NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

Document Sample
NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Powered By Docstoc
					NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

Sponsor Response Form

Sponsoring Organization: Institute of Transportation Engineers Indicate whether you fully concur, concur in part or do not concur with the technical committee recommendation by checking the appropriate box next to the recommendation. If you concur in part, indicate the reasons for the partial concurrence. If you do not concur, indicate the reasons.

Recommendation Number
Signals No.1 RRLRT No. 1 RRLRT No. 2 RRLRT No. 3 RRLRT No. 4 10 8 8 9 10

Concur
1 4 4 2

Concur in Part
1

Do Not Concur

1 1

Reasons for Partial or Non-Concurrence
Recommendation Number Signals No. 1 Name Hawkins, Jim Comment Each item in the meaning table needs to be written as a complete sentence. For many indications the wording is awkward (see 2nd bullet for flashing red as an example). Same comment for application table, use a “shall”, “should”, or “may” statement in each bullet item. I support the concept of what STC is trying to do but the language falls short of the objective. In summarizing the text in the tables individual principals have lost shallshould-may aspect. Suggest revised text and submit to sponsors as a new ballot item after the January’08 meeting. I think I am seeking a discrepancy between the two tables. In the “meaning” table I think the text is okay but in the “application” table I have a question. Does the description of the circular red signal indication mean that when it is displayed with a green arrow that turning traffic can proceed but only after stopping first? Concur in Part because the MUTCD text on the last page does not explain the sequence of signal head indication, ie. Queue-Cutter signal vs. the RR Flashing Signal when they are mounted on the same structure. When the Queue-Cutter Signal changes to yellow followed by Red, how does this relate to RR Signals? There is a good information (standards and guidelines and support) in most of the new working. Some of the information appears to me to be very specific on design/operation issues, that usually goes into the design book, not the MUTCD. My comment on this is more along the lines to make sure the committee has discussed the matter thoroughly (do all the recommended changes belong in the MUTCD or the Traffic Control Devices Handbook?) The 3rd paragraph of the 1st Guidance adds "a queue cutter signal" to the text indicating coordination should be considered with traffic control signals located further than 200 feet from the crossing. However, the proposed definition of queue cutter signal included in RRLTR No. 2 indicates that a queue cutter signal is "operated by queue detection independently of any adjacent intersection traffic control signals." It seems that if it is coordinated, it would not be operated independently or if it is operated independently, it would not be coordinated. (Related comment included in the RRLRT No. 2 response.) I am not that familiar with the capabilities of the railroad detection and warning equipment. However, I am wondering if it has the ability to determine when a train actually enters the crossing or when a gate is broken or not fully lowered. It seems it would need to be able to do so if the following Standard paragraphs, included in the proposal, are approved: Standard: Where Gate Down circuitry is utilized to resolve preemption time variability, the crossing, controls circuits shall release the track clearance green interval no earlier than when the train enters the crossing in the event a gate is broken or is not fully lowered Concur/ In Part / Do Not Concur Do NOT Concur

Carlson, Paul

In part

RRLRT No. 1

Line, Jim

In part

Jewell, Steve

In part

Changes to Section 8D.07

Bell, Ronnie

In part

Standard: Where traffic control signals are programmed to operate in a flashing mode during the preemption dwell interval (period following track clearance green) the flashing mode shall be delayed until the train enters the crossing. The proposal includes a Standard requiring the installation of a STOP HERE ON RED (R10-6) sign with a queue cutter signal and an Option to install a DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) with a queue cutter signal. Is a stop line required at all queue cutter signals? I assume it is but the current text here does not require one. In the event a stop line exists, it seems that either a STOP HERE ON RED (R10-6) sign or a DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) could be used, but both should not be needed. There is often a limited amount of space available near crossings for ground mounted poles. I recommend the following as an alternative to address the stop line and sign issue: Standard: A stop line shall be installed in conjunction with a queue cutter signal. Either a STOP HERE ON RED (R10-6) sign shall be installed at the stop line or a DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) sign shall be installed in conjunction with a queue cutter signal. Option: A “DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS” (R8-8) sign may be installed in conjunction with a queue cutter signal. Carlson, Paul Concur with comment – although not part of the proposal, I wonder if “very slow” is adequate? Option: Traffic contract signal may be used instead of flashing-light signals to control road users as industrial highway-rail grade crossings and other places where train movements are very slow, such as in switching operations In part

RRLRT No.2

Fisher, John

Pline, Jim

Changes to Section 8A.01

Bell, Ronnie

The definition for Queue Cutter Signal and Pre-Signal are not clear without respect to intended outcome, nor operation consider the revised definition. Queue cutter signal – A traffic control signal that is intended to prevent vehicular queuing across tracks at a highway-rail grade crossing and is activated for one direction of travel by either an approaching train or actuation from downstream queue detection. Pre-signal – A traffic control signal that is intended to prevent vehicular queuing across tracks at a highway-rail grade crossing and is activated for one direction of travel by either an approaching train of by an impending red indication for downstream traffic at a nearby interconnected signalized intersection. Concur in part because the definition of a Queue-Cutter signal should indicate the purpose of the signal or what it does. The proposed queue cutter definition indicates that a queue cutter signal is "operated by queue detection independently of any adjacent intersection traffic control signals." However, in the RRLRT No. 1 item, the 3rd paragraph of the 1st Guidance adds "a queue cutter signal" to the text indicating coordination should be considered with traffic control signals located further than 200 feet from the

In part

In part

In part

crossing. It seems that if it is coordinated, it would not be operated independently or if it is operated independently, it would not be coordinated. (Related comment included in the RRLRT No. 1 response.) This revised definition is based on language proposed in RRLRT #1. I revised it for consistency purposes (and to improve the novice’s understanding of the language.) Queue cutter signal – highway traffic signal faces located at and interconnected with, a highway rail grade crossing position to control traffic approaching the highway-rail grade crossing and operate by an exclusive vehicle detection presence system (working independently of any adjacent intersection traffic control signals.)

Carlson, Paul

In part

RRLRT No.3

Fisher, John

In section 8F.05, the last Standard and Support statement refers to “mazes”. This might NOT be the best term, as it implies quandary, collision or disorientation. Instead of “fencing mazes” consider using “pedestrian pathways with fencing” Concur in part because the definition of “Pathway: is nearly the same as “Shared-use Path” as defined in Section 9A.03. The differences between these two definitions need to be clarified If this statement is specific to edgeline markings, then not all of the materials mentioned in 3A.03 are appropriate. Option: Edgelines utilizing materials specified in Section 3A.03 may be used on approach to an across the track at a pathway-rail grade crossing, a station crossing, or sidewalk at a highway-rail grade crossing to delineate the designated pedestrian route. Support: This delineation is desirable where the distance across the tracks is long, commonly due to skew track angle or multiple tracks, or where the path surface smoothly transitions to a vehicular traveled lane. Do NOT Concur, because the definition does not define what it does, or is designed to do. The following wording is suggested, “A design principal in railway signaling to eliminate the adverse effects of a component or system failure. It is designed to....”

In part

Pline, Jim

In part

Carlson, Paul

Do NOT Concur

RRLRT No. 4

Pline, Jim

Do NOT Concur


				
DOCUMENT INFO