Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee by jbw10297


									        Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee
                                 December 18, 2009
                                   Meetiing Miinutes
                                   Meet ng M nutes
                                  ODOT Region 1 Office
                                        Portland, Oregon

Members Present: Brian Barnett, Chair, City of Springfield; Ed Chastain, Vice-Chair, Lane
County; Ed Fischer, Secretary, ODOT State Traffic Engineer; Robin Lewis, City of Bend; Joel
McCarroll, ODOT Region 4; Joseph Marek, Clackamas County; Charles Radosta, ITE, Kittelson
and Associates; Massoud Saberian, City of Lake Oswego; Cynthia Schmitt, Marion County

Members Absent: Ethan Wilson, OSP

Others Present: Nick Fortey, FHWA; Rob Burchfield, Andrew Sullivan, Peter Koonce, Travis
Hall, City of Portland; Scott Beaird, Kittelson & Associates; Nancy Flye, City of Lake Oswego;
Kevin Hottmann, City of Salem; Natalie Inouye, ODMO/Travel Lane County; Tom Larsen, City of
Eugene; Sarah Murchison, Washington County; Jim Peters, DKS Associates; Jerilyn Wen,
Marion County; Debby Corey, Scott Cramer, Rodger Gutierrez, Kevin Haas, Katie Johnson,
Mike Kimlinger, Gary Obery, ODOT Traffic-Roadway Section;

Introduction – Approval of Minutes – Additional Agenda Items

Chairperson Brian Barnett called the meeting to order. Committee members and attendees
introduced themselves. Ed Fischer then moved to accept the minutes from October 27, 2009.
Joe Marek seconded and the committee voted unanimously in favor.


There were no public comments.


 Bike/Pedestrian Event Signing

ODOT Senior Traffic Signal Specialist Mike Kimlinger introduced the agenda
item regarding bicycle and pedestrian event signing. The OTCDC was asked to
approve modifications to the Sign Policy and Guidelines (SP&G) for the State
Highway System for bike and event sign requirements on Oregon roads. The
committee agreed with the warning signs in concept as presented and modified
at the October meeting. The proposed final designs were illustrated in the
handout. Each of the sign designs in the on-line SP&G will include a link to a
MS Word document template so the signs can be customized for jurisdictions

09_23_2008_ OTCDC Minutes.doc
who are looking for an economical way to produce the signs.

Joe suggested that instructions at the bottom of the sheets to remove signs “promptly” after
event concludes may not be clear enough to some users. Ed Fischer suggested that since local
road authorities must approve the events, adding a comma at the current end of the sentence
and “as directed by the road authority”, would give local jurisdictions the opportunity to
emphasize immediate removal after an event concludes.

Decision: Ed Fischer moved that this be changed as indicated above. Massoud Saberian
seconded the motion and the committee voted in unanimous favor.

Kevin Haas suggested making it clearer that logo’s were not permitted on the signs, only letters.
The committee, noting that logo prohibition language is elsewhere in sign policy, and since this
is a permissive signing category, it isn’t necessary here. However Joe pointed out that some
events may use numbers as well, in cases when they have two events going on at the same

Mike noted that the only other change to the signing in this proposal was the elimination of the
Bicycle Race Ahead sign. Katie Johnson said the only other change was elimination of
references to the manual for Bicycle Events, which is being eliminated in the next OAR.

Decision: Ed Fischer then moved that the language be changed to specify letter/number
designation. Joel McCarroll seconded, and the committee again voted in favor. There being no
other issues brought up regarding the proposed changes, they were all effectively approved as
corrected by the two votes reported.

Visitor Center Signing

Mike Kimlinger then introduced the agenda item on Visitor Information/Welcome Center Signing.
The desired outcome was OTCDC support for modifications to the Sign Policy and Guidelines
(SP&G) as illustrated in a handout. He noted two changes suggested by Jim Renner of the
                                                         Travel Information Council (in red type
                                                         on the handout) since it was sent out.
                                                         The first was to add the phrase,
                                                         “operated by Oregon Travel Information
                                                         Council” at the top of Chapter 5-17 so
that it reads “These are the gazebo types of information centers operated by Oregon Travel
Information Council, usually found in interstate rest areas.”

Decision: Ed Fischer moved, Massoud Saberian seconded, and the committee approved this
first change.

The second proposed change was on Chapter 5-18 to clarify that logos are only properly placed
on interstate highway signs. Ed moved to edit that clause to indicate “freeways” to match with
MUTCD nomenclature. Natalie Inouye suggested that the phrase “only one option may be
installed” (regarding either blue TIC Logo signs or green ODOT signs) was too restrictive. After
some discussion, the committee agreed to change “may” to “should” to maintain the possibility
of using both sign types in unusual circumstances. The paragraph as corrected reads: “There
are two options for signing Visitor Information Centers, through the Travel Information Council
(TIC) as an attraction logo on the freeway and through ODOT as per this manual. Both options

                                          OTCD Meeting Minutes
                                            Page 2 of 6
should be evaluated to determine the best approach, however only one option should be

Decision: Joel McCarroll moved and Ed Fischer seconded adopting the proposed changes as
amended regarding Visitor Center Signing to the Sign Policy and Guidelines. The vote in favor
was unanimous.

2010 OTCDC Officer Elections

Ed Fischer thanked Brian Barnett for his excellent service and innovations to committee
meetings in the last year. He then nominated Ed Chastain as Chair for 2010, and Massoud
Saberian as Vice-Chair. There were not other nominations forthcoming.

Decision: The committee voted unanimously in favor of Ed Chastain as OTCDC Chair for 2010
and Massoud Saberian as Vice-Chair.


Your Speed XX MPH Changeable Message Signs

Massoud talked about a question from Beaverton regarding whether there
are standards for photo radar displays of the changeable message “Your
Speed Is” genre. He noted variations available from different vendors, and
perhaps some are not consistent with the OTCDC or MUTCD. He noted that
in some cases the speed number flashes when it exceeds a certain speed.
Ed Fischer said that the only issue he has is if the “Your Speed” is on a
regulatory black-on-white rectangular sign. He thinks the signs are an
effective speed reduction measure which he didn’t want to discourage. He
recalled a conversation on whether ODOT should produce a QPL listing to
deal with any issues such as Massoud brought up. He noted that the old
MUTCD said the “Your Speed” sign may be installed in conjunction with a
Speed Limit sign.

Debby Corey pointed out what the 2009 MUTCD says in Chapter 2B.13:

    19 A changeable message sign that displays to approaching drivers the speed at
    which they are traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit sign.

    20 If a changeable message sign displaying approach speeds is installed, the legend
    YOUR SPEED XX MPH or such similar legend should be displayed. The color of the
    changeable message legend should be a yellow legend on a black background or the
    reverse of these colors.

Brian suggested this would probably be looked at again when the committee reviews the 2009
MUTCD. He also said that he’d like to see ODOT do a QPL to help guide local jurisdictions.
Joel said he also would like this.

                                         OTCD Meeting Minutes
                                           Page 3 of 6
Ed Fischer said he’d look into getting this addition to ODOT’s QPL list (which would be available
if local jurisdictions could choose to use. He said he may be asking for some committee
participation in that exercise.

Joel noted and Kevin Haas confirmed that ODOT policy is to permit but not pay for permanent
installation of these signs on state highways. Massoud noted that ODOT is using some of these
signs on I-5. Ed Fischer confirmed that there is some testing of the signs on I-5.

Ed Chastain said that the only issue he has had is cases where school zones with a 7 AM – 5
PM rider have the signs with a 20 MPH limit during days/times when the school speed limit is
not in effect. Ed Fischer said that could be addressed as part of updating Oregon Supplements
to the new MUTCD.

Legislative Concepts Update

              Ed Fischer gave a quick update, reporting that he submitted the Committee’s
              proposal to the ODOT Director’s office, and they are going forward (with possible
              wording changes). He said that ODOT will need committee help, in particular with
              the U-Turn proposal for the 2011 session of the Legislature. He noted that the
              last time this was suggested, there was some resistance from LOC or AOC
because of a perception that it would require an investigation of every intersection that doesn’t
currently have a sign allowing U-Turns to see whether or not it met the conditions currently
being used to allow U-Turns. However the intent was actually to put the responsibility on the
motorist to do U-Turns safely. The wording may need to be tweaked or the Committee may
need to work with AOC and LOC to be sure they understand what is being proposed. It may be
that there will be intersections where jurisdictions get reports indicating an investigation of
whether a NO U-TURNS sign may be needed if accident statistics show the maneuver
degrades safety. Ed Chastain agreed that there was a perception that there would be a
financial impact to the change in policy that concerned some jurisdictions. Brian said that he
thought ODOT would get the support needed going forward with the Legislative concept. There
are other possible issues such as right turn overlaps and length of signal phasing but that
shouldn’t be extensive.

2010 Meeting Schedule

Debby Corey reviewed the tentative schedule for 2010 meetings, noting that the March and
September meeting dates having been adjusted to accommodate the State Furlough schedule.

             Date                                               Location
      January 15           ODOT Materials Lab, 800 Airport Rd SE, Salem
      March 12 ***         Marion County Public Works, 5155 Silverton Rd NE, Salem
      July 16              TBD
      September 24         Marion County Public Works, 5155 Silverton Rd NE, Salem
      November 19          Marion County Public Works, 5155 Silverton Rd NE, Salem

*** The March 12th date has since been cancelled due to conflicting schedules. That meeting will instead
be held on May 2 .

                                             OTCD Meeting Minutes
                                               Page 4 of 6
Agenda Items for Future Meetings

Debby Corey reported the following items planned for future meetings:

   MUTCD Supplements                                     US Access Board ADA Rules Adoption
   Red Light Running Camera Guide                        Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
   European Pedestrian Safety Tour                       Summary & Status of Research Projects
   Signing Issues at Rail Grade Crossings                Bike Racing/Event Manual
   SPIS on all Public Roads

Bicycle Signals

Brian announced that the plan was to review the proposed bike signal indications guidance for
inclusion in the Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines and tentatively approve the final product
prior to taking a tour of several signal locations in Portland. Gary Obery introduced the latest
draft document which would be ODOT policy and also available for other jurisdictions to use.
As a basis for installation, Gary noted that reference to volume criteria has been removed. Still
included, though are a) two or more reported bicycle/motor vehicle collisions in a 3-year period,
b) geometric factors that are best mitigated through use of a bike signal, and c) approaches
intended for bikes only where it is desirable to signalize that approach.

Massoud said he thought that “a significant number” might be too vague. He also suggested
adjusting the order of presentation to have less restrictive measures mentioned first and then
work up to more restrictive measures. Ed Fischer suggested adding “or may be expected to
occur” in the first paragraph of the Basis for Installation. Joel thought additional delay to “all
road users” rather than “motorists and cyclists” should be considered.

Regarding Standard Practice on the second page, the committee agreed that the bike
phase indications “shall” use the special bike symbol rather than “should” use it. This
will line up with the legislative concept currently being prepared for the Legislature.
Discussion regarding how to indicate a turn signal for bikes ensued, whether by use of
an arrow on the back plate like is done in Switzerland or an arrow incorporated into
the signal head design such as is done in Germany. Again, sticking with the
legislative concept while allowing for some variation was agreed to by changing
“should” to “may” in optional practices. Allowing for bicycle signal usage to implement
a leading bicycle interval was also approved. It was noted that since this is a fairly
new use of signals in the U.S. there will likely be a lot more discussion in Oregon and nationally
in the months to come which is likely to eclipse the basic policy proposed for adoption now.

Decision: Ed Fischer moved that the draft document be conditionally approved prior to the tour
of bike signals in Portland, to be finalized at the next meeting with the changes noted above.
Joel 2nd and the committee voted unanimously in favor.

Rob Burchfield introduced Peter Koonce, the new signals and street lighting manager for the
City of Portland. He also introduced Andrew Sullivan and Travis Hall who are interning at the
City. They went over the tour itinerary and logistics including a stop for lunch and a possible
final stop after that. Maps were handed out as the meeting adjourned at about 11:15 a.m.

                                          OTCD Meeting Minutes
                                             Page 5 of 6
Next Meeting Date

The next meeting is scheduled for Salem on January 15th, 2010 at Marion County Public
Works in Salem from 9:00 a.m. to noon.

                                       OTCD Meeting Minutes
                                         Page 6 of 6

To top