|
Berger’s Transportation & Safety The First of a Series
The idea is to have a forum for sharing news of the transportation industry and the associated safety considerations with editorial license as reported through the eyes of Jim Kellenberger. I’ll talk about the news I have been a part of or have experienced through others written or spoken words. I’ll end each one of these with “My Say”. Your comments and thoughts are always welcome & needed. Send us your thoughts on anything you see here and ideas for topics you don’t see here using the “Contact Us” link at the bottom of this missive.
As a member of the Marking Technical Committee of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) I have the opportunity to attend two meetings a year to provide direction and clarification to the myriad number of ideas surrounding what pavement markings look like to the driver in the USA. The annual meeting is always held in DC in January the week before the Annual Transportation Research Board (TRB) Meeting. While the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) has been published for a year or so, a goodly amount of discussion was centered around the Chapter 1 changes involving the use of “Engineering Study” (a written report sealed by the Professional Engineer who wrote it) and “Engineering Judgment” (a note to the file denoting a decision and how it was derived). Many NCUTCD meeting attendees felt the definitions had been sufficiently altered to effectively eliminate any variance from a “Standard” in the MUTCD. Many practicing Traffic Engineers voiced concerns over the possible increase in tort liability if a “Standard” is altered under these new definitions. This issue was discussed at length in two concurrent sessions during the TRB meeting by practicing local and state Traffic Engineers and Attorneys familiar with Federal & State statues and tort liability trials. The general opinion voiced in both these sessions was that tort liability probably would increase for all agencies if the changes to Chapter 1 remained as they are. Another topic that got a lot of “air time” at both meetings was the amount of public comment on certain parts of the MUTCD from outside the Transportation Engineering community. The FHWA used their Public Information Office to “get the word out to the masses” on this latest edition of the Manual. And the masses responded with apparent voracity. Their main aim was the seemingly innocuous street sign. Chapter 2 will require the replacement of undersized sign blanks and undersized sign letters. While sounding like a good idea, it appears that not enough effort was placed on getting the word out that these changes would only be required when the sign had reached the end of its useful life, not day after tomorrow. All sorts of individuals, businesses, and groups let their displeasure be known about this idea. It appears this just fueled the false notion that all under sized signs would be ripped from their mountings immediately if not sooner. More to come on these meetings in the Next “News & Notes.
And speaking of TRB and transportation I usually take the train from my home on the edge of Downtown Raleigh to DC since the station is just a few blocks from where I live. Cheap, computer friendly and not to mention no full depth body scans, the train is a great way to travel to a lot of places. With NCDOT owning some train equipment and some 400 miles of track, rider ship on Amtrak is growing faster here than anywhere else in the country. The real draw back to the train is the time it takes to get to say DC. Imagine my surprise when the Northbound 10:56 AM train to DC & beyond left at 10:58 AM on Sunday and arrived in DC 15 minutes ahead of schedule. Not to be outdone, the 3 PM Southbound Silver Star to Miami via Raleigh left at 3:15 PM on the following Thursday and arrived in Raleigh 15 minutes ahead of schedule for a total of 30 minutes faster than scheduled. A real move in the right direction for train travel by simply improving and adding some dual tracking to allow freight trains and passenger trains to pass one another while moving. What a way to travel and getting better all the time. When the Thunder Snow struck DC Wednesday afternoon & evening the whole town came to a stand still except for the Metro subway system and walking/slipping along. We were able to get around by using these two modes of travel to all the places we needed to go. Another good reason for alternatives to the automobile. For the bicyclist or the pedestrian, how a motorist makes a turn into a side road is of great importance, especially if that turn is a left turn. Motorist seem to have abandoned the “J” type turn where the driver comes to the center of the side road before turning into it for the “S” type turn where the driver sweeps across the lane on the side road that oncoming traffic would occupy. This tends to be corrected with a “J” turn by the errant motorist if a vehicle is waiting in this spot. However if a bicycle happens to coming to or waiting in this spot the left turning motorist seems to go back to the “S” type turn. For the cyclist, beware this occurrence particularly at low volume local/rural roads & streets where motorist seldom encounter other motor vehicles (the perfect places we cyclists like to ride). As you approach an intersection look for vehicles on the cross street and stop short of the actual pavement intersection to give the “S” turner room to miss you. Wear bright clothing, lights as needed, and always wear a helmet (if you like what is inside your skull). For the motorist, go back to the “J” turn for all your turns especially for the ones to the left. These type turns can prevent over-correcting for or colliding with a cyclist or other vehicle when it is in or coming into the spot on the pavement adjacent to the street you are turning from.
Since the mid-1980’s the NCDOT has been discussing the issue of certification in the areas or Work Zone Traffic Control and Pavement Marking. Both of these areas involve specialized skills, talents, and knowledge. The American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) created a Pavement Marking Technician Program in the 1990’s and NCDOT followed with their own Pavement Marking Technician program. By the mid-2000’s Meredith McDiarmid and Chris Howard under the direction of Stuart Bourne had moved on from the Pavement Marking Certification program to create the Flagger Certification and Work Zone Supervisor Certification programs. The joint industry/NCDOT committee meeting regularly to create these programs was given a boost with issue of the FHWA’s Final Rule on Safety and Mobility effective in October of 2007. This Final Rule requires training for all folks involved with work inside the Highway Right of Way, including design and planning. NCDOT is meeting the requirements of the Final Rule by creating the NCDOT Basic Knowledge Document (BKD) and Flagger, Work Zone Supervisor, and Work Zone Designer Qualification Programs, the details of which are located in other sections of this web-site. It remains to be seen if the BKD and the qualification programs will make a difference in the various measures of work zone safety used by the Final Rule. The concept of the “Pyramid of Knowledge” for decision making in the implementation of Temporary Traffic Control should have a possible effect on all measures of safety in highway work zone. Until next time….., Jim Kellenberger |
