TEO Work Zone Safety Committee Meeting January 25, 2006 Minutes

Transcription

1 January 25, 2006 Page 1 of 5 TEO Work Zone Safety Committee Meeting January 25, 2006 Minutes Committee Members Present: Oliver Kendall, District 4 Mike Engh, Metro Sue Lorentz, Metro Ken Nelson, CO Maintenance Bill Servatius, CO Construction Ken Wenkel, District 7 Dave Buss, District 3 Jeff Rieder, District 6 Jim Miles, District 1 Craig Mittelstadt, CO Construction Jon Jackels, CO Traffic Guests: Jeff Perkins, D4 Construction Steve Kordosky, Metro Construction Pat Faltersack, Metro Maintenance Note: Committee members, please review the minutes and report corrections to Marv Sohlo Channelizing Devices There were detailed discussions regarding the applications of various channelizing devices on construction and maintenance operations. Details contained in the handout (attached) were discussed and revisions and additions were made. There was a discussion on who would decide which type of channelizer was to be used. It was decided that the specific Type (A or B) and/or the specific channelizer (drum, cone, weighted channelizer, tubular marker, etc.) would be specified for all construction projects by including this information on the plan or in the special provisions. The new guideline for channelizer application guideline for Mn/DOT operations should be included in the TEM. These guidelines should be based on the following parameters: Urban or rural Duration of work (Short term, Intermediate term or long term) Type of work (surfacing, excavation, concrete repair, etc.) Traffic volumes It was decided to remove all references to 5000 ADT for the application of tubular markers for drop-off delineation.

2 January 25, 2006 Page 2 of 5 In general the new guideline will detail the channelizer applications as allowed in the MN MUTCD. There should not be a need to make any revisions to the MN MUTCD for these guidelines. However, Marv we need to check this in detail. There was a discussion regarding the use of Direction Indicator Barricades as used by night maintenance. It was determined that the use of DIB in the lane closure extension every 1000 feet or as needed would be allowed in attended work zones only. This would require modification of the MN MUTCD but is allowed in the federal MUTCD. The use of DIB in the tapers by Metro maintenance is being worked on and the final standard will be included in the new Field Manual section for night work. Night Work Section in Field Manual It was decided that a section should be added to the Field Manual detailing night work temporary traffic control. This would be based on the experiences and practices of Metro s night maintenance operations. Sue Lorentz will lead the initial effort by meeting with night maintenance workers and developing sketches of the various layouts used. Some of these will be based on recent efforts with Metro Traffic Engineering and CO Traffic Engineering. Sue will invite Marv Sohlo to these meetings. The final artwork for this section of the Field Manual will be developed by CO Traffic Engineering. Warning Lights on Devices The introduction of high performance sheeting, wet reflective pavement markings, portable changeable message signs, intelligent work zone applications, etc. has reduced the need for the application of warning lights on advance warning signs and channelizing devices. After some discussion regarding the application of warning lights the following guideline was developed: Type A flashers will be shown and used on ROAD CLOSURE advance warning signs and barricades. They will also be shown as optional red flashers on STOP signs added for short and intermediate term work zones such as on Layout 16 of the Field Manual (this may require revision to Part 6 of the MN MUTCD). Most of the layouts in the Field Manual will be modified to remove the flashers from the signs and barricades and the notes related to the flashers will be removed or modified as necessary. Marv Sohlo will make the appropriate changes to the Field Manual Layouts and Part 6 MN MUTCD section(s). TTC Plan Templet Sheets After a brief discussion it was agreed that all TEO TTC Committee members will keep Marv Sohlo informed of problems or revisions needed to the layouts. Members also

3 January 25, 2006 Page 3 of 5 agreed to assist CO Traffic Engineering by revising the layouts as needed for posting on the website. All TEO TTC Committee members will forward concerns to Marv as they are discovered. Marv will coordinate revisions and postings. Your Speed Is Signs It was decided that a separate section should be added to the tech memo detailing work zone applications. Comments regarding the use of these signs in work zones included: the signs should only be activated while working in work zones the signs can be use independently of regulatory or advisory speed sign the sign background color must be orange in a work zone signs mounted on trailers would be Category IV devices and no compliance date for crashworthiness Jeff Rieder will forward District 6 comments regarding this to Marv Sohlo. Marv will coordinate incorporation of these comments into the tech memo with the TEO Signing Committee. Field Manual 2007 Update The following is a list of discussion items and changes to the Field Manual: Flashing Arrowboards should be shown/used for all lane closures and highspeed multi-lane roadways. Layout 39 and others that show and FAB or Type III should be clarified that either a FAB OR a Type III are required. We should consider the addition of a layout for a mobile operation for the installation and maintenance of crosswalks. It would be advantageous to discuss this with city and county officials. Layout 18, remove NPZ pennant. It is in the wrong location and is not used for any other similar short/intermediate term layouts. Layout 47 generates a majority of the questions and concerns and needs some additional details including: o Remove 3G channelizer spacing o Show an option of 3 drums in place of a Type III o Show previously discussed DIB in closure with note for attended worksites only Moving Layouts should be added for: o Shouldering operations o Rumble strip installations o Profilagraph o Sweeping Mobile Layouts should be added for: o Sweeping o Coring

4 January 25, 2006 Page 4 of 5 We should eliminate any reference to 1500 ADT as low volume since the new definition is 400 ADT. The only layouts that mention 1500 ADT are the AFAD and single flagger layouts, these should remain at 1500 ADT. Should put pictures of channelizers in the Field Manual together. (Marv, I discussed your idea of putting Type A, Type B and Type C channelizers on separate drawings/tables and everyone agreed) Marv Sohlo will incorporate these comments into the revisions of the Field Manual. There was a long discussion on the use of G in the Field Manual and S in Part 6 for channelizer spacing requirements. It was agreed that spacing of channelizers in transition areas (tapers, shifts, etc.) should be based on the posted speed limit before construction and the spacing of channelizers in tangent areas be based on the posted speed limit during construction. This change would have to be incorporated into the entire Part 6 and Field Manual. Jon Jackels will prepare a detailed guideline for this application. It was also determined that channelizer spacing shown on Tables 6F-3 and 6F-4 are inconsistent with the text in Part 6 Marv Sohlo will research these and make recommendations for correction (i.e. change the table or change the text). TEM Update There was mixed reaction to not printing the TEM. In general the construction field personnel were more accepting of having the TEM on the web since they do not keep paper manuals current. The office and Traffic Engineering personnel wanted a hard copy. Ken Nelson informed the group that CO Maintenance has decided on a limited printing of the Maintenance Manual and the web or CD version distribution. Committee members thought this may be a good plan since everyday users of the TEM will probably print it anyway. Jon Jackels and Marv Sohlo will discuss this with Ken Schroepfer. Closing Cross-overs There was only one consensus regarding the closing of cross-overs and that was to install NO U-TURN signs if vehicles can readily use the cross-over. The methods that committee members thought would be used based on site specific conditions were: barrier, curb with yellow delineators, post mounted delineators or object markers, Type III barricades. It was agreed this was a designer s option. Cross-over Design Everyone agreed that guidance is needed for uniform cross over designs. This discussion was tabled until either Dave Buss or Jon Jackels can find the memo developed and published in District 3 regarding cross over design.

5 January 25, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Regulatory Speed in TLTWO It was agreed that we should encourage the use of a 60 mph temporary speed limit on all rural TLTWO. Dan Comments: In regards to the regulatory speed limit notes - you are recommending 60 MPH on TLTWO - this should have clarification that - that should be for bypass operation on a freeway only- since normal TLTWO is only 55. I would not encourage 60 MPH limits on an expressway with at grade intersections either, those should be 55. Districts will work with Dan Brannan on the authorization of a 60 mph on these projects. Future Meetings It was discussed that two meetings a year did not allow this committee to be as effective as it could and that in the near future the work load (Field Manual, TEM, etc.) would indicate meeting four times per year. The next meeting will be scheduled in late April or early May. Marv Sohlo will schedule the next meeting.