Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
30 The objective of this synthesis study was to provide examples of effective and advantageous practices that illustrate how different types of agencies can meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) retroreflectivity require- ments. The aim of this study was to document the state of the practice and identify content that could assist other agencies exploring different methods for maintaining sign retroreflec- tivity. Information was obtained from past research, exist- ing guidance and policy, and telephone surveys. The surveys comprised the majority of the information in this report. The survey questionnaire included 14 main questions and was designed to facilitate an open-ended conversation about sign retroreflectivity and general maintenance practices. Surveys were conducted with participants from different parts of the country. Overall, 48 agencies participated and 40 operate roadways open to the public that selected a sign retroreflectivity method from the MUTCD. From participant responses it was determined that the expected sign life method was the most selected primary and secondary method for replacing and managing signs. The second most frequently reported was visual nighttime inspection; however, agen- cies were somewhat conflicted about this method. Survey participants were typically separated into two groups; agen- cies that have used nighttime inspection and agencies that do not. The primary reason for rejecting nighttime inspec- tion was that agencies were concerned about staffing and did not want to add another activity to an already demanding maintenance schedule. The blanket replacement method was the third most selected method and agencies employing this approach praised it for its ease and straightforward applica- tion. Finally, a few agencies were implementing the mea- sured retroreflectivity or control signs methods. The cost for a retroreflectometer and time requirements for the measure- ments were the deciding factors. The survey findings identified several strategies and tech- niques that were considered as effective practices. The effec- tive practices are described in chapter five and varied for each MUTCD method. The most noteworthy practice for the visual nighttime inspection was the implementation of training pro- grams to ensure inspector proficiency. Resource management tools were the most prominent benefit for the expected sign life method and agencies can utilize sign information for plan- ning, scheduling, and budgeting. Simplicity and ease were the most valued benefits in the blanket replacement method. It is an effective practice to evenly and consistently blanket replace signs within an agency from year to year. Purchasing a retro- reflectometer can be expensive; however, such measurements could be valuable, particularly in support of other methods. It is an effective practice to utilize the control signs method to justify the extension of sign warranty periods so that agencies can expand sign service life and maximize potential resources. Lastly, replacing signs based solely on retroreflectivity mea- surements can be time-consuming. If an agency has access to a retroreflectometer, it is most beneficial when used in conjunc- tion with routine daily maintenance; however, the readings should not detract or eclipse other important activities. This synthesis study revealed that survey participants were implementing a variety of primary and secondary methods for maintaining signs and ensuring retroreflectivity compliance. Selection ranking aside, participant responses showed that each method exhibited distinct advantages and operational benefits. It should also be pointed out that FHWA has a report detail- ing each of the sign retroreflectivity methods listed in the MUTCD. The FHWA report also includes a useful descrip- tion of how to conduct the assessment methods. Finally, it also outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each of the sign retroreflectivity methods listed in the MUTCD, and can be found at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/ night_visib/policy_guide/fhwahrt08026/. One final note, FHWA has started rule making that may potentially change the MUTCD language regarding sign retro- reflectivity (see Federal Register, Vol. 76, Volume 169, pp. 54156â54162). A final rule has not yet been issued and is not expected to be issued until the summer of 2012 (after the current January 2012 compliance date to select and imple- ment a sign retroreflectivity maintenance method). Although these on-going rule-making activities may change the spe- cifics of the minimum retroreflectivity regulations in the MUTCD, it is still considered good practice to maintain sign retroreflectivity for nighttime drivers. chapter seven ConClusions
