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(mcate@utk.edu)Dr.DavidB.Clarke,P.E, DirectorEmeritus 865-974-1812(dbclarke@utk.edu).FrankBrewer,TrainingCoordinator 865-974-8251(fbrewer1@utk.edu)Dr.AirtonG.Kohls,Engineer 865-974-0298(akohls@utk.edu)DanielHerman,Technician 865-974-4608(dherman2@utk.edu)SpenceMeyers,Database,Website& TechnicalAssistance 865-974-6168(meyers@utk.edu)JennyJones,RoadTalkEditor 865-974-6549(gohjones@utk.edu)MollieMitchell,AdministrativeSpecialist 865-974-1812(mmitche6@utk.edu)DianaWebb,CourseRegistration 865-974-5255(dwebb21@utk.edu)

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)974-3889Email.TTAP@utk.edu 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