TEO Signal Committee Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 3/22/2013 Water s Edge Conference Rm 176 Meeting Time: 9:00am Noon

TEO Signal Committee Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 3/22/2013 Water s Edge Conference Rm 176 Meeting Time: 9:00am Noon Meeting Attendees: Kile Holm Sue Zarling Ben Osemanam Peter Skweres Linda Heath Ed Andrajack Tim Bangsund Robin DeLage Mike Posch Jesse Knox Tod Becker Chris Bosak Clint McCullough Alex Govrik Jeff Knofczynski Jerry Kotzenmacher Roger Peterson Old Business- 1. ADA Pedestrian Accommodations Ped station redesign Alex is leading effort for the new design. Several designs have been found or submitted. All new designs are bolt to sidewalk with a breakaway base. Committee will meet and give recommendations in the near future. APS operations MnDOT subcommittee met. Recommendations and meeting minutes of this group are attached to these meeting minutes. The recommendations will be presented to a subcommittee of the NCITE Intersection Traffic Control Committee for uniform statewide APS operation. Fading Signs There is an issue with Polara APS information signs attached to the buttons fading prematurely. Each district must determine if they have any of these signs. If the district determines signs at an intersection have faded prematurely the original order form must be retrieved so the correct replacement signs can be ordered. Districts must have this information to OTST by September 15, 2013. OTST is looking into having prematurely fading signs replaced by Polara at no cost to the Department however MnDOT must supply the labor for sign replacement. It was suggested that we consider replacing all of the signs even if they don t exhibit the premature fading as the signs are only expected to have a field life of 5 years. No decision was made in regards to complete sign replacement. It is unlikely that the manufacturer will replace all of the signs statewide at no cost Field issues There appears to be problems related to one of the approved APS brands. Not sure if weather related or other problems. 2. Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) Metro and OTST met in March to review the FYA retrofit process. Cost sharing has been better defined. Meeting minutes of this meeting Page 1 of 13

are attached and can be used as a guide for defining cost sharing with other agencies. A new retro fit worksheet is now on the OTST web site. Use this worksheet to help in your estimating cost for any FYA retrofit. Cost splits were questioned and it was said that it really depends on who initiates the request similar to other signal changes. 3. Cabinet/Controller Committee Update - Existing out of flash. New language in the MNMUTCD 4D.31 requires a 6 second all red after any all red flash. Mainline greens then come up after this 6 second all red. A cabinet modification (adding a wire from local flash to MMU input local flash) and a MMU software update will need to be incorporated to update cabinet. These revisions will force the controller into a restart when taking an intersection out of police panel flash. Controller start up programming will need to be reviewed to ensure the intersection will start up in accordance with 4D.31. MMU to MMU2 NEMA has a new standard for a MMU2 to address the flashing yellow arrow. All MMUs purchased for new cabinets will be MMU2 compliant. The MMU2 now supports 4 different ways of doing FYA and incorporates the new flash start up requirements. We discussed retrofitting in place intersections but no decision was reached. Voyage controller software. Approval has been given to use the Voyage software in Moorhead. This controller software has additional preemption functionality that the current controller brands we use lack. A key feature of the software is it uses a timer to determine which approach has been waiting the longest, then serves this approach (before others in sequence) when a threshold has been reached. It is the same software being used on the T.H. 55 in Minneapolis. This software will be placed into the E-Pac 50 controller. There is no plan to use this software other than Moorhead at this time. Econolite Software We currently call for version 2.51 software for the ASC/3. New Business 1. Hinged Mast Arm It was determined that we should create a standard plate for a hinged mast arm. 2. Excel un-metered Service for Street Lights Excel Energy will no longer service unmetered luminaires on new traffic signals. They will continue to honor all existing contracts for service of existing un-metered luminaires. All new signal design should not have luminaires that are un-metered. 3. 5 section Cluster adaptor Page 2 of 13

The original cluster head adaptor had some dimensional issues. All of these issues have been corrected. There is a mounting issue when the cluster head assembly is used on the pole mounted on the 90 hub. The background shield hits the pole limiting the adjustability of the indications. If a signal designer is doing a plan where this type of head is required on a corner the designer should consider placing the pole the full 10 feet behind the curb line and using the 0 hub for the cluster head assembly only. Since the meeting we have worked with the manufacturer to resolve the mounting issue using the 90 hub. The use of a 3.5 inch schedule 80 stainless steel nipple for this mounting may address this problem. This approach has not yet been tested or MnDOT approved yet. 4. Capturing GPS Coordinates do all districts capture GPS coordinates for signal systems? Not all districts collect this information. Those that do are not sure what to do with the information they do collect. Sue Zarling will work with MnDOT s GIS warehouse to have this data incorporated into the statewide system. It is strongly encouraged that each district include the GPS verbiage in special provisions and capture the GPS coordinates for each newly installed traffic signal system. 5. D7 GIS info by Contractors Tod brought up the point that when they have required the contractor to collect GPS coordinates in their district it has been very expensive. It has been cheaper to subcontract the work out after the fact. They also have a local technical college collecting GPS data as a class project. This would be a good idea for others to look into. Pedestrian Signal Motion Activated Tod mentioned that they installed a system 5 years ago at a campground. They are ordering more motion activated sensors for a current project. Round Robin: Pedestrian Coordinator Melissa Barnes is the new Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator in OTST. She will help better define pedestrian issues such acceptable signs for crosswalks among other things. Jerry COBALT is a new controller Econolite is putting out to better handle railroad issues. It is also and Advanced Traffic Controller (ATC) which allows it to take other controller manufacturers software. Jerry Still working on TEM update including RR operation and design issues. Next Meeting Friday July 17th, 9:00am 12:00, Room 176 W.E - Send agenda items to Jerry K. Page 3 of 13

Attachment - FYA Retrofit Process Meeting Materials February 27, 2013 1:00 to 3:00 pm RTMC Tour Room Current FYA Retrofit Process A. Candidates for FYA Retrofits - Lots of requests have been received from citizens and cities - Most requests to reduce delay, although some have been to increase safety - Signal Optimization will prioritize candidates and retain prioritized list - Higher-ranking candidates will typically be lower cost (hopefully no cabinet replacement) and higher benefit (24 hour a day permissive operation with coordination inplace) B. FYA Retrofit Assessment Form (Cost Estimate based on Contractor doing work) 1) Signal Optimization sends Assessment Form to Signal Design 2) Signal Design sends Assessment Form to Jesse 3) Jesse sends Assessment Form to Bangsund C. TE Requests Written with Negotiated Cost Participation Examples so far: - Metro writes TE Request with Job Number TMETRO and Function 3 Number TMETRO (safety improvement was paid by MnDOT 100%) - Metro writes TE Request with Job Number TMETRO for 3-way deal with City providing contractor labor, and County providing heads - Metro writes TE Request with Job Number? for Non-FYA Signal Revision Construction Projects that make sense to have FYA installed as part of revision D. Work Completed By ESS and/or Contractor - In general, most parts and labor has not been charged with the TE Request Number which makes it impossible to the determine actual costs of FYA retrofit E. As-Builts updated - Cabinet Print Revision - ESS - Intersection Layout/Wiring Diagram Revision Signal Design F. BEAC (Bangsund Estimate of Actual Costs) after FYA Retrofit is Installed Page 4 of 13

- Need to compare Actual vs. Estimated costs to determine improvements needed for FYA Retrofit Assessment Form Cost Participation Policy and Installation Process Options Cost-Participation Policy for Signal Revisions: - Maryanne will require cost-participation by ownership of legs for signal revisions such as phasing changes - However, if there is external grant or program money for a metro-wide job, MnDOT could elect to pay for the whole thing - ADA projects have been determined to be paid for fully by MnDOT due to legal concerns for not installing this improvement. - Assumed MnDOT could pay 100% of cost if it was determined that FYA was needed to address a safety concern - Assumed City or County could pay 100% of cost if MnDOT didn t have available funds for its cost-share by leg City and County Payment Options: A. State Aid Funds - City could pay for a signal revision out of their State Aid Funds - State Aid could be Cooperative Agreement Money (competitive), or it could be out of their allotment of State Aid dollars - Federal aid dollars are sometimes available if they want to encourage a specific type of revision and the project cost would be 80% federal and the remaining 20% divided by leg. B. Local Funds - City could elect to pay for a signal revision using local funds C. Unusual Pots of Money - CIMS competitive solicitation D. City/County and MnDOT Contribution Deals (if we would allow this) - City or County could offer to purchase materials (heads, controllers, etc) or hire a contractor to do installation of wiring and heads MnDOT Payment Options: A. TMETRO Fund - a charge number for Metro s allocation of CO Materials (8500) Fund and the purpose of this fund is for non-project related maintenance. - Past TE Requests have used TMETRO in the Function 3 Number (which is supposed to reference a construction project or city/county agreement for reimbursable work) as well as the Job Number Page 5 of 13

- Question as to whether a signal improvement/upgrade such as a FYA retrofit should be paid for out of a maintenance fund such as TMETRO - TMETRO will not be charged if equipment is coded as RFS (Remove From Service) B. Other Funds - Cooperative Agreement dollars - Special funds from CO or elsewhere that is assigned to FYA Retrofits - Other ideas? C. City/County and MnDOT Contribution Deals (if we would allow this) - MnDOT could supply materials (heads, controllers, etc) or labor from Signal Design, HSTs for head installations, or ETs for cabinet modification, however, there still is a question over whether any TMETRO fund money should be used Installation Process Options: A. Construction Project by Contractor (with ESS cabinet modification) 1. Locally-initiated (often done by permit) or, 2. MnDOT-initiated B. ESS Installation 1. TE Request with cost-participation by locals via reimbursable master agreement or, 2. TE Request with MnDOT 100% payment to address safety concern C. Non-FYA Signal Revision Construction Projects that incur additional costs due to FYA: - A signal may need to be modified due to a new development or geometric improvement, and incorporating a FYA upgrade would make sense during this project even though it may result in additional project costs to the project funder. Questions and Ideas for Improvement of Cost Participation Policy and Installation Process Options 1. Should we establish that the Cost Participation Policy be the same as signal revisions where it would be distributed by ownership of legs? Propose Yes. 2. If MnDOT receives a pot of money for FYA Retrofits, would the Cost Participation Policy still apply? Propose Yes. 3. If a City or County didn t want to pay their portion of the cost, would we just move down to the next signal on the priority list with a City or County who agreed to pay their share of the cost? Propose Yes. 4. Would MnDOT agree to contribute ESS cabinet modifications if a City or County agreed to pay 100% of the costs for the FYA Retrofit due to a lack of MnDOT funds for the state share (due to low priority or otherwise)? Propose Yes. Page 6 of 13

5. Would MnDOT pay 100% if City or County didn t want to pay, but we felt that adding a FYA head was needed for safety reasons? Propose Yes. 6. How will the Cost Participation work when there is a development that requires a signal modification (heads could be added or modified without FYA), but the developer doesn t want to pay the extra cost to replace the whole cabinet for a FYA head instead of a traditional head? 7. What would we do when there is a County or City-led project that requires a signal modification (heads could be added or modified without FYA), but the County or City doesn t want to pay the extra cost to replace the whole cabinet for a FYA head instead of a traditional head? 8. If MnDOT receives a pot of money for FYA Retrofits, where would that money be deposited (TMETRO or another fund), or would charge numbers be supplied that could be used to charge against for FYA Retrofits? 9. Would deals be allowed (such as supplying heads, controller equipment, or an electrical contractor) to cover a city or county contribution? Would a City or County want to do this to avoid MnDOTs overhead costs? 10. Assuming we want to allow deals, will the ESS cabinet-modification tasks, Signal Design s assessment and as-built tasks, and Signal Operations controller set-up tasks be counted as MnDOT s contribution? 11. Assuming we want to allow deals, should we purchase extra ASC3 controllers, 4-section heads, and FYA signs to have them available to cover our contributions assuming it s easier to get funds for these items? 12. Should Mike Gerbensky be established as the lead person to explain the Cost Participation Policy to Cities and Counties, and negotiate the process and deals, if allowed? If so, Mike would then document the cost-share, and process and work with Tim Bangsund to make sure the TE Request is written with the proper cost-share and process that was agreed to by the City or County. 13. Would we rather Mike push for the Construction Project Installation Process (with ESS cabinet modification) or the ESS Installation Process? In a Construction Project Installation Process, would a Signal Design consultant take care of the Signal Design portion of the Assessment Process? Questions and Ideas for Improvement of FYA Retrofit Process and Form 1. What changes are needed to the current Assessment Form that was developed for the Construction Project Process? - Nicole has clarified Section 3 for Wiring and Conduit. Page 7 of 13

2. Should we develop a new Assessment Form to cover the ESS Installation Process and if so, what changes are needed to the Construction Project Form? - Need to add spot for ordering FYA sign - Need to have ESS sign-off on decision by Signal Design in terms of modifying individual indications on an existing head to create a FYA head (section 2C), or installing a brandnew FYA head (section 2B). 3. Should we require that both ETs and HSTs track all labor and materials with the TE Request number so we can get an approximate actual costs after it is implemented? Would it make sense to create a damage report so more details about the cost can be tallied? 4. Need Nicole to develop new BEAC form to compare Actual vs. Estimated Costs for both the Construction Process Form and the ESS Installation Process Form. The BEAC forms will have a spot for Tim to verify that the Intersection Layout as-built has been updated in Georilla shortly after installation given the dramatic phasing change to the signal. 5. Should the cabinet be modified in the field vs. modifying at ESS and replacing the cabinet in the field? The number of hours for HSTs, Laborers, Mileage, etc is high for replacing the cabinet in the field and it appears it would be more efficient to modify in the field. 6. Should spares be allowed to be used for this type of signal upgrade/improvement, or should it be requested that new wires are pulled (especially if Construction Process is used) so that spares can be retained for emergency maintenance needs in future? 7. Should we incorporate FYA Retrofit Standards into both Assessment Forms to give better guidance, especially in Signal Design section? Some ideas for FYA Retrofit Standards could include: - 5-foot extensions are okay (according to Bridge) - 2 loop detectors are allowed (on mainline or recall phase) - 1 mast-arm head for double-lefts is okay - Are median pestal FYA heads okay, and if so, what do you do about a FYA sign? Just forget about it? 8. Is there a way to get a rough-estimate of a Retrofit cost without doing a full-blown Assessment Form? Is there a cut-off age of a cabinet where it absolutely needs to be replaced in order to install FYA heads on even just one or two approaches? 9. Should we propose that full-blown FYA Assessment Forms only be done if there is a costshare agreement and a high-likelihood that the FYA Retrofit will actually take place? Propose Yes. Also, propose that we make clear that FYA Assessment Forms are very time-consuming to fill out and we will not do it frivolously. Also, propose that we (and MnDOT managers) try to downplay MnDOT s ability to implement FYA Retrofits due to the limitations on MnDOT s internal staff time. 10. Any other questions or ideas for improvement? Page 8 of 13

Attachment APS Operations Meeting 1 23 2013 Attendees: Todd Grugel Dan Truhler Pete Ellwanger Marty Carlson Alex Govrik Bob Olson Mike Dittle Ron Chistopherson Peter Skweres Jesse Knox Tony Kasper Sue Zarling Jerry Kotzenmacher This committee was established after discussion with the NCITE Intersection Traffic Control Committee stating that MnDOT felt it was important to establish Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) operating standards that would be utilized by agencies across Minnesota to create consistency for users. After internal MnDOT discussion the intent is to meet with local agencies and develop a standard to be used by all agencies. Currently, there are two APS buttons on the MnDOT Approved Products list. (Polara Engineering, distributed by Brown Traffic and Campbell Company, distributed by Traffic Control Corp.) One issue with making recommended operational practices is one product may offer a feature that another manufacturer does not. We do not want to require an operation that one of the products on the APL currently does not offer. This will require a certain amount of shop testing to assure that we do not make operational recommendations that one product can t currently provide. Operational practices standard per the MnMUTCD and FHWA guidance: Speech messages will be used during the walk indication when the pedestrian buttons are less than 10 apart. If more than 10 apart, the audible walk indication shall be a percussive tone. Speech walk messages and the percussive tone walk indication can be used on different buttons at the same intersection during the walk interval. Page 9 of 13

An audible countdown during the ped clearance interval will not be used. Per the MnMUTCD. Following the audible walk indication, accessible pedestrian signals shall revert to the pushbutton locator tone during the pedestrian change interval. Length of extended push time to activate function shall be 2 seconds Preliminary operational practices the committee recommends: Speech message on initial button push at times when the walk interval is not timing shall be wait. No direction such as North will be used. Manufacturer specific APS Programming sheet should be in all cabinets, with current program. Extended push will not extend time for the walk clearance because: 1. It will create issues for countdown ped indications. 2. Shorter signal coordination cycles could not accommodate additional ped time 3. Additional components in the traffic signal cabinet would be required.(wiring) First push or actuation: First push will send a speech message wait. Will repeat wait every 6 seconds until the call is serviced. LED confirmation light will turn on and remain on to confirm call has been placed until the pedestrian phase is serviced. *Shall have confirmation of button activation (push) via sound and vibrotactile bounce. This was not discussed at the meeting but is clearly functions we want. Without sound and vibrotactile confirmation of a call, its difficult to know a call is in without sight confirmation of the LED. Extended push or actuation (2 second actuation minimum): Speech message something like the following: Wait to cross Elm Street at Ford Parkway Complete message would play once and then the button would resume stating wait. LED confirmation light will turn on and remain on to confirm call has been placed until the pedestrian phase is serviced. Walk Time functions with pedestrian buttons with 10 feet or more separation on a specific corner: The tactile button will vibrate and give rapid tick sound during the walk Interval. Page 10 of 13

Once walk time has expired, the APS button will resume emitting the locator tone. If rest in walk is used the accessible walk indication should be limited to the first 7 seconds of the walk interval. The button would then go to the locator tone and can be recalled by a button press during the walk interval. Walk Time functions with pedestrian buttons with less than 10 feet of separation on a specific corner: The tactile button will vibrate and give a speech message sound during the walk Interval. The message shall be as follows: Elm Street. Walk sign is on to cross Elm Street Once walk time has expired, the APS button will resume emitting the locator tone. Walk Clearance functions: No count down Locator tone should be on If a call is placed during walk clear, a speech wait should be given. Preemption functions: Committee recommended not using the preemption audible function within the APS devices. May create confusion. ESU will shop test each unit to assure the functionality of each. Since the meeting Ron has shop tested the two side by side and has the following information: Functional Question Can the Pause between WAIT messages be 6 seconds? What does the button do when pushing it during Don t Walk state? Can the EXTENDED PUSH feature be set to 2 seconds? Expected Results We want 6 seconds between WAIT messages. Should go back to WAIT message, display LED call & vib-click button. MUT requires at least 2 seconds. ADA button standards setup test Campbell Assessment Yes. Set for 0 to 16 seconds by 1 second increments. Zero value = no WAIT message used. Button acts just like column specifies. Yes. Extended push values go from 1 to 10 seconds by 1 Polara 1 st Generation Assessment Yes. Wait message set for standard push & extended push of 4, 6, 8, 10 seconds. Button acts just like column states. Yes. Extended push goes from 1 second to 6 seconds by ½ Polara Ethernet Generation Assessment Yes. Wait message set for standard push & extended push of 4, 6, 8, 10 seconds. Button acts just like column states Yes. Extended push goes from 1 second to 6 seconds by ½ Page 11 of 13

Does EXTENDED PUSH allow for street name & direction messages Are Rapid Tick message sounds similar between buttons? What does the WALK Rapid Percussion sound do during a constant/long walk when set for continuous for WALK setting? What does the button do when pushed (IE sound, feel and visual indicators)? Does WAIT message start again if pushing button during Don t Walk? What DIRECTION messages area available (in case we decide to use them). What happens when pushing button during WALK cycle? We want street messages but don t need direction. Should be similar. We expect it to time out after a period both sound and vibrate. We need audio message (WAIT), button vib-click & indicator light. The WAIT message should restart, button vibclick & indicator should activate. We want 8 directions available. Nothing should happen. second increments. second increments. second increments. Yes. Extended push Yes, extended push Yes, extended push can have any works like expected works like expected message added (or results state. Need results state. Need ordered) via WAV street name ordered street name added file format. (or ordered). Rapid tick sounds like wood dowels tapping together. Vendor can supply any sounds we wish to better match up. Walk percussion only sets to specific time values & stops after timing out or the WALK ending. Button acts as column states. Button vibe is a pager vibrator motor. Yes, button acts as state. No canned messages. All added as per order sheets. Walk button starts vibrating again and WALK percussion starts over. Both end as WALK terminates. No percussion sound available as it is removed for addition of custom message sounds. No percussion sound. Custom message does end after 3 plays with FULL WALK selected. Button acts as column states. Button vibe is a solenoid bumping back of switch. Yes, button acts as state. North, Northeast, Northwest, East, West, South, Southeast & Southwest messages available. Nothing happens, no vib click, no call to controller, no LED lighting up but walk message does stay playing and button vibrates during walk Rapid tick sounds like snare drum or machine gun. Walk Percussion stops after 3 plays when set to FULL WALK. Otherwise time limiting values can be set. Button acts as column states. Button vibe is a solenoid bumping back of switch. Yes, button acts as state. North, Northeast, Northwest, East, West, South, Southeast & Southwest messages available Nothing happens, no vib click, no call to controller, no LED lighting up but walk message does stay playing and button vibrates during walk message time. message time. NOTE: Vib click refers to the button having a short burst of movement (pushes back) as you push in the button. This makes the button feel like it is toggling. Vibrate refers to the button actually vibrating over 1 or more seconds. Page 12 of 13

Page 13 of 13