Docstoc

AASHTO Sponsor Response Tabulation

Document Sample
AASHTO Sponsor Response Tabulation Powered By Docstoc
					Email Address                        Unique Id Date Submitted   IP Address      Language

jeff.jeffers@alaska.gov                            2.01012E+13 158.145.240.99   eng




rmoeur@azdot.gov                                   2.01012E+13 162.59.200.193   eng




tony.sullivan@arkansashighways.com                 2.01012E+13 12.29.26.18      eng
robert.copp@dot.ca.gov        2.01012E+13 149.136.17.253   eng




ken.nakao@dot.state.co.us     2.01012E+13 63.225.17.34     eng

mark.luszcz@state.de.us       2.01012E+13 167.21.1.224     eng




kgolden@dot.ga.gov            2.01012E+13 143.100.37.61    eng
lawrence.gregg@illinois.gov   2.01012E+13 163.191.32.224   eng
mbowman@indot.in.gov          2.01012E+13 12.186.80.1      eng




tim.crouch@dot.iowa.gov       2.01012E+13 165.206.209.230 eng
floberg@ksdot.org             2.01012E+13 165.201.162.178 eng



jeff.wolfe@ky.gov             2.01012E+13 159.19.33.164    eng




peter.allain@la.gov           2.01012E+13 192.234.241.107 eng
bruce.ibarguen@maine.gov      2.01012E+13 198.182.163.102 eng



thicks@sha.state.md.us        2.01012E+13 170.93.144.3     eng


neil.boudreau@state.ma.us     2.01012E+13 146.243.143.167 eng

bottm@michigan.gov            2.01012E+13 162.108.11.59    eng
sue.groth@state.mn.us         2.01012E+13 156.98.4.11      eng




wdean@mdot.state.ms.us        2.01012E+13 205.144.233.249 eng
eileen.rackers@modot.mo.gov   2.01012E+13 168.166.124.100 eng




dan.waddle@nebraska.gov       2.01012E+13 164.119.51.145   eng
fdroes@dot.state.nv.us        2.01012E+13 167.154.48.72    eng
wlambert@dot.state.nh.us      2.01012E+13 199.192.2.24     eng
DWOODIN@dot.state.ny.us            2.01012E+13 170.3.8.253      eng




skuntz@nd.gov                      2.01012E+13 165.234.90.1     eng




Dave.Holstein@dot.state.oh.us      2.01012E+13 156.63.133.8     eng




glrowe@state.pa.us                 2.01012E+13 164.156.153.198 eng




sheppardts@scdot.org               2.01012E+13 167.7.17.3       eng
laurie.schultz@state.sd.us         2.01012E+13 164.154.96.53    eng
meg.moore@txdot.gov                2.01012E+13 144.45.164.219   eng


Raymond.khoury@vdot.virginia.gov   2.01012E+13 166.67.64.21     eng
nisbetj@wsdot.wa.gov         2.01012E+13 164.110.157.68   eng




thomas.notbohm@dot.wi.gov    2.01012E+13 130.47.34.2      eng
Joel.meena@dot.state.wy.us   2.01012E+13 159.238.13.4     eng
Submission Key NAME                                      DOT        DOT : OtherText

          386 Jeff Jeffers                               Alaska




          385 Richard Moeur, on behalf of Mike Manthey   Arizona




          150 Tony Sullivan                              Arkansas
350 Robert Copp      California




380 Ken Nakao        Colorado

320 Mark Luszcz      Delaware




103 Keith Golden     Georgia
372 Lawrence Gregg   Illinois
352 Michael Bowman   Indiana




140 Tim Crouch       Iowa
356 Michael Floberg          Kansas



318 Jeff Wolfe               Kentucky




273 Peter Allain             Louisiana
155 Bruce Ibarguen           Maine



305 Tom Hicks                Maryland


381 Neil Boudreau            Massachusetts

 51 Mark Bott                Michigan
364 Sue Groth                Minnesota




 74 Wes Dean                 Mississippi
370 Eileen Rackers           Missouri




378 Dan Waddle               Nebraska
300 Frederick Droes          Nevada
147 William R. Lambert, PE   New Hampshire
379 David Woodin, PE, PTOE   New York




148 Shawn Kuntz              North Dakota




383 David L. Holstein        Ohio




369 Glenn Rowe               Pennsylvania




256 Tony Sheppard            South Carolina
392 Laurie Schultz           South Dakota
264 Margaret Moore           Texas


371 Raymond Khoury           Virginia
376 John Nisbet   Washington




382 Tom Notbohm   Wisconsin
 25 Joel Meena    Wyoming
8A.01 change, 8A.03 Change    COMMENTS-8A.01 change, 8A.03 Change

Concur (add comment)          Alaska doesn’t have Light Rail or Street cars. Recommended
                              changes look reasonable.




Do Not Concur (add comment)   As written, with the deletion of "in semi-exclusive alignments", it
                              would seem to not allow traffic signals as a form of control at these
                              intersections / crossings.




Concur
Concur (add comment)   &CR;&LF;a)The standard appears to require an engineering study
                       be conducted to assess the adequacy of a passive crossing on an
                       LRT track, but does not require such a study for a streetcar mixed-
                       use line. Because this could require an extensive engineering study
                       for some highway-LRT grade crossings that are not in semi-
                       exclusive alignments, the distinction between LRT and streetcar
                       should have a clear definition.&CR;&LF;b)8A.01 states that grade
                       crossings with LRT can occur at mid-block location including
                       driveways. This language might be problematic if somebody
                       interprets that to mean that each driveway along an urban mixed-use
                       alignment would require warning devices. &CR;&LF;




Concur                 No comments.

Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur



Concur




Concur
Concur



Concur


Concur

Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)   8A.01 – disagree with comment – there is no need to define the
                              different kinds of LRT alignments in paragraph 09 when it is already
                              better described in paragraph 11. The revisions provide no
                              additional information other than the last sentence, which is not well
                              written or very useful.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8A.03 – Paragraph 11
                              – concur&CR;&LF;Paragraph 12 – disagree with comment -
                              does this mean that no engineering study or judgment is required to
                              use only a STOP or YIELD sign at a streetcar-grade crossing? But
                              aren’t streetcars a sub-set of LRT? How does one decide that
                              they have a “streetcar― when there is no actual definition of
                                                              line
                                                ?
                              “streetcar” – you could end up with all kinds of crossings
                              with only this level of control with agencies saying that their facility is
                              a “streetcar―    when another agency would call the same thing
                              “LRT― use higher standards. It appears that a STOP sign
                                            and
                              is the standard treatment, with the YIELD as the alternate, which is in
                              conflict with 8B.04.05 and 8B.04.06. A good idea, but it still needs
                              work. Paragraph 12 as written is strange – a “may―        for
                              signals unless a study shows otherwise??&CR;&LF;


Concur




Concur (add comment)          It appears that "Except as noted in Paragraph 12," should be added
                              at the beginning of Paragraph 11; and "alone" should be added to
                              the end of Paragraph 13.




Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur


Concur                        no comment
Concur




Concur
Concur
8B.03 change, 8B.05 change, 8B.06   COMMENTS-8B.03 change, 8B.05 change, 8B.06

Concur




Concur (add comment)                Rewrite so that the existing exception (D) listed in 8B.06 lines 108-
                                    109 applies to the new Standard on lines 110-112.




Concur
Concur




Concur                        The LOOK sign is currently designed for peds.

Do Not Concur (add comment)   In general, we are opposed to any new standards until FHWA
                              resolves issues to our satisfaction with Sections 1A.09 and 1A.13.




Concur
Concur
Concur (add comment)          We propose that item B, in Section 8B.05, Guidance statement,
                              paragraph 2 be kept rather than deleted with the following language
                              change: “LRT speeds do not exceed 25 mph at or adjacent to
                              the crossing― With this change the recommendation should be
                                             .
                              easier to apply.&CR;&LF;



Concur
Concur



Concur (add comment)          Minor Comment - Language in Note #2 of Section 8B.06 should be
                              changed from "used on each highway" to "installed".




Concur
Concur



Concur


Concur

Concur
Concur




Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)   The Look sign removal is problematic, agree that it should not be
                              used any longer at highway rail crossings, but it has been used in our
                              state at many sidewalks next to highway rail crossings and this use
                              should still be permitted.




Concur
Concur
Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)   8B.03 – concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8B.05 –
                              concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8B.06 – disagree with comment –
                              the W10-1 sign is an important traffic control device, well understood
                              to indicate that the driver is approaching a grade crossing. Its
                              presence is especially important where there is no crossbuck or (as
                              revised 8B.27 allows) RXR pavement markings in advance of a
                              grade crossing. As written, the revisions to 8B.06 and 8B.27 would
                              allow LRT grade crossings with no signs or markings, and the only
                              indication that there was a grade crossing, other than the presence
                              of the crossing itself. This seems contrary to all the efforts normally
                              made to notify motorists of grade
                              crossings.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8B.17 –
                              concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8B.27 – disagree with comment –
                              between the proposed revisions to 8B.06 (not requiring a W10-1
                              warning sign) and this revision, there would be LRT grade crossings
                              with no warning or indication that there was a grade crossing, other
                              than the presence of the crossing itself. This seems contrary to all
                              the efforts normally made to notify motorists of grade
                              crossings.&CR;&LF;

Concur




Concur (add comment)          If kept, the new "option" statement in D in Section 8B.05, Paragraph
                              2, is out of place in a Guidance paragraph. However, since Section
                              8B.04 already provides that the YIELD sign is the default for signing
                              at passive grade crossings, the proposed addition should not be
                              used. Instead, a sentence could be added at the end of Paragraph 2
                              referencing Paragraph 6 of Section 8B.04 for guidance in the choice
                              between a YIELD or STOP sign.


Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur


Concur                        no comment
Concur




Concur
Concur
8C.01 change, 8C.11 change   COMMENTS-8C.01 change, 8C.11 change

Concur (add comment)         Alaska doesn’t have Light Rail or Street cars. Recommended
                             changes look reasonable.




Concur




Concur
Concur




Concur   No comments.

Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur



Concur




Concur
Concur



Concur


Concur

Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)   8C.01 – concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8C.11 –
                              concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Fig 8C-3 – disagree with comment -
                              the old figure seems to be much easier to understand. New Note 3
                              suggests that the STOP aspect may be flashed – is this true?
                              New Note 4 suggests that a one-lens signal would be acceptable.




Concur




Concur




Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur


Concur                        no comment
Concur




Concur
Concur
8A.08 change, 8B.01 change, 8B.09 change, 8B.10 change, 8C.07 change

Concur




Concur




Concur
Concur (add comment)




Concur

Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur



Concur




Concur
Concur



Concur


Concur

Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur




Concur




Concur




Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur


Concur (add comment)
Concur




Concur
Concur
COMMENTS-8A.08 change, 8B.01 change, 8B.09 change, 8B.10
change, 8C.07 change
Typo in 8A.08 Paragraph 01 “Highway vehicles―
                                                does not
require capitalization




No comments.
8A.08 – concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8B.01 –
concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8B.09 –
concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8B.10 –
concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8C.07 – concur&CR;&LF;




Support the option to allow highway traffic signals to control LRT
vehicle movement if the Transit vehicle speed is controlled
Pathway Grade X Sec. 1A.13, 8C.13, 8D & Fig 8B-1

Concur (add comment)




Do Not Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur (add comment)




Concur

Do Not Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur
Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur



Do Not Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur



Do Not Concur (add comment)


Concur

Concur
Concur (add comment)




Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur
Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)




Concur




Concur




Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur


Concur (add comment)
Concur (add comment)




Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)
COMMENTS-Pathway Grade X Sec. 1A.13, 8C.13, 8D & Fig 8B-1

Proposed W10-16 LOOK sign should conform to Standard Highway
Signs typeface and arrow dimensions for pathways.&CR;&LF;
Section 8D.02 Guidance paragraph 02 should specify
“upgraded―   paths and sidewalks. Otherwise the statement
should be Support.&CR;&LF; Section 8D.05 Standard paragraph 15:
add the words “in the vicinity of the crossing―
                                                  following the word
“installed.―Secondly, paragraph 15 identifies Figures 8D-5 and
8D-7 perhaps it should be referencing Figures 8D-8 and 8D-9.
&CR;&LF; Section 8D.06 Standard paragraphs 01 & 02 should be
Guidance statements rather than Standard statements, for
consistency with other references to “diagnostic team.―
&CR;&LF;




Page 3, Section 8D.02 Guidance paragraph 1: Disagree with
changes. Requirement for 'diagnostic team' involvement in every
case seems to preclude the development & use of typical diagrams
by an agency.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Page 4, Section 8D.02, Guidance
paragraph 2: Paths & sidewalks should cross as close to a right
angle as is practical, not possible. "Possible" can compel designs
that are economically feasible (but are still hypothetically "possible",
at least to a plaintiff's expert). Also, the term "possible" will be used
against agencies in litigation, as it requires every possible effort, not
just what is reasonable or practical.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Page 4,
Section 8D.02, Guidance paragraph 3: This paragraph is a perfect
example of the "tyranny of good ideas" being imposed throughout
the Manual. It takes a concept that has merit (making a 90 degree
crossing for sidewalk & path crossings) and raises it to required
practice (in many states, a Guidance is a Standard by another name,
according to the plaintiffs & courts). Again, this may not be feasible
in all cases. Add wording that notes real-life constraints, such as: "If
sufficient right of way is available..."&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Page 4,
Section 8D.02, Guidance paragraph 5: Disagree with this being
&CR;&LF;The proposed changes would provide excellent guidance
regarding the design of railroad crossings. However, as a general
comment it appears that some parts of this section may be going
into a level of detail more appropriate to a grade crossing design
guide rather than a traffic control device
standard.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;The flangeway gap may not directly
affect the use or placement of traffic control devices. If included, the
definition does not need to go into the various industry, railroad,
federal and state regulations that may address this
topic.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;1A.13: Propose: “Flangeway Gap –
At a grade crossing, the area immediately adjacent to each rail
located between the two rails to provide clearance for passage of the
wheel flanges of a train. The gap is wide enough to accommodate
the expected wheel flange size, but limited to the extent feasible in
order to reduce surface discontinuity at the
track.―CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Figure 8B-4: W10-16 LOOK warning
         &
sign: This sign is a major improvement over the existing R15-8 sign
in the MUTCD, however, the sign placed on its own does not
No comments.

In general, we are opposed to any new standards until FHWA
resolves issues to our satisfaction with Sections 1A.09 and
1A.13.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8D.04, Para. 1 - Stop lines are not
appropriate for sidewalks. They are unnecessary. The ADA
required truncated domes are required to be a contrasting color from
the sidewalk (while the stop line is required to be white), and they
would be placed in the same location.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8D.05,
Para. 15 - First, fencing is not a traffic control device so should not
be required by the MUTCD. This is likely violated in other portions of
the manual (particularly Part 6), but we still hold to this statement.
Second, the intent of the statement is unclear. How far does the
fencing have to be installed away from the path if there is not fencing
along the rail line in general?&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8D.06, Para. 1 is
listed as a standard but worded as
guidance.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8D.06, Para. 2 is listed as a standard
but worded as support (?).&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8D.06, Para. 7 is
listed as a standard, but the second sentence is worded as an
option.



In Section 8D.06, Standard, paragraph 22 Figure 8C-01 is
mislabeled and should be either Figure 8C-1 or possibly a reference
to Section 8C.01. Also the asterisks used with the labeling on
Figure 8D-4 do not indicate a corresponding note and should be
deleted. Lastly, the maximum above ground projection of the
pedestal foundation is shown on Figure 8D-15 but has been deleted
on 8D-12, 8D-13, and 8D-16. This seems inconsistent.&CR;&LF;
We feel that there is too much information in this section related to
design features of the transportation system as opposed to traffic
control devices along the highway system. For example, notes #2
through #8 in Section 8D.02 appear to discuss design features of the
system. These would appear to more suited for the Greenbook as
opposed to the MUTCD. There are other references (such as
detectable warnings and pedestrian refuge islands) that appear to be
design features as opposed to traffic control devices. These same
items are referenced in the Markings chapter so perhaps their
inclusion in the MUTCD is not as great a concern to the National
Committee.




Hope to have comm,ents by the meeting date - too much to digest




Concur with comment – Section 8D.04 Standard, paragraph 4
refers to 12 feet from nearest rail, but Figures 8D-4 and 8D-5 show
the 12 foot distance to the center of the track



Do not concur--There are far too many changes in this section with
relation to pathway and sidewalk grade c rossings without much
analysis of the real impacts. One major problem is that it does not
apparently allow the use of walk-don't walk flashing lights which we
have used experimentally in several situations. The other problem is
one that mandates the sidewalk be outside the highway gates and
behind the pole, whereas in some situations and occurences there
should be allowances for this as one size does not necessarily fit all.
The other changes are simply too prescriptive in that most sidewalks
and pathways require more solutions and more innovation to be
addressed correctly, and this would tie the hands of the diagnostic
team in most situations as to how to properly handle them.
1A.13 – concur &CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Fig 8B-1 – add New sign R8-
11, delete old sign R15-8 – concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Fig 8B-4
– add New sign W10-16 – concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8C.13 –
concur &CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8D.01 – disagree with comments –
what is the value of deleting the reference to 8B and 8C? What is
left suggests that there are other treatments applicable to pathways
and sidewalks that are not mentioned in 8D. If this is what you mean
to say, where does the reader go to find these other
treatments?&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8D.02 – concur with comments
– Par 03 - shouldn’t we be expecting wheelchairs
everywhere? Isn’t it required by ADA to design as if every
pedestrian facility will be used by wheelchair-bound pedestrians?
Par 07 – is this paragraph needed, isn’t the requirement to
design to ADA already covered earlier in the Manual? Par 08 – in
the first sentence replace “may be”      with “often
is” .&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8D.03 – concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8D.04
– concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8D.05 – concur with comments –
Par 04 – is the retroreflective strip on the crossbuck support really
an Option (it is required in 8B.04….)? Par 05 – we are not sure
if this agrees with paragraphs 01, 02, and 03. Par 06 – all




: The wording in 8D.04 Addition 01 should read: A stop line should
be provided at a pathway grade crossing or a sidewalk at a grade
crossing, if the surface where the marking is to be applied is capable
of retaining of the application of the marking . &CR;&LF;And in 8D.06
Addition # 13 (lines 33 and 34) on Page 5 should be revised to read:
If an engineering study shows that flashing-light signals with a
Crossbuck sign and an audible device would not provide sufficient
notice of an approaching LRT traffic, the LOOK (W10-16) sign
and/or pedestrian gates should be considered (see Figures 8D-10,
8D-11, 8D-13 through 8D-15).&CR;&LF;
The formation and use of a “Diagnostic Team― a designis
process development function, and as such, we do not believe
appropriate for inclusion in the MUTCD. While we agree with the
concept from a design development perspective, we believe the
MUTCD should remain a standards, criteria, and guidance document
specific to the application of traffic control devices, and not attempt
to guide the development process. We believe that the methods
associated with design development should be left to the governing
agency. &CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Section 8D-02 “Use of Devices,
Systems, and Practices―    attempts to implement geometric design
features. We believe such geometric standards are beyond the
scope of the MUTCD, and therefore should not be included.
&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Otherwise, we agree with the application
standards and criteria contained in the modifications.&CR;&LF;




My comments for both items that I did not concur with are; too many
unfunded mandates and the expansion of this part of the manual
goes too far. With each new gadget or control scheme this section
will grow exponentially. Many new terms have been added that
definitions were not provided.
Affected Sec of MUTCD: 8B.08 change, 8C.09 change, new 8C.10-13, 8C.11-16

Concur (add comment)




Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur (add comment)




Concur

Do Not Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur
Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur (add comment)



Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur



Do Not Concur (add comment)


Concur

Concur
Concur (add comment)




Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)
Do Not Concur (add comment)




Concur




Concur (add comment)




Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur


Concur (add comment)
Concur (add comment)




Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)
COMMENTS-Affected Sec of MUTCD: 8B.08 change, 8C.09                       Section 2C, Figure 3B-14
change, new 8C.10-13, 8C.11-16
Section 8C.09 Guidance paragraph 03 as direction to the train             Concur
operator “train movements should approach the crossing
prepared to stop―  seems out of place. Perhaps this could be a
Support statement that encourages road agencies to coordinate with
train operators.&CR;&LF; Section 8C.09 Guidance paragraph 10 is
unclear. The paragraph should be an “and―        condition, requiring
both conditions in order to consider traffic control system
coordination.&CR;&LF; Section 8C.09 Guidance paragraph 20
contains extraneous language “(include also in
8C.04)―CR;&LF; Section 8C.09 Standard paragraph 21 in line 2,
          &
suggest use of word “terminating”     (instead of “leaving”  )
the track clearance green interval.&CR;&LF; Section 8C.09
Standard paragraph 23 line 2 should use the of word
“terminate”                               &
                  instead of “release.”CR;&LF; Section 8C.12
Option paragraphs 01, 02, and second two sentences of paragraph
03 are written as Support statements. The first sentence of
paragraph 03 should be an Option statement.&CR;&LF;

Page 3, Section 8C.09, Guidance paragraph 8: A Guidance            Concur
statement calling for a review no more than once a year seems odd.
However, requiring a review at least once a year would be an
excessive burden on roadway agencies, especially those with many
locations with pre-emption - and would create a potential for tort
liability. Recommend deleting any time requirement for pre-emption
reviews.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Page 4, Section 8C.09, Standard
paragraph 15: It would be unwise to define a specific protocol or
method for communication, given the evolutionary history of
communication technology and the difficulty of modifying MUTCD
content (especially Standards). Revise or delete the
paragraph.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Page 5, Section 8C.09, Guidance
paragraph 17: Requirement for 'diagnostic team' involvement seems
to preclude action if needed by a roadway
agency.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Page 7, Section 8C.10, Option
paragraph 7: Requirement for 'diagnostic team' involvement seems
to preclude action if needed by a roadway
agency.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Page 7, Section 8C.10, Standard
paragraph 9: Why is the "TRAIN" legend a required Standard? Why
                                                                   Concur
&CR;&LF;The proposed changes address many issues that have         Concur (add comment)
needed clarification. However, there are a number of new Standards
which will conflict with existing installations.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;




No comments.                                                           Concur

In general, we are opposed to any new standards until FHWA              Do Not Concur (add comment)
resolves issues to our satisfaction with Sections 1A.09 and
1A.13.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8C.09, Para. 8 - as written, the guidance
limits inspections to once per year. This doesn't make sense, as
then you would never have to inspect it. Is the intent to recommend
that the inspections occur AT LEAST once per year? If so, we don't
agree with that. Instead, it is suggested that any modifications to the
system, either by the rail or highway agency (including speed or
frequency of rail traffic) be coordinated with all applicable
agencies.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8C.09, Para. 10 should refer to the
new rail warrant in Part 4C.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;There appear to be
about 12 pages of new material here, which is quite complex,
particularly for those of us who do not deal with rail pre-emption
issues on a daily basis. Additional explanation and graphics would
be very helpful in evaluating this.




                                                                       Concur
                                                                       Concur
In Section 8C.09, Support Statement, paragraph 8, the wording on       Concur
inspection cycles for preemption operations (timings) is meaningless
and illogical and should be changed from “no more than once
            to                           or
per year” “at least once a year” whatever period is
deemed to be the longest the cycle should be. Also, in Section
8C.10, Option statement, paragraph 7, Figure 8C-1 is mislabeled as
that Figure number is already in use.&CR;&LF;

                                                                       Concur
There are many changes regarding preemption and new devices to            Concur
be considered.


I think the definition for Queue Cutter Signal needs to be added to       Concur (add comment)
the definitions section.




                                                                          Concur
                                                                          Concur



Protocols should not be mentioned; Part 4 items for                       Concur
APS/CPS/clearances must be followed; definition for Queue cutter?

                                                                          Concur

                                                                 Concur
Concur with comments – Section 8C-10, paragraph 5 - missing    Do Not Concur (add comment)
“be”                        ;
          after “should not”Section 8C-10, Option, paragraph
7 – missing “feet”after “100”


                                                                      Concur
This entire section was written too broadly and ties the hands of the Concur
diagnostic team when they need to be innovative and open to new
solutions. The outright prohibition of traffic signals at crossings
where trains do not stop is problematic in that not only are the some
applications where this may be appopriate, e.g very slow speeds, but
then in the next paragraph the new regulation contradicts itself by
allowing traffic signals at crossings with low speeds. overall these
changes are too prescriptive with too little thought being given to
innovation.




                                                                          Concur
                                                                          Concur
I would disagree with the premise of using traffic control signals in a   Concur
situation that would normally call for a flashing light signal assembly
generally associated with rail crossings. The two unique traffic
control applications should be kept separate. I would be particularly
concerned with the language that indicates a train operator should
not proceed through an intersection until they are assured that the
signals are operating appropriately.
There are two Sections numbered 8C.13. The “affected                  Do Not Concur (add comment)
sections― includes 8B.08, although there is no other mention of
             list
8B.08 in the document.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8C.09 – Par 01 & 03
– these two seem to conflict as to whether or not a train can
proceed through the crossing without stopping. Par 02 – where is
“restricted speed”   defined? Par 13 – the new wording is
awkward. Par 14 – where is “track clearance interval―
defined? Par 16 – the second sentence is unnecessary as a green
left arrow is always the only allowable indication for a protected left
turn. Par 24 - where is “track clearance green interval―
defined? Par 27 – where is “preemption dwell interval―
defined? &CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8C.10 – Par 05 – shouldn’t this
be a Standard, not Guidance? Par 06 – do you mean “until the
train clears the grade crossing? Par 08 – please use the same
terminology as Part 2 for blank-out signs – they are
                   not              .
“displayed” “visible” Par 09 – absolutely not! –
this suggests that TRAINS are not allowed to turn right – the
“no right turn―  symbol is well understood and drivers need no
explanation for why the turn is being
prohibited.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;8C.11 – Par 04 – this could be
                                                                        Concur




In Section 8C.09, we recommend revising "should" in Paragraph 7 to Concur
"shall"; revising "When a backup power supply is installed..." in
Paragraph 12 to "A backup power supply should be installed...";
revising "shall" in Paragraph 16 to "should"; and revising "should" in
Paragraph 26 to "shall". In proposed Section 8C.10, we recommend
revising "may" in Paragraph 2 to "should." Also, in Paragraph 8 of
Section 8C.09, it would seem more appropriate to call for inspection
"no less than (x times - once?) per year" than "no more than once
per year."
                                                                       Concur




                                                                     Concur
                                                                     Concur
                                                                     Concur


In new, 8C.10 Item 09, reword shall to should: “Turn prohibition Concur (add comment)
signs that function during railroad or LRT preemption shall should
include the legend “TRAIN―     below the symbol to identify the
reason for the turn prohibition.― In 8C.11 support the option to
allow highway traffic signals to control Transit vehicle movement if
the Transit vehicle speed is controlled
   G
1.) eneral Comment: - Remove all references to “Diagnostic         Concur
          .
Team” The formation and use of a “Diagnostic Team” a       is
design process development function, and as such, we do not
believe appropriate for inclusion in the MUTCD. While we agree with
the concept from a design development process perspective, we
believe the MUTCD should remain a standards, criteria, and
guidance document specific to the application of traffic control
devices, and not attempt to guide the development process. We
believe that the methods associated with design development should
be left to the governing agency. The use of the phrase
“engineering study―    would be more
acceptable.&CR;&LF;2.)Section 8C.09, Paragraph 8 - The phrase
“no more than once per year―      appears to be in error.
Furthermore, defining an acceptable time period should be left to the
                                  S
governing agency. &CR;&LF;3.)ection 8C.09, Paragraph 12 –
Defining an acceptable minimum operating period should be left to
the governing agency. Requiring 8hrs of backup power supply is too
long. Something along the lines of 4 hrs may be more
                       S
practical.&CR;&LF;4.)ection 8C.09, Paragraph 16 – The decision
                                                                      Concur
My comments for both items that I did not concur with are; too many Concur
unfunded mandates and the expansion of this part of the manual
goes too far. With each new gadget or control scheme this section
will grow exponentially. Many new terms have been added that
definitions were not provided.
COMMENTS-Section 2C, Figure 3B-14   Section 2A.16 & Figures

                                    Concur




                                    Concur




                                    Concur
For consistency and to avoid confusion, California prefers only one   Concur
sign per this option, the Lane Ends (W4-2) and recommends
deletion of the LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT (RIGHT) (W9-2) sign.




The warning signs should be placed in advance, and not adjacent to, Concur
lane reductions.
We do not believe there is any research that correlates the safety     Concur (add comment)
benefits of having the painted arrow either immediately adjacent to or
at a distance of d/4 away from the lane ends sign. Therefore, each
agency should decide this on their own. We suggest that the federal
MUTCD should specifically not give a recommendation in this
matter.




                                                                      Concur
                                                                      Concur
                                                                      Concur




                                                                      Concur
                                                                  Concur



I think the proposed standard shown on lines 152-153 in unecessary Concur
and can be deleted. All warning signs should be installed in
accordance with Table TC-4.




                                                                  Concur
                                                                  Concur



                                                                  Concur (add comment)


MassDOT likes the flexibility in choosing a W4-2, W9-1 or W9-2 sign Concur
depending on the situation.
                                                                    Concur
Disagree with placement of Sign W9-2 or W4-2 if a highway agency Concur
also uses sign W9-1 in advance of the W9-2 or W4-2 sign. The
Placement of the W9-1 sign would be spaced at the advance
warning distance. Minnesota currently uses the W9-1 sign in
advance of the W9-2 sign at permanent locations.
                                                                    Concur
                                                                    Concur (add comment)




                                                                  Concur
                                                                  Concur
                                                                  Concur
2C.42 – disagree with comment - A sign should be placed at the       Do Not Concur (add comment)
beginning of the taper in order to give motorists a visual clue as to
where the lane is physically narrowing. A single sign, not a choice of
signs, should be assigned to this situation. If the symbol sign is NOT
adequate, no one should be using it. If it IS adequate, everyone
should be using it. The Manual is supposed to be encouraging
uniformity, not choices.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;This section is confusing
as it currently exists in the MUTCD, and the proposed changes do
not represent an improvement.&CR;&LF;




                                                                   Concur




                                                                   Concur




                                                                   Concur (add comment)




                                                                   Concur
                                                                   Concur
                                                                   Concur (add comment)


– However further research and evaluation is appropriate         Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
COMMENTS-Section 2A.16 & Figures   Sections 2B.17, 6F.12 & 7B.10

                                   Concur




                                   Concur




                                   Concur
                                                                   Concur (add comment)




No comments.                                                       Do Not Concur (add comment)

We are supportive of the concept of this figure, but have the        Concur
following comments:&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;1. This is a signing figure.
Striping is shown only to convey what signing is necessary for that
lane configuration. To clean the figure up, simply show the striping
without comments (text or leader lines).&CR;&LF;2. That being said,
the striping shown should be correct. Additional arrows are required
(guidance), and additional arrows and "onlys" are needed for the
lane drop.&CR;&LF;3. Suggest adding a name plaque as optional
under the SIGNAL AHEAD sign.&CR;&LF;4. Would route markers
be added to, or replace the Maple St NEXT SIGNAL sign?




                                                                   Concur
                                                                   Concur
                                                                   Concur




                                                                   Concur (add comment)
                                                                    Concur (add comment)



                                                                    Concur




                                                                    Concur
                                                                    Concur



Sketch should show dotted line distinguishing thru lane from turn   Do Not Concur (add comment)
lane

                                                                    Concur

                                                                    Concur
                                                                    Concur




                                                                    Concur
MoDOT has used a lane use sign for well over 20 years and our       Concur
design is very similar to what has been added to the 2009 MUTCD
with one exception. MoDOT's sign is horizontal in nature and allows
the sign to be more easily mounted on smaller sign supports and on
bridge structures. We highly recommend making the "shall" for the
sign orientation be changed to a should as this will result is very
large impacts on our system.




                                                                    Concur
                                                                    Concur
                                                                    Concur
2A.16 & figures - &CR;&LF;Various Sections of text –                        Concur
concur&CR;&LF;Fig 2A-4 – the D1-2 signs should be shown
without the horizontal divider lines; the W2-1 and W3-1 signs should
be labeled as “located as per Table 2C-4―not as they are
                                                       ,
currently shown on this Figure. Otherwise, why have standard
advance posting distances??&CR;&LF;Fig 2D-7 – the D1-x signs
should be shown without the horizontal divider lines&CR;&LF;Fig 2A-
5 – This Figure is trying to show way too much information in a
single figure, so much that it is difficult to fit in everything that applies
to each sign. As a minimum, delete all signs on E, W and N legs
since they are the same as the more complicated south
leg.&CR;&LF;the D3-2 is an “advance street name sign―              and
this one is a terrible layout, and 400’ in advance is way too late
for this sign to be useful, it needs to be 800’ to 1000’ or so in
advance of the intersection for drivers to have time to change lanes if
necessary; &CR;&LF;what is the green area in the median? Green
pavement? grass? What if it is a flush median? Why is there a post
of an OSS in what may be a flush median – talk about a DFO!;
&CR;&LF;the W3-3 sign should be placed as per Table 2C-4,
otherwise why bother having standard posting distances?;
                                                                              Concur




                                                                            Concur




1.The figure must clarify that if the W3-3 is required, the W16-8P is       Concur
to be used and the D3-2 is eliminated.&CR;&LF;2. For consistency
with RW No.1, either the W4-2 or W9-2 should be shown as being
permitted.&CR;&LF;3. Clarify that the R3 series signs may be used
in lieu of the D15-1.&CR;&LF;
                                                                            Concur
                                                                            Concur
This type of figure is needed but it should be a scenario where "the        Concur
number of lanes available to through traffic on a approach is three or
more" necessitating the need for overhead signs.
no comment                                                             Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
COMMENTS-Sections 2B.17, 6F.12 & 7B.10
In California we prefer to signs that say "double fines" instead of
"fines higher".




Higher Fines signs should not be a "should" condition and SHALL
BE POSTED FOR THOSE ZONES.




Would rather see the use of the sign/plaque as an option, but can
live with it as guidance.
Should is better than shall but some agencies consider should to be
essentially shall.




Ron Lipps will speak for Maryland on this one!
2B.17 – concur&CR;&LF;7B.10 – concur&CR;&LF;7B.15 –
concur&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;




no comment
Figure 2C-8, Table 2C-1 and Table 2C-2

Concur




Concur




Concur
Concur




Concur

Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur



Concur




Concur
Concur



Concur (add comment)


Concur

Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur (add comment)
Concur (add comment)




Concur




Concur




Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur


Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
COMMENTS-Figure 2C-8, Table 2C-1 and Table 2C-2   Section 2B.13 (2009 MUTCD)

                                                  Concur




                                                  Concur




                                                  Concur
                                                                       Concur




No comments.                                                           Do Not Concur (add comment)

                                                                       Concur




                                                                       Concur
                                                                       Concur
This sign can be added but its use should always be optional. In       Concur (add comment)
Indiana there would not be much application for it and where we do
have three lane roads with 2 lanes continuously in one direction our
current signing/markings are sufficient.&CR;&LF;




                                                                       Do Not Concur (add comment)
                                                                        Concur



                                                                        Concur




                                                                        Concur
                                                                        Concur



As long as Standrad two-way traffic symbol sign remains                 Concur


                                                                        Concur

                                                                        Concur
                                                                        Concur




                                                                        Concur
                                                                        Concur




                                                                        Concur
                                                                        Concur
In general, I would be reluctant to add specific signs to the Manual    Concur (add comment)
for each variation. I would prefer providing the flexibility to allow
such changes.
2C.XX – concur with comment - if the RWSTC “believes that         Concur (add comment)
this sign is needed to properly sign two-way roadways with three
travel lanes― why is the sign an Option instead of Guidance? (not
that we want it to be Guidance……)&CR;&LF;Figure 2C-8 –
revision not shown&CR;&LF;Table 2C-1 – revision not shown or
described&CR;&LF;Table 2C-2 – revision not shown or
described&CR;&LF;




                                                                      Concur




                                                                      Concur (add comment)




                                                                      Concur




                                                                      Concur
                                                                      Concur
                                                                      Concur


no comment                                                            Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
COMMENTS-Section 2B.13 (2009 MUTCD)   Section 2C.06 (02)

                                      Concur




                                      Concur (add comment)




                                      Concur
                                                                      Concur




States should have a policy for speed limit sign repetition, but no   Concur
recommendations should be in the MUTCD.
                                                                      Concur (add comment)




                                                                      Concur
                                                                      Concur
Concur with RW Item 6. Indiana LTAP has been asked about              Concur (add comment)
spacing of speed limit signs before and a recommendation that can
be passed along is needed.&CR;&LF;




Let the agency decide if they need a policy on spacing and what it  Concur
should be, don't need to include this in the MUTCD or the Handbook.
                                                              Concur



                                                              Concur




                                                              Concur
                                                              Concur



                                                              Do Not Concur (add comment)


                                                              Concur

                                                              Concur
                                                              Concur




                                                              Concur
                                                              Concur




                                                              Concur
                                                              Concur
I would prefer to not reference the Traffic Control Devices   Concur
Handbook.
2B.13 – concur with proposed wording, but New York has its own    Concur
guidance for Speed Limit sign spacing. Its guidance is for wider
spacing (Urban condition) than is noted in the Recommendation for
the Handbook.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;




                                                                    Concur




(item 6) We concur with the language proposed for the MUTCD.         Concur
However, we have some concerns about the guidance proposed for
the Handbook for spacing of the signs on lower speed Urban
Arterials and Urban Collectors. Although the closer spacing could be
helpful in some low-speed situations, especially with congestion
increasing time between a drivers view of the signs, a maximum
spacing of 1 mile for these routes seems more practical.


                                                                    Concur




                                                                    Concur
                                                                    Concur
                                                                    Concur


no comment                                                          Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
COMMENTS-Section 2C.06 (02)




All references to Table 2C-5 should be Guidance, not Standard.
There are occasionally good and justifiable reasons that a treatment
in Table 2C-5 may not be appropriate at a specific location, and the
revision to the definition of Standard removes all judgment or
flexibility in this area.
No comment.

We strongly favor the RW Signs Committee version proposed
compared to the 2009 federal adopted
MUTCD.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;However, we further contend that this
entire section should be guidance rather than standard. We do not
believe a standard should include a term like "advisory speed," for
which there is no single standard method of determination.




Clarity on the use of these signs is desired.&CR;&LF;
85th %-tile speed value must remain; if not, we have a real safety
issue!

MassDOT strongly supports the deletion of the 85th percentile
language added by FHWA.
2C.06 – Concur




no comment
Section 2C.07 Horizontal Alignment Signs

Concur




Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur




Concur

Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur (add comment)



Concur




Concur
Concur (add comment)



Do Not Concur (add comment)


Concur

Concur
Concur




Concur
Do Not Concur (add comment)




Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur (add comment)




Concur




Concur (add comment)




Concur




Concur
Concur
Concur


Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
COMMENTS- Section 2C.07 Horizontal Alignment Signs                5F.02, 5F.04, & Figure 5F-1

                                                                  Concur




Table added in Guidance creates additional and unnecessary        Concur
complication, which could lead to inadvertent noncompliance and
liability exposure. Recommend reverting to wording in 2003
MUTCD.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Also, all references to Table 2C-5
should be Guidance, not Standard (see comments on RW#7).




                                                                  Concur
              Concur




No comment.   Concur

              Do Not Concur (add comment)




              Concur
              Concur
              Concur




              Concur
Would suggest adding a third provision as an AND that the roadway Concur
look like a turn of approximately 90 degrees. Change the "should" to
"shall". Flexibility in signing for curves should be discouraged.

                                                                   Concur




                                                                   Concur
The use and type of Horizontal Alignment signs is absolutely an    Concur
engineering judgment situation. There are too many variables,
related to advisory speeds, to simply create a Standard for this
application.
Add 85th %-tile value to the table                                 Do Not Concur (add comment)


MassDOT supports the clarification of the new standard for         Concur
horizontal alignment signs.
                                                                   Concur
                                                                   Concur




                                                                  Concur
MoDOT requires advisory speed plaques on all curve/turn signs and Concur
we already used the turn sign for 30 mph and below, this proposal
would only add confusion. A curve that was posted at 25 MPH could
have a curve sign if the speed limit was 35 MPH, and that same
curve (with a 25 MPH plaque) would have a turn sign if the speed
limit was above 45 MPH. Do not agree with this change




                                                                   Concur
                                                                   Concur
                                                                   Concur (add comment)
2C.07 – concur with comment - Not sure the “speed              Do Not Concur (add comment)
              text
differential” is necessary or even very helpful – why not base
the use of a TURN sign on the curve looking like a turn?
NYSDOT’s MUTCD said for advisory speeds of 25 or 30,
“Choice of type [which sign to use] is a matter of engineering
judgment based on the geometry and general appearance of the
particular curve―and always use a TURN sign for advisory speeds
                   ,
of 20mph and below.




                                                                   Do Not Concur (add comment)




While we agree that the "shall" should be changed back to "should," Concur
we do not agree that the speed differential table is needed.




                                                                   Do Not Concur (add comment)




                                                                   Concur
                                                                   Concur
                                                                   Concur


no comment                                                         Concur
Concur




Concur
Concur
COMMENTS-5F.02, 5F.04, & Figure 5F-1
No comment.

In general, we are opposed to any new standards until FHWA
resolves issues to our satisfaction with Sections 1A.09 and
1A.13.&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;Further, we were opposed to this in Part
8, so we will be consistently opposed to this in Part 5.
Use of R1-1 and R1-2 should be Guidance




I do not believe practictioners are well served by Part 5 in general
and that it should be integrated into the appropriate Parts of the
Manual.
5F.02 – concur with comment – this should refer to 8B.04 since
you took that text out of Paragraph 5F.04.01. 8B.04 is the only place
that describes where and how the YIELD or STOP sign is to be
mounted.&CR;&LF;5F.04 – disagree with comment - Why are you
are repeating the text from 2C.36 instead of having the reader
consult the actual Section. Practitioners with low-volume roads
should know how to use the entire MUTCD, not just Part
5.&CR;&LF;Fig 5F-1 – disagree with comment - the figure is such
poor quality that you can’t see what the details are –
particularly, is it showing that the YIELD or STOP sign must be
mounted with the crossbuck? Why not refer the reader to 8B.04
(and thus to Figures 8B-2 and 8B-3) where this information already
exists?&CR;&LF;&CR;&LF;




Grade Crossing Crossbucks (R15-1) are a regulatory sign which
means yield or stop. Advance RR Crossing (W10-1) warning signs
are also used. To have a Yield or Stop sign with corresponding
Advance Warning signs is redundant and expensive.




    T
•his change is unnecessary as section 5F.04 already refers to
section 8B.04. Repeating the verbiage increases the possibility of
discrepancies in the future. The argument that repeating it will catch
the attention of local jurisdictions is not persuasive as a reason for
repetitiveness.




no comment

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:5/15/2012
language:English
pages:104
fanzhongqing fanzhongqing http://
About