The NUTCD recommendations to the FHWA concerning Shared Land Markings (Chevrons) can be found here: http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/sls/slmtoncjan07.pdf
Fortunately, Pittsburgh is one of the cities which has been allowed to install chevrons as a Federally approved experiment on State roads so we have a good example close to home. If you look at the NUTCD recommendations there is no mention of a requirement for signage. So I am wondering why the WV MUTCD committee thinks this is necessary? Also, if you look at the MUTCD site, http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/natl_adopt_2000_2003.htm , you will observe that WV accepted all the MUTCD except for part 6 "Temporary Traffic Control." The MUTCD, itself, recommends that signage not be overused in relation to road markings. WV DOH should be looking at what Pittsburgh is doing and what the NUTCD recommends, in fact, in WV's own TEP (Traffic Engineering Directive) at http://www.wvdot.com/engineering/Manuals/Traffic/TED/TED210.pdf it says "It should be emphasized that it is not the intent of such signing to convey the message that the roadway contains any feature, exclusive lane, or other characteristic specifically designed to accommodate a pedestrian, horse, or bicycle."
-Jonathan
Jonathan,
Thanks for the links. I would not recommend Pgh as a model for SLMs. Firstly, in Lawrenceville, they violated the MUTCD by putting them in bike lanes which the MUTCD explicitly prohibits. Secondly, they put the SLMs in a bike lane in the door zone on a down hill on which cyclists can easily reach 40 mph. Putting the bike lane in the door zone not only practically ensures that some cyclist will get doored but also, the parked cars obstruct merging motorists' vision of the cyclist. I was walking along that travesty for just 20 minutes when I saw a motorist pull out in front of a cyclist travelling at a good pace down the hill. Two things kept the cyclist from colliding with the car: his remarkable skill and the fact that the motorist never even new he was there so didn't do anything unpredictable that could have foiled the cyclist's skillful braking and sliding. I saw an announcement that next Wednesday (I think. I deleted the message.) there's a meeting in Pgh to assess survey data that they collected about the bike lanes. I might add that they did apply the SLM's somewhat appropriately in Bloomfield.
Frank
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
The NUTCD recommendations to the FHWA concerning Shared Land Markings (Chevrons) can be found here: http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/sls/slmtoncjan07.pdf
Fortunately, Pittsburgh is one of the cities which has been allowed to install chevrons as a Federally approved experiment on State roads so we have a good example close to home. If you look at the NUTCD recommendations there is no mention of a requirement for signage. So I am wondering why the WV MUTCD committee thinks this is necessary? Also, if you look at the MUTCD site, http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/natl_adopt_2000_2003.htm , you will observe that WV accepted all the MUTCD except for part 6 "Temporary Traffic Control." The MUTCD, itself, recommends that signage not be overused in relation to road markings. WV DOH should be looking at what Pittsburgh is doing and what the NUTCD recommends, in fact, in WV's own TEP (Traffic Engineering Directive) at http://www.wvdot.com/engineering/Manuals/Traffic/TED/TED210.pdf it says "It should be emphasized that it is not the intent of such signing to convey the message that the roadway contains any feature, exclusive lane, or other characteristic specifically designed to accommodate a pedestrian, horse, or bicycle."
-Jonathan
Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
Thanks, Jonathan and Frank, for this helpful exchange.
Jonathan: Can you find the citation in the MUTCD where is says "The MUTCD, itself, recommends that signage not be overused in relation to road markings?" That is very important to our response. I could not find it on your links.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On Behalf Of Frank Gmeindl Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:23 PM To: Jonathan Rosenbaum Cc: Bicycle Board Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] NUTCD Chevron recommendations
Jonathan,
Thanks for the links. I would not recommend Pgh as a model for SLMs. Firstly, in Lawrenceville, they violated the MUTCD by putting them in bike lanes which the MUTCD explicitly prohibits. Secondly, they put the SLMs in a bike lane in the door zone on a down hill on which cyclists can easily reach 40 mph. Putting the bike lane in the door zone not only practically ensures that some cyclist will get doored but also, the parked cars obstruct merging motorists' vision of the cyclist. I was walking along that travesty for just 20 minutes when I saw a motorist pull out in front of a cyclist travelling at a good pace down the hill. Two things kept the cyclist from colliding with the car: his remarkable skill and the fact that the motorist never even new he was there so didn't do anything unpredictable that could have foiled the cyclist's skillful braking and sliding. I saw an announcement that next Wednesday (I think. I deleted the message.) there's a meeting in Pgh to assess survey data that they collected about the bike lanes. I might add that they did apply the SLM's somewhat appropriately in Bloomfield.
Frank
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
The NUTCD recommendations to the FHWA concerning Shared Land Markings (Chevrons) can be found here: http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/sls/slmtoncjan07.pdf
Fortunately, Pittsburgh is one of the cities which has been allowed to install chevrons as a Federally approved experiment on State roads so we have a good example close to home. If you look at the NUTCD recommendations there is no mention of a requirement for signage. So I am wondering why the WV MUTCD committee thinks this is necessary? Also, if you look at the MUTCD site, http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/natl_adopt_2000_2003.htm , you will observe that WV accepted all the MUTCD except for part 6 "Temporary Traffic Control." The MUTCD, itself, recommends that signage not be overused in relation to road markings. WV DOH should be looking at what Pittsburgh is doing and what the NUTCD recommends, in fact, in WV's own TEP (Traffic Engineering Directive) at http://www.wvdot.com/engineering/Manuals/Traffic/TED/TED210.pdf it says "It should be emphasized that it is not the intent of such signing to convey the message that the roadway contains any feature, exclusive lane, or other characteristic specifically designed to accommodate a pedestrian, horse, or bicycle."
-Jonathan
Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
_______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
Hi Don, I am making an inference based on the fact that SLMs are now experimental and not included in Chapter 9 "Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities" (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1/Ch9.pdf) of the MUTCD. If you look at section 9C.04 "Markings for Bicycle Lanes" it says under Standard:
"If the word or symbol pavement markings shown in Figure 9C-6 are used, Bicycle Lane signs (see Section 9B.04) shall also be used, but the signs need not be adjacent to every symbol to avoid overuse of the signs."
Since Bicycle Lanes are presently the closest thing to SLMs in Ch. 9, this section can be used as an appropriate argument that the MUTCD would "probably" recommend to avoid overuse of signs in relation to SLMs when and if they become part of the MUTCD. I think the Engineers in Charleston are thinking more along the lines of Bicycle Routes. This is a completely different thing, in fact, these are the signs that you mentioned at the last meeting when we were listing our goals and you pointed out how Bicycle Route signs used to exist here in Morgantown. In that case, regular interval of signs are recommended in the MUTCD.
-Jonathan
Don Spencer wrote:
Thanks, Jonathan and Frank, for this helpful exchange.
Jonathan: Can you find the citation in the MUTCD where is says "The MUTCD, itself, recommends that signage not be overused in relation to road markings?" That is very important to our response. I could not find it on your links.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On Behalf Of Frank Gmeindl Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:23 PM To: Jonathan Rosenbaum Cc: Bicycle Board Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] NUTCD Chevron recommendations
Jonathan,
Thanks for the links. I would not recommend Pgh as a model for SLMs. Firstly, in Lawrenceville, they violated the MUTCD by putting them in bike lanes which the MUTCD explicitly prohibits. Secondly, they put the SLMs in a bike lane in the door zone on a down hill on which cyclists can easily reach 40 mph. Putting the bike lane in the door zone not only practically ensures that some cyclist will get doored but also, the parked cars obstruct merging motorists' vision of the cyclist. I was walking along that travesty for just 20 minutes when I saw a motorist pull out in front of a cyclist travelling at a good pace down the hill. Two things kept the cyclist from colliding with the car: his remarkable skill and the fact that the motorist never even new he was there so didn't do anything unpredictable that could have foiled the cyclist's skillful braking and sliding. I saw an announcement that next Wednesday (I think. I deleted the message.) there's a meeting in Pgh to assess survey data that they collected about the bike lanes. I might add that they did apply the SLM's somewhat appropriately in Bloomfield.
Frank
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
The NUTCD recommendations to the FHWA concerning Shared Land Markings (Chevrons) can be found here: http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/sls/slmtoncjan07.pdf
Fortunately, Pittsburgh is one of the cities which has been allowed to install chevrons as a Federally approved experiment on State roads so we have a good example close to home. If you look at the NUTCD recommendations there is no mention of a requirement for signage. So I am wondering why the WV MUTCD committee thinks this is necessary? Also, if you look at the MUTCD site, http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/natl_adopt_2000_2003.htm , you will observe that WV accepted all the MUTCD except for part 6 "Temporary Traffic Control." The MUTCD, itself, recommends that signage not be overused in relation to road markings. WV DOH should be looking at what Pittsburgh is doing and what the NUTCD recommends, in fact, in WV's own TEP (Traffic Engineering Directive) at http://www.wvdot.com/engineering/Manuals/Traffic/TED/TED210.pdf it says "It should be emphasized that it is not the intent of such signing to convey the message that the roadway contains any feature, exclusive lane, or other characteristic specifically designed to accommodate a pedestrian, horse, or bicycle."
-Jonathan
Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
Jonathan - Unfortunately the sentence which you refer to has been deleted from the new proposed MUTCD text. I will include the sentiment in the draft of the letter that I am working on. Thank you again for calling it to our attention.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Rosenbaum [mailto:freesource@cheat.org] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 12:24 AM To: Don Spencer Cc: 'Frank Gmeindl'; 'Bicycle Board' Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] NUTCD Chevron recommendations
Hi Don, I am making an inference based on the fact that SLMs are now experimental and not included in Chapter 9 "Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities" (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1/Ch9.pdf) of the MUTCD. If you look at section 9C.04 "Markings for Bicycle Lanes" it says under Standard:
"If the word or symbol pavement markings shown in Figure 9C-6 are used, Bicycle Lane signs (see Section 9B.04) shall also be used, but the signs need not be adjacent to every symbol to avoid overuse of the signs."
Since Bicycle Lanes are presently the closest thing to SLMs in Ch. 9, this section can be used as an appropriate argument that the MUTCD would "probably" recommend to avoid overuse of signs in relation to SLMs when and if they become part of the MUTCD. I think the Engineers in Charleston are thinking more along the lines of Bicycle Routes. This is a completely different thing, in fact, these are the signs that you mentioned at the last meeting when we were listing our goals and you pointed out how Bicycle Route signs used to exist here in Morgantown. In that case, regular interval of signs are recommended in the MUTCD.
-Jonathan
Don Spencer wrote:
Thanks, Jonathan and Frank, for this helpful exchange.
Jonathan: Can you find the citation in the MUTCD where is says "The MUTCD, itself, recommends that signage not be overused in relation to road markings?" That is very important to our response. I could not find it on your links.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On Behalf Of Frank Gmeindl Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:23 PM To: Jonathan Rosenbaum Cc: Bicycle Board Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] NUTCD Chevron recommendations
Jonathan,
Thanks for the links. I would not recommend Pgh as a model for SLMs. Firstly, in Lawrenceville, they violated the MUTCD by putting them in bike lanes which the MUTCD explicitly prohibits. Secondly, they put the SLMs in a bike lane in the door zone on a down hill on which cyclists can easily reach 40 mph. Putting the bike lane in the door zone not only practically ensures that some cyclist will get doored but also, the parked cars obstruct merging motorists' vision of the cyclist. I was walking along that travesty for just 20 minutes when I saw a motorist pull out in front of a cyclist travelling at a good pace down the hill. Two things kept the cyclist from colliding with the car: his remarkable skill and the fact that the motorist never even new he was there so didn't do anything unpredictable that could have foiled the cyclist's skillful braking and sliding. I saw an announcement that next Wednesday (I think. I deleted the message.) there's a meeting in Pgh to assess survey data that they collected about the bike lanes. I might add that they did apply the SLM's somewhat appropriately in Bloomfield.
Frank
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
The NUTCD recommendations to the FHWA concerning Shared Land Markings (Chevrons) can be found here: http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/sls/slmtoncjan07.pdf
Fortunately, Pittsburgh is one of the cities which has been allowed to install chevrons as a Federally approved experiment on State roads so we have a good example close to home. If you look at the NUTCD recommendations there is no mention of a requirement for signage. So I am wondering why the WV MUTCD committee thinks this is necessary? Also, if you look at the MUTCD site, http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/natl_adopt_2000_2003.htm , you will observe that WV accepted all the MUTCD except for part 6 "Temporary Traffic Control." The MUTCD, itself, recommends that signage not be overused in relation to road markings. WV DOH should be looking at what Pittsburgh is doing and what the NUTCD recommends, in fact, in WV's own TEP (Traffic Engineering Directive) at http://www.wvdot.com/engineering/Manuals/Traffic/TED/TED210.pdf it says "It should be emphasized that it is not the intent of such signing to convey the message that the roadway contains any feature, exclusive lane, or other characteristic specifically designed to accommodate a pedestrian, horse, or bicycle."
-Jonathan
Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
Yes, thanks Jonathan and Frank for being on top of this. I am still inundated at work and barely treading water, so it is good that you have jumped on this. My situation should improve soon.
Greg
"Don Spencer" dspencer36@comcast.net 03/13/08 11:25 PM >>>
Thanks, Jonathan and Frank, for this helpful exchange.
Jonathan: Can you find the citation in the MUTCD where is says "The MUTCD, itself, recommends that signage not be overused in relation to road markings?" That is very important to our response. I could not find it on your links.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On Behalf Of Frank Gmeindl Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:23 PM To: Jonathan Rosenbaum Cc: Bicycle Board Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] NUTCD Chevron recommendations
Jonathan,
Thanks for the links. I would not recommend Pgh as a model for SLMs. Firstly, in Lawrenceville, they violated the MUTCD by putting them in bike lanes which the MUTCD explicitly prohibits. Secondly, they put the SLMs in a bike lane in the door zone on a down hill on which cyclists can easily reach 40 mph. Putting the bike lane in the door zone not only practically ensures that some cyclist will get doored but also, the parked cars obstruct merging motorists' vision of the cyclist. I was walking along that travesty for just 20 minutes when I saw a motorist pull out in front of a cyclist travelling at a good pace down the hill. Two things kept the cyclist from colliding with the car: his remarkable skill and the fact that the motorist never even new he was there so didn't do anything unpredictable that could have foiled the cyclist's skillful braking and sliding. I saw an announcement that next Wednesday (I think. I deleted the message.) there's a meeting in Pgh to assess survey data that they collected about the bike lanes. I might add that they did apply the SLM's somewhat appropriately in Bloomfield.
Frank
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
The NUTCD recommendations to the FHWA concerning Shared Land Markings (Chevrons) can be found here: http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/sls/slmtoncjan07.pdf
Fortunately, Pittsburgh is one of the cities which has been allowed to install chevrons as a Federally approved experiment on State roads so we have a good example close to home. If you look at the NUTCD recommendations there is no mention of a requirement for signage. So I am wondering why the WV MUTCD committee thinks this is necessary? Also, if you look at the MUTCD site, http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/natl_adopt_2000_2003.htm , you will observe that WV accepted all the MUTCD except for part 6 "Temporary Traffic Control." The MUTCD, itself, recommends that signage not be overused in relation to road markings. WV DOH should be looking at what Pittsburgh is doing and what the NUTCD recommends, in fact, in WV's own TEP (Traffic Engineering Directive) at http://www.wvdot.com/engineering/Manuals/Traffic/TED/TED210.pdf it says "It should be emphasized that it is not the intent of such signing to convey the message that the roadway contains any feature, exclusive lane, or other characteristic specifically designed to accommodate a pedestrian, horse, or bicycle."
-Jonathan
Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
_______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
-
Don Spencer -
Frank Gmeindl -
Greg Good -
Jonathan Rosenbaum