J goes into detail of what is and is not allowed for this type of marking. We will move to part four, traffic signals, and in the area of warrants for signals, there's a couple of changes. One is that the pedestrian volume warrant has been revised. It's now a graphical approach similar to some of the other volume warrants, vehicular volume warrants. There's several graphs that are used where you plot the points, plot the vehicular volume versus pedestrian crossing volume to determine whether a signal is warranted based on pedestrian volume. There's a new warrant nine added, this is specifically for use at locations where none of the other eight warrants are met, yet you have a location that's adjacent to a grade crossing, you have problems of traffic backing up across the tracks, from the stop sign on the minor street at the major street, blocking tracks. Particularly trucks are an issue because they are so long. This warrant addresses that condition, takes into account different factors like number of trains per day, trucks per hour, a variety of factors are applied in using this warrant. It's only for use where none of the other warrants are met. Moving into the area of signal displays. Chapter 4 D. This is a new requirement in the 2009 edition. It basically reflects modern signal design practice, the policies of most highway agencies these days; that is, to use all 12-inch indications for new signal faces. This does not apply to existing, in the field. This applies to new indications. There are six options listed in the MUTCD for specific conditions where eight-inch indications may be used in special circumstances. One of those circumstances is the very low speed urban condition, 30 mph or under, where basically it will continue to be allowable to install new 8-inch indications, but most agencies have gone to all 12-inch indications, urban, rural, doesn't matter. In terms of where the signal faces are located, how many of them there are, there are a number of new provisions in the 2009 manual. This is guidance, recommendations, and again applies to new signals and reconstructed signals, not necessarily all the existing signals out in the field. Basically, based on very good safety research, the recommendation is for putting signals on the far side of the intersection over the travel lanes, and one face per lane and with back plates. This applies, again, it's guidance for approaches with speeds 45 mph or above. There's also recommendations that consideration be given to using one or more supplemental signal faces. The reason being, obviously, the more faces you can provide, particularly off to the side as supplemental, provides that much more visibility for vehicles traveling behind trucks. Or other visibility limitations. Even for lower speed roadways of less than 45 mph, the same type of provision should be considered. This is an important new recommendation in the MUTCD. This is based on research that found that a circular green indication placed over or directly in front of a left turn lane that has a permissive left causes a lot more errors on the part of drivers in terms of thinking they have the right of way to go. That green ball directly in front of them is a subconscious thing of meaning go, and some drivers, not very many, but some drivers unfortunately, aren't paying enough attention to what they are doing, see that green right in front of them and think I need to go, I can go, without yielding to the on coming traffic. That's a fairly rare occurrence at most intersections, but when it happens, the accident that results is pretty disasterous. In terms of protected only -- turn can only be made on the green arrow, up to now there are two options for the display for that. There has to be a green arrow, yellow arrow, but the red indication, there has been an indication of arrow or circular red. The 2009 edition standardizes on the red arrow. The circular red is not to be used anymore in this type of signal face. It's supposed to be a red arrow. Flashing yellow arrows have been added as a new way, optional to the green ball to indicate a permissive turn is allowed, the result of comprehensive research found the flashing yellow arrow is in many cases as good or better than the green ball of conveying the message to the driver, it's okay on turn but you have to yield before you turn. The flashing red arrow has been added as an option for use in special circumstances. The case where perhaps you have a wide median or very offset left turn lane, a variety of different conditions, but the bottom line is an engineering study has determined that people making that left turn movement permissively have to come to a full stop before making their permissive turn. That's the case where a flashing red arrow could be used as the permissive turn indication rather than flashing yellow arrow. Timing of the yellow interval and red clearance interval is something that there has been a lot of research and work done on. Basically, the key here is the new manual says that the duration of these intervals shall be determined using engineering practices. What does that mean? In the manual there's support information that refers readers to two ITE publications where they can find what most people refer to as the ITE formulas, taking into consideration speed -- not the only practices that can be used, but bottom line, engineering needs to be applied in determining the duration of these intervals. Simple rules of thumb, randomly saying, well I am going to use three seconds as yellow throughout the city without regard to the geometrics, the speeds, that is not an engineering practice. Studies found when good engineering practices are used to determine these intervals and those new timings are installed in the fields, significant safety improvements. That's why this has been put in as a requirement. Walking speeds for pedestrians, calculating that pedestrian clearance time. For a long time it's been four feet per second. Now it's changed to 3.5 feet per second, basically to accommodate a larger percentage of pedestrians that are out there on the street. Many of whom walk clough slower than 4 feet per second. Without getting into the details, the MUTCD in part 4 goes into, provides a lot of information about how to time this particular important interval. There are number of procedures to time this interval. Count down -- I am sure you have seen them, installed in it cities, counties in your area, they are very popular with pedestrians and studies have found they are effective at improving pedestrian safety. The new MUTCD requires the count downs must be used except the ones on narrow streets, the flashing is 7 seconds or less you don't have to install a countdown pedestrian display, but for more than 7 seconds the count down is required. The in next change I want to talk about in part four has to do with the locations for pedestrian push buttons. This has been tightened up from what it has been. The photo on the left shows what's unfortunately an all-too-common occurrence of pedestrian push buttons being put in places where they are way out of the way for pedestrians, not anywhere close to the crosswalk. They are obscured by street furniture, like here, the waste basket, scrub basket, someone in a wheelchair could not access that push button. It's guidance, but basically the guidance for locating pedestrian push button -- there are a number of illustrations for locating push buttons, depending how big the corner radius, sidewalk, one ramp or two, that sort of thing. There's been a chapter 4 F, what people refer to as the hawk signal. The hawk signal is no more. The official name for that device is the pedestrian hybrid beacon, called a hybrid beacon, it's a hybrid, some features of a flashing beacon and some features of a regular signal. The main thing is it's totally off until the pedestrian pushes the button and calls for it. When it comes on, it's flashing yellow, steady yellow, steady red while the walk is on, when is changes to flashing don't walk the vehicular signal changes to alternating flashing red display that allows cars, vehicles to start moving if the cross-walk has been cleared. If the pedestrian is across or halfway across, out of the way of that particular approach, the driver can start moving again. It provides more efficiency than a regular signal. That's what the hawk signal is now called and it is in the MUTCD as an option for use. I believe that concludes part 4, at this point I will turn it over to Bruce Freed man who will discuss the rest of the manual. Good afternoon, or good morning, depending on where you are listening in. The rest of the manual is a lot thinner than the first four parts. I know some of you may be getting apprehensive we have only done four out of nine parts. We should be able to move quickly through the rest of them. The only real significant change in part five is it's not applicable on neighborhood residential streets, only applies outside of built-up areas in cities. Some people thought perhaps it applied on low volume streets, but it does not. In part six, couple years ago, 2006, we did a change to the code of federal regulations that said workers within the federal highway system right of way had to wear high visibility apparel. We incorporated that into the '09 manual ask and applies to all roads. The new device, automated flagger assistance device or A fad had received interim approval, now in the 2009 MUTCD. it enables a flagger to be positioned out of the lane of traffic so they are in a safer spot when controlling road users through a TTC zone. There's two types adopted for use, this uses a remote control slow stop sign and gate arm to alternative control the right of way. The other type uses a traffic control signal looking device with red or yellow lenses. That's used to remotely control the A fad, and has a gate as well. There's a new requirement added that flaggers shall use a stop/slow paddle, flag or A fad to control road users through TTZ zones, this change explicitly says hand signals alone other than by law enforcement officers or emergency responders as emergency scenes, hand signals alone cannot be used to control traffic. Part 7, revisions on this slide. We got rid of a lot of duplication from other parts of the manual. We're not looking to see this printed as a separate document anymore. It's mentioned earlier the use of fluorescent yellow green for all school warning signs and plaques is required, no longer an option. The existing school bus stop ahead sign is replaced by a symbol shown on this slide. The requirement that, option that used to be in the ' 03 -- you must now use an in-school speed limit or school zone sign. If you want to put the speed limit to remind people of what the speed limit was, that can be done but it can't be the only sign at the end of a school zone. Safety controls, not appropriate for students to control traffic. In part 8, grade crossings U the information that was included in part 10 on LRT has been combined part 8. Reduces a lot of -- they were similar, this reduces the amount of redid you want material and a lot of cross-references has been eliminated. Grade crossing aided, provisions to highway, rail and LRT crossings. Any provisions in the new part eight applying to one or the other are specifically identified as highway, rail or highway LRT grade crossing application There's a new requirement that a yield or stop sign be installed at all highway passing grade crossings except where [indiscernible] not to enter the crossing when a train is approaching, passive highway LRT crossings if a cross-buck sign is used, you don't have to use a cross-buck sign at every one of the LRT crossings, occasion ole a stop ion, this combination is called a cross-buck assembly. We added a new section about quiet zone treatments to add language to support, directly refer to the rule adopted by the federal railroad administration regarding quiet zones. The provisions regarding gates have been revised to require the stripes on gate arms now be vertical rather than diagonal. Diagonal stripes might encourage drivers to drive around the gate. LRT vehicles are often nearly silent and blind pedestrians can't see flashing lights, existing option is changed to requirement that audible devices be provided at active LRT crossings used by pedestrians. A new chapter has been added regarding traffic control devices at pathway grade crossings. Finally, part nine, the use of bike lane signs and plaques is now optional rather than required where you have a marked bike lane on the road way. Pavement markings alone may now be used to designate a bike bike lane. This is used in locations where important to inform users the road is too narrow to accommodate are bike and -- Reduce costs for signing bicycle right routes in urban areas where [indiscernible] overlap. There's a new section added regarding -- shared use paths. These signs guide different types of users to separate pathways where they are available. Currently the manual provides only signs prohibiting user types, not which are permitted. The design of the U.S. bicycle route sign has been revised so the larger bicycle symbol is shown on the top part of the symbol and a smaller route number shown below, particularly showing motorists this is a bicycle numbered route, rather than highway, also used by bicyclists. The new shared lane pavement marking has been added along with guidance on its placement and spacing. This assist bicyclists, the severity of -- crashes involving bicycles colliding with suddenly opened doors of parallel parked vehicles. I will turn it back over to Harry for questions. Thank you, Bruce, let's get to the questions. I know we have a lot of questions and only 15 minutes. The first question is: Please touch on the process for approving the date supplements. I told you before the states have two years to their state MUTCD or supplement into substantial conformance, some have automatic process, as soon as the MUTCD goes in effect they adopt, and some states require legislative action, some it's the rule making process, in some administrative by the state DOT or some other agency. You need to look at the process in your state and work with your state DOT. The one thing I would point out, the definition of substantial conformance. The new Definition, all standards of the MUTCD have to be standard in the state MUTCD or supplement except when there's a previous state law contrary to the prior state law, or in conflict with the standard state. Similarly, the guidance statements had to be guidance statement or standard. The bottom line is state MUTCDs cannot be more flexible than a federal MUTCD. Again, I encourage you to work with your state DOT, figure out the process and help them comply with the federal MUTCD. The clock is ticking, only two years. The next question: The MUTCD has changed from 50 feet per inch to 30 feet per inch -- I'm sorry -- as the new questions come in it moves the cursor - in the past 10 years, however the sign sizes and letter sizes remain constant. Please explain. Fred Kevin? A lot of the signs, the specifications have changed, the warning and -- speed, multi-later than road ways and such. Those new sizes have been specified, the old size might remain but their use is restricted to lower speed applications. In that regard, those have effectively changed. In addition -- the lettering was fairly oversized to begin with. Those, with the recommended spaces should still adequately perform. Question: Where is the new edition available, the cost? Are you talking about hard copies of the MUTCD? They are available from our different partners like ITE, AASHTO and the [indiscernible], the website is ITE.org, and transportation.org, and AT SSA.com. Those are the ones I am aware of. IMS A is the other one, they are selling the hard copies of the MUTCD. You can go to the website, get information on the cost. There's links to all four on our web page. The purpose of the path and bicycle sign simply to warn -- rather than conveying requirement to yield? Is Fred Ramping here, I am glad to answer that. The purpose of the combination crossing is to add -- no intention of conveying right to yield, that would be one with the [indiscernible] to stop, yield or stop or yield for pedestrian crosswalk signs. Does Federal Highway Administration have a response to the opposition to the new wording in section 1-8 '09? You are referring to the added sentence to the definition of standard statement where we said, added the sentence that the standards cannot be changed or violated based on engineering judgment or studies. The AASHTO, number of states have raised this concern about this added sentence. Federal highway's position is this is not a significant change. It's actually, basically describes our long-standing position, not only federal highway, but national committee -- uniform traffic devices, the standards cannot be violated. If you look at the definition of standards, guidance statement, how you differentiate between standard and guidance. Guidance statements, you can revise, change them based on engineering study and judgement. We added the sentence to clarify the definition, not a significant change. Section 2 E, overhead signing for optional lane, or four plus lane highway, these signs would be massive. Have any sign manufacturers been contacted to see if it is feasible to main signs that large? What about consideration for installing signs during construction? Are there support structures strong enough to hold them? Yeah, the one arrow per line, for a lot of situations compared to the existing diagrammatic -- when designed correctly are not significantly larger. Yes, there are structures that will hold them. Some have is already been installed. As far as signing during construction, this is a general concern, regardless of the type of signing used. That will continue to be handled similarly to how it's done now. The N next, how do you sign a toll by plate? Assuming this is electronic toll collection for so-called photo or video tolling where users do not have to register, a replacement for cash, anybody can use the road way, still signed a toll road. Informational sign, supplemental informing users they will receive a bill, for example. But additional signing to the level of the signing for registered ETC requirement is not warranted for that purpose. I think the next question is also on the toll signing. The toll plaza signing in Florida the exact change -- legends are mandatory, cannot add receipts into the coin lane signs. As a clarification, what I said was, what the provision says, a word legend is required. It's not the exact word legend in the figure. Those are examples, in relation to the use of the optional symbols. Symbols can be used in addition to an applicable word legend, but not alone. Words have to be used, whatever is applicable. Next question is regarding pavement markings for lane reduction. I believe section 3 B '09 shows pavement markings shall be used in a lane reduction, has lane reduction arrow markings for speeds greater than 45 mph. Section 3 B 20 paragraph 34 states a lane reduction arrow should be used at speeds over 45 mph. Is the use of lane rearrow oar -- the intention, it's intended to be a should condition. Section 3 B 20 is the one that talks about the arrows themselves, and section it's clear they are a should condition for 45 and above. The fact they are shown on figure 3 B 14 is not intended to imply they mandatory. The next question. Interim approval for clear view type face or [indiscernible] being evaluated? I am sorry -- it moved -- many professionals road users have [indiscernible] the clear view and marginal benefits. The answer to that, the interim approval is still in effect, not included in the NPA for adoption, so the interim approval is still currently in effect. For mixed case legends on positive contrast signs, that's one of the limitations, further -- looking at current standard output, potential modification for those, wasn't at the time, those issues need to be resolved before we can move forward. The next question is on part six. Does high visibility clothing apply to the U.S. DS? The definition of the worker in code of federal regulation, all federal workers, includes the delivery truck drivers, all workers. I mean the bottom line is, the agency has to make that determination, if their drives will be making frequent stops within the public right of way, if that's the case, then this would apply. That depends on the -- what type of work they are doing, how many stops they are making within the public right of way. The next question: Are there special CTC advance warning signs that should be used to communicate the cyclists to avoid warning motorists when only bike lanes are affected. There aren't any special signs we have shown in the MUTCD, markings that apply only to bicyclists, but you can use a supplemental plaque, a word message plaque, "except bikes, or bikes." we do that with buses. If your message applies to only one type of vehicle you can use a supplemental plaque but there's no special sign. The next question: We know the paddle is the preferred device for traffic handling, but can the flag -- it's guidance, recommendation, in paragraph one of section six E .03, says the paddle should be the primary, preferred hand signaling device because it gives the road user more information flags. The use of flags should be limited to emergency situations. The answer is it's a recommendation, if you have a good engineering reason to deviate, you can do so. Will FHWA look into the use of flag or symbol using a stop/slow paddle -- I have actually seen those, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, looks good. We have not yet -- I don't know if it there's experiments going on, maybe you do in part six relative to the symbol. The issue, as I understand it, that particular symbol is trademarked. The person who -- there is an individual who developed that particular symbol, trademarked it, because of the trademark it current be adopted specifically unless that person is willing to give up this trademark and that has not happened. I am -- I have a question about the all-red interval, any engineering practice that determines that Yes, the IT Eform las include determination of the all-red interval, has to be in conjunction with the duration of the yellow. They go hand in hand, depends on the width, approach speeds, all the other factors. Next question: Scott said we must use an engineering process to determine clearance intervals. The if you use a standard 5-second yellow, grater than the calculated value using the IT Eform la, would that be in compliance? In most cases I would say no. The reason is that yellow intervals can be too long, as well as too short. The IT Eform las say for a given location the appropriate yellow intervalue is four seconds, yet the agency set at five, that can have negative safety effects as well. That's the repeat of the same question -- Do the [indiscernible] units fit in existing pedestrian -- Yes, there are a number of manufacturers that can provide retrofit type of count-downs. If they are buying, installing them brand-new, that's one thing, but to add to another, it's certainly possible to do it, depending on which manufacturer you choose. The other question, on the -- please clarify position on clear view, the [indiscernible] font. The answer to that, clear view is still in interim approval status. As far as [indiscernible] developing a font, that's a private venture being handled at the vendor level. Please check with sign cad, maybe they can Freud you more information on the effort. Question: Are 18-inch road signs allowed in it 35 mph residential streets or 36-inch cones for all applications. 18-inch cones are fine to use. Paragraph one, section 6, daytime and low speed road ways, cones shall not be less than 18 inches in height. We show an all-orange cone in the figure, 18 inches minimum. I think we have addressed all the questions. We are returning over, and I think we have another group waiting for the room. So we better wrap it up. Jocelyn? All right. Sounds good. To wrap this up I will give you more information on the national transportation coalition. Here are member organization of NTOC. We encourage you to go to the NTOC website listed on the following slide, find out more about the organization. On the second slide you will see the NTOC website contains more information about upcoming webcasts, archive page with slides of previous webcasts. We will have the slides and recording of today's Webinar up within the next it week. NTOC has two discussion forums, high-level strategic issues and deployment lessons learned. You may sign up for the NTOC newsletter ox twice monthly, and we will alert you to future Webinars. Darren, would you like to close us out? Darren: Sure, I just lost the chat pod, but I was going to point you to the very top, we posted the website for the knowledge base, discussion of issues, feel free to post there. The root website is where you can get the information on MUTCD, MUTCD.FHWA.dot.gov. We are looking to perhaps do a repeat session of this later on in the year, please stay tuned, you or your colleagues would like to get another review. With that, thank you very much for joining us and have a great afternoon, everyone. (end)