2015 TRB – Annual Meeting

Download PDF – AHB50 Meeting Agenda – January 2015

Download PDF – AHB50 Committee Meeting Minutes – January 2015

Agenda and Meeting Minutes:

TRB Committee on Traffic Control Devices
TRB Annual Meeting
January 12, 2015; 8:00 – 11:00
Minutes by Timothy Gates, Co-Chair

  1. Welcome and introductions (Carlson) – 8:05 AM
  2. Staff report (Cunard)
  • Largest meeting attendance
  • Fast broadband Wifi is freely available throughout convention center
  • Issues with papers being withdrawn from the compendium. 20% were withdrawn this year. TRB is deciding what to do (potential penalties).
  • Impact factor has increased substantially
  • App linkage to the online program hasn’t occurred yet. Problems with security with online “my program”
  • TRB midyear meeting will be held in Ann Arbor in late-July
  1. Section report (Briglia or Bertini)
  1. Paper review update (Carlson)
  • 5400 papers received TRB-wide (up from 5,200 from last year and 3,900 from 2011)
  • 48 papers assigned to the TCD committee
  • 190 reviews completed
  • 25 papers in the program
  • 12 papers considered for publication – 9 will be published
  • Discussion: Hummer: reviews without comments are worthless; Gates: can we get the overall weighted ranking score (Hawkins said yes); Carlson: double blind is still being considered
  1. Paper publication committee (Tim Gates)
  • Paper Publication Task Force – Tim Gates will head up the paper publication review committee. Tim solicited people to assist in the re-review process. This will also include selection of a committee paper award. Tim will also be charged with determining the committee paper award selection process as a part of this committee. Tim will send out papers with instructions for review. Tim will also give out the authors’ responses to reviewer comments, but not the original review scores. Volunteers included Scott Kuznicki, Michael Reese, Gene Hawkins, Ghazan Khan, Bryan Katz, David Hurwitz, Matt Wilding, Mike Knodler, Paul Carlson, David Noyce, Bryan Katz, Tim Cox, Shauna Hallmark, Brad B., Ahmed, Troy.
  • Wrong way driving paper re-review for publication will be handled by Freeway Operations Committee (per Haitham Al-Deek)
  1. Committee membership status (Carlson)
  • Some members have been rotated off, filled by new members;
  • International member slots open
  1. Triennial Strategic Plan (Hurwitz)
  • TCD committee is planning on submitting the Triennial Strategic Plan. David Hurwitz has agreed to lead this effort. Volunteers were solicited.
  1. Update from AHB50 Committee Communication Coordinator (Melisa Finley)
  • Friends can add themselves to any committee using the online interface. Subcommittees are not yet linked.
  • TRB is encouraging using Google sites for the committee website.
  1. Discussion of sponsored sessions
    1. Attached to agenda email
    2. WWD (Finley):
      • Committee is sponsoring a session with the Freeway Operations Committee. Several papers were received. Special session has been organized. Publication selection to be handled by Freeway Operations Committee.
  1. FHWA MUTCD Update (Kevin Sylvester for Chung Eng)
  • MUTCD revision is coming. Unsure as to when NPA (Notice of Proposed Amendment in Federal Register) will be approved – hopefully by May. Next MUTCD will likely come in 2017.
  1. FHWA Visibility Research Needs related to TCDs:
  • FHWA is seeking input on future research needs over the next 10 – 15 years.
  • What are the fundamental design criteria, guidelines, practice, and policies that relate to what drivers see when they are operating a vehicle
    • Legibility issues, is 30ft/inch appropriate?
  • Howe are the nighttime issues in this committees’ topic are different than daytime? What about rain, fog, snow and other weather conditions
    • Glare
    • Background complexity, related to visual impairments, particularly at ped signals. Sky as the background was particularly poor for low vision users.
  • What are some of the most important concerns in your committee’s focus area? How does visibility play a role in these concerns? How do you address this in your committees?
    • How do we use mobile devices to communicate to pedestrians
    • Distractions (in vehicle) that may obscure/obstruct TCDs?
    • Do we have a visibility related clearinghouse?
    • Viability at roundabouts
    • Machine vision detection of traffic control devices for autonomous vehicle communication with the infrastructure.
  • Roadway departure, intersection, peds/bikes are the primary emphasis areas for FHWA
  • These should relate to all road users (drivers, peds, bikes, low vision users)
  1. FHWA TCD‐Pooled Fund Studies: Update (Shurbutt)
  • 3 ongoing pooled fund studies related to TCDs: Flashing hand comprehension in Michigan (this spring); Signing for dropped lanes; Unsignalized intersection conflict warning systems
  1. NCHRP Update (Ray Derr)
  • Report on publications, ongoing, terminating, and new projects
  • Problems under consideration
    • ADA compliant signal indicators and operations
    • Innovative methods for identifying and delineating
    • (See slides for rest – noted that the deer-related problem will not make it)
  • Change in NCHRP process
    • Problem statements are now due Oct. 15 (everyone on the same day now)
    • Synthesis are due in mid Feb.
  1. The role of TCDs in the Connected Vehicle & Automated Vehicle space (Carl Andersen [using Kevin Dopart’s slides])
  • Partial automation will likely provide significant transportation system benefits
  • Potential automation impacts
  • Positive (e.g. crash avoidance) and uncertain impacts (e.g. VMT)
  • Carl discussed these potential impacts and noted some examples of autonomous vs. partial autonomous. These are the questions that need to be resolved.
    • Tort liability issues need to be resolved
    • Challenges for automation
  • Carl discussed technical and policy challenges providing examples of them
  • Noted we need to start to understand what the needs of the OEMs will be so we can handle the TCDs in advance
  • Research tracks
    • Levels of automation
  1. Developing TCD research needs (David Noyce)
  • Eccles Concept (see slide)
    • Questions
      • What about SHRPZ data
      • Several attendees note that there are many rural sites in the SHRPZ data
      • Others ask about turning movement help? All movements from minor would benefit.
    • Wilding Concept (see slide)
      • Paul Carlson discussed some related effort
      • Matt elaborated
        • Concept ratio (surrounding road)
        • What if the markings are brighter and closer in?
      • Carl Anderson
        • Should we be measuring at 30m or 100m?
      • Ray Derr notes that in wet we want them to go slower
      • Paul notes that machine vision should be considered
      • Scott notes that it’s a challenge without RPMs, delineation other than pavement markings is needed
    • Greenstein Concept (effectiveness of double posting regulatory and warning signs on undivided roadways)
      • Paul notes that is similar to Ron Van Houten’s information on ped gateway double signing on approach to ped crossing
    • Kent Kacir’s Concept (supplemental signing for use w/ FYA)
      • Scott noted that he has some concern about FYA in 3 section heads
    • Mouer Concept (D9 series service signs for bicycle repair and auto repair)
      • Paul notes that TCD PFS is working on these issues
    • Carlson – LEDs in signs
      • Paul notes some problems and inconsistency with their use
      • Standards or guidelines are needed
    • David will work with the authors to develop Research Needs Statements from these
    • Paul notes we should continue to develop ideas – this is part of our mission as a committee
  1. The Importance of Experimental Study Design in TCD Research (Jonathan Upchurch)
  • One question during the presentation asking for clarification on the resolution of the image or the process used in NC
  • Martin P.: asks about other fields? A benchmarking is needed to know what other fields are needed.
  • Melissa Finley: authors should be open about the limitations of their research
  • Joe Hummer (one of the authors) would have liked to have known about research. RIP is not used
  • Carl (ITRE/NCSU) has a related study
  • Scott Kuznicki notes that practitioners have a different perspective on how research should be approached. Research needs practitioners input
  • Dave Hurwitz: Researchers need to be selective in selecting research problems to tackle, depending on capability
  • Bill Perez: Need to do a better job defining synthesis
  • Bryan Katz: Changes in research culture has to come from the funding agency. Life cycle of research cycle ends in a report – need to go beyond traditional outreach to include these critical discussions
  • Kim mentioned that the CMF clearinghouse deals with this topic regularly. There are a lot of 5 star rated studies on the same topic, that disagree
  1. Future committee activities
    1. Webinar
    2. Jane Lantham (?) Volpe asks about mid-year meeting in late July in Ann Arbor, MI
      • 15 to 20 people note they could attend
      • , Wed., Thurs.
    3. Call for paper topic
      • ITS in work zones is a good topic for next year
    4. TCD competition
      • Lit did not fit Martin or Kim’s vision
      • There were many restrictions
      • Is ATSAA Circle of Innovation a potential?
    5. John mentions running a hard shoulder workshop
      • Could have signing and marking needs
      • Maybe a call for paper
    6. June 2016 Symposium on Highway Performance in Berlin, Germany
    7. Management of hot lanes (signs and markings)
    8. 5th Symposium of Geometric Design in Vancouver in July
      • Does signing often have to dictate design
  1. Research Updates – pending availability of time, attendees will be provided time to summarize TCD‐related research
  2. Adjourn