January 31, 2005
U.S. Department of Transportation
Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
Re: FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2003-15149
The National Association of County Engineers (NACE) is providing these comments in response to the above docket for “National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity.”
We recognize the need for adequate nighttime visibility of traffic signs as the proportion of older drivers continues to increase on our nation’s streets and highways. Over the years, several NACE members and representatives have had the opportunity to attend FHWA-sponsored workshops on sign retroreflectivity and to participate as part of the AASHTO Task Force on Sign and Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity. We have appreciated these opportunities as it has demonstrated to us the complexities involved in the meaningful research conducted to date, in developing methods of assessing sign retroreflectivity, and in proposing a practical approach in which state and local agencies can implement efforts to address sign retroreflectivity.
We do, however, remain very concerned that the proposed regulations place a significant unfunded mandate on county government, which could easily exceed hundreds of million dollars. Additionally for most of these local roads federal funds through the federal transportation authorization bills are not available to local government for use to implement this mandated program. Therefore, we strongly disagree with the FHWA assessment of minimal economic impact. They primarily base this on the lengthening the requirement implementation time period which in our view both misleading and erroneous.
1. We support the framework of the proposal, as outlined in Section 2A.09 of the Manual, which affords agencies five assessment or management methods to address sign retroreflectivity.
Discussion: The assessment and management methods listed (Visual Nighttime Inspection, Measured Sign Retroreflectivity, Expected Sign Life, Blanket Replacement, and Control Signs) provides local agencies the needed guidance and flexibility to meet the new requirements. The available resources at local agencies vary significantly: some have sign inventories, many do not; some have the ability and equipment to measure retroreflectivity, most do not; some have the resources to replace their signs on a regular periodic basis based on the manufacturer’s warranty, most would prefer to inspect their signs at night to base their decision whether replacement is needed. A system or process that relies solely or heavily on retroreflectivity measurements is cumbersome, costly, and time-consuming to local agencies, resulting in an inordinate amount of effort in the process itself rather than in actually replacing signs when needed. We support the list of proposed methods in the rulemaking, especially if local agencies are allowed the flexibility to develop their own methods for maintaining retroreflectivity, rather than triggering a direct reliance on values and measurements; options will encourage local agencies to implement the desired sign replacement programs rather than being deterred by the process. We are skeptical of the comparison panel and the calibration sign method for conducting visual nighttime inspections and are concerned of the litigation that may accompany the use of these methods. What will be the standard for the control panel or the calibration signs and how will we as local agencies know if our control panels or calibration signs meet these minimum levels? We also find it burdensome to require a 60 years old or older inspector and would request that a lower age limit of possibly 50 years old be used instead.
2. We support the use and reference of a supplemental supporting document, “Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity,” rather than including a table of specific retroreflectivity numbers in the MUTCD.
Discussion: We are aware of other associations or parties that feel that the table of retroreflectivity values should be in the MUTCD, that the specific values should be expressly presented as minimum requirements, and that anything less somehow weakens the rule. We heartily disagree.
The emphasis of the proposed MUTCD language should be in placing responsibility on highway agencies to have a rational sign replacement process in place, which, through its implementation, can address those signs that likely do not meet adequate retroreflectivity levels. We feel that the proposed rule, with some suggested refinements, accomplishes this.
The table of values in the supplemental document serves a useful purpose and resource on which to develop the various assessment or management methods. However, the values and their direct use have many limitations, which do not lend themselves to be used as a final, authoritative “pass-fail” threshold. The numbers are not exacting or precise. If the retroreflectivity of a single sign dips below the table value, it does not necessarily indicate that a particular driver’s need is not met, or that an unsafe condition suddenly occurs.
The resulting table of values shown in the supplemental document is actually a consolidation of many tables that were developed through research. Originally, there were numerous tables due to variability in the characteristics of sign sheeting type, color, legend, and varying observation and entrance angles. Other important influencing factors affecting variability were driver characteristics, vehicle characteristics, the headlamps, roadway geometrics, and some variability in reliable, repeatable, reproducible values when actually taking sign retroreflectivity measurements. For practical purposes, to provide more user-friendly guidance, the tables were eventually consolidated into one. The consolidation further illustrates that the table of values serves a valued purpose for use as target numbers, but not as hard value, “pass-fail” thresholds for any particular sign or class of signs. The title of the table should also be changed; please see our comment under item 5 of this letter.
There are several agencies across the country that currently do a very commendable job of maintaining their signs even in the absence of these new requirements. And in almost all cases they have accomplished this with little or no retroreflectivity measurements or minimum required values. Nighttime visibility inspection has proven to be an effective method. A 1987 study in Washington State found that trained observers were effective and resulted in a high proportion of correct decisions when determining whether signs needed to be replaced. Many years later, during the FHWA research, sign technicians from Texas DOT were asked to perform nighttime evaluations of signs, which resulted in more signs being replaced than if actual hard number retroreflectivity values and measurements had been used.
Other agencies have found that using the expected sign life method is most effective and most easily managed. These agencies prefer to devote as much of their limited resources as possible toward actual sign replacement work rather than in a more time-consuming measuring and documentation process.
3. The effect of the proposed additions to the Manual is significant. The meaning of the compliance dates should be clarified, and depending upon the final interpretation, the compliance period should be lengthened.
Discussion: In response to criticism that the proposed rule does not go far enough, the rule will have a significant impact on local agencies, which necessitates an adequate length of time to reach compliance with the new rule.
First, agencies will be responsible for assessing or managing the retroreflectivity of their signs, requiring most to establish, implement, and document their processes.
Second, Type 1 Engineer grade for warning signs, construction signs, and directional/guide signs is essentially deemed obsolete by the recommended values, which for some agencies is very significant, considering there is no direct allocation of Federal funds being provided for these sign replacements.
Third, because of the phasing out of Engineer grade for white on green signs, street name signs are affected. For those agencies using Engineer grade for these signs, it can easily affect a third or more of their total sign system. And if they have recently upgraded their street name signs to the six-inch letter height requirement, using Engineer grade sheeting, a longer compliance period would be appropriate. Earlier discussions had excluded street name signs from initial retroreflectivity guidelines development, so their inclusion in this rule may take many agencies by surprise.
Fourth, existing overhead signs may need to be replaced and/or illuminated. Overhead installations are typically more costly to revise or upgrade, and installing desired illumination where none currently exists can be costly.
We understand the need to work toward these changes. However, we ask that FHWA recognize that providing the proposed seven or ten years still does not fully mitigate the impact of the transition when no direct allocation of Federal dollars is provided. The compliance periods as currently stated should be clarified: are agencies to have an assessment or management process in place by the end of the compliance period? Or is the intent that the signs themselves should be in compliance by the end of the compliance period? If it is the latter, we respectfully request that the compliance periods be lengthened to at least ten years for all signs affected by the rule.
4. We concur with the proposed change in the title of Section 2A.09 recommended by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: “Retroreflectivity Assessment or Management Methods.”
Discussion: Based on our comments above regarding the use of the retroreflectivity values as target numbers in the supplemental document, rather than “pass-fail” thresholds, we request that the title be changed as noted. The use of “minimum” connotes a hard number threshold, which is not the case. In practical terms, the need to implement assessment or management methods is really what is being represented as important.
5. In our support of the supplemental document, “Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity,” we also request that, before this document is formally adopted by reference in this rulemaking, additional language be added to provide more complete and supporting information, as a means of providing proper context for use of the table showing the retroreflectivity numbers.
Discussion: The language in the supplemental document provides a good starting point. However, it falls short in detail, particularly in putting the table values in perspective. It should go into more depth regarding the consolidation efforts that took place leading up to the table shown; it should expand upon the generalizations and research assumptions and trade-offs made, the limitations of the research, and how safety is not automatically compromised if the retroreflectivity level of a sign dips below the recommended minimum level. It should stress the importance of having an established systematic approach that recognizes that, while it may not be possible to ensure that every sign is above the recommended minimum retroreflectivity level at all times, that the intent is to address the great proportion of the sign population to be above the recommended levels on an on-going basis.
A good resource for this type of language to insert into the supplemental document appears to be “Updated Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels for Traffic Signs,” Report FHWA-RD-03-081, July 2003. There are portions of this document that do a much better job of describing the issues involved in attempting to establish recommended minimum sign retroreflectivity levels. Specifically, language from the following sections from FHWA-RD-03-081 should be incorporated into the supplemental document, “Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity”:
- The Summary (pages 1 &2). The table of values would be included in the same context, and we request that the same table title be used, “Research Recommendations for Updated Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels,” rather than the currently proposed title, “Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels.” An important statement to include is the last sentence, which states, “Although the levels presented in table 1 are subject to change, they represent the most current research recommendations.”
- The Introduction (page 3).
- Background (pages 4-10). This could be utilized within the main body of the document, or included as an appendix.
- Consolidation (pages 47-49). Most of this section, and certainly the essence of the material, needs to be included in the supplemental document to provide the proper context of why there is just the one table.
- Assumptions and Limitation (pages 51-60) in its entirety.
The addition of the above information to the supplemental document is critical to the understanding and application of the table values, for the practitioner and for tort liability questions as they arise. It better describes the background and development of the numbers, and their limitations. Most importantly, it provides the reader a better understanding of the complexities involved, and that the table values are target minimums rather than hard value “pass-fail” or “safe-unsafe” thresholds.
Finally, additional information concerning how a practitioner would use the table values to set up a program would be helpful, beyond the sole reference to ASTM E1709. In other words, how many points on the sign face should measurements be taken and how many for each color? Do you average the results? If one point on the sign is below the minimum, is the entire sign below the threshold? FHWA should be more enlightening on the use of table values.
6. We recommend that FHWA commit to prompt and extensive training on this topic in each state through additional appropriations to the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) for this topic.
Discussion: Very few of our members have been able to participate in regional meetings on this topic. However, this rule has a significant impact on every county, township, city, village, and community with sign maintenance responsibilities. These local units of government collectively are responsible over 3 million miles of roads or about 77 % of the nation’s public highways. Many small communities will very likely be caught off guard by this rule.
Those agencies that have successful sign retroreflectivity inspection or assessment programs should be recruited to share their experiences with others who will begin to systematically address the issue. Key to achieving the goals sought by this rule will be extensive quality training for all agencies that demonstrates practical methods of implementation.
In conclusion, the Federal Highway Administration is to be commended for its substantial research activities, outreach efforts, and receptiveness for input and involvement from a wide range of stakeholders. It is evident to us that this rule will have significant impacts on local agencies. For this reason, and to help advance the intent of the rule, we ask that FHWA also take the following actions: (1) Provide easily accessible and affordable training for local agencies to help guide them on developing their retroreflectivity assessment or management methods, (2) Provide dedicated funding to help agencies acquire needed materials and equipment and to help the transition away from Type 1 sheeting, and (3) Continue to support sign retroreflectivity research, particularly in areas that can help agencies streamline their assessment or management methods (for example, better sign degradation data for various climates or parts of the country that can be applied toward use of the Expected Sign Life method).
Many have stressed the importance of this rule as it relates to highway safety. However, to quote Report FHWA-RD-03-081, on page 60: “There is no direct link between MR [minimum retroreflectivity] levels and safety in terms of reduced crashes. There is even a void in the research related to identifying relationships between retroreflectivity and crash surrogates. Research is critically needed to develop a link between retroreflectivity and safety.”
Sincerely,
(signed)
Anthony R. Giancola, P.E.
Executive Director