Evaluation of Novel Traffic Control Devices The FHWA Perspective

1
Evaluation of NovelTraffic Control Devices
The FHWA Perspective

• W. Scott Wainwright, P.E., PTOE
• Highway Engineer
• Federal Highway Administration
• Office of Transportation Operations, MUTCD Team

2
The Current ProcessExperimentation Approvals

• Field evaluation of new devices for potential
  addition to MUTCD
• Jurisdictions reduce liability

3
Current Experimentation Process
No
Approved?
Yes
4
Problems with Current Process
5
Takes too long

• Rapid technology developments
• Immediate and widespread use driven by hot
  issues
• Field studies take several years to complete
  after data evaluate
• Jurisdictions deploy many
  non-conforming variations prior to rulemaking

6
Examples
7
Examples
8
Examples
9
Examples
10
Examples
11
Examples
12
Burden on local and State jurisdictions

• Cost
• Time
• Some take calculated risk

13
Evaluations not comprehensive

• Not nationwide
• Not consistent
• No real follow-up

14
Lacking input from outside experts

• Good idea or not?
• Best way to evaluate?
• How to judge if success?

15
Once success is achieved

• No provision for interim use by other
  jurisdictions pending rulemaking

16
Aug. 2001 Special Meeting

• FHWA NCUTCD Officers Technical Committee
  Chairs

17
FHWA looking at

• How to speed up process but improve consistency
  comprehensiveness
• Levels of risk vs. extensiveness of evaluation

18
FHWA looking at

• More use of driver simulators?
• New ideas for what might happen at end of
  successful evaluation

19
2 Major Proposals

• Pooled Fund Study for TCD Evaluations
• Interim Approvals

20
Pooled Fund Study

• WHAT?
• Research, planning, and technology innovation
  activities to solve transportation-related
  problems of significant or widespread interest
• HOW?
• Joint funding by members

21
Pooled Fund Study

• WHO?
• Federal and state transportation agencies
  initiate
• FHWA 9 States committed so far
  FL, IA, MS, MO, NJ, NY, NC, SC, and TX.
• Local and regional transportation agencies,
  associations, colleges/universities may
  participate

22
Pooled Fund Study

• WHERE?
• FHWA RDT and Office of Operations coordinating
• WHEN?
• First meeting Spring 2003

23
Funding of TCD Pooled Fund Study

• 150,000 from FHWA 380,000 from 9 States so
  far
• States--50,000 desired from each interested
  member
• Less in first year acceptable if necessary
• Associations --??
• Local Governments--??

24
TCD Consortium

• Members FHWA, contributing State and local
  governments, associations

25
TCD Consortium

• Receive and prioritize requests for evaluations
  of new TCD ideas
• Decide on evaluation method(s)
• Fund evaluations (grants, contracts,)
• Review results
• Make recommendations

26
Potential TCD Evaluation Methodologies

• Accept Other Research
• Analytical Study
• Lab. Study, Prototyping Eval.
• Low-fidelity or Part-task Simulation

27
Potential TCD Evaluation Methodologies

• Driver-in-the-Loop Simulation
• Field Study

28
Advantages

• Systematic approach
• Quicker response to state and local needs to
  new technology
• Potential to examine multiple TCDs for same
  problem
• Reduced burden on state and local agencies
• Potential time reduction to final approval
• Improved compliance with MUTCD?

29
Timeline

• May 02 -- Pooled Fund solicitations distributed
• Jan. 03 PFS officially established
• states obligate
• draft charter operating procedures
• new members continue to sign up
• Spring 03 1st meeting of members
• discuss/adopt charter processes
• select initial projects

30
PROPOSEDInterim Approval Process

• Proposed in MUTCD Revision No. 2
  (Fed. Register 5/21/02)
• Addition to Section 1A.10
• Final Rule Fall 2003

31
PROPOSEDInterim Approval Process

• Authority for FHWA to give interim approvals
• After evaluations decision to propose for next
  MUTCD revision
• Allows use while formal MUTCD rulemaking is
  initiated and proceeds
• Without further experimentation or paperwork

32
Future Review Process Concept
Local/State TCD idea identification
No activity or use Experimt. Process
No
Accept other research
Yes
Results
Yes
No activity
No
() PROPOSED
33
PROPOSEDInterim Approval Process

• Small risk to jurisdictions
• if Final Rule is different from proposed MUTCD
  revision
• but
• Quicker implementation of good new TCDs

34
(No Transcript)