# Presentation: 297648

## Minimum Sign Retroreflectivity RequirementsNew MUTCD Standard

- <date/time>

**Minimum Sign ****Retroreflectivity ****Requirements**New MUTCD Standard

**Notes:**
MUTCD updated regarding sign retro last December
Long time coming.(since late 1980’s) –  how many have heard about retroreflectivity before?
Good solution that meets needs of most involved

## Why Do We Install Signs?

- <date/time>

***Required by MUTCD?***

***To help drivers***
***(including older)***

***NO***

***Engineering Decision?***

***YES!***

***Why?***

**Notes:**
Manual describes application of TCDs, is not legal requirement for installation (1A.09)
Standards/guidance/options, not substitute for Engineering Judgment
Help drivers – safely navigate (regs, warn, guide)
Once decided that a sign is needed, then in accordance with MUTCD:
Same shape and similar color day and night
Retroreflective or Illuminated

## Night Travel and Crashes

- <date/time>

*Source: National Safety Council*

**Notes:**
Why the big concern?
Only about 25% of travel occurs in dark conditions, but 50% of crashes
The nighttime crash rate is nearly three times that of daytime
Both behavioral (fatigue, alcohol) and engineering contributors to this disparity between nighttime and daytime -- Improving visibility helps everyone

## But, Retroreflectivity Degrades Over Time

- <date/time>

- Retroreflectivity

- When
- Do We
- Replace
- Signs?

- Signs Provide Critical Information to Drivers

**Notes:**
Signs are generally adequate when installed.
Signs degrade with sunlight, weather, environmental damage.  Daylight and Nighttime degradation varies.
Do you have a method in place to determine when to replace?

## Final Rule

- <date/time>

- Published on Dec 21, 2007
- Vol 72, No. 245
- Revision #2 of the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD
- Effective Jan 22, 2008

**Notes:**
Not all signs have been adequately maintained
Now there are standards and guidance for all agencies to follow
Some agencies may already be in compliance, for other agencies this may raise the visbility of their signs

## New MUTCD LanguageSection 2A.09 Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity

- “Standard:
- 	Public agencies or officials having jurisdiction shall use an assessment or management method that is designed to maintain sign retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels in Table 2A-3”

**Notes:**
New Language (standard)
Major change is in Section 2A.09
Centers around a method to maintain retroreflectivity

## New MUTCD Table 2A.3

- <date/time>

| Sign Color | Sheeting Type (ASTM D4956-04)  |  |  |  | Additional
Criteria |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Beaded Sheeting |  |  | Prismatic Sheeting |  |
|  | I | II | III | III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X |  |
| White on Green | W*
G ≥ 7 | W* 
G ≥ 15 | W*
G ≥ 25 | W ≥ 250; G ≥ 25 | Overhead |
|  | W*
G ≥ 7 | W ≥ 120; G ≥ 15 |  |  | Ground-mounted |
| Black on Yellow or
Black on Orange  | Y*; O* | Y ≥ 50; O ≥ 50 |  |  |  |
|  | Y*; O* | Y ≥ 75; O ≥ 75 |  |  |       	 |
| White on Red | W ≥ 35; R ≥ 7 |  |  |  |  |
| Black on White | W ≥ 50 |  |  |  |  |
|  The minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels shown in this table are in units of cd/lx/m2 measured at an observation angle of 0.2 and an entrance angle of -4.0.
	For text and fine symbol signs measuring at least 1200 mm (48 in) and for all sizes of bold symbol signs
	For text and fine symbol signs measuring less than 1200 mm (48 in)
	Minimum Sign Contrast Ratio ≥ 3:1 (white retroreflectivity ÷ red retroreflectivity)
*  This sheeting type should not be used for this color for this application. |  |  |  |  |  |

**New MUTCD Table 2A.3**
**Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels**

**Notes:**
The numbers are also in the MUTCD (this was somewhat controversial)
The chart is a little complex, so Example 1: a curve warning sign
black on yellow
*Type I (eng grade) should not be used
Any other type okay and should have a yellow retro level of 50 or 75
(2) Since curve is not text or fine symbol, should meet 50
Black not retroreflective, so don’t have to measure it.
Example 2: Stop Sign
Any type sheeting meets initially
Both white and red have to meet retro levels: White >35, Red>7
(3) Need contrast ratio > 3:1 (e.g. red=20, white must >60)

## Methods to Maintain Retro

- Visual Nighttime Inspection
- Calibration Signs
- Comparison Panels
- Consistent Parameters
- Measured Sign Retro

- Expected Sign Life
- Blanket Replacement
- Control Signs
- Future Method Based On Engineering Study
- Combination Of Any

## New MUTCD LanguageSection 2A.09 Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity

- “Support:
- 	Compliance... is achieved by having a method in place and using the method to maintain the minimum levels established in Table 2A-3.  Provided that... a method is being used, an agency would be in compliance... even if there are some individual signs that do not meet the... levels at a particular point in time.

**Notes:**
This support statement helps to limit an agency’s liability: compliance is by implementing a maintenance method, even if some signs do not meet levels at a particular time.
It is not meant as an easy out: the maintenance method must be designed to maintain the minimum requirements fro sign retroreflectivity.

## Exempt Signs

- <date/time>

- Parking/Standing/Stopping
- Walking/Hitchhiking
- Adopt-A-Highway
- Blue or Brown Backgrounds
- Exclusive Use of Bikes
- 	or Peds
- Note: Must still meet other
- 	requirements in MUTCD
- 	(inspections, retroreflective,
- 	etc,)

**Notes:**
Several signs are exempted from the minimum retro requirements because they are primarily for daytime or non vehicular use,  or there is not adequate research currently to select appropriate minimums.

## Compliance Period:From “Effective” Date of Final Rule (January 22, 2008):

- <date/time>

- Compliance Period:From “Effective” Date of Final Rule (January 22, 2008):

- 4 yrs (January, 2012)
- Establish and implement method(s)
- 7 yrs (January, 2015)
- Replace identified regulatory, warning, ground-mounted guide signs (except street-name)
- 10 yrs (January, 2018)
- 	Replace identified street name & overhead guide signs

**Notes:**
These are important dates to keep in mind for compliance.

## What do the numbers mean for selecting sheeting type?

**Notes:**
(just read as intro to next several slides) 

## Types that meet Minimums

- NO

- NO

- NO

- NO

- NO

**Notes:**
All prismatics currently on the market may be used for all signs.
High-Intensity Beaded and Super Engineering Grade may be used for all signs except white legend on overhead guide signs.
Engineer Grade may be used for all signs except for:
White legend on guide signs
White legend on street name signs
All warning signs
Even though a particular type of sheeting might initially meet the minimum retro level when it is new, it might quickly degrade to below the minimum, thus losing its effectiveness at night and requiring replacement during next assessment.  The use of higher performance sheeting, even though it has a higher initial cost, might provide a better life-cycle cost for the agency.

## Required Minimum Maintained Levels

- E G

- Super EG

- High Inten

- Prismatic
- Average

**Notes:**
New Yellow Material: Type I doesn’t meet, Type II is a little above min, Type III better, prismatics generally much better (this is an average),
So... 

## Required Minimum Maintained Levels

- New Sheeting Retroreflectivity Spec Value

**Notes:**
Type II might last a few years, Type III will likely last longer, prismatics for a significantly longer time. NOTE: this is a generalized graph, not based on data. Agencies may want to determine these numbers for their signs. And using this concept develop a life cycle cost. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT THAN CAN SAVE $$.

## EXAMPLE of Life/Cycle Costs

- Assume $160 to replace a sign with EG sheeting
- 	(substrate, sheeting, labor)
- If so, then
- SEG might be $164
- HI might be $168
- Pris might be $192
- Cost per year might look like:
- 	EG: $160 / 0 = Can not calculate
- 	SEG: $164 / 10?* = $16 / yr ??
- 	HI: $168 / 12?* = $14 / yr ??
- 	Pris: $192 / 16?* = $12 / yr ??
- Add in potential cost of traffic hazard
- *	_Generalized_ numbers based on information from sign test racks

**Notes:**
NOTE: this example has invented numbers. Go through calcs.
So based on this, you might determine the most cost-effective sheeting is a hi-intensity or prismatic, esp. if you consider risks of your crews out replacing signs more frequently. As you develop your assessment or management method, you may want to collect this information to help you back up your decisions.

## More Information

- <date/time>

- FHWA  _[fhwa.dot.gov](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/retro)__[/retro](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/retro)_
- Summary Brochure
- Final Rule
- Power Point Presentations
- Newsletter Articles
- TTI  _tcd.tamu.edu _
- Research Reports
- ATSSA  _www.retroreflectivity.net_
- Q&A