w05 sign retroreflectivity-made_easy-norkus

MUTCD Sign Retroreflectivity Made Easy

Exclusive RoadVista 922 USA Distributor

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Presented by:

Steve NorkusProfessional Pavement Products, Inc

2

Audience Poll

Are you using (or plan on using) more than 1 method?• Yes• No• Not with an agency

Today’s Agenda

• The Latest on the MUTCD “Retro Rule” • Considerations & Keeping Up with the Joneses• Understanding the Sign Lifecycle Management

Process• Available Retroreflectometers• Real World Usage of Retroreflectometers

May 2012 MUTCD Revision – Changes to Compliance Dates

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/09mutcdproposedrev/compliance_dates/index.htm

A.K.A.June 13, 2014



What the Changes Mean

KTC Roadway Related Tort Liability & Risk Management Study

Analysis of roadway related lawsuits against agencies, 1981 thru 2009

Pg 36- “The largest total number of claim amounts were related to inadequatesigns or markings, lack of a stop sign, orInadequate warning on a stop approach. The total dollar amount claimed in this category was substantially higher than any other with approximately 23% of the amount for all claims involving this reason.”

Category # Claims Amount of Claim Avg Claim $ Claims > $50K Amount Paid % Paid

Inadequate/improper signs/ markings 357 $21,554,666 $60,377 188 $2,110,969 10.8

Inadequate signing at stop approach 46 2,643,312 54,463 28 218,672 8.3

Lack of stop sign 43 3,633,941 84,508 37 489,875 14.9

Traffic Control Devices 698 34,256,454 $49,148 314 $3,350,207 10.6

Tables 3-11 and 3-10

KTC Study: # of Claims over $50,000

Inadequate/Improper signs/markingsInadequate/Improper drainage

Lack of guardrailTraffic control devise - Work Zone

Shoulder Drop OffCrash due to pavement defect

Traffic signal malfunction - inadequateSubstandard guardrail

Crash involving DOT vehicleHit object on right of way (clear zone)

Shoulder related defectView obstructedLack of Stop sign

Crash due to debris in roadFalling rock/rock slide

Inadequate signing at Stop approachImproper drainage property

Contruction zone/otherPedestrian fall

Improperly designed curveHit tree/falling tree

Work zone/flagger related

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

37

188

9

Audience Poll

What is the current status of your agency’s retroreflectivity monitoring program?• Still deciding on what method(s)• Have made a decision, but haven’t implemented yet• Currently implementing a method(s)• Way ahead of ya – We are up & running!• Not with an agency

KTC: Average Claim $ Amount

Contruction zone/otherHit tree/falling tree

Crash due to pavement defectInadequate/Improper signs/markings

Crash due to debris in roadLack of guardrail

Pedestrian fallView obstructed

Falling rock/rock slideImproperly designed curve

Crash involving DOT vehicleHit object on right of way (clear zone)

Work zone/flagger relatedTraffic signal malfunction - inadequate

Inadequate/Improper drainageShoulder Drop Off

Lack of Stop signSubstandard guardrail

Shoulder related defectInadequate signing at Stop approach

Traffic control devise - Work ZoneImproper drainage property

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000

$111,131

$97,297

Sign Color

Additional Criteria

Sheeting Type (ASTM D4956-04)

Beaded Sheeting Prismatic Sheeting

I II III III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X

White on GreenOverhead white not

approved; green> 7white not approved; green> 15

white not approved; green> 25

white > 250; green > 25

Ground-mounted white not approved; green> 7 white > 120; green > 15

Black on Yellow or Black on

Orange

For text and fine symbol signs measuring > 1200mm (48 in) and

all bold symbol signsyellow/orange not

approved yellow > 50; orange > 50

For text and fine symbol signs measuring < 1200mm (48 in)

yellow/orange not approved yellow > 75; orange > 75

White on RedMinimum sign contrast ratio > 3:1

(white retroreflectivity / red retroreflectivity)

white > 35; red > 7

Black on White --- white > 50

MUTCD Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels Quick Reference Guide

Sign Color

Additional Criteria










Orange






White on RedMinimum sign contrast ratio > 3:1 (white / red

retroreflectivity)white > 35; red > 7



Minimums for Retroreflectivity

Prismatic Sheeting REDNEW = 200 – 300 vs.

MIN = 7

Prismatic Sheeting WHITENEW = 500 – 900 vs.

MIN = 35

Sign Color

Additional Criteria










Orange






White on Red Minimum sign contrast ratio > 3:1 (white / red retroreflectivity) white > 35; red > 7



Signs in the Field

Pass• DG Speed Limit• South facing• BG = 257 (min 50)• L = Black (non-reflective)• July ‘98

– 13 years old (when pic taken)

Today’s Agenda

• The Latest on the MUTCD “Retro Rule” • Considerations of the Approved Methods &

Keeping Up with the Joneses• Understanding the Sign Lifecycle Management


The 5 MUTCD Approved Sign Management Methods

1. Visual nighttime inspections using calibrated signs and performed by a certified individual

2. Replacement based on individual manufacturer suggested sign life

3. Blanket replacement of all signs in an area

4. Use a sampling of control signs that represent field signs

5. Actual sign retroreflectivity levels measured using a retroreflectometer

19

Audience Poll

What retroreflectivity inspection method(s) are you currently?• Visual Nighttime Inspection• Suggested Sign Life• Blanket Replacement• Control Signs• Retroreflectometer Readings

Not yet there? Not with an agency? Please DO NOT answer this poll!

20

Audience Poll

For those who use Visual Inspection as your primary method, are you currently using day or night time inspections?• Nighttime Inspections• Daytime Inspections• Both

PPP Survey• Data collected between January 2011 – April 2012 as part of various

Professional Pavement Products’ sales and marketing efforts• All answers are self-reported and unconfirmed• Efforts were made to reduce duplicate agency reports

498AgencyRespondents

Respondents by # of Signs in Jurisdiction

14.26%

43.17%

25.10%

5.42%

12.05%

Under 2,0002,000 - 10,00010,000 - 25,00025,000 - 50,00050,000 +

498

Primary Method of Sign Inspection

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

50,000 +

25,000 - 50,000

10,000 - 25,000

2,000 - 10,000

Under 2,000

A Closer Look at Visual Inspections…

Both Daytime Inspections Nighttime Inspections0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

50,000 +25,000 - 50,00010,000 - 25,0002,000 - 10,000Under 2,000

Start Up Costs Annual Costs Hidden Costs

Visual Nighttime Inspections

• Min 2 Person Night Salary + Benefits

• Training of 65+ Individuals • Specialized Vehicle Setup• Comparison Plates Kit

• Expect 10-30% Sign Replacement• Specialty Employee Salaries &

Benefits

• Human Error• Continued Training• Specialized Vehicle Maintenance

Blanket Replacement

• 10-100% of Signs Maintained • 10-100% of Signs Maintained • Cost of Unnecessary Replacement of Signs still Performing Well Above Minimums

• Liability assoc. with Signs in Need of Early Replacement

Manufacturer's Suggested Life

• 10-100% of Regulatory and Warning Signs

• 10-100% of Signs Maintained • Cost of Unnecessary Replacement of Signs still Performing Well Above Minimums


Control Signs• Retroreflectometer• Control Sign Setup in Sign Yard• Process Development for

Identifying Like Signs

• Expect 5-30% of Signs Maintained• Annual Maintenance of

Retroreflectometer

• Cost of Unnecessary Replacement of Field Signs Out-Performing Like Sign in Sign Yard


Retroreflectometer• Retroreflectometer• Initial Inventory & Measurement

Process

• 2-10% of Signs Monitored• Annual Maintenance of

Retroreflectometer

• SAVINGS from Keeping Usable Signs in Service Longer

• SAVINGS from Efficiently Allocating Resources based on Sign Performance and Priority

Methods Comparison:

Expected Costs

Key Benefit(s) Key Drawback(s)

Visual Nighttime Inspections

• Signs viewed in natural surroundings • Nighttime driving is more dangerous• Can't immediately replace signs deemed failure

Blanket Replacement• Easy implementation • Expensive capital outlay

• Higher likelihood of unnecessary replacements• Signs are not actively monitored for performance

between scheduled replacements

Manufacturer's Suggested Life

• Easy implementation if system in place already tracking sign age and suggested life

• Need system in place to track age and suggested life• Expensive capital outlay• Higher likelihood of unnecessary replacements• Signs are not actively monitored for performance

between scheduled replacements

Control Signs

• Not very labor intensive • Need to have adequate sign sampling• Higher likelihood of unnecessary replacements• Signs are not actively monitored for performance

between scheduled replacements• Requires retroreflectivity measurement equipment

Retroreflectometer

• Simultaneous daytime physical inspection of general sign and hardware condition

• Eliminates unnecessary sign replacement• Eliminates human error and subjectivity• Minimum training required• Signs close to failure can be replaced on same visit• Enables efficient prioritization of resources

• Requires retroreflectivity equipment• Initial program launch can be time consuming

Methods Comparison:

Key Considerations

Signs in the Field

Replace if using Sign Life / Blanket PASS using Retro Readings• HI Guide Sign• BG = 60.2 (min 15)• L = 296 (min 120)• 1988


Cost of Sign Replacement

15,000 10 1,500

years average sign life

signs under jurisdiction

average annual sign replacements

1,500 $150 $225,000average sign

replacement cost

average annual sign

replacements

jurisdictional annual sign replacement

expense

Cost of Sign Replacement

Avg Sign Life = 10 yrsNational Avg Sign Replacement Cost = $ 150

Signs Under Jurisdiction: 5,000 10,000 15,000 25,000 50,000

Avg Annual Replacements 500 1,000 1,500 2,500 5,000

Annual Costs Jurisdiction Wide $ 75,000 $ 150,000 $ 225,000 $ 375,000 $ 750,000

To be compliant, on average only about 30% of all signs in a jurisdiction have to meet the minimum standards of retroreflectivity as laid out in the MUTCD compliance deadlines: “all red and white or white and black “regulatory” signs (such as STOP signs and Speed Limit signs), yellow and black “warning” signs,

and ground-mounted green and white “guide” signs (except street name signs).

Today’s Agenda

• The Latest on the MUTCD “Retro Rule” • Considerations & Keeping Up with the Joneses• Understanding the Sign Lifecycle

Management Process Available Retroreflectometers• Real World Usage of Retroreflectometers

More Survey Findings…

•79% of PPP survey respondents currently have a Management Program in Place; however,

–6% of those with a Program haven’t incorporated retroreflectivity monitoring into their management program yet!

What is Your Program Goal?

ARE YOU SIMPLY LOOKING TO CYA?

--OR--

DO YOU WANT TO TRULY MANAGE

AND MAINTAIN YOUR SIGN

INVENTORY?

Order or Fabricate Signs

Repair and Replace Signs

Generate Work Plan

Periodic Assessment and

Maintenance

Update Inventory

Post ProcessingData Collection Initial Action Plan

Sign Management Lifecycle

What is GIS?

Geographic Information SystemWeb-based or locally hosted software and/or processes that – Captures,– Stores,– Analyzes,– Manages, and– Presents

data that is linked to a geographic location(s)…

35

Audience Poll

Does your agency already utilize GIS software?• Yes, for sign management and mapping• Yes, but only for sign management• No, but we use Excel spreadsheets and such• No, we are in the stone ages over here still• I don’t know

GIS Software Adoption

Inventoried and managed via GIS

Inventoried manually Neither0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

50,000 +25,000 - 50,00010,000 - 25,0002,000 - 10,000Under 2,000

Sam

ple

CSV

Dat

a Fi

le

Note, if you use Pass as Comment 1 and Fail as

Comment 2, KML will auto color the markers accordingly!

Sam

ple

KML

Dat

a Fi

le

Some of the GIS on the Market

• AquiSIGN• iTracSigns (by TCR Software)• ESRI’s ArcGIS Suite• D-Ware• ibisTRAX• Cartegraph

Signs in the Field

F A I L• EG Symbol Sign• BG = 2.4 (min 75)• L = Black• 2008


Today’s Agenda



RoadVista 922 Delta RetroSign GR3Manufactured In USA Denmark

Device Type Annular – Single Measurement per Reading on PrismaticsUS Patent 7,961,328

Point – Two Measurements per Reading on Prismatics Req’d

(at 0⁰ and 90⁰)

Angles 2 angles: .2, .5 GR3 = 3 angles: .2, .5, 1.0GR1 = 1 angle: .2

Inventory System Built-in Barcode Reader Attachable RFID Reader or Attachable Barcode Reader

Battery Standard 12V Rechargeable Power Tool, ~$70

Bosch Special Order, ~$330

Display Touchscreen facing User LCD on side of unit

Reading Time 1 Second Per Reading 2 Seconds Per Reading

GPS Standard Internal Standard InternalBluetooth Standard Internal Standard Internal

Approved Handheld Retroreflectometer Devices

Side-by-Side: Point vs. AnnularPOINT Technology(used by Delta GR3/GR1)

ANNULAR Technology(Used by RoadVista 922)

• Averages infinite point measurements around the light source

• Developed in 1980’s specifically for newly introduced micro-prismatic materials

• Most reliable way to test prismatic sheeting• Best for reliable readings in the field

• Takes a single point measurement just above the light source

• Developed in 1970’s• Rotationally sensitive on prismatic sheeting• Widely used in Lab testing • 0⁰ and 90⁰ rotational readings on prismatic

are required to match ASTM Lab results

Image Source: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/retrotoolkit/pdfs/measurement.pdf

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/retrotoolkit/pdfs/measurement.pdf

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/retrotoolkit/pdfs/measurement.pdf

Side-by-Side: Inventory Barcode Readers

Road Vista 922Delta GR3/GR1

Side-by-Side: Navigation

Side-by-Side: Data Integration Software

Delta GR3/GR1 RoadVista 922

48

Audience Poll

Does your jurisdiction currently own a handheld retroreflectometer?• Yes• No• I don’t know

Today’s Agenda


Process• Available Retroreflectometers

• Real World Usage of Retroreflectometers

Today’s Agenda



How Agencies with Programs in Place are Utilizing the Sign Data Collected

Budgeting Decisions

Determining Field Sign Life

Setting Reevaluation Dates for Retroreflectivity Measurements

Creating a Prioritized Punch list for Maintenance / Replacement

Sign Inventory Mapping

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

40%

46%

16%

51%

53%

Types of Sign Attributes Agencies with Programs are Collecting

View-able DistanceWarranty Expiration

Sign Material CostSign Installation Cost

Special AttributesAsset Barcode

Distance from the RoadSign Height

Inventory NumberCross-roads / Closest Street Address

Last Inspection DateRetroreflectivityDirection Facing

MUTCD / DOT Icon CodeSign Sheeting

Sign SizeInstallation Date

Sign Post TypeGPS Location

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Under 2,000 2,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 25,000 25,000 - 50,000 50,000 +

PPP CUSTOMER PROGRAM SNAPSHOTS

NYC Overhead Sign Project

• 1,283 Overhead Structures – 2,000 Signs• Sign sheeting ranges 3-15 years old• Currently just over 50% Project Completion

Results so far at 1,000 Signs Tested to Date…• 1.5% Retro Fail Rate• Averaging 100-115% higher than MUTCD

minimums

Iowa Region XII Pilot

• 2 Summer High School Interns; 1 RV922; 60 days• 5,000 signs - Averaged 140 signs/day• Created full sign inventory from scratch– Retro readings– Sign type– Height– Distance from road– Direction facing– GPS location

Portland Scope Study

• Relatively small sample of 398 signs– Random sample method– Split 50/50 between Stop Signs and black & white Regulatory Signs only – Average sign age of 10 years, ranging from New (0) to 26 years– 1st pass was daytime physical inspections; 2nd pass was retro readings

• 67% of sample showed some kind of damage – either human or environmental (dirt / algae)– 40% of sample had graffiti-related damage– 12% of sample had been stolen or knocked down and not reported

• 65% of sample read with retroreflectometer– 1.5% Retro Failure Rate (of those actually read) = 4 signs– No correlation could be observed between Visual Inspection and Retro Readings

• Results suggest 33x more likely to replace signs due to Physical Damage than due to low Retroreflectivity

• Paper-based collection system, took months to complete study

Observations In General…

• Sign Inspections as part of a Pilot or Study have a lower signs/day– Reports range from 8 – 19 an hour– Consultants’ report 15 – 30 an hour– All say distance between signs is the biggest determinant of

inspection efficiency

• Regulatory and warning signs make up 30-40% of total sign inventories

• HI sheeting is out lasting predictions in the field by 2-3x expected sign life

57

Observations In General…

• Reports of as much as 20-25% of signs being inventoried made of EG sheeting

• Much more likely to have a sign failure due to physical damage than due to retroreflectivity issues

• Laptop with GIS/Mapping versus Paper-based manual reference in field increases productivity by as much as 50%

• Reported savings of 30-40% using Retroreflectometer Inspections versus Expected Sign Life replacement

58

PPP Off ers

• Free MUTCD Retro Rule Whitepaper–www.pppcatalog.com/922/white-paper

&Exclusive distributor of RoadVista 922 in USA.

Over 700 roadway maintenance and construction products in stock, available online and our six warehouse locations:

Jacksonville | Miami | Orlando | Houston | Charlotte | Raleigh

Q ASteve NorkusDirect 904.838.0195

[email protected]

Professional Pavement ProductsToll Free 1.888.717.7771 | www.pppcatalog.com

http://www.pppcatalog.com/

w05 sign retroreflectivity-made_easy-norkus

Documents

white notapprovedgreen

fine symbol signsmeasuring

redminimum sign contrastratio

redminimum sign contrast

mutcd revision changes

methods way

claim avg claim

dot vehiclehit object