1
Vol. 30/No. 4/Winter 2017
FHWA Issues Revised Pro- posal for Pavement MarkingRetroreflectivity ..................1From the Director ...............2Small Town and Rural Multi-modal Network ....................3Shoulder and Center Line Rumble Strips on Non-Freeways .............................4MUTCD - Clarifications of Existing Standards and Guidance on New and Innova-tive Control Devices ...........5 Tennessee Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity Survey .....6
In this issue...
continued on page 3
by Matt Cate, P.E.
Asupplementalnoticeofproposedamendments(SNPA)addressingminimumretroreflectivitylevelsforpavementmarkingswaspublishedintheFederalRegisteronJanuary4,2017.TheSNPAmodifiestheApril2010proposalforminimumpavementmarkingretroreflectivitylevelsbyofferingasimplifiedsetofstandards.TheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)iscurrentlyseekingcommentsregardingtheproposedchangestotheManualonUniformTrafficControlDevices(MUTCD). Ifadopted,theproposedamendmentswilladdnewlanguagetotheMUTCDthatwillrequiretransportationagenciestomaintainsomemarkingsatoraboveaspecifiedlevelofretroreflectivity.TheseruleswillbesimilartothoseaddedtotheMUTCDtoaddresstrafficsignretroreflectivityin2008.Thenewstandardwillapplyonlytolongitudinalmarkings(includingcenterlines,edgelines,andlanelines)andonlyonroadwayswitharegulatoryspeedlimitsof35mphorgreater. Whereapplicable,longitudinalmarkingsshouldbemaintainedsothattheirmeasuredretroreflectivitydoesnotfallbelow50millicandelaspersquaremeterperlux(mcd/m2/lx).Retroreflectivityvaluesshouldbeestablishedusing30-metergeometry(entranceangleof88.76oobservationangleof1.05o). Anumberofguidance,option,andsupportstatementsaccompanythisstandard.Thesestatementsprovideadditionalinformationaboveandbeyondthestandard(mandatorypractice)describedabove.• Longitudinalmarkingsshouldbemaintainedatorabove100mcd/m2/lxonroadwayswithaspeedlimitof
70mphorgreater(guidance).• AgenciesshoulduseoneormoreFHWA-approvedmethodstomaintainpavementmarking
retroreflectivity.IfusingamethodwhichhasnotbeentestedbyFHWA,itshouldbetheresultofanengineeringstudywhichhasdemonstratedtheabilitytomaintainmarkingsatoraboveapplicableretroreflectivitylevels(guidance).
• Agenciesmayexcludecertaintypesofmarkingsfromtheminimumretroreflectivitylevelsdescribedabove(option).Examplesinclude: 4markingsinareaswhereambientlightingassuresvisibility, 4markingsonroadwayswhereADTislessthan6,000vehiclesper day, 4dottedlineextensionsatintersections,majordriveways,or interchanges, 4curbmarkings, 4parkingspacemarkings,and 4shared-usepathmarkings.
• Somespecialcircumstancesmaycausemarkingstofallbelowminimumacceptablelevels,butdonotpermanentlyexemptmarkingfromthesestandards.Agencieswillbeconsideredtobeincomplianceifactionistakentorestoreretroreflectivitytoappropriatelevelsinatimelyfashion(support).Thesecircumstancesinclude:
4isolatedlocationsofunusualmarkingdegradation, 4periodsprecedingimminentresurfacingorreconstruction, 4unanticipatedevents(includingequipmentbreakdownand materialshortages),and
FHWA Issues Revised Proposal for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
2
RoadTalkisapublicationoftheTennesseeTransportationAssistanceProgram(TTAP).TTAPispartofanationwideLocalTechnicalAssistancePro-gram(LTAP)financedjointlybytheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)andTennesseeDepartmentofTransportation(TDOT). Theviews,opinions,andrecommendationscon-tainedwithinthisnewsletterarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofFHWAandTDOT.
865-974-5255/1-800-252-ROADhttp://ttap.utk.edu
MattCate,P.E,Director 865-974-4614([email protected])Dr.DavidB.Clarke,P.E, DirectorEmeritus 865-974-1812([email protected]).FrankBrewer,TrainingCoordinator 865-974-8251([email protected])Dr.AirtonG.Kohls,Engineer 865-974-0298([email protected])DanielHerman,Technician 865-974-4608([email protected])SpenceMeyers,Database,Website& TechnicalAssistance 865-974-6168([email protected])JennyJones,RoadTalkEditor 865-974-6549([email protected])MollieMitchell,AdministrativeSpecialist 865-974-1812([email protected])DianaWebb,CourseRegistration 865-974-5255([email protected])
TheUniversityofTennesseedoesnotdiscrimi-nateonthebasisofrace,sex,color,religion,nationalorigin,age,disability,orveteranstatusinprovisionofeducationprogramsandservicesoremploymentopportunitiesandbenefits.ThispolicyextendstobothemploymentbyandadmissiontotheUniversity.•TheUniversitydoesnotdiscriminateonthebasisofrace,sex,ordisabilityintheeducationprogramsandactivitiespursuanttotherequirementsofTitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964,TitleIXoftheEducationAmendmentsof1972,Section504oftheRehabilita-tionActof1973,andtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA)of1990.•Inquiriesandchargesofviola-tionconcerningTitleVI,TitleIX,Section504,ADA,theAgeDiscriminationinEmploymentAct(ADEA),oranyoftheotherabovereferencedpoliciesshouldbedirectedtotheOfficeofEquityandDiversity;1840MelroseAvenue;Knoxville,TN37996-3560;telephone(865)974-2498(TTYavailable).RequestsforaccommodationofadisabilityshouldbedirectedtotheADACoordinatorattheOfficeofHumanRe-sourcesManagement;600HenleyStreet;Knoxville,TN37996-4125.•PA#R01-1313-418-001-17
From the Director AsIwritethiscolumnonFebruary22,itappearsthatourshort,mildwintermightalreadybebehindusdespitethefactthatspringdoesnotofficiallyarriveuntilMarch20.EverywhereIlookflowersandtreesarebloomingandIfearthatmylawnmowerwillsoonbeemergingfromhibernation.HopefullythisearlyescapefromtheclutchesofOldManWinterdoesnotforeshadowanotherhot,drysummer. Regardlessofthesummerforecast,wehaveahottopiccomingupinNashville.GovernorHaslamhasproposedthestate’sfirstgastaxincreasesince1989.TheIMPROVEActwouldpavethewayformorethan960transportationprojectsacrossthestate.Asproposed,theplanwouldalsobring$39millioninnewtransportationfundingforcitiesand$78millioninnewfundingforcounties.InWashington,theTrumpAdministrationhasraisedthepossibilityofamajor(upto$1trillion)infrastructureinitiativethatwouldaddressground,air,rail,andwaterwaytransportationneedsacrossthenation.Whilefewwouldarguethatourtransportationsystemsneedmoresupport,thetaxincreasesandcreditswhichwouldbringnewfundingandinvestmentateitherthestateornationallevelarelikelytomeetsomeresistance. RoadwaysafetycontinuestobeanareaofemphasisinTennessee.Seatbeltuseisatitshighestobservedlevel(89%)sincestatewideobservationalsurveysbeganin1986.Newcarsarebuilttoprovidemorecrashprotectionthaneverbefore,andinmanycasestheyincludeadvancedtechnologydesignedtohelpdriverspreventcrashes.Muchemphasishasbeenplacedonsaferroadwaysandimprovedguidancefordrivers.Lawenforcementagenciesacrossthestatedevotetimeandenergytotrafficenforcementinanefforttoreducethefrequencyandseverityofcrashes.Despitetheseadvances,Tennessee’syear-to-datetrafficfatalitytotal(125)standsat11morethanonthesamedatein2016.Someofthisproblemcanbeattributedtohistoricallyhighvehiclemilesoftravelacrossthenation.Somemaybetheresultofdistracteddriving.Regardless,wecannotaffordtorelaxoureffortstomakethestate’sroadssaferforallTennesseans. Finally,Iamexcitedthatourtrafficsignretroreflectivitysurveyprovidedavaluablelookattheongoingsignmaintenanceeffortsofmanyagencies.Inatimeofspam,unsolicitedemails,andoverflowinginboxes,thenumberofresponsestothesurvey(77)indicatesthatthisisstillanimportantissue.Whilemostsurveyparticipants(82%)areawareoftheMUTCD’sminimumretroreflectivitystandards,only12%indicatedthattheiragencyiscurrentlyinfullcompliance.Mostarestrugglingtoattainfullsignretroreflectivitycompliancewithoutincreasedfunding,andproposedretroreflectivitystandardsforpavementmarkingswillonlymakethistaskmoredifficult.TTAPwillcertainlyusethisinformationtoguideourfutureactivities. That’sallfornow.PleasedonothesitatetocontactmeifthereisanythingthatTTAPcandotohelpyoumeetyourcommunity’stransportationneeds.
3
FHWA Issues Revised Proposal for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity, continued from page 1
4lossofretroreflectivity(damage)resulting fromwintermaintenanceactivities(primarily plowing). TheSNPAalsoproposesthat,ifadopted,thenewpavementmarkingretroreflectivitystandardwillhaveacompliancedatewhichis4yearsfromtheeffectivedateofthefinalrule. Forthosefamiliarwithmethodstomaintaintrafficsignretroreflectivity,thelistofapprovedmanagementtechniquesforpavementmarkingswilllookfamiliar.Thefollowingproceduresareapprovedforuseinthe“MethodsforMaintainingPavementMarkingRetroreflectivity”report(FHWA-SA-14-017):• Visualnighttimeinspection 4Calibratedmarkingprocedure 4Consistentparametersprocedure• Measuredretroreflectivity 4Handheldunits 4Mobileunits• Expectedservicelife• Blanketreplacement Additionally,thisFHWAreportidentifiesseveralretroreflectivitytechniqueswhichhavenotbeendemonstratedtoproduceconsistentresultswhenattemptingtocomparein-servicemarkingstoaknownretroreflectivitystandard.Asaresult,useofthesetechniqueswillnotplaceanagencyincompliancewiththenewstandards.Examplesoftechniquesinthiscategoryinclude:sunovertheshoulder,comparisonpanels,lanelinecounting,controlmarkings,windshieldmarkings,andcomparisonlightboxes.Agenciesusinganunapprovedtechniquearenotprotectedwhenindividualmarkingsorlocationsfallbelowthevaluesindicatedinapplicablestandardorguidancestatements. ToviewtheSNPAinitsentirety,pleasevisittheFederalRegisterwebsiteathttps://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-31249.ThecommentperiodforthisproposedchangetotheMUTCDwillcloseonMay4,2017. AdditionalResources:• PavementMarkingRetroreflectivitySNPA
ProposedMUTCDLanguage:https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/ppmr_mutcd_2016.cfm
• AssessmentofEconomicImpactsofSNPAProposedMinimumLevelsOfPavementMarkingRetroreflectivity:https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/fhwasa14016.cfm
• MethodsforMaintainingPavementMarkingRetroreflectivity:https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/fhwasa14017/
Inmanysmalltownsandruralcommunities,activetransportation(anyformofhuman-poweredtransportation)isevenmorecommonthanitisinurbanareas.However,infrastructuretosupportactivetransportationisoftenlimitedorabsent.Manysmall and rural communities are located on State and countyroadwaysthatwerebuilttodesignstandardsthatfavorhigh-speedmotorizedtraffic,resultinginasystemthatmakeswalkingandbicyclinglesssafeanduncomfortable.Theseroadwayscanberetrofittedandredesignedovertimetoprovideatransportationnetworkthatbetterservesthesafety,health,andeconomicinterestsofthecommunity. ThisFHWAguideisaresourceforpractitionersdevelopingandpromotingmultimodalnetworksinsmallandruralcommunities.Theopportunitiesforroaddesignhighlightedinthisdocumentbuildonabroadrangeofexistingnationaldesignguidelinesandreferences.Thisguidetranslatesexistingstreetdesignguidanceandbestpracticesforbicycleandpedestriansafetyandcomforttotheruralcontext,andprovidesexamplesofhowtointerpretandapplythesedesignpracticestocreatesafe,accessible,andcomfortablemultimodalnetworks. Someofthecommontransportationchallengesinsmalltownsandruralareasincluderoadwayoperationsofagriculturalvehiclesonautoorientedroadways,lackoftransportationoptions,constrainedterrain,statehighwaysbeingoftenthemainstreet,climateandmaintenance.Toaddresstheseissues,thisFHWAguideproposesseveralmixedtrafficfacilities,forexamplebicycleboulevards,yieldroadwaysandtheuseofadvisoryshoulders.Inadditionvisuallyandphysicallyseparatedfacilitiesarealsoproposedaswellasopportunitiesforspeedmanagement,schoolconnections,multimodalmainstreetsandbridgeretrofits.
Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks
by Airton Kohls (Source: FHWA)
To download a free copy of FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks, go to:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_
towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf
4
Shoulder and Center Line Rumble Strips on Non-Freewaysby Airton Kohls (Source: FHWA Safety Programs)
Centerlineandshoulderrumblestripsareprovensafetycountermeasuresforreducingroadwaydeparturecrashes,includinghead-oncrashesandrun-off-road(ROR)crashes.AccordingtoarecentstudyfromtheNationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration,orNHTSA(DOTHS811500),RORleftorrightcrashesaccountfor64.4percentofallsinglevehiclecrashesand,ofthose,95.1percentofthetimethecriticalreasonsweredriverrelated.Furtheranalysisindicatedthedominantcriticalreasonsforpassengercarswereinternaldriverdistraction,steeringovercompensation,poordirectionalcontrol,toofastforcurve,andsleeping.Thedominantcriticalreasonforlargetruckswassleeping.AccordingtotheFatalityAnalysisReportingSystem(FARS)data,approximately55percentoffatalcrashesarethosetargetedbyrumblestrips.Moreover,forruraltwo-lanehighways,thatnumberincreasestoapproximately66percent.Another2009NHTSAstudyreportedthatapproximately66percentofROReventsweredeparturestotherightand31percentweretotheleft. Rumblestripsarearelativelylow-costcountermeasureandeconomicanalyseshaveindicatedbenefit-cost(B/C)ratiosthatexceed100to1(i.e.,100dollarssavedforevery1dollarspent).Forthisreason,shoulderrumblestripshavebeeninstallednearlysystemwidefortheInterstatesystemandmostfreewaysandexpressways.However,agencieshavehadvaryingdegreesofsuccessinstallingcenterlineandshoulderrumblestripsonmultilaneandtwo-laneroadways.Thethreeprimaryconcernsforrumblestripsforthesehighwaytypesincludethefollowing:
• Inconvenienceforbicyclists.Standardrumblestripdimensionsusedbymostagenciesaredifficulttotraverseifbicyclegapsarenotprovided,astheymaketherideruncomfortableandmayleadtolossofcontrol.
• Externalnoisepollution.Rumblestripsalertmotoriststhroughnoiseandvibration.Thenoisegeneratedbyrumblestripsisdifferentthanbackgroundtrafficnoiseandisintermittent.Thiscancreateadisturbancefornearbyresidentsandforspecialenvironmentalconditions(e.g.,noise-sensitivewildlifehabitats)iftherearefrequentincidentalcontacts.
• Pavementdurability.Thereisconcernthatmillingrumblestripsintolongitudinaljointsorintothewearingcoursewillallowwaterinfiltrationcausingprematurepavementdeterioration.
FHWASafetyprogramhasreleasedaDecisionSupportGuidefortheInstallationofShoulderandCenterLineRumbleStripsonNon-Freeways(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/fhwasa16115/fhwasa16115.pdf).Thepurposeofthisguideistoinformagenciesoncenterlineandshoulderrumblestripinstallation.Itdescribesmethodsforidentifyingappropriatelocationsforinstallation,assessingthepotentialcrashreductionsandbenefittocostratio,anddevelopingperformancemetricsforsafety.Additionally,thisguidediscussesspecialconsiderationsforrumblestripinstallations,identifiesvariabilityincurrentpractices,andprovidesadecision-supportframeworkforinstallingrumblestrips. Thefollowingareafewsourcesofinformation
thatyoumayfindhelpfultoaddresstheaforementionedprimaryconcernsfortheuseofrumblestriponnon-freewayhighways:
Bicycle Accommodation:RumbleStripImplementationGuide:AddressingBicycleIssuesonTwo-LaneRoadshttp://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/bike_ig/rmbl_bikes_imp.pdf
Use of Center Line Rumble Strips and Delineators to create a buffer on Highway 14 in Minnesota
continued on page 5
5
Example of Bicycle Gap – Photo: Doug Ryan, Adventure Cycling Association
Noise Issues:RumbleStripImplementationGuide:AddressingNoiseIssuesonTwo-LaneRoadshttp://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/media/RumbleStripGuide_Noise/noise_bpg.pdf
Pavement Issues:RumbleStripImplementationGuide:AddressingPavementIssuesonTwo-LaneRoadshttp://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/media/RumbleStripGuide_Pavement/pavement_bpg.pdf
ThisFHWAGuidealsoprovidesseveralcasestudies.Forexample,thepictureonpage4depictsastretchofHighway14,amajorarterialinsouthernMinnesota,spanningfromSouthDakotatoWisconsin.Abufferconsistingofadoublestripedyellowlinewithrumblesoneachsideofdelineatorswasusedasaninterimtypicalsectionduringafiveyearprojecttoexpandthehighwaytoafour-laneexpressway.Thelocationhadasignificantabove-averagerateoffatalhead-oncrashesandthedesignprovedtobeeffective,reducingfatalhead-onandseverehead-oninjurycrashestozero.
Shoulder and Center Line Rumble Strips on Non-Freeways continued from page 4
MUTCD – Clarifications of Existing Standards and Guidance on New and Innovative Control Devicesby Airton Kohls (Source: FHWA HOTO-1 and HRT-10-06)
OnJanuary5,2017,FHWAissuedamemorandumtoclarifythestatusofseveraltypesoftrafficcontroldevicescurrentlyallowedforusebythe2009ManualonUniformTrafficControlDevicesforStreetsandHighways(MUTCD)undervarioustypesofapproval,andtoprovideanupdateontheevaluationofseveralothertypesoftrafficcontroldevicesunderconsiderationforInterimApproval. ThefollowingaretrafficcontroldevicespermittedwithoutadditionalapprovalfromFHWA:
Bicycle Lane Markings Through Intersections: ExtensionsofbicyclelanesarecompliantwiththeMUTCDandcanbemarkedaswouldbeanextensionofanyotherlane.TheprovisionsofSection3B.08-ExtensionsThroughIntersectionsorInterchanges-applytobicyclelanes.Amongotherguidance,Section3B.08statesthat“Wherehighwaydesignorreducedvisibilityconditionsmakeitdesirabletoprovidecontrolortoguidevehiclesthroughanintersectionorinterchange…dottedlineextensionmarkingsconsistingof2-footlinesegmentsand2-to6-footgapsshouldbeusedtoextendlongitudinallinemarkingsthroughanintersectionorinterchangearea.”Itshouldbenotedthatchevronmarkingsarenotpermittedtobeusedinbicyclelanesorbicyclelaneextensions,norareshared-lanemarkings.Bicyclelaneextensionsthroughintersectionscanincludestandardbicyclelanearrows,bicyclesymbols,orpavementwordmarkings.Additionally,green-coloredpavementcanbeusedtoenhanceconspicuityiftheinstallingjurisdictionhasreceivedapprovalunderInterimApproval14(seebelow).
High Visibility Crosswalk Markings: Sincethepublicationofthe2009MUTCD,astudyoncrosswalkmarkingswascompletedonbehalfoftheFHWA.Thisstudy,CrosswalkMarkingFieldVisibilityStudy(FHWAPublicationFHWA-HRT-10-068),producedseveralrecommendationsforrevisionstotheMUTCD.Theserecommendationsweretoaddbarpairsasa“usablecrosswalkpattern”,toprovidetypicaldimensionsformarkingpatterns,andtoconsider
continued on page 6
6
makingbarpairsorcontinentalmarkingsthedefaultmarkingforallcrosswalksacrossuncontrolledapproacheswithsomeexceptions.Itisimportanttonotethatbarpairsarecompliantwiththe2009MUTCDandcanbeusedbyanyjurisdictionchoosingtodoso.Manyjurisdictionsalreadyusethebarpaircrosswalkmarking.ItislikewisealsocompliantwiththeMUTCDifaroadwayagencyshouldchoosetoaccepttherecommendationthatbarpairsorcontinentalmarkingsbethedefaultcrosswalkmarkingacrossuncontrolledapproaches.WhileprovidingtypicaldimensionsforcrosswalkmarkingsisunderconsiderationforthenexteditionofStandardHighwaySigns,manyStateandlocalroadwayagenciesincludethesespecificationsintheirroadwaydesignguides.
Edge Line Markings at Highway-Rail and Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings: EdgeLineMarkingsextendingthroughthetrackareaatrailgradecrossingsarepermittedunderthe2009MUTCD.InMarch2016,theFHWAissuedOfficialRuling8(09)-21(I),whichclarifiedthattheextensionoftubularmarkerswaspermittedacrossthetrackarea,buttherequesteratthattimedidnotinquireaboutedgelinesinsimilarsituations.Edgelinesarepermittedtobeextendedthroughthetrackareaunderthe2009MUTCDwithoutanyadditionalapprovals.
Thememorandumalsoincludesinformationontrafficcontroldevicespermittedunderexperimentalapproval(Green-BackedShared-LaneMarkingsandUseofBicycleSymbolonSigns)andonrequestsforinterimapprovals(RevisiontoInterimApproval16toAllowConflictingMovements,Two-StageTurn
BoxesandUseofRed-ColoredPavementinTransitLanes).Thememorandumcanbefoundat:http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdstatusmemo/index.htm ThedatacollectionandexperimentationprocessesarecriticaltotheprogressoftheMUTCDasitkeepspacewiththestateofthetransportationengineeringpractice.Itiscriticalthattransportationagenciescollaborateandsharedataandresearchonnewandinnovativetrafficcontroldevicesandoperations.FHWAdivisionofficeinTNwelcomestheopportunitytoworkwithtransportationagenciesandisreadytoprovideassistance,direction,andguidancetoanyagencywishingtoexperimentortoutilizeanyofthetrafficcontroldevicesdiscussedherein.
Example of bar pairs markings (FHWA-HRT-10-067)
Example of continental markings (FHWA-HRT-10-067)
MUTCD - Clarifications of Existing Standards and Guidance on New and Innovative Traffic Control Devices, continued from page 5
Tennessee Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity Surveyby Matt Cate, P.E.
TTAPconductedanonlinesurveyinOctober2016toassessthestateoftrafficsignretroreflectivitycomplianceeffortsinTennessee.Wereceivedresponsesfrom77individualsrepresentingcities(61),counties(14),andstateagencies(1)spreadacrossthestate.Responsesconfirmedsomewidely-heldbeliefs,butthereweresomesurprisesaswell.
continued on page 7
7
Almost82%ofsurveyparticipantssaidthattheywerefamiliarwiththeMUTCD’sminimumrequirementsfortrafficsignretroreflectivity.Thosewhoanswered“yes”tothisquestionwereaskedtoidentifysourceswherethisinformationwasobtained.TheTennesseeDepartmentofTransportationwasthemostfrequentresponse(54%),followedbyTTAP(48%),andUT’sMunicipalTechnicalAdvisoryServiceorCountyTechnicalAssistanceService(46%collectively).Finally,participantswereaskedhowtheywouldprefertolearnmoreaboutthistopic.Themostfrequentresponsewas“brochuresandtechnicalguides”(39%),followedby“classroomtraining,”“onlinetrainingandwebinars,”and“newsletterarticles and email bulletins”at36%each. TTAPwillusethesurveytoguidefuturetrainingandtechnologytransferefforts,andwehavealsosharedtheseresultswithinterestedpartiesatTDOT,FHWA,andeventheTennesseeGeneralAssembly.Someofthemostinterestingsurveyresultsaresummarizedontheright.Toseecompletesurveyresults,pleasevisitourwebsiteathttp://ttap.utk.edu/techtransfer/pdfs/retro_survey.pdf
Tennessee Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity Survey, continued from page 6
8
Non-ProfitOrg.U.S.Postage
PAIDPermitNo.481Knoxville,TN
TennesseeTransportationAssistanceProgramCenterforTransportationResearchTheUniversityofTennessee 309ConferenceCenterBuildingKnoxville,TN37996-4133 Ph.(865)974-5255/(800)252-ROAD Fax.(865)[email protected] Web.http://ttap.utk.edu
TALK TO TTAPWearealwayslookingforyourcomments,ideasandsuggestionstohelpmaketheTTAPProgrammoreusefultoyou.PleasefilloutandfaxtheformbelowtoTTAPat(865)974-3889ormailtoTTAP;Suite309ConferenceCenterBuilding,Knoxville,TN37996-4133.
1. Pleasesendmemoreinformationonthefollowingarticlesmentionedinthisnewsletter.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2. Pleaselistanyadditionaltrainingworkshopsyouwouldbeinterestedinattending.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________3. PleaselistanyotherideasorsuggestionsonhowTTAPcouldassistyou.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.PleaselistyournameandorganizationtoverifyforTTAP’smailinglist.
Name_____________________________________ Address____________________________________ Title________________________________________
Organization________________________________ Phone________________Fax__________________
Email_____________________________________ AreyoucurrentlyonTTAP’smailinglist?___yes____no
Doyouwishtobeonthemailinglist?____yes_____no
Recommended
