board of county road commissioners of … requesting entities for specific types of new signs. ......

BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO MEETING AGENDA

JANUARY 23, 2018 – 3:00 P.M.

Please take notice that a meeting of the Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Kalamazoo is scheduled for the above stated date and time at the Office Building of the Road Commission located at 3801 East Kilgore Road, Kalamazoo, Michigan, for the purpose of considering the following items: Call to Order Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes January 9, 2018 Board Meeting Request Approval of Payroll and Vendor Accounts Citizen input on Non-agenda Items Old Business: A. Request Approval of the Revised Sign Policy

New Business: A. Request Approval of the Draft Asset Management Plan (AMP) for Bridges B. Request Approval of the Cab & Chassis Purchase

Citizen input on Non-agenda Items Managing Director’s Time Commissioner’s Time and Committee Reports: Stehouwer – Kalamazoo County Parks and Recreation Commission Pawloski – Kalamazoo County Environmental Health Advisory Council (EHAC) Worthams – Kalamazoo County Metropolitan Planning Commission (Attendee) Buchholtz – Kalamazoo County Board of Public Works (BPW) Moyle – Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners Adjourn Meetings of the Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Kalamazoo are held in accordance with the Open Meetings Act (Act 67 of1976, as amended) and are also open to the public without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap. If special aid or assistance is required to attend a Board meeting, please submit a request to: Road Commission of Kalamazoo County 3801 E. Kilgore Road Kalamazoo, MI 49001 Telephone: (269) 381-3171-Fax: (269) 381-1760- Email: [email protected] Website: www.kalamazoocountyroads.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.kalamazoocountyroads.com/

BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO

Public Comment Guidelines:

• Only after being acknowledged by the Chair or Acting Chair, shall a member of the public in attendance initiate their presentation.

• Please consider adding your contact information on the sign-in sheet provided.

• Any member of the public wishing to present statements, comments or

questions to the Board under the provisions of this policy, shall identify themselves by name, their address, if they represent an organization, and the issues being discussed in their presentation.

• These comments, statements or questions shall be limited to not more than

three (3) minutes for each person addressing the Board. Minutes will not be allowed to be donated to others to increase time limitations.

• While all comments, statements and questions will be received by the Board it

will be at the discretion of the Board or Board Members to respond at that time or to refer to staff for response at a later time or to the Road Commission’s files.

• The Board appreciates receiving any written documents, photos, drawings,

etc. as part of the resident(s) presentation during the opportunity for public comment.

1

Memo To: Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Kalamazoo From: Joanna I. Johnson, Managing Director CC: RCKC TEAM Date: 01/19/2018

Re: Board Weekly Report Old Business: A. Request Approval of the Revised Sign Policy

Since the January 9th Board meeting staff reviewed and discussed all comments and made revisions to the policy accordingly. Staff also reviewed the Frequently Asked Questions within the policy to ensure it addresses common questions recently received. Additionally, some modifications were made to the policy to clarify the role of townships as requesting entities for specific types of new signs. All changes to the document since the last meeting are shown in a new redline version of the policy that is attached. We recommend the Board approve the revised Sign Policy.

New Business:

A. Request Approval of the Draft Asset Management Plan (AMP) for Bridges Bridge management is the process of planning the maintenance, repair, and replacement of bridges to optimize conditions over the entire network. The RCKC has been practicing this approach for some time, however not in a systematic AMP. Bridge management establishes the current condition of the bridge network and incorporates life cycle costs into a systematic approach of scheduled maintenance, preventive maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement projects. The needs of the entire network as well as budget projections are considered before projects are scheduled. Overall, by having an AMP for bridges we will continue to move forward in asset management education and using those principles in managing this critical infrastructure. We recommend the Board approve the draft Asset Management Plan for Bridges.

B. Request Approval of the Cab & Chassis Purchase Outlined in our 2018 Capital Outlay Budget is the purchase of two (2) 64,000# Cab and Chassis trucks. We received 3 responses from our 2018, 64,000# Cab/Chassis quote request including: Western Star, International and Peterbilt. Staff also solicited a quote from Kenworth, however they have not provided a quote. Peterbilt’s model 367 truck meets our specification for drivetrain, frame and suspension components and is not the low bid. The advantage to the Peterbilt unit is the single frame option, quality construction of the body, cooling system size/configuration, driver comfort, serviceability and resale value. Warranty: Staff also recommends the purchase of a 5 year/100,000 mile Engine and Emission warranty for $2,885 per unit and a 2 year/200,000 mile extended vehicle warranty for $1,265 per unit for a total cost of $8,300. JX Peterbilt of Grand Rapids bid includes cab and chassis delivery of 90 days. The total amount of this purchase including the 5 year/100,000 mile Engine and Emissions warranty as well as the 2 year/200,000 mile extended vehicle warranty would be $253,988 ($126,994 each). We recommend the Board approve the purchase of two (2) 2019 Peterbilt, Model 367, tandem axle drive, 64,000# Cab and Chassis, including a 5 year/100,000 mile engine and emission warranty and a 2 year/200,000 mile extended vehicle warranty, from JX Peterbilt of Grand Rapids, through the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) purchasing program – in the best interest of the RCKC.

Chair Int’l _______ January 9, 2018 Clerk Int’l _______

The regular meeting of the Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Kalamazoo was held at the Road Commission of Kalamazoo County (RCKC) office at 3801 East Kilgore Road, Kalamazoo, Michigan, on Tuesday, December 26, 2017. Commissioner Moyle called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Present: Daniel J. Moyle, D Deborah J. Buchholtz, David Q. Worthams, David C. Pawloski, Larry Stehouwer Also attending: Managing Director Joanna Johnson, Finance Director Ann Simmons, Operations Director

Travis Bartholomew, Project Superintendent Mark Worden, County Engineer Ryan Minkus and Traffic Engineer & Project Engineer Jim Hoekstra.

Commissioner Worthams moved and it was seconded to approve the agenda as presented.

Commissioner Moyle stated that Item D under New Business should be Item B. Carried by the following vote: Aye: Moyle, Buchholtz, Worthams, Pawloski, Stehouwer Commissioner Stehouwer moved and it was seconded to approve the minutes from the December 26,

2017 regular Board meeting as presented. Carried by the following vote: Aye: Moyle, Buchholtz, Worthams, Pawloski, Stehouwer Commissioner Worthams moved and it was seconded to approve the payroll and vendor accounts as

presented. Payroll Account $ 137,659.28 Vendor Account $ 262,818.22 Carried by the following vote: Aye: Moyle, Buchholtz, Worthams, Pawloski, Stehouwer Commissioner Worthams moved and it was seconded to approve Commissioners Moyle, Buchholtz,

Pawloski, Stehouwer and Managing Director Johnson’s expense reports as presented. Carried by the following vote: Aye: Moyle, Buchholtz, Worthams, Pawloski, Stehouwer Commission Pawloski moved and it was seconded to accept the Michigan Department of Transportation

County Act 51 Annual Mileage Certification Report Letter dated January 2, 2018 and refer to staff. Managing Director Johnson shared annually staff completes the Public Act 51 report of primary and local roads based on the approved certification mileage. Furthermore, the report is due to the State by March 31st.

Carried by the following vote: Aye: Moyle, Buchholtz, Worthams, Pawloski, Stehouwer Managing Director Johnson gave an overview of the Revised Sign Policy. She explained today is primarily

for the Board to review and for public comment. Furthermore, potentially this policy could return to the Board for action at the January 23rd Board meeting. She explained the last two years the RCKC team along with the City of Portage and City of Kalamazoo came together in a very collaborative manner to review the similar request received for signs across the county. She shared it was a very rewarding process reviewing the various signs that are utilized and always coming back to the guidelines of both the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Michigan manual. She stated presently we have approximately 22,000 signs across the county representing regulatory as well as informational type signs. The RCKC and the 2 cities looked at this in a positive manner for the citizens that we serve for safety. She explained the RCKC put the policy on hold due to a very busy construction season in 2017 and are now revisiting it. She stated we had various public comment periods, met with stakeholders and at this point both cities have other priorities. We as a Road Commission decided to bring the sign policy back forward after all the effort and time we put into it. She shared there are areas within it that have been revised based on public comments such as “Neighborhood

Chair Int’l _______ January 9, 2018 Clerk Int’l _______ Watch” signs as well as other clarifications that are within this policy. She stated on behalf of the staff we feel this sign policy helps guide our staff and team. She mentioned our sign policy although in draft form was utilized by other road commissions across the state as they form their own policy. Furthermore, the policy is meant with good intentions to help clarify and help road commissions in terms of consistency and avoid sign pollution. She stated like any policy that is before the Board we have the opportunity to review it again with any new information that comes forward in the future. She mentioned there is a process for variance should that be of interest to others. She stated we have provided another opportunity for feedback as the Board considers potential adoption of the policy. Texas Township Supervisor John Hinkle inquired about the 4 foot shoulder width and questioned if it was part of the sign policy. Managing Director Johnson explained the 4 foot shoulders width is also part of our non-motorized facility policy and the two policies work together. Supervisor Hinkle stated some shoulders are not that large and inquired about share the road signs. Commissioner Buchholtz explained it is not for the share the road signs. She stated the difference is signing a bike route versus signing bicycle warning or safety signs. She explained share the road signage is used when paved shoulders are 4 foot or less. Furthermore, the bike route signs are anticipated to have a 4 foot shoulder since bike routes are intended to be areas that are designated and considered safe for cyclists. County Engineer Minkus explained we look at a number of factors in bike route signing and shoulder width is one of the factors for which we would review for safety aspect. He stated in the policy the share the road sign is in reference to when paved shoulders are 4 foot or less and there is a gap in the non-motorized network. Furthermore, it is intended to provide an awareness to drivers. Managing Director Johnson added the bike route signage and the 4 foot shoulder are in the non-motorized facilities as well. Doug Kirk from the Kalamazoo Bike Club stated he was not notified of this meeting and thanked Paul Selden for letting him know about it. He questioned why after a 100 years we need these regulations. He mentioned a year ago he attended meetings with both the City of Portage and Kalamazoo. He mentioned at that time both cities were included in putting together this proposed signage policy. He mentioned both cities have opted out and he questions why. He mentioned former City of Portage Engineer Chris Barnes told him to rewrite what he thought the share the road sign policy should be. Mr. Kirk stated that he drafted a policy, sent it in and cannot see where anyone paid attention to it. He provided the Board and staff with copies and hopes that it will be considered. He mentioned he does not feel the share the road sign portion of the policy was done with good intentions and suggested the road commission discuss the policy with members of the bike clubs who would have valuable input. Paul Selden, Chair of the Kalamazoo Region Bike Route Committee suggested the Board to table the sections that have to do with bicycling related signs due to the reasons that were outlined in his letter that he sent this morning. He mentioned there were technical contradictions within the policy that need to be addressed. He stated the main thing with a community point of view is the direction this community is headed in regard to making it more ethical, livable and economically viable, many elements of the policy would freeze in place or cause a regressive movement that would make it more difficult for our community to stay economically competitive. He mentioned this could reasonably be tabled until a group of stakeholders could come together and look over implications of what is being proposed especially with regard to the bike related signs. He shared in reality this document is already superseded by the provisions of the MMUTCD. Comstock Township Planning & Zoning Administrator Jodi Stefforia echoed Mr. Selden’s comments as well as Oshtemo Township Supervisor Libby Heiny-Cogswell's comments. She mentioned her concern is with the section regarding Guide Signs and Plaques for Bicycle Facilities on page 23. She stated the Bike Route committee that Mr. Selden referenced has worked over 18 months towards implementing the MAP 7 commuter routes and are in the process of finalizing the sign design. Furthermore, the committee is made up of elected officials and staff from Cooper, Comstock, Kalamazoo, Oshtemo and Texas Townships, City of Portage and Kalamazoo, Village of Vicksburg and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). She stated they are working on a sign design and acknowledging the commuter routes are unique and deserve their own sign. She mentioned the Townships have all agreed to not use this sign on any other routes. She said they realize the erection of the signs will be at the Townships' cost and have been budgeted, except for the “M” routes that MDOT has agreed to sign. She stated it was surprising to see this policy stating that the RCKC would install and maintain these signs. She questioned the engineering judgement behind what says any other bike route sign other than the few reflective in the policy will be authorized. She shared the MMUTCD allows for a variety of signs to be used for bike routes. She mentioned you cannot impose these requirement on other ACT 51 agencies in the area that are going to move forward and sign the commuter routes. She explained potentially there would be an inconsistency of signs along the commuter routes. She inquired about the engineering

Chair Int’l _______ January 9, 2018 Clerk Int’l _______ judgment for signing only those commuter routes where there is a 4 foot shoulder. She stated from Richland into the City of Kalamazoo would go through several jurisdictions where the shoulder width will vary causing sections of the route to be signed, other sections having a different sign or not be signed at all. She echoed Mr. Selden’s comments regarding postponing the bicycle related aspect of the sign policy. Commissioner Buchholtz shared the road commission and the City of Portage and Kalamazoo currently do have a sign policy in place that is similar in many ways to this policy. She mentioned in this policy it would allow neighborhood watch signs where our current policy does not. She also shared it is not that the two cities do not want to move forward, it is simply that they have staffing changes and we did not want to continue waiting due to jurisdictions who would like to see these policies go into effect.

Commissioner Pawloski moved and it was seconded to approve the Brady Township Local Road

Participation Fund Contact for Chair’s signature. a. 32nd Street – U Avenue to T Avenue, Gravel, Pulverize, Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Paving, Base Course Only b. 26th Street – TU Avenue to T Avenue, Chip Seal and Crack Fill c. 33rd Street – X Avenue to W Avenue, Crack Fill, HMA Wedging and Chip Seal d. 34th Street – UV Avenue to U Avenue, Crack Fill and Chip Seal Carried by the following vote: Aye: Moyle, Buchholtz, Worthams, Pawloski, Stehouwer Commissioner Pawloski moved and it was seconded to select Joanna Johnson for the County Road

Association (CRA) Board of Directors ballot. Managing Director Johnson shared assuming re-election she is scheduled to be President of the CRA in 2018. The last President of CRA in its 100 year history from Kalamazoo was Ronald Reid in 1998.

Carried by the following vote: Aye: Moyle, Buchholtz, Worthams, Pawloski, Stehouwer Commissioner Moyle thanked everyone for taking the time to attend the meeting, for their comments on

the Revised Sign Policy and mentioned they were welcome to leave material with the Board. Mr. Selden shared there are many people who have shared concerns. Furthermore, if this Board were to move on the Revised Sign Policy he requested the sections related to bike signs under consideration by the road commission be temporarily tabled to a time where there was greater community agreement. Commissioner Buchholtz suggested to Commissioner Moyle that at this time Mr. Selden’s request would be out of order since there is no motion on the table. She stated the comments provided would be discussed and it is up to Board leadership to determine and set the next agenda. She also mentioned it would have to be a postponement on the table. She explained tabling means you would come back to an item during the meeting. She stated since there is no motion on the table and having one that restricts the Board from moving forward would not make sense at this time. Commissioner Worthams shared a motion to table is a temporary item on something that is postponed within a meeting. Furthermore, he sees this as general unawareness as to how proper procedure works. He assumes Mr. Selden is asking for a motion to postpone, in which case he agrees with Commissioner Buchholtz that the motion would be out of order and inappropriate at this time now that we have concluded our discussion under old business. Commissioner Moyle stated his intent in addressing Mr. Selden was citizen input on any non-agenda items and to simply thank those that brought material to us. Furthermore, he does not plan on any action.

Managing Director Johnson shared how much she appreciates everyone’s patience during winter

maintenance. She mentioned tomorrow evening from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. we will be at the Kalamazoo Township Hall celebrating our 3 year investment and commitment with the Township and all of our contractors.

Commissioner Stehouwer attended the Parks Commission on January 5th where they discussed the downtown bike route and the reason they are there. He mentioned how he appreciated the discussion.

Commissioner Pawloski attended the Environmental Health Advisory Committee (EHAC) last month and

looks forward to serving on the committee again in 2018. He thanked the crews for working very hard and pushing

Chair Int’l _______ January 9, 2018 Clerk Int’l _______ a lot of snow at this time. He looks forward to attending the Southwest Council meeting on February 12th. He shared he was not available to attend the celebration tomorrow evening in Kalamazoo Township and sends his regrets. He shared that he has heard frustration and concerns regarding neighborhood watch signs and looks forward to getting this resolved in the near future by working together to get it resolved.

Commissioner Worthams thanked the crews and reminded the public to move their parked vehicles off

the road during the winter in order for us to maintain the roads. He explained it is very difficult for our plows to maneuver around parked vehicles and it also causes a traffic and safety concern. He mentioned he did not attend the last Metropolitan Planning Commission meeting and stated the Master Plan for Kalamazoo County was included in the Board packets. He shared that he spent close to a decade serving the Metropolitan Planning Commission and this was something that we worked very hard on during those days of how to come up with Master Plan. He stated on pages 21 and 36 of the document provided the property classifications of every parcel in the county. Furthermore, it puts into perspective the importance that we have to make sure that our transportation system is capable and is providing service to everyone in the county. It shared the document is a great accomplishment and strongly urged the Board members to review it.

Commissioner Buchholtz mentioned she was not available to attend the celebration tomorrow evening in

Kalamazoo Township and will also miss the February 6th Board meeting. She attended the Board of Public Works meeting where they elected their leadership and had a presentation about Brownfields. She apologized and explained she thought her tone or words sounded cold when talking about procedure earlier. She explained what she meant to say is that the agenda is set by the Chair, Vice Chair and the Managing Director with input from others the Friday prior to a Board meeting. She mentioned the Board will take into consideration the comments received, continue to reach out, and take input from Commissioners and others in the public to make a determination. She requested Mr. Kirk to provide her with his contact information where she can send information. She also encouraged him to view the website on Friday prior to a Board meeting that is held every other week to view the information. She mentioned how she appreciates everyone who attended and provided their input on the Revised Sign Policy. She stated we take this seriously and will continue to work on this for the good of the community.

Commissioner Moyle thanked citizens and staff for taking the time to attend the Board meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

Attest: Timothy A. Snow, County Clerk

By: _______________________________, Chairperson _____________________________, Deputy Clerk

Current ActivityAvailable funds from previous report 7,125,511.81$ Receipts and interest for the current period 5,642.28$ Payroll disbursements to be approved today (119,322.83)$ Payables disbursements to be approved today (275,722.22)$ Available funds as of January 23, 2018 6,736,109.04$

Summary Disbursements From ToPayroll - pay period ending January 17, 2018 Checks 85167 85183 55,978.91$ Direct Deposit 12248 12282 63,343.92$ Payroll - Longevity -$ Checks -$ Direct Deposit -$ Total Payroll to be approved today 119,322.83$

Payables Vendor checks 98741 98816 275,259.85$ Void checks 0 -$ Health Reimbursement Checks 213341 213345 462.37$ Total Payables to be approved today 275,722.22$

Available FundsCash Balance 5,112,720.79$ Interest Bearing Deposits 1,623,388.25$ Total Funds Available 6,736,109.04$

Ann SimmonsFinance Director

Joanna I. JohnsonManaging Director

Daniel J. MoyleBoard Chairman

Summary Report of Cash Receipts and DisbursementsFor the January 23, 2018 Board Meeting

Memo To: Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Kalamazoo

From: Jim Hoekstra, PE

Joanna I. Johnson, Managing Director

Date: January 16, 2018

Re: Revised Sign Policy

Recommended Road Commission Of Kalamazoo County (RCKC) Action: We recommend the Board approve the revised Sign Policy. BACKGROUND In cooperation with the City of Kalamazoo and the City of Portage, the RCKC technical team drafted a sign policy to provide guidance and assist in maintaining consistent sign applications throughout the interconnected road networks for our agencies. Together we have more than 51,000 signs along our streets and roads and received many requests for additional signs each year. With this many signs, it is essential to maintain a consistent, uniform and logical process for installations along the public streets. While not all types of signs are the same, it is also important that the warning and regulatory sign placements between local jurisdictions be uniform and consistent. A systematic approach and coordination was necessary to also allow time for each agency to seek internal feedback. This process has taken time, as one of our first meetings on this topic occurred on December 11, 2015 and speaks to the respectful collaborative effort our agencies utilized to create this document. At our September 20, 2016 Board meeting the first draft of the Intergovernmental Collaborative Sign Policy was provided to the Board for review. At that meeting, a public comment period was established through October 23, 2016. Emails were sent out for this public comment period, posted on our agency websites and communicated at various meetings to encourage policy feedback. From this comment period, the team received statements (previously provided to the Board) from:

• Libby Heiny-Cogswell, Charter Township of Oshtemo • Rebekah Kik, City Planner, City of Kalamazoo • Doug Kirk • Michele McGowen, Disability Network Southwest Michigan • Ann Nieuwenhuis, Comstock Charter Township • Doug Plachcinski, Planner/Zoning Administrator/Economic Development Coordinator, Charter

Township of Texas • Ron Reid • Julie Rogers, Kalamazoo County Commissioner • Paul Selden • Paul Selden - Bike Friendly Kalamazoo

• Jodi Stefforia, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Comstock Charter Township

After receiving comments, considerable time was spent by the team to review each and every comment for potential revisions to the policy. On January 9, 2017 the technical team took the consideration of these comments a step further and invited those that commented to a personal meeting with the team to review the comments and revisions made to the initial policy. The meeting was hosted by the City of Portage on January 26, 2017 and held with the following attendees:

• Libby Heiny-Cogswell, Charter Township of Oshtemo • Doug Kirk • Doug Plachcinski, Planner/Zoning Administrator/Economic Development Coordinator, Charter

Township of Texas • Jodi Stefforia, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Comstock Charter Township

Following the January 26th meeting, the technical team once again reconvened to consider the comments received at the meeting in order to be able to provide the final revised policy. Our respective team has been working in conjunction with both city’s staff to develop a standard roadway sign policy. The purpose of this policy is to establish uniformity in the installation and maintenance of signs with an intergovernmental approach among the City of Kalamazoo, City of Portage, and the RCKC. This policy recognizes that the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) is the standard for all traffic control devices on all public roads in Michigan, and therefore all traffic control devices on the roadway system/public right-of-way shall conform to those standards and specifications as specified in the Michigan Vehicle Code, Public Act 300 of 1949, Section 257.608. In the past, the lack of a document such as this has led to a number of signs having been installed to appease individual or personal issues such as “Deaf Child,” “Children Playing,” “Animal Crossing,” etc. within the Kalamazoo area. While well intentioned, research has shown that the addition of some of these types of warning signage has little or no impact on the underlying issues. This proposed policy limits the installation of a number of such warning signs to aid in the overall effectiveness of those signs that remain. While some signs are limited, the policy also outlines the procedure for requesting a variance from policy which is very similar to the RCKC Construction Guidelines Policy.. Considering all of the feedback, the policy also standardizes the use of bicycle and pedestrian crossing signage, general and service signs, and addresses special signs such as “Neighborhood Watch” which is not currently in the MMUTCD. The team reviewed various reference documents which are listed in the appendix of this policy and shared each agency’s current practices as a part of this collaborative effort. Safety of the public is the primary goal for all of our agencies, so in addition to the experience of the team members, modifications based on comments received, various reference material and reasonableness were also considered. In terms of RCKC operations, signs continue to be a large part of our operations. The following table summarizes the total number of signs and sign service requests that we have had over the last few years. These service requests range from damaged signs, vandalism, retroreflectivity needs, request for additional signs, etc. These requests are from the RCKC team, local officials and citizens.

Year Requests Number of Signs 2017 627 22,759 2016 653 22,295 2015 454 21,595 2014 265 20,941 2013 219 20,814

Following the comment review period and completion of a final draft, the policy was temporarily placed on hold due to other competing priorities. Following the 2017 construction season, and at the request of the Board, staff began to focus on completion of this policy. Unfortunately, both the City of Kalamazoo and City of Portage still have ongoing constraints that will not allow them to participate in policy adoption at this time. Given that it is currently unclear as to when our City partners will be able to move forward with the policy, RCKC has made the necessary revisions in order to adopt it individually at this time. We will certainly work with other agencies which may adopt it in the future as the opportunity presents itself. Our draft policy was used by other road commissions as a template for policies they have adopted. A sign policy was also supported as part of presentations at recent road commission conferences. Additionally, Townships may also consider adopting this policy by reference, as many already do with the RCKC Construction Guidelines Policy. A revised version of the Sign Policy was discussed at the January 9, 2018 Board meeting and additional written public comments were received by

• Libby Heiny-Cogswell, Charter Township of Oshtemo • Doug Kirk • Paul Selden • Jodi Stefforia, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Comstock Charter Township. •

Staff reviewed and discussed all comments and made revisions to the policy accordingly. Staff also reviewed the Frequently Asked Questions to ensure it addresses common questions recently received. Additionally, some modifications were made to the policy to clarify the role of townships as requesting entities for specific types of new signs. All changes to the document since the last meeting are shown in a new redline version of the policy that is attached. ALTERNATIVES The Board could recommend further revisions to the proposed policy. BUDGET Presently, we have $115,000 budgeted for sign maintenance. This does not include signs that may be placed at the cost of local entities or those which may be damaged and in need of replacement. In 2017 and 2016, we spent $99,703 and $101,343 in sign maintenance, respectively. In the event of damaged signs, if a police report is completed, compensation for the replacement is sought from the responsible party, or their insurance provider. Commuter bike route signs, as discussed in the policy, would be installed as conditions allow on specific routes. This is currently not an expense in the RCKC 2018 budget and staff estimates that to sign the entire network would cost approximately $176,000. Instead, this work would be completed over a period of time, like many other components of the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

The budget numbers shown above also include staff time related to verifying the retroreflectivity requirements necessary for signage, which is not separately funded by any other source. Currently only regulatory signs are required to meet these requirements, but additional signs are likely to be added in the future. Additional information on minimum sign retroreflectivity requirements can be found at the Federal Highway Administration website for Minimum Sign Retroreflectivity Requirements. Since 2015, staff has spent considerable time on the policy. SUMMARY We recommend the Board approve the revised Sign Policy.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/policy_guide/sign_15mins/sign_15mins.pdf

Road Commission of Kalamazoo County Sign Policy

January 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1 2. TRAFFIC SIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE ............................................................................. 6

REGULATORY SIGNS ............................................................................................................ 6 WARNING SIGNS ............................................................................................................... 11 GUIDE SIGNS ..................................................................................................................... 19 OTHER SIGNS ..................................................................................................................... 20

3. SPECIAL EVENT SIGNING ......................................................................................................... 26 4. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................... 26 5. MISSING AND DAMAGED SIGNS ............................................................................................. 26

CRITICAL SIGNS ................................................................................................................. 26 6. REQUEST FOR DEVIATION FROM POLICY AND STANDARDS .................................................. 27 7. REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF POLICY ................................................................................ 27 APPENDIX

SUPPLEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 28

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 30

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ............................................................ 32

January 2018 1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

1. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this policy is to establish uniformity in the installation and maintenance of signs. This policy recognizes that the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) is the standard for all traffic control devices on all public roads in Michigan, and therefore all traffic control devices on the roadway/street system/public right-of-way shall conform to its standards and specifications as outlined in Section 257.608 of the Michigan Vehicle Code (MVC). The purpose of this policy is to describes typical applications and procedures related to placement of signs on roadways/streets for the safety of the users. Enactment of the Highway Advertising Act of 1972 and its subsequent amendments have placed severe restrictions on billboard advertising, thus increasing the demand to place additional directional information signs within road right-of-way. In order to respond to all sign requests in a fair and consistent manner, we recognize the need to establish signing guidelines that will address aspects of roadway/street signing while maintaining a safe and logical sequence of informational displays along roadways/streets. Although the aforementioned MMUTCD contains standards for design and application of traffic control devices, it does not contain specific criteria on the following subjects for all signs: (1) allowable sign messages, (2) qualifications which allow placement of signs for various facilities and/or activities, or (3) priority or ranking of the various sign groups on the basis of roadway/street user needs which, in turn, should determine the selection process for sign installations. It is in the best interest of the public and the RCKC to prevent the excessive use of traffic signs on the roadway/street system. Traffic sign effectiveness can be severely diminished by improper or over use. Regulatory and warning signs are installed w h e n warranted for safety. An appropriate use of traffic signs improves the effectiveness of signs and reduces maintenance costs. It is a goal of the RCKC to limit the use of traffic signs to those that:

1. fulfill a need, 2. command attention, 3. convey a clear, simple meaning, 4. command respect from road users, and 5. give adequate time for proper response.

Eliminating unnecessary signage improves traffic safety for all users, reduces sign clutter/pollution, standardizes implementation, and lowers maintenance costs.

It is not the intent of this policy to arbitrarily delete or eliminate specific traffic signs, but rather in the best interest of all roadway/street users, to establish criteria to install and maintain traffic signs for the RCKC and requesting entities (organizations, groups, residents or other public governing body)in the public right-of-way. It is understood that many traffic signs have been installed over the years throughout the road/street network which are either obsolete or


have very limited influence on the road users. These signs, along with others that are no longer used by this agency have been identified in this policy and may still be installed through the variance process. The guidelines set forth in this policy address these subjects and provide criteria by which to evaluate all signing requests consistently and equitably and to ensure that information displayed has value to road users. HUMAN FACTORS As vehicles move along a roadway/street each user is confronted with many elements competing for attention; e.g., presence of other users, roadway/street alignment and other design features, billboards, traffic signs, traffic signals, pavement markings, commercial development, rural and urban environs, different levels of lighting, and adverse weather conditions. Any or all of these factors may affect road/street safety, as well as the user’s ability to see, assimilate, and react to pertinent road/street sign messages. Studies of human behavior have shown that a user can focus attention on only one thing at a time, but can respond rapidly to several stimuli. However, receiving too much information in a short time can adversely affect the user's ability to process the information effectively, causing information overload. Information overload is a condition where the user is unable to perceive and/or use the information displayed. When this condition occurs, the user will shift attention from one source of information to another and may miss critical sign messages. Considering the large number of road/street elements and complexities confronting each user, it is apparent that the amount of information which can be effectively conveyed by traffic signs is limited. For this reason it is necessary to have guidelines for signs and sign group priorities to avoid information overload and to ensure that essential signs are in place for the general user. SIGNING PRIORITIES Basic concepts of traffic engineering recognize that the primary functions of traffic control signs are to warn, regulate, and guide users. Sign spacing and the amount of information displayed have an impact on the user’s ability to read and respond to sign messages in an expected, predictable manner. Accordingly, the primary function of traffic control signs is to enable users to react promptly, naturally, and safely to the traffic and design conditions encountered, to inform on the regulations and use of roads and streets, to warn of unexpected roadway/street conditions which require extra care in driving, and to provide guidance to major destinations. Secondary functions of traffic control signs are to advise users of various services


normally required to complete an extended journey (emergency services, motorist services, public transportation), and of supplemental services such as recreational facilities, places of interest, and attractions. In general, guide signs along a road/street are necessary for users who are unfamiliar with the route and need guidance to reach their destinations. The most important guide signs are those which provide direction to major metropolitan areas, road/street routes, or places of national prominence. Traffic control signs can be classified into eight basic sign groups. Listed below is the order of priorities adopted by the national committees of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for these sign groups, and a brief description of the function of each sign group: Group No. Sign Type

1. REGULATORY SIGNS - Inform the user of traffic or regulations concerning vehicle operation on the road/street (i.e., stop, yield, speed limit signs, etc.).

2. WARNING SIGNS - Advise the user of unexpected road/street conditions which require extra care in driving (i.e., curve, stop ahead, Chevron chevron signs, etc.).

3. NAVIGATIONAL GUIDE SIGNS - Identify the route or routes that the user may follow to complete a trip, including directions and distances to cities and other destinations (standard guide signs, i.e., route markers, distance and destination, exit direction, etc.). Advise the user of destinations accessible other than those shown on standard guide signing (i.e., township supplemental freeway signing).

4. EMERGENCY SERVICES SIGNS - Advise and direct the user to facilities providing emergency services or assistance. Such facilities include hospitals providing emergency medical treatment and state, county, or local enforcement agencies.

5. USER SERVICES SIGNS - Advise and direct the user to basic services normally needed to complete a long trip (i.e., gas, food, lodging and camping, tourist information centers, welcome centers, and rest areas).

6. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SIGNS - Advise and direct the user to facilities that provide commercial and public passenger travel service (i.e., airports, train stations, bus stations, and vehicle ferry docks).

7. TRAFFIC GENERATOR SIGNS - Advise and direct the user to activities, facilities, or special points of interest which attract a significant number of people who are unfamiliar with the local area and/or access routes.


8. GENERAL INFORMATION SIGNS - Advise the user of information that may be of interest

and—although not directly necessary for travel—in most instances include a geographic reference(i.e., political boundary limits, landmarks, Historic Site, Adopt-A-Highway, Heritage Routes, Memorial Signing, Tourist Oriented Directional Signs (TODS), Community Wayfinding Signing, etc.).

SIGNING PRINCIPLES

The design (shape, size, and color) of traffic signs used in Michigan shall conform to national sign standards. Uniform use and standardization of traffic signs are desirable to ensure instant recognition and uniform interpretation by all users.

A traffic sign should be installed only if it fulfills a specific need based on engineering judgment. In order to be effective, a sign should command attention, contain a clear simple message, be well maintained, and be located such that users have adequate time to see, comprehend, and respond appropriately.

Information overload may result from too many signs, nonessential signs, insufficient spacing between signs, excessive lines of legend, inadequate conspicuity or legibility, or a combination of these factors.

Regulatory and warning signs should be installed only where mandated or warranted so that their effectiveness will not be diminished by excessive use.

Guide signs should be installed when they are essential to the user or are beneficial to a significant number of users.

Within a certain distance in advance of an interchange or intersection, signing needs will be evaluated and signs installed in descending priority providing that a minimum standard spacing between signs is maintained, thus avoiding informational overload and potential user confusion. Signs serving other destinations (excluding cities, villages, routes, etc.) are classified as supplemental guide signs. Sign priority groups 4 through 8 are considered supplemental guide signs. Supplemental guide signs are secondary to principal signing needs (groups 1 through 3) and should be used sparingly. Supplemental guide signs are used to guide users who are seeking a specific destination. Installation of supplemental signs may be justified when visitation or attendance volumes are high and a significant percentage of users seeking a destination are unfamiliar with its location and access routes. Supplemental guide signs are not intended to advertise or to promote a facility, or to increase its visitation or attendance volumes. The Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices states that, both Specific Service (Logo) Signs and TODS provide business identification and directional information for essential user services and for businesses deriving a major portion of


income and/or visitors from users not residing in the immediate area respectively. Both sign programs are a l s o mandated by Michigan statute.

Supplemental guide signs can reduce the effectiveness of other essential signing. For this reason, we have established guidelines for such signing.

NON-CONFORMING SIGNS

Signs already installed which are not in compliance with these guidelines or provisions contained in the MMUTCD shall be removed when they are damaged, in need of maintenance, or if the intended purpose is no longer present in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer, or designee. The affected person or agency will be notified, if possible, of the intent at least thirty (30) days prior to sign removal. If any non-conforming sign is a safety hazard, it shall be removed immediately.

UNAUTHORIZED SIGNS

All signs installed without the approval of the RCKC’s representative as per polices, guidelines and Section 257.610 of the MVC will be considered unauthorized and therefore shall be removed immediately without prior notice. TEMPORARY SIGNS Signs of various types such as political candidate, open house, garage sale, or real estate signs are sometimes placed within the public right-of-way. These types of signs are temporary, but are still encroachments and may be a safety hazard to users and therefore may be removed at the discretion of the RCKC without notification.

January 2018 6 TRAFFIC SIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE Regulatory Signs

2. TRAFFIC SIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE

Regulatory Signs Information about Regulatory signs is provided in Chapter 2B of the MMUTCD. STOP Sign (R1-1)

The stop sign configuration shall be approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Stop signs shall generally be installed on the minor street of an intersection in accordance with the MMUTCD. The stop sign shall not be installed for any private roadway/street. A multi-way stop installation shall be based upon an engineering study and meet warrants as set by the MMUTCD. Stop signs shall not be used for speed control.

YIELD Sign (R1-2)

The yield sign shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Yield signs shall not be used for speed control.

ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P)

The ALL WAY plaque sign shall be installed and maintained for every all-way stop intersection. Note: The 3 WAY and 4 WAY plaques are no longer allowed in the current MMUTCD.

SPEED LIMIT Sign (R2-1)

The speed limit sign shall only be installed and maintained for authorized speed zones having an approved Traffic Control Order (TCO) approved by the RCKC board. Speed limit signs shall not be installed for statutory speed limits unless authorized in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer (as set forth in Section 257.629 of the MVC). A speed limit sign shall be installed whenever the speed limit changes, including when entering a statutory (i.e. general speed limit) speed limit area. Where the speed limit transitions, only one speed limit sign shall be installed.


Advance Intersection Lane Control Sign (R3 Series)

The advance intersection lane control sign shall be installed and maintained at all signalized intersections when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Traffic Movement Prohibition Signs (R4-1, R4-2 and W14-3)

These signs shall not be installed and maintained unless approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

PARKING Sign (R7 and R8 Series)

The parking sign shall only be installed and maintained for zones where parking has been restricted by a TCO issued by the RCKC board.

Traffic Signal Sign (R10 Series)

The traffic signal sign shall be installed and maintained in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

ROAD CLOSED Sign (R11 Series)

The road closed sign shall be used when a road is closed to all traffic except authorized vehicles (i.e. construction equipment). The road closed to thru traffic sign shall be used when through traffic is not permitted or where local traffic is permitted for some distance beyond the sign until the point of closure. Emergency road closures shall use a road closed sign placed upon a Type III barricade.


WEIGHT LIMIT Sign (R12-1 through R12-5)

The weight limit sign shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

BRIDGE and STRUCTURE WEIGHT, WIDTH AND HEIGHT RESTRICTION Sign (R12 Series)

The bridge and structure WEIGHT LIMIT sign shall be installed and maintained for all restricted bridges, as close to the restricted bridge or structure as possible. The ON BRIDGE AHEAD sign shall be installed with the WEIGHT LIMIT sign, in advance of the restricted bridge or structure, at the nearest intersections approaching the restriction in accordance with the established Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) requirements.

Truck Signs

The no thru truck route signs shall be installed and maintained for all roads restricting through traffic by commercial vehicles by the agency’s public governing body procedures.


SEASONAL LOAD AND SPEED RESTRICTION Sign (i.e. Frost Laws)

The SEASONAL LOAD AND SPEED RESTRICTIONS IN EFFECT sign shall be installed and maintained when seasonal load and speed restrictions (i.e. frost laws) are in effect. Placement of these signs shall be determined by the traffic engineer. A map and list showing all-weather and seasonally restricted roads is available at the RCKC web site.

Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1)

The grade crossing sign is the responsibility of the railroad authority for the installation and maintenance of the crossbuck sign at signalized grade crossings. At unsignalized grade crossings all grade crossing signage will be maintained by RCKC.

Ordinance Sign

The public governing body requesting the ordinance sign displaying an ordinance shall be installed when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. The ordinance displayed on the sign shall only apply to traffic operations. The requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain an ordinance sign. When the sign is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined by the RCKC, the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign.

In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign (R1-6 Series)

The in-street pedestrian crossing sign shall only be used where the law (local regulation or ordinance) specifically requires that a driver yield or stop. Where the STATE LAW is noted, the legend may be revised to LOCAL LAW displayed at the top of the signs as applicable and where yield or stop lines are used in advance of a marked crosswalk. This sign shall be installed only after the conclusion of a traffic study warrants its installation and in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. A requesting entity shall be responsible for the traffic study as well as the cost of material to fabricate, install, and maintain the sign and painted crossing. When the sign or painted crossing is due for


maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined by the RCKC, the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign and painted crossing.

Other Regulatory Signs

All other regulatory signs not required to be installed by the MMUTCD, authorized by this policy, or in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer shall not be installed or maintained within the public right-of-way.

January 2018 11 TRAFFIC SIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE Warning Signs

Warning Signs

Information about warning signs is provided in Chapter 2C of the MMUTCD. Horizontal Alignment Signs (W1-1 through W1-5, and W1-10 Series)

The horizontal alignment signs shall be installed according to the MMUTCD.

One-Direction Large Arrow Sign (W1-6)

The one-direction large arrow sign shall be installed and maintained when a turn sign (W1-1) or reverse turn sign (W1-3) is installed. This sign may also be installed when a curve sign (W1-2), reverse curve sign (W1-4), or winding road sign (W1-5) is installed. Installation will be based on recent crash history and traffic volume or in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Two-Direction Large Arrow Sign (W1-7)

The two-direction large arrow sign may be installed and maintained at a “T” intersection when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Recent crash history is one factor used in determining when this sign is needed.

Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8)

The chevron alignment sign may be installed when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Typical installation occurs if crash history indicates a need for additional signage or if space does not allow the installation of a W1-6 sign. Spacing of chevron signs shall follow Table 2C-6 from the MMUTCD. Chevron signs shall not beare typically not installed on gravel or dead-end roads unless necessary for safety in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer.


Intersection Warning Signs (W2-1 and W2-2)

The cross road and side road sign should be used in advance of an uncontrolled intersection approach to indicate the presence of an intersection and the possibility of turning or entering traffic. An advance name panel should be used if possible. These signs should be used on Primary or Local roads and should are typically not be used on gravel roads, in subdivisions, or in plats unless necessary for safety in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer.

Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3-1, W3-2, W3-3)

The advance traffic control signs may be installed and maintained in advance of any such traffic control devices on Primary or Local roads. These signs should are typically not be used on gravel roads, in subdivisions, or in plats

unless necessary for safety in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer.

Reduced Speed Limit Ahead Sign (W3-5)

The speed reduction sign shall be installed and maintained when the following criteria are satisfied: Condition A The W3-5 sign shall be used in advance of an authorized speed zone of 45 mph or less if leaving a segment with the statutory speed limit (See Sections 257.627 and 257.628 of the MVC for information on statutory speed limits). Condition B The W3-5 sign shall be used in advance of a lower authorized speed zone when leaving a segment with a higher authorized speed limit that is at least 15 mph greater than the lower speed zone or when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.


Lane Ends Signs (W4-2 and W9-2)

The lane ends symbol and merge signs shall be installed and maintained when there is a reduction in the number of traffic lanes in the same direction of travel.

CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP Plaque (W4-4P Series)

The CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP plaque shall not be installed and maintained unless approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Recent crash history and other traffic related factors shall be used to determining when this sign is warranted.

ROAD NARROWS and NARROW ROADWAY Signs (W5-1)

The ROAD NARROWS and NARROW ROADSWAY sign shall be installed and maintained where road pavement width (including paved shoulders) significantly changes along a road segment. The narrow road sign may be used when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. A speed advisory plaque may also be used.

NARROW BRIDGE Sign (W5-2)

The NARROW BRIDGE sign shall be installed and maintained in advance of all bridges or culverts having a two-way roadway/street clearance width less than 19 feet but more than 17 feet as per Section 254.20 of Bridges and Culverts Act.

ONE LANE BRIDGE Sign (W5-3)

The ONE LANE BRIDGE sign shall be installed and maintained in advance of all bridges or culverts having a two-way roadway/street clearance width of 17 feet or less as per Section 254.20 of Bridges and Culverts Act.


Hill Signs (W7-1 and W7-1a)

The hill signs shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

HIDDEN DRIVE and HILL BLOCKS VIEW Signs (W7-6)

The HIDDEN DRIVE and the HILL BLOCKS VIEW signs shall not be used. The HIDDEN DRIVE sign is not in the MMUTCD and no guidelines exist for their installation.

PAVEMENT ENDS Sign (W8-3)

The PAVEMENT ENDS sign shall be used to warn users where the road transitions from a paved surface to a gravel surface in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer.

ROUGH ROAD Sign (W8-8)

The ROUGH ROAD sign shall be used to warn users of an approaching rough section of roadway/street as approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. No speed advisory plaque (W13-1P) will be posted since conditions may vary widely.

Grade Crossing Advance Warning Signs (W10 Series)

Grade crossing advance warning signs shall be installed according to the MMUTCD and in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer. The RCKC will install and maintain all grade crossing advance warning signs at any signalized or unsignalized grade crossing.


Pedestrian Sign (W11-2)

or

The pedestrian warning sign shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. An engineering study shall be completed to determine if a pedestrian crosswalk is warranted prior to consideration. When used at a crossing, the pedestrian warning sign shall be supplemented with a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque showing the location of the crossing, in conjunction with the presence of crosswalk markings. The crossing location shall be preceded by a pedestrian warning sign supplemented with an AHEAD plaque (W16-9P). A fluorescent yellow-green background color may be used for this sign or plaques.

Animal Signs (W11 Series)

The RCKC recognizes the significant danger that animals pose to the traveling on public on roads. However, due to the random nature of animal behavior and changing crossing locations, the RCKC shall not install or maintain animal signs.

Farm Vehicle Signs (W11-5 and W11-5a)

The RCKC shall not install or maintain farm equipment signs.

Handicap Pedestrian Sign (W11-9)

The RCKC will not install or maintain handicap pedestrian signs.


Horse-Drawn Vehicle Sign (W11-14)

The RCKC shall not install or maintain horse-drawn vehicle signs.

Emergency Vehicle Sign (W11-8)

The emergency vehicle sign shall be installed in advance of an official Fire Station as approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. A Department wishing to install additional traffic control devices for the sign shall be responsible for the purchase, installation and maintenance costs of the additional devices. A formal letter of agreement between the RCKC and the Department shall be executed prior to the installation of the additional devices.

Truck Sign (W11-10)

The RCKC shall not install or maintain truck signs.

Golf Cart Sign (W11-11)

The golf cart sign shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. This sign shall only be installed when a painted crossing is present and at an active golf course. The requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain the sign and painted crossing. When the sign or painted crossing is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined by the RCKC, the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign and painted crossing.


Bicycle / Pedestrian and TRAIL CROSSING Signs (W11-15 and W11-15a)

The bicycle/pedestrian and TRAIL CROSSING sign shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer at established non-motorized trail locations. This sign should only be installed when a painted crossing is present as part of an official non-motorized trail network.

Playground Sign (W15-1)

The RCKC shall not install or maintain playground signs.

Low Clearance Signs (W12-2 and W12-3)

The low clearance sign (W12-2) shall be installed and maintained where the clearance of a bridge or structure is less than 13 feet 6 inches. The rectangular shape Low Clearance sign (W12-3) may be installed on any over passing structure. When used, the rectangular sign should be installed and maintained where the clearance of a structure over the roadway is 14 feet 6 inches or less.

Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1P)

The advisory speed plaque shall be installed and maintained when specified by this policy, the MMUTCD, or when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

NO OUTLET Signs (W14-2)

The NO OUTLET sign shall be installed and maintained at the entrance to a road or road network from which there is no other exit.


ROAD ENDS Signs (W14-2b and OM4-3)

The ROAD ENDS and end of road sign shall be installed and maintained at the termination of a road as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Advance Warning Plaques (W16-2, W16-3 and W16-8 Series)

The advance warning plaques shall be installed and maintained when specified by this policy, the MMUTCD, or when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Supplemental Warning Plaques (W16-6, W16-7 and W16-9 Series)

The supplemental warning plaques shall be installed and maintained when specified by this policy, the MMUTCD, or when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Other Warning Signs

Warning signs that notify users of a nearby resident or child with a medical condition shall not be used. Signs such as these are not found in the MMUTCD.

Warning signs for businesses shall not be used. Signs such as these are not found in the MMUTCD.

All other warning signs not required to be installed by the MMUTCD, or authorized by this policy, shall not be installed or maintained unless specifically approved by the RCKC board.

January 2018 19 TRAFFIC SIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE Guide Signs

Guide Signs Information about guide signs is provided in Chapter 2D of the MMUTCD. Destination Signs (D1 Series)

Upon request, destination signs shall only be installed if the following criteria are satisfied and when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Destination signs shall only be installed for cities, townships, or villages included on the recognized list of cities, townships, and villages as shown on the Public Act 51 Certification maps.

If a destination sign is placed by request then any cost to install and maintain the sign shall be paid by the requesting entity, city, or villageagency.

Street Name Signs (D3-1 Series)

The street name sign shall be installed at all roadway/street intersections, when authorized by the traffic engineer. The street name sign shall be black text on a white background for all RCKC public roads/streets. The City of Kalamazoo and the City of Portage use white text on blue background and white text on a green background, respectively. All street names should include a designator such as Road, Avenue, Street, etc. and may be abbreviated as necessary. The letter size shall be in accordance with the MMUTCD. The private street name sign shall be used at intersections of public and private streets to designate the private street status of the side street. The RCKC shall not install or maintain private street name signs at the intersection of two private roadways/streets.

All other guide signs not required to be installed by the MMUTCD, authorized by this policy, or in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer shall not be installed or maintained within the public right-of-way.

January 2018 20 TRAFFIC SIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE Other Signs

Other Signs There are other signs listed in other chapters of Part 2 of the MMUTCD that require attention by this policy. General Information Signs (I Series, M5 and M6 Series)

The general information sign shall be installed and maintained upon request by an official representative of a Township or other public entity. The request shall be made in writing on official letterhead. The requestor shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate and install the sign. When the sign is due for replacement or is damaged, as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer, the requestor shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate the new sign as well as the cost to install the sign.

General Service Signs (D9-2, M5 and M6 Series)

Hospital general service signs are installed and maintained by the RCKC.

Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Guide Signs

A municipal park department may request park signs andThe requesting entity of a municipal park sign shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain the sign. When the sign is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined by the RCKC, the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign.

All other information/service signs not authorized by this policy or in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer shall not be installed or maintained.


Neighborhood Watch Signs

The neighborhood watch signs may be installed at the request of the appropriate law enforcement agency and the requesting entity. The requesting neighborhood shall be enrolled in the official National Neighborhood Watch program; http://www.nnw.org/. To ensure the effectiveness of these signs enrollment must be renewed bi-annually by the appropriate law enforcement agency with updated contacts in the official program. The requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain the sign. When the sign is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer, the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign. Sign placement shall be limited to only one sign at entry point(s) into the neighborhood watch area.

Hydrant Sign

The hydrant sign shall be installed and maintained upon request by an official utility representative. The requesting utility shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate and install the sign. When the sign is due for replacement or is damaged, as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer, the utility shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate the new sign as well as the cost to install the sign.

Water Valve Sign

The RCKC shall not install or maintain water valve signs.

http://www.nnw.org/


Transit / BUS STOP Sign

The transit/BUS STOP sign shall be installed and maintained upon request by an official representative of Public Transit. Public Transit shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain the sign. When the sign is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer, Public Transit shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign. Sign placement shall be limited to one sign at each designated transit route stop. The sign shall not be combined with any other sign and be on a separate post.

SHARE THE ROAD Sign (W16-1p)

The share the road sign shall be installed in conjunction with the bicycle symbol sign (W11-1) and shared lane pavement marking (sharrow) only when there are gaps, of less than 1 mile, in the non-motorized network and where the following conditions exist: If:

Significant bike use is observed (minimum of 100 cyclists in a season or bicycle activity four days of the week for three consecutive weeks) and

Paved shoulders are 4 foot or less. And two of the following conditions are present:

On street parking is allowed and bikes are prohibited on sidewalks

Posted speed limit of 40 mph or less

School or college area

ADT greater than 2,000 or commercial ADT greater than 300

5 or more bicycle crashes in a three year period

Where vertical or horizontal sight distance is limited

Bike lanes are present, but terminate offering bicyclist no alternative route

Guardrail in place (no escape route): o Face of Rail to Edge Line is less than 6 feet o 5 or more guardrail runs in a mile o Guardrail runs longer than 1,000 feet

The bicycle warning sign and the share the road plaque should be placed where the above condition begins, and after major


intersections. The bicycle warning sign and share the road plaque are not permitted at the following locations:

On routes with 4 foot or wider paved shoulders or wider unless the designated bike lane ends at the beginning of a 4 foot or wider paved shoulder.

On routes where a separate path is available. (Note: requirements adapted from MDOT Traffic Sign Design, Placement and Applications Guidelines)

Guide Signs and Plaques for Bicycle Facilities (D11, M1, M4, M5 and M6 Series)

The Bike Route (D11-1) guide signs and plaques for bicycle facilities shall be installed only on an official non-motorized network. The requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain the sign. When the sign is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign. The Bike Route (D11-1c) guide sign and plaques for commuter bike facilities (as identified in the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Map 7 document) will be installed and maintained by the RCKC. These signs shall feature a white legend on a green background with the Route name text of “Southwest Michigan Bikeway” in place of “BIKE ROUTE”. These signs shall be installed only where a 4 foot paved shoulder exists and specific locations as determinedcorridor level assessment has been completed by the traffic engineer to fully investigate the appropriateness of the proposed facility. Directional arrows (M series) will accompany these signs to guide cyclists along the routes. All other bicycle signs not authorized by this policy or in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer shall not be installed or maintained.

Commented [RM1]: Minus traffic engineer reference, taken from page 123, paragraph 1 of the Kalamazoo Area Transportation

Study 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan.


School Sign (S1-1) and Plaques (W16-7p and W16-9p)

or

The school sign shall be installed in advance of a school as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. The AHEAD (W16-9p) and down arrow (W16-7p) plaques shall be used in conjunction when a painted crosswalk is present. A fluorescent yellow-green background color may be used for this sign or plaques.

Reduced School Speed Limit Ahead Sign (S4-5)

The reduced school speed limit ahead sign shall be used in advance of a school zone speed limit and shall designate the new speed limit in effect during times shown on school times plaque (S4-1P)

School Speed Limit Assembly (S4-1P, S4-3P, R2-1) and END SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT Sign (S5-3)

The school speed limit assembly and end school speed limit sign shall be installed and maintained as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. The speed limit listed must follow the guidelines set forth in Section 257.627a of the MVC. Any school wishing to install additional traffic control devices, as approved by the traffic engineer, shall be responsible for the purchase and maintenance costs of the additional devices. A formal letter of agreement between the RCKC and the school shall be executed prior to the installation of the additional devices.


SCHOOL BUS STOP Sign

School bus stops shall not be signed. Section 257.1855 of The Pupil Transportation Acts sets distance requirements for bus stops to ensure the minimum stopping distance is available on non-freeways posted up to 55mph. The act does not legally allow school bus stops with inadequate visibility in place. School bus stop warning signs shall not be used to address violators of the school bus flashing red lights.

Electronic Traffic Control Devices for Signs

Electronic traffic control devices may be added to a sign for additional emphasis or safety benefit. This may include, but is not limited to, beacons, flashers, and LED flashing signs. Such devices are not typical and shall be reserved for use in the most extreme circumstances. These devices shall not be installed and maintained unless approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Recent crash history and other traffic related factors shall be used to determining when these devices are warranted.

January 2018 26 SPECIAL EVENT SIGNING / IMPLEMENTATION / MISSING AND DAMAGED SIGNS

3. SPECIAL EVENT SIGNING The RCKC shall not provide or install any special event signing unless authorized in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

4. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Upon the adoption of this policy, implementation shall occur as signs are replaced or requested. Signs may also be removed or replaced under the following conditions:

Signs have reached the end of their service life,

Retro reflectivity requirements not met,

Damage,

Maintenance and/or when identified within a construction project,

Or when in conflict and/or pose a safety concern in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer.

5. MISSING AND DAMAGED SIGNS

The RCKC, or requesting entity, may seek recovery of damages for their signs damaged by users. Typically in case for RCKC signs, a recent crash report must be issued stating that RCKC property (i.e. a road sign) was damaged in the crash. The at-fault user’s insurance company will then be contacted and a bill for sign replacement cost and installation will be issued. If the at-fault user has no insurance then a bill will be sent directly to that user. Critical Signs Upon notification to the RCKC the following signs are given highest priority for sign replacement or temporary sign placement:

STOP sign, YIELD sign, One or Two Direction Large Arrow signs. The following signs shall be given the next highest priority and are replaced as soon as possible:

Horizontal alignment signs, railroad crossing warning signs, and advanced traffic control signs.

January 2018 27 REQUEST AND DEVIATION FROM POLICY AND STANDARDS / REVIEW AND MODIFICATIONS OF POLICY

6. REQUEST AND DEVIATION FROM POLICY AND STANDARDS

This policy does not supersede the MMUTCD, AASHTO, or MDOT guidelines, manuals (i.e., MVC), and other RCKC policies (i.e., non-motorized, encroachment, right-of-way, zoning, etc.). This policy provides standards, guidance, and options for design and application of traffic control devices. The RCKC reserves the right to supersede any or all of this policy when safety concerns require. All sign requests and deviations should be routed through the RCKC’s process (i.e., service request) or traffic engineer. The traffic engineer shall review the proposed requests or deviations. If the traffic engineer approves the requests or deviations, the sign(s) may be installed. If the traffic engineer denies the request(s) or deviation(s), the requests or deviations may be presented to the board for review.

7. REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF POLICY This policy shall incorporate by reference the most current revisions of the MMUTCD, MVC, AASHTO, guidelines, manuals, and other traffic related policies. Review and modifications to the policy, including supplements, may be adopted as necessary.

January 2018 28 SUPPLEMENTS

SUPPLEMENTS It is the intent of this document to standardize the use and style of signs for instant recognition

and uniform interpretation by all users. It is also acknowledged that RCKC may also have the

need to establish and use special signs to meet the specific needs. Any special signs necessary

for use may be included in the supplement.

The following pages outline the supplements.


SUPPLEMENTS – RCKC (This space is reserved for future use.)

January 2018 30 REFERENCES

REFERENCES

The following references were used to draft this sign policy: Policy Team Websites:

Road Commission of Kalamazoo County https://www.kalamazoocountyroads.com/

Statutes:

Bridges and Culverts, 1925 PA 354. MCL 254.1 – 254.32 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-354-of-1925 Michigan Vehicle Code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 – 257.923 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-300-of-1949 State Trunk Line Highway System, 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.651 – 247.675 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-51-of-1951 Highway Advertising Act, 1972 PA 106, MCL 252.301 – 252.325 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-106-of-1972 The Pupil Transportation Act, 1990 PA 187, MCL 257.1801 – 257.1877 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-187-of-1990

Federal and State Manuals and Guides:

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book). American Association of State Highway Officials, 2011. https://bookstore.transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=110 Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Michigan Department of Transportation, 2011. http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mmutcdcompleteinteractive_2017.pdf Traffic Sign Design, Placement, and Application Guidelines. Michigan Department of Transportation, 20162017. http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_signing_design_placement_application_guidelines.pdf

https://www.kalamazoocountyroads.com/

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-354-of-1925





https://bookstore.transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=110

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mmutcdcompleteinteractive_2017.pdf


http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_signing_design_placement_application_guidelines.pdf



Other Local Sign Policies:

Road Commission of Kalamazoo County Non-Motorized Facilities Policy. Road Commission of Kalamazoo County, 2015. https://www.kalamazoocountyroads.com/userfiles/kcrc/file/Engineering/Non%20Motorized%20Policy%20Approved%20%2011-3-15.pdf Berrien County Road Commission Traffic Sign Policy. Berrien County Road Commission, 2015. http://bcroad.org/OP-2%20Sign%20Policy.pdf St. Louis County Traffic Sign Policy. St. Louis County Public Works Department, 2014. http://www.stlouiscountymn.gov/Portals/0/departments/publicworks/KA_Uploads/StLouisCountySignPolicyDRAFT.pdf

Technical Papers and Articles*: *The listing is not an all-inclusive list related to sign and driver behavior research.

Technical Update: Children at Play and Hidden Drive Signs. Ohio LTAP Center, 2013. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/LocalPrograms/LTAP/Documents/RON_Update_Hidden_Drive_and_Children_at_Play_Signs.pdf Transportation Research Synthesis: Effectiveness of Traffic Signs on Local Roads. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2010. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TRS/2010/TRS1002.pdf Transportation Synthesis Report: Effectiveness of “Children at Play” Warning Signs. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2007. http://54.172.27.91/transportation/signs/childrenwarningsigns_tsr_2007.pdf Sauerburger, Dona, Eugene Bourquin, and Jomania Sauerburger. "The Effectiveness of Deaf-Blind Pedestrians Warning Signage on Drivers' Behaviour." International Journal of Orientation & Mobility 5.1 (2013): 11-15. http://www.sauerburger.org/dona/DBsignIJOM.html Fisher, James. "Testing the Effect of Road Traffic Signs′ Informational Value on Driver Behavior." Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 34.2 (1992): 231-237. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001872089203400208 McNichol, Tom. "Roads Gone Wild." WIRED 01 Dec. 2004 https://www.wired.com/2004/12/traffic/

https://www.kalamazoocountyroads.com/userfiles/kcrc/file/Engineering/Non%20Motorized%20Policy%20Approved%20%2011-3-15.pdf


http://bcroad.org/OP-2%20Sign%20Policy.pdf

http://www.stlouiscountymn.gov/Portals/0/departments/publicworks/KA_Uploads/StLouisCountySignPolicyDRAFT.pdf



http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/LocalPrograms/LTAP/Documents/RON_Update_Hidden_Drive_and_Children_at_Play_Signs.pdf


http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TRS/2010/TRS1002.pdf

http://54.172.27.91/transportation/signs/childrenwarningsigns_tsr_2007.pdf

http://www.sauerburger.org/dona/DBsignIJOM.html

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001872089203400208

https://www.wired.com/2004/12/traffic/

January 2018 32 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: Does this sign policy interfere with the efforts of complete streets and non-motorized

facilities?

A: This sign policy does not interfere with the considerations, potential projects, and/or efforts

of non-motorized facilities. Rather it provides a consistent application for users on sign

expectations.

Q: What is the purpose of this sign policy?

A: This sign policy provides consistency in sign use for the RCKC. The purpose of providing a

uniform traffic sign approach (where possible) will minimize the confusion of when and

where signs are used and assist staff and the public in establishing safe traffic signing.

Q: What does the MMUTCD state about installing more than one sign on the same post?

A: Per the MMUTCD: “…Signs should be individually installed on separate posts or mountings except where: A.) One sign supplements another; B.) Route or directional signs are grouped to clarify information to motorists; C.) Regulatory signs that do not conflict with each other are grouped, such as turn prohibition signs posted with one way signs or a parking regulation sign posted with a speed limit sign; or D.) Street name signs are posted with a stop or yield sign…”

Q: How will this sign policy reserve all rights/authorities for the RCKC?

A: Policies may be adopted, reviewed and revised in order to meet legislatively mandated responsibilities. The policies provide guidance to the public and to the RCKC governing body and its staff. This policy does not supersede the MMUTCD, AASHTO, or MDOT guidelines, manuals (i.e., MVC), and RCKC’s policies (i.e., non-motorized, encroachment, right-of-way, zoning, etc.). This policy provides standards, guidance, and options for design and application of traffic control devices. The RCKC reserves the right to supersede any or all of this policy when safety concerns require.

Q: How will requests for a variance to this sign policy be handled? A: The traffic engineer shall review the proposed requests or deviations. If the traffic engineer

approves the requests or deviations, the sign(s) may be installed. If the traffic engineer denies the requests or deviations the requests or deviations may be presented to the board for review.

Q: How and when may the policy be updated? A: The policy is a fluid document and may be updated as variances, supplements, guidelines or

legislative changes dictate they be incorporated.


Q: Why are some of the signs in the MMUTCD allowed, while others are not? A: The MMUTCD is a broad document and not all areas are applicable to our region. The

MMUTCD allows for engineering judgement as to what signs may be considered.

Q: Who will determine how many signs of any type are allowed?

A: The traffic engineer, or RCKC designee, shall determine how many signs and spacing of signs based upon guidance in the MMUTCD.

Q: How many signs does RCKC have?

A: Currently, there are over approximately 22,800 signs managed by RCKC.

Q: Why are signing priorities necessary?

A: Signing priorities are necessary to recognize the primary functions of signs are to warn,

regulate and guide users. Sign spacing and the amount of information displayed have an

impact on users and the ability to read and respond to sign messages in an expected,

predictable manner.

Q: Does this sign policy regulate private property signage?

A: This policy addresses the public right-of-way and not private property. Cities or Townships

should be contacted for any other ordinance and/or policy requirements.

Q: How are sign installations to be requested?

A: Requests may be submitted by a city, village, MDOT or township. Resident requests seeking

installation may be considered depending on the type of sign requested.

Q: What other requirements are necessary with a sign placement?

A: RCKC should be contacted for any permit and/or policy requirements prior to any

installation.

Road Commission of Kalamazoo County Sign Policy

January 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1 2. TRAFFIC SIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE ............................................................................. 6

REGULATORY SIGNS ............................................................................................................ 6 WARNING SIGNS ............................................................................................................... 11 GUIDE SIGNS ..................................................................................................................... 19 OTHER SIGNS ..................................................................................................................... 20

3. SPECIAL EVENT SIGNING ......................................................................................................... 26 4. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................... 26 5. MISSING AND DAMAGED SIGNS ............................................................................................. 26

CRITICAL SIGNS ................................................................................................................. 26 6. REQUEST FOR DEVIATION FROM POLICY AND STANDARDS .................................................. 27 7. REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF POLICY ................................................................................ 27 APPENDIX

SUPPLEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 28

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 30

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ............................................................ 32


1. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this policy is to establish uniformity in the installation and maintenance of signs. This policy recognizes that the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) is the standard for all traffic control devices on all public roads in Michigan, and therefore all traffic control devices on the roadway/street system/public right-of-way shall conform to its standards and specifications as outlined in Section 257.608 of the Michigan Vehicle Code (MVC). This policy describes typical applications and procedures related to placement of signs on roadways/streets for the safety of the users. Enactment of the Highway Advertising Act of 1972 and its subsequent amendments have placed severe restrictions on billboard advertising, thus increasing the demand to place additional directional information signs within road right-of-way. In order to respond to all sign requests in a fair and consistent manner, we recognize the need to establish signing guidelines that will address aspects of roadway/street signing while maintaining a safe and logical sequence of informational displays along roadways/streets. Although the aforementioned MMUTCD contains standards for design and application of traffic control devices, it does not contain specific criteria on the following subjects for all signs: (1) allowable sign messages, (2) qualifications which allow placement of signs for various facilities and/or activities, or (3) priority or ranking of the various sign groups on the basis of roadway/street user needs which, in turn, should determine the selection process for sign installations. It is in the best interest of the public and the RCKC to prevent the excessive use of traffic signs on the roadway/street system. Traffic sign effectiveness can be severely diminished by improper or over use. Regulatory and warning signs are installed w h e n warranted for safety. An appropriate use of traffic signs improves the effectiveness of signs and reduces maintenance costs. It is a goal of the RCKC to limit the use of traffic signs to those that:

1. fulfill a need, 2. command attention, 3. convey a clear, simple meaning, 4. command respect from road users, and 5. give adequate time for proper response.

Eliminating unnecessary signage improves traffic safety for all users, reduces sign clutter/pollution, standardizes implementation, and lowers maintenance costs.

It is not the intent of this policy to arbitrarily delete or eliminate specific traffic signs, but rather in the best interest of all roadway/street users, to establish criteria to install and maintain traffic signs in the public right-of-way. It is understood that many traffic signs have been installed over the years throughout the road/street network which are either obsolete or have very limited influence on the road users. These signs, along with others that are no longer used


by this agency have been identified in this policy and may still be installed through the variance process. The guidelines set forth in this policy address these subjects and provide criteria by which to evaluate all signing requests consistently and equitably and to ensure that information displayed has value to road users. HUMAN FACTORS As vehicles move along a roadway/street each user is confronted with many elements competing for attention; e.g., presence of other users, roadway/street alignment and other design features, billboards, traffic signs, traffic signals, pavement markings, commercial development, rural and urban environs, different levels of lighting, and adverse weather conditions. Any or all of these factors may affect road/street safety, as well as the user’s ability to see, assimilate, and react to pertinent road/street sign messages. Studies of human behavior have shown that a user can focus attention on only one thing at a time, but can respond rapidly to several stimuli. However, receiving too much information in a short time can adversely affect the user's ability to process the information effectively, causing information overload. Information overload is a condition where the user is unable to perceive and/or use the information displayed. When this condition occurs, the user will shift attention from one source of information to another and may miss critical sign messages. Considering the large number of road/street elements and complexities confronting each user, it is apparent that the amount of information which can be effectively conveyed by traffic signs is limited. For this reason it is necessary to have guidelines for signs and sign group priorities to avoid information overload and to ensure that essential signs are in place for the general user. SIGNING PRIORITIES Basic concepts of traffic engineering recognize that the primary functions of traffic control signs are to warn, regulate, and guide users. Sign spacing and the amount of information displayed have an impact on the user’s ability to read and respond to sign messages in an expected, predictable manner. Accordingly, the primary function of traffic control signs is to enable users to react promptly, naturally, and safely to the traffic and design conditions encountered, to inform on the regulations and use of roads and streets, to warn of unexpected roadway/street conditions which require extra care in driving, and to provide guidance to major destinations. Secondary functions of traffic control signs are to advise users of various services normally required to complete an extended journey (emergency services, motorist services,


public transportation), and of supplemental services such as recreational facilities, places of interest, and attractions. In general, guide signs along a road/street are necessary for users who are unfamiliar with the route and need guidance to reach their destinations. The most important guide signs are those which provide direction to major metropolitan areas, road/street routes, or places of national prominence. Traffic control signs can be classified into eight basic sign groups. Listed below is the order of priorities adopted by the national committees of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for these sign groups, and a brief description of the function of each sign group: Group No. Sign Type

1. REGULATORY SIGNS - Inform the user of traffic or regulations concerning vehicle operation on the road/street (i.e., stop, yield, speed limit signs, etc.).

2. WARNING SIGNS - Advise the user of unexpected road/street conditions which require extra care in driving (i.e., curve, stop ahead, chevron signs, etc.).

3. NAVIGATIONAL GUIDE SIGNS - Identify the route or routes that the user may follow to complete a trip, including directions and distances to cities and other destinations (standard guide signs, i.e., route markers, distance and destination, exit direction, etc.). Advise the user of destinations accessible other than those shown on standard guide signing (i.e., township supplemental freeway signing).

4. EMERGENCY SERVICES SIGNS - Advise and direct the user to facilities providing emergency services or assistance. Such facilities include hospitals providing emergency medical treatment and state, county, or local enforcement agencies.

5. USER SERVICES SIGNS - Advise and direct the user to basic services normally needed to complete a long trip (i.e., gas, food, lodging and camping, tourist information centers, welcome centers, and rest areas).

6. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SIGNS - Advise and direct the user to facilities that provide commercial and public passenger travel service (i.e., airports, train stations, bus stations, and vehicle ferry docks).

7. TRAFFIC GENERATOR SIGNS - Advise and direct the user to activities, facilities, or special points of interest which attract a significant number of people who are unfamiliar with the local area and/or access routes.


8. GENERAL INFORMATION SIGNS - Advise the user of information that may be of interest and—although not directly necessary for travel—in most instances include a geographic reference(i.e., political boundary limits, landmarks, Historic Site, Adopt-A-Highway, Heritage Routes, Memorial Signing, Tourist Oriented Directional Signs (TODS), Community Wayfinding Signing, etc.).

SIGNING PRINCIPLES

The design (shape, size, and color) of traffic signs used in Michigan shall conform to national sign standards. Uniform use and standardization of traffic signs are desirable to ensure instant recognition and uniform interpretation by all users.

A traffic sign should be installed only if it fulfills a specific need based on engineering judgment. In order to be effective, a sign should command attention, contain a clear simple message, be well maintained, and be located such that users have adequate time to see, comprehend, and respond appropriately.

Information overload may result from too many signs, nonessential signs, insufficient spacing between signs, excessive lines of legend, inadequate conspicuity or legibility, or a combination of these factors.

Regulatory and warning signs should be installed only where mandated or warranted so that their effectiveness will not be diminished by excessive use.

Guide signs should be installed when they are essential to the user or are beneficial to a significant number of users.

Within a certain distance in advance of an interchange or intersection, signing needs will be evaluated and signs installed in descending priority providing that a minimum standard spacing between signs is maintained, thus avoiding informational overload and potential user confusion. Signs serving other destinations (excluding cities, villages, routes, etc.) are classified as supplemental guide signs. Sign priority groups 4 through 8 are considered supplemental guide signs. Supplemental guide signs are secondary to principal signing needs (groups 1 through 3) and should be used sparingly. Supplemental guide signs are used to guide users who are seeking a specific destination. Installation of supplemental signs may be justified when visitation or attendance volumes are high and a significant percentage of users seeking a destination are unfamiliar with its location and access routes. Supplemental guide signs are not intended to advertise or to promote a facility, or to increase its visitation or attendance volumes. The Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices states that, both Specific Service (Logo) Signs and TODS provide business identification and directional information for essential user services and for businesses deriving a major portion of income and/or visitors from users not residing in the immediate area respectively. Both sign


programs are a l s o mandated by Michigan statute.

Supplemental guide signs can reduce the effectiveness of other essential signing. For this reason, we have established guidelines for such signing.

NON-CONFORMING SIGNS

Signs already installed which are not in compliance with these guidelines or provisions contained in the MMUTCD shall be removed when they are damaged, in need of maintenance, or if the intended purpose is no longer present in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer, or designee. The affected person or agency will be notified, if possible, of the intent at least thirty (30) days prior to sign removal. If any non-conforming sign is a safety hazard, it shall be removed immediately.

UNAUTHORIZED SIGNS

All signs installed without the approval of the RCKC’s representative as per polices, guidelines and Section 257.610 of the MVC will be considered unauthorized and therefore shall be removed immediately without prior notice. TEMPORARY SIGNS Signs of various types such as political candidate, open house, garage sale, or real estate signs are sometimes placed within the public right-of-way. These types of signs are temporary, but are still encroachments and may be a safety hazard to users and therefore may be removed at the discretion of the RCKC without notification.


2. TRAFFIC SIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE

Regulatory Signs Information about Regulatory signs is provided in Chapter 2B of the MMUTCD. STOP Sign (R1-1)

The stop sign configuration shall be approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Stop signs shall generally be installed on the minor street of an intersection in accordance with the MMUTCD. The stop sign shall not be installed for any private roadway/street. A multi-way stop installation shall be based upon an engineering study and meet warrants as set by the MMUTCD. Stop signs shall not be used for speed control.

YIELD Sign (R1-2)

The yield sign shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Yield signs shall not be used for speed control.

ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P)

The ALL WAY plaque sign shall be installed and maintained for every all-way stop intersection. Note: The 3 WAY and 4 WAY plaques are no longer allowed in the current MMUTCD.

SPEED LIMIT Sign (R2-1)

The speed limit sign shall only be installed and maintained for authorized speed zones having an approved Traffic Control Order (TCO) approved by the RCKC board. Speed limit signs shall not be installed for statutory speed limits unless authorized in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer (as set forth in Section 257.629 of the MVC). A speed limit sign shall be installed whenever the speed limit changes, including when entering a statutory (i.e. general speed limit) speed limit area. Where the speed limit transitions, only one speed limit sign shall be installed.


Advance Intersection Lane Control Sign (R3 Series)

The advance intersection lane control sign shall be installed and maintained at all signalized intersections when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Traffic Movement Prohibition Signs (R4-1, R4-2 and W14-3)

These signs shall not be installed and maintained unless approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

PARKING Sign (R7 and R8 Series)

The parking sign shall only be installed and maintained for zones where parking has been restricted by a TCO issued by the RCKC board.

Traffic Signal Sign (R10 Series)

The traffic signal sign shall be installed and maintained in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

ROAD CLOSED Sign (R11 Series)

The road closed sign shall be used when a road is closed to all traffic except authorized vehicles (i.e. construction equipment). The road closed to thru traffic sign shall be used when through traffic is not permitted or where local traffic is permitted for some distance beyond the sign until the point of closure. Emergency road closures shall use a road closed sign placed upon a Type III barricade.


WEIGHT LIMIT Sign (R12-1 through R12-5)

The weight limit sign shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

BRIDGE and STRUCTURE WEIGHT, WIDTH AND HEIGHT RESTRICTION Sign (R12 Series)

The bridge and structure WEIGHT LIMIT sign shall be installed and maintained for all restricted bridges, as close to the restricted bridge or structure as possible. The ON BRIDGE AHEAD sign shall be installed with the WEIGHT LIMIT sign, in advance of the restricted bridge or structure, at the nearest intersections approaching the restriction in accordance with the established Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) requirements.

Truck Signs

The truck route signs shall be installed and maintained for all roads restricting through traffic by commercial vehicles by the agency’s public governing body procedures.


SEASONAL LOAD AND SPEED RESTRICTION Sign (i.e. Frost Laws)

The SEASONAL LOAD AND SPEED RESTRICTIONS IN EFFECT sign shall be installed and maintained when seasonal load and speed restrictions (i.e. frost laws) are in effect. Placement of these signs shall be determined by the traffic engineer. A map and list showing all-weather and seasonally restricted roads is available at the RCKC web site.

Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1)

The grade crossing sign is the responsibility of the railroad authority for the installation and maintenance of the crossbuck sign at signalized grade crossings. At unsignalized grade crossings all grade crossing signage will be maintained by RCKC.

Ordinance Sign

The public governing body requesting the ordinance sign displaying an ordinance shall be installed when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. The ordinance displayed on the sign shall only apply to traffic operations. The requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain an ordinance sign. When the sign is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined by the RCKC, the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign.

In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign (R1-6 Series)

The in-street pedestrian crossing sign shall only be used where the law (local regulation or ordinance) specifically requires that a driver yield or stop. Where the STATE LAW is noted, the legend may be revised to LOCAL LAW displayed at the top of the signs as applicable and where yield or stop lines are used in advance of a marked crosswalk. This sign shall be installed only after the conclusion of a traffic study warrants its installation and in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. A requesting entity shall be responsible for the traffic study as well as the cost of material to fabricate, install, and maintain the sign and painted crossing. When the sign or painted crossing is due for


maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined by the RCKC, the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign and painted crossing.

Other Regulatory Signs

All other regulatory signs not required to be installed by the MMUTCD, authorized by this policy, or in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer shall not be installed or maintained within the public right-of-way.


Warning Signs

Information about warning signs is provided in Chapter 2C of the MMUTCD. Horizontal Alignment Signs (W1-1 through W1-5, and W1-10 Series)

The horizontal alignment signs shall be installed according to the MMUTCD.

One-Direction Large Arrow Sign (W1-6)

The one-direction large arrow sign shall be installed and maintained when a turn sign (W1-1) or reverse turn sign (W1-3) is installed. This sign may also be installed when a curve sign (W1-2), reverse curve sign (W1-4), or winding road sign (W1-5) is installed. Installation will be based on recent crash history and traffic volume or in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Two-Direction Large Arrow Sign (W1-7)

The two-direction large arrow sign may be installed and maintained at a “T” intersection when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Recent crash history is one factor used in determining when this sign is needed.

Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8)

The chevron alignment sign may be installed when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Typical installation occurs if crash history indicates a need for additional signage or if space does not allow the installation of a W1-6 sign. Spacing of chevron signs shall follow Table 2C-6 from the MMUTCD. Chevron signs are typically not installed on gravel or dead-end roads unless necessary for safety in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer.


Intersection Warning Signs (W2-1 and W2-2)

The cross road and side road sign should be used in advance of an uncontrolled intersection approach to indicate the presence of an intersection and the possibility of turning or entering traffic. An advance name panel should be used if possible. These signs should be used on Primary or Local roads and are typically not used on gravel roads, in subdivisions, or in plats unless necessary for safety in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer.

Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3-1, W3-2, W3-3)

The advance traffic control signs may be installed and maintained in advance of any such traffic control devices on Primary or Local roads. These signs are typically not used on gravel roads, in subdivisions, or in plats unless

necessary for safety in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer.

Reduced Speed Limit Ahead Sign (W3-5)

The speed reduction sign shall be installed and maintained when the following criteria are satisfied: Condition A The W3-5 sign shall be used in advance of an authorized speed zone of 45 mph or less if leaving a segment with the statutory speed limit (See Sections 257.627 and 257.628 of the MVC for information on statutory speed limits). Condition B The W3-5 sign shall be used in advance of a lower authorized speed zone when leaving a segment with a higher authorized speed limit that is at least 15 mph greater than the lower speed zone or when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.


Lane Ends Signs (W4-2 and W9-2)

The lane ends symbol and merge signs shall be installed and maintained when there is a reduction in the number of traffic lanes in the same direction of travel.

CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP Plaque (W4-4P Series)

The CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP plaque shall not be installed and maintained unless approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Recent crash history and other traffic related factors shall be used to determining when this sign is warranted.

ROAD NARROWS and NARROW ROADWAY Signs (W5-1)

The ROAD NARROWS and NARROW ROADSWAY sign shall be installed and maintained where road pavement width (including paved shoulders) significantly changes along a road segment. The narrow road sign may be used when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. A speed advisory plaque may also be used.

NARROW BRIDGE Sign (W5-2)

The NARROW BRIDGE sign shall be installed and maintained in advance of all bridges or culverts having a two-way roadway/street clearance width less than 19 feet but more than 17 feet as per Section 254.20 of Bridges and Culverts Act.

ONE LANE BRIDGE Sign (W5-3)

The ONE LANE BRIDGE sign shall be installed and maintained in advance of all bridges or culverts having a two-way roadway/street clearance width of 17 feet or less as per Section 254.20 of Bridges and Culverts Act.


Hill Signs (W7-1 and W7-1a)

The hill signs shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

HIDDEN DRIVE and HILL BLOCKS VIEW Signs (W7-6)

The HIDDEN DRIVE and the HILL BLOCKS VIEW signs shall not be used. The HIDDEN DRIVE sign is not in the MMUTCD and no guidelines exist for their installation.

PAVEMENT ENDS Sign (W8-3)

The PAVEMENT ENDS sign shall be used to warn users where the road transitions from a paved surface to a gravel surface in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer.

ROUGH ROAD Sign (W8-8)

The ROUGH ROAD sign shall be used to warn users of an approaching rough section of roadway/street as approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. No speed advisory plaque (W13-1P) will be posted since conditions may vary widely.

Grade Crossing Advance Warning Signs (W10 Series)

Grade crossing advance warning signs shall be installed according to the MMUTCD and in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer. The RCKC will install and maintain all grade crossing advance warning signs at any signalized or unsignalized grade crossing.


Pedestrian Sign (W11-2)

or

The pedestrian warning sign shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. An engineering study shall be completed to determine if a pedestrian crosswalk is warranted prior to consideration. When used at a crossing, the pedestrian warning sign shall be supplemented with a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque showing the location of the crossing, in conjunction with the presence of crosswalk markings. The crossing location shall be preceded by a pedestrian warning sign supplemented with an AHEAD plaque (W16-9P). A fluorescent yellow-green background color may be used for this sign or plaques.

Animal Signs (W11 Series)

The RCKC recognizes the significant danger that animals pose to the traveling public on roads. However, due to the random nature of animal behavior and changing crossing locations, the RCKC shall not install or maintain animal signs.

Farm Vehicle Signs (W11-5 and W11-5a)

The RCKC shall not install or maintain farm equipment signs.

Handicap Pedestrian Sign (W11-9)

The RCKC will not install or maintain handicap pedestrian signs.


Horse-Drawn Vehicle Sign (W11-14)

The RCKC shall not install or maintain horse-drawn vehicle signs.

Emergency Vehicle Sign (W11-8)

The emergency vehicle sign shall be installed in advance of an official Fire Station as approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. A Department wishing to install additional traffic control devices for the sign shall be responsible for the purchase, installation and maintenance costs of the additional devices. A formal letter of agreement between the RCKC and the Department shall be executed prior to the installation of the additional devices.

Truck Sign (W11-10)

The RCKC shall not install or maintain truck signs.

Golf Cart Sign (W11-11)

The golf cart sign shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. This sign shall only be installed when a painted crossing is present and at an active golf course. The requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain the sign and painted crossing. When the sign or painted crossing is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined by the RCKC, the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign and painted crossing.


Bicycle / Pedestrian and TRAIL CROSSING Signs (W11-15 and W11-15a)

The bicycle/pedestrian and TRAIL CROSSING sign shall be installed and maintained when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer at established non-motorized trail locations. This sign should only be installed when a painted crossing is present as part of an official non-motorized trail network.

Playground Sign (W15-1)

The RCKC shall not install or maintain playground signs.

Low Clearance Signs (W12-2 and W12-3)

The low clearance sign (W12-2) shall be installed and maintained where the clearance of a bridge or structure is less than 13 feet 6 inches. The rectangular shape Low Clearance sign (W12-3) may be installed on any over passing structure. When used, the rectangular sign should be installed and maintained where the clearance of a structure over the roadway is 14 feet 6 inches or less.

Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1P)

The advisory speed plaque shall be installed and maintained when specified by this policy, the MMUTCD, or when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

NO OUTLET Signs (W14-2)

The NO OUTLET sign shall be installed and maintained at the entrance to a road or road network from which there is no other exit.


ROAD ENDS Signs (W14-2b and OM4-3)

The ROAD ENDS and end of road sign shall be installed and maintained at the termination of a road as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Advance Warning Plaques (W16-2, W16-3 and W16-8 Series)

The advance warning plaques shall be installed and maintained when specified by this policy, the MMUTCD, or when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Supplemental Warning Plaques (W16-6, W16-7 and W16-9 Series)

The supplemental warning plaques shall be installed and maintained when specified by this policy, the MMUTCD, or when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Other Warning Signs

Warning signs that notify users of a nearby resident or child with a medical condition shall not be used. Signs such as these are not found in the MMUTCD.

Warning signs for businesses shall not be used. Signs such as these are not found in the MMUTCD.

All other warning signs not required to be installed by the MMUTCD, or authorized by this policy, shall not be installed or maintained unless specifically approved by the RCKC board.

January 2018 19 TRAFFIC SIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE Guide Signs

Guide Signs Information about guide signs is provided in Chapter 2D of the MMUTCD. Destination Signs (D1 Series)

Upon request, destination signs shall only be installed if the following criteria are satisfied and when approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

Destination signs shall only be installed for cities, townships, or villages included on the recognized list of cities, townships, and villages as shown on the Public Act 51 Certification maps.

If a destination sign is placed by request then any cost to install and maintain the sign shall be paid by the requesting entity, city, or village.

Street Name Signs (D3-1 Series)

The street name sign shall be installed at all roadway/street intersections, when authorized by the traffic engineer. The street name sign shall be black text on a white background for all RCKC public roads/streets. The City of Kalamazoo and the City of Portage use white text on blue background and white text on a green background, respectively. All street names should include a designator such as Road, Avenue, Street, etc. and may be abbreviated as necessary. The letter size shall be in accordance with the MMUTCD. The private street name sign shall be used at intersections of public and private streets to designate the private street status of the side street. The RCKC shall not install or maintain private street name signs at the intersection of two private roadways/streets.

All other guide signs not required to be installed by the MMUTCD, authorized by this policy, or in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer shall not be installed or maintained within the public right-of-way.


Other Signs There are other signs listed in other chapters of Part 2 of the MMUTCD that require attention by this policy. General Information Signs (I Series, M5 and M6 Series)

The general information sign shall be installed and maintained upon request by an official representative of a Township or other public entity. The request shall be made in writing on official letterhead. The requestor shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate and install the sign. When the sign is due for replacement or is damaged, as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer, the requestor shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate the new sign as well as the cost to install the sign.

General Service Signs (D9-2, M5 and M6 Series)

Hospital general service signs are installed and maintained by the RCKC.

Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Guide Signs

A municipal park department may request park signs and shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain the sign. When the sign is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined by the RCKC, the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign.

All other information/service signs not authorized by this policy or in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer shall not be installed or maintained.


Neighborhood Watch Signs

The neighborhood watch signs may be installed at the request of the appropriate law enforcement agency and the requesting entity. The requesting neighborhood shall be enrolled in the official National Neighborhood Watch program; http://www.nnw.org/. To ensure the effectiveness of these signs enrollment must be renewed bi-annually by the appropriate law enforcement agency with updated contacts in the official program. The requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain the sign. When the sign is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer, the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign. Sign placement shall be limited to only one sign at entry point(s) into the neighborhood watch area.

Hydrant Sign

The hydrant sign shall be installed and maintained upon request by an official utility representative. The requesting utility shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate and install the sign. When the sign is due for replacement or is damaged, as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer, the utility shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate the new sign as well as the cost to install the sign.

Water Valve Sign

The RCKC shall not install or maintain water valve signs.

http://www.nnw.org/


Transit / BUS STOP Sign

The transit/BUS STOP sign shall be installed and maintained upon request by an official representative of Public Transit. Public Transit shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain the sign. When the sign is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer, Public Transit shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign. Sign placement shall be limited to one sign at each designated transit route stop. The sign shall not be combined with any other sign and be on a separate post.

SHARE THE ROAD Sign (W16-1p)

The share the road sign shall be installed in conjunction with the bicycle symbol sign (W11-1) and shared lane pavement marking (sharrow) only when there are gaps, of less than 1 mile, in the non-motorized network and where the following conditions exist: If:

Significant bike use is observed (minimum of 100 cyclists in a season or bicycle activity four days of the week for three consecutive weeks) and

Paved shoulders are 4 foot or less. And two of the following conditions are present:

On street parking is allowed and bikes are prohibited on sidewalks

Posted speed limit of 40 mph or less

School or college area

ADT greater than 2,000 or commercial ADT greater than 300

5 or more bicycle crashes in a three year period

Where vertical or horizontal sight distance is limited

Bike lanes are present, but terminate offering bicyclist no alternative route

Guardrail in place (no escape route): o Face of Rail to Edge Line is less than 6 feet o 5 or more guardrail runs in a mile o Guardrail runs longer than 1,000 feet

The bicycle warning sign and the share the road plaque should be placed where the above condition begins, and after major


intersections. The bicycle warning sign and share the road plaque are not permitted at the following locations:

On routes with 4 foot or wider paved shoulders unless the designated bike lane ends at the beginning of a 4 foot or wider paved shoulder.

On routes where a separate path is available.

Guide Signs and Plaques for Bicycle Facilities (D11, M1, M4, M5 and M6 Series)

The Bike Route (D11-1) guide signs and plaques for bicycle facilities shall be installed only on an official non-motorized network. The requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material to fabricate, install and maintain the sign. When the sign is due for maintenance/replacement or is damaged, as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer the requesting entity shall be responsible for the cost of material and labor to fabricate and install the new sign. The Bike Route (D11-1c) guide sign and plaques for commuter bike facilities (as identified in the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Map 7 document) will be installed and maintained by the RCKC. These signs shall feature a white legend on a green background with the Route name text of “Southwest Michigan Bikeway” in place of “BIKE ROUTE”. These signs shall be installed only where a corridor level assessment has been completed by the traffic engineer to fully investigate the appropriateness of the proposed facility. Directional arrows (M series) will accompany these signs to guide cyclists along the routes. All other bicycle signs not authorized by this policy or in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer shall not be installed or maintained.

School Sign (S1-1) and Plaques (W16-7p and W16-9p)


or

The school sign shall be installed in advance of a school as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. The AHEAD (W16-9p) and down arrow (W16-7p) plaques shall be used in conjunction when a painted crosswalk is present. A fluorescent yellow-green background color may be used for this sign or plaques.

Reduced School Speed Limit Ahead Sign (S4-5)

The reduced school speed limit ahead sign shall be used in advance of a school zone speed limit and shall designate the new speed limit in effect during times shown on school times plaque (S4-1P)

School Speed Limit Assembly (S4-1P, S4-3P, R2-1) and END SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT Sign (S5-3)

The school speed limit assembly and end school speed limit sign shall be installed and maintained as determined in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. The speed limit listed must follow the guidelines set forth in Section 257.627a of the MVC. Any school wishing to install additional traffic control devices, as approved by the traffic engineer, shall be responsible for the purchase and maintenance costs of the additional devices. A formal letter of agreement between the RCKC and the school shall be executed prior to the installation of the additional devices.


SCHOOL BUS STOP Sign

School bus stops shall not be signed. Section 257.1855 of The Pupil Transportation Acts sets distance requirements for bus stops to ensure the minimum stopping distance is available on non-freeways posted up to 55mph. The act does not legally allow school bus stops with inadequate visibility in place. School bus stop warning signs shall not be used to address violators of the school bus flashing red lights.

Electronic Traffic Control Devices for Signs

Electronic traffic control devices may be added to a sign for additional emphasis or safety benefit. This may include, but is not limited to, beacons, flashers, and LED flashing signs. Such devices are not typical and shall be reserved for use in the most extreme circumstances. These devices shall not be installed and maintained unless approved in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer. Recent crash history and other traffic related factors shall be used to determining when these devices are warranted.

January 2018 26 SPECIAL EVENT SIGNING / IMPLEMENTATION / MISSING AND DAMAGED SIGNS

3. SPECIAL EVENT SIGNING The RCKC shall not provide or install any special event signing unless authorized in the engineering judgment of the traffic engineer.

4. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Upon the adoption of this policy, implementation shall occur as signs are replaced or requested. Signs may also be removed or replaced under the following conditions:

Signs have reached the end of their service life,

Retro reflectivity requirements not met,

Damage,

Maintenance and/or when identified within a construction project,

Or when in conflict and/or pose a safety concern in the engineering judgement of the traffic engineer.

5. MISSING AND DAMAGED SIGNS

The RCKC, or requesting entity, may seek recovery of damages for their signs damaged by users. Typically in case for RCKC signs, a recent crash report must be issued stating that RCKC property (i.e. a road sign) was damaged in the crash. The at-fault user’s insurance company will then be contacted and a bill for sign replacement cost and installation will be issued. If the at-fault user has no insurance then a bill will be sent directly to that user. Critical Signs Upon notification to the RCKC the following signs are given highest priority for sign replacement or temporary sign placement:

STOP sign, YIELD sign, One or Two Direction Large Arrow signs. The following signs shall be given the next highest priority and are replaced as soon as possible:

Horizontal alignment signs, railroad crossing warning signs, and advanced traffic control signs.

January 2018 27 REQUEST AND DEVIATION FROM POLICY AND STANDARDS / REVIEW AND MODIFICATIONS OF POLICY

6. REQUEST AND DEVIATION FROM POLICY AND STANDARDS

This policy does not supersede the MMUTCD, AASHTO, or MDOT guidelines, manuals (i.e., MVC), and other RCKC policies (i.e., non-motorized, encroachment, right-of-way, etc.). This policy provides standards, guidance, and options for design and application of traffic control devices. The RCKC reserves the right to supersede any or all of this policy when safety concerns require. All sign requests and deviations should be routed through the RCKC’s process (i.e., service request) or traffic engineer. The traffic engineer shall review the proposed requests or deviations. If the traffic engineer approves the requests or deviations, the sign(s) may be installed. If the traffic engineer denies the request(s) or deviation(s), the requests or deviations may be presented to the board for review.

7. REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF POLICY This policy shall incorporate by reference the most current revisions of the MMUTCD, MVC, AASHTO, guidelines, manuals, and other traffic related policies. Review and modifications to the policy, including supplements, may be adopted as necessary.


SUPPLEMENTS It is the intent of this document to standardize the use and style of signs for instant recognition

and uniform interpretation by all users. It is also acknowledged that RCKC may also have the

need to establish and use special signs to meet the specific needs. Any special signs necessary

for use may be included in the supplement.

The following pages outline the supplements.


SUPPLEMENTS – RCKC (This space is reserved for future use.)


REFERENCES

The following references were used to draft this sign policy: Policy Team Websites:

Road Commission of Kalamazoo County https://www.kalamazoocountyroads.com/

Statutes:

Bridges and Culverts, 1925 PA 354. MCL 254.1 – 254.32 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-354-of-1925 Michigan Vehicle Code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 – 257.923 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-300-of-1949 State Trunk Line Highway System, 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.651 – 247.675 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-51-of-1951 Highway Advertising Act, 1972 PA 106, MCL 252.301 – 252.325 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-106-of-1972 The Pupil Transportation Act, 1990 PA 187, MCL 257.1801 – 257.1877 http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-187-of-1990

Federal and State Manuals and Guides:

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book). American Association of State Highway Officials, 2011. https://bookstore.transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=110 Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Michigan Department of Transportation, 2011. http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mmutcdcompleteinteractive_2017.pdf Traffic Sign Design, Placement, and Application Guidelines. Michigan Department of Transportation, 2017. http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_signing_design_placement_application_guidelines.pdf

https://www.kalamazoocountyroads.com/






https://bookstore.transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=110






Other Local Policies:

Road Commission of Kalamazoo County Non-Motorized Facilities Policy. Road Commission of Kalamazoo County, 2015. https://www.kalamazoocountyroads.com/userfiles/kcrc/file/Engineering/Non%20Motorized%20Policy%20Approved%20%2011-3-15.pdf Berrien County Road Commission Traffic Sign Policy. Berrien County Road Commission, 2015. http://bcroad.org/OP-2%20Sign%20Policy.pdf St. Louis County Traffic Sign Policy. St. Louis County Public Works Department, 2014. http://www.stlouiscountymn.gov/Portals/0/departments/publicworks/KA_Uploads/StLouisCountySignPolicyDRAFT.pdf

Technical Papers and Articles*: *The listing is not an all-inclusive list related to sign and driver behavior research.

Technical Update: Children at Play and Hidden Drive Signs. Ohio LTAP Center, 2013. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/LocalPrograms/LTAP/Documents/RON_Update_Hidden_Drive_and_Children_at_Play_Signs.pdf Transportation Research Synthesis: Effectiveness of Traffic Signs on Local Roads. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2010. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TRS/2010/TRS1002.pdf Transportation Synthesis Report: Effectiveness of “Children at Play” Warning Signs. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2007. http://54.172.27.91/transportation/signs/childrenwarningsigns_tsr_2007.pdf Sauerburger, Dona, Eugene Bourquin, and Jomania Sauerburger. "The Effectiveness of Deaf-Blind Pedestrians Warning Signage on Drivers' Behaviour." International Journal of Orientation & Mobility 5.1 (2013): 11-15. http://www.sauerburger.org/dona/DBsignIJOM.html Fisher, James. "Testing the Effect of Road Traffic Signs′ Informational Value on Driver Behavior." Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 34.2 (1992): 231-237. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001872089203400208 McNichol, Tom. "Roads Gone Wild." WIRED 01 Dec. 2004 https://www.wired.com/2004/12/traffic/



http://bcroad.org/OP-2%20Sign%20Policy.pdf






http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TRS/2010/TRS1002.pdf

http://54.172.27.91/transportation/signs/childrenwarningsigns_tsr_2007.pdf

http://www.sauerburger.org/dona/DBsignIJOM.html

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001872089203400208

https://www.wired.com/2004/12/traffic/


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: Does this sign policy interfere with the efforts of complete streets and non-motorized

facilities?

A: This sign policy does not interfere with the considerations, potential projects, and/or efforts

of non-motorized facilities. Rather it provides a consistent application for users on sign

expectations.

Q: What is the purpose of this sign policy?

A: This sign policy provides consistency in sign use for the RCKC. The purpose of providing a

uniform traffic sign approach (where possible) will minimize the confusion of when and

where signs are used and assist staff and the public in establishing safe traffic signing.

Q: What does the MMUTCD state about installing more than one sign on the same post?

A: Per the MMUTCD: “…Signs should be individually installed on separate posts or mountings except where: A.) One sign supplements another; B.) Route or directional signs are grouped to clarify information to motorists; C.) Regulatory signs that do not conflict with each other are grouped, such as turn prohibition signs posted with one way signs or a parking regulation sign posted with a speed limit sign; or D.) Street name signs are posted with a stop or yield sign…”

Q: How will this sign policy reserve all rights/authorities for the RCKC?

A: Policies may be adopted, reviewed and revised in order to meet legislatively mandated responsibilities. The policies provide guidance to the public and to the RCKC governing body and its staff. This policy does not supersede the MMUTCD, AASHTO, or MDOT guidelines, manuals (i.e., MVC), and RCKC’s policies (i.e., non-motorized, encroachment, right-of-way, zoning, etc.). This policy provides standards, guidance, and options for design and application of traffic control devices. The RCKC reserves the right to supersede any or all of this policy when safety concerns require.

Q: How will requests for a variance to this sign policy be handled? A: The traffic engineer shall review the proposed requests or deviations. If the traffic engineer

approves the requests or deviations, the sign(s) may be installed. If the traffic engineer denies the requests or deviations the requests or deviations may be presented to the board for review.

Q: How and when may the policy be updated? A: The policy is a fluid document and may be updated as variances, supplements, guidelines or

legislative changes dictate they be incorporated.


Q: Why are some of the signs in the MMUTCD allowed, while others are not? A: The MMUTCD is a broad document and not all areas are applicable to our region. The

MMUTCD allows for engineering judgement as to what signs may be considered.

Q: Who will determine how many signs of any type are allowed?

A: The traffic engineer, or RCKC designee, shall determine how many signs and spacing of signs based upon guidance in the MMUTCD.

Q: How many signs does RCKC have?

A: Currently, there are approximately 22,800 signs managed by RCKC.

Q: Why are signing priorities necessary?

A: Signing priorities are necessary to recognize the primary functions of signs are to warn,

regulate and guide users. Sign spacing and the amount of information displayed have an

impact on users and the ability to read and respond to sign messages in an expected,

predictable manner.

Q: Does this sign policy regulate private property signage?

A: This policy addresses the public right-of-way and not private property. Cities or Townships

should be contacted for any other ordinance and/or policy requirements.

Q: How are sign installations to be requested?

A: Requests may be submitted by a city, village, MDOT or township. Resident requests seeking

installation may be considered depending on the type of sign requested.

Q: What other requirements are necessary with a sign placement?

A: RCKC should be contacted for any permit and/or policy requirements prior to any

installation.

Memo To: Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Kalamazoo,


From: Debbie L. Jung, P.E., Project Engineer

CC: Ryan Minkus, County Engineer

Date: December 19, 2017

Re: Draft Asset Management Plan for Bridges Recommended Kalamazoo County Road Commission (RCKC) Action We recommend the Board approve the draft Asset Management Plan (AMP) for Bridges. BACKGROUND Bridge management is the process of planning the maintenance, repair, and replacement of bridges to optimize conditions over the entire network. The RCKC has been practicing this approach for some time, however not in a systematic AMP. It was decided to craft an AMP for bridges as part of RCKC’s 2017orginaizational goals in order to better establish and monitor the benefits of having a plan in place. Bridge management establishes the current condition of the bridge network and incorporates life cycle costs into a systematic approach of scheduled maintenance, preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement projects. The needs of the entire network as well as budget projections are considered before projects are scheduled. B r i d g e management encompasses the many aspects and tasks needed to maintain a quality inventory, and ensure that the overall condition of the bridge network can be sustained at desired levels over time. The “mix of fixes” approach is a key component of this management system and shared by RCKC throughout our county. The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC) developed an Asset Management Guide for Local Agency Bridges in 2011 including a sample AMP and offered courses in 2017 to help agencies develop a customized AMP. This document was constructed to assist agencies in preparing an AMP tailored to their own specific assets and desired level of detail. It is understood that not all sections may be applicable for every agency, but it is hoped that this template will offer a basic framework that may be fleshed out as detailed in the guidelines. An AMP should be considered a fluid document; as such, an agency may append additional information and sections to the AMP as time progresses. The template is available for an agency’s use; it is hoped that filling in the appropriate sections—and deleting those not applicable at this time—will be significantly faster than composing an AMP from scratch. Overall, by having an AMP for bridges we will continue to move forward in asset management education and using those principles in managing this critical infrastructure. Recently we approved the Asset Management Plan for Paved Roads on August 8, 2017. There will be continued focus across the State and at the Federal level on asset management and asset management plans.

ALTERNATIVES The Board can modify the AMP for further RCKC review. BUDGETARY IMPACT There is no budgetary impact for adopting the AMP. However, the AMP will be utilized to plan for future bridge projects and funding that will be included in future Capital Improvement Plans. SUMMARY We recommend the Board approve the draft Asset Management Plan for Bridges.

AssetManagementPlan

forBridges

January 2018 Page 1 of 11

CONTENTS Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Goal ............................................................................................................................................................... 2

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

Definitions .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Performance Measure ................................................................................................................................... 3

Progress Tracking ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Bridge Assets ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Condition analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Risk Management ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Preservation Strategy .................................................................................................................................... 6

Implementation of the Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 7

Cost Estimate .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Operations and Maintenance Plan—Annual Activities/5-Year PLAN ....................................................... 10

Project Prioritization Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 10

Five-year Annual Cost Projection ............................................................................................................... 11

Identify Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................ 11


PURPOSE The Road Commission of Kalamazoo County (RCKC) seeks to implement a cost-effective program of preventive maintenance to maximize the useful service life of the bridges under its jurisdiction.

The RCKC recognizes that limited funds are available for improving the bridge network. Preventive maintenance is a more effective use of these funds than the costly alternative of major rehabilitation or replacement, and we seek to identify those bridges that will benefit from a planned maintenance program.

GOAL The goal of the RCKC is to Preserve the existing bridge network, maximize the useful life of bridges, and reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges.

OBJECTIVES The RCKC objectives in implementing the bridge asset management plan include:

Establishing the current condition of the RCKC’s bridges Developing a “mix of fixes” that will:

o Program regular scheduled maintenance actions to slow deterioration of all bridges o Program preventive maintenance to address specific needs o Identify and program rehabilitation to degraded bridge elements to restore structural

integrity and correct major safety defects o Identify and program bridges in need of replacement

Identifying available funding sources, including: o Dedicated RCKC resources o Michigan’s Local Bridge Program o Opportunities to obtain other funding

Prioritizing the programmed actions within available funding limitations Maintaining the number of bridges rated fair/good and reducing the number of bridges classified

as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete within 5 years.

DEFINITIONS Bridge – A structure erected over a depression or obstruction that carries traffic and has an

opening measured along the center of the road greater than 20 feet. Also applies when there are multiple pipes where the distance between the pipes is less than half of the smallest pipe opening.

Culvert – A type of bridge constructed entirely below and independent of the road surface. Also used to describe structures whose opening measures less than 20 feet along the center of the road.

National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) – Federal regulations establishing requirements for inspection procedures, frequency of inspections, qualifications of personnel, inspection reports, and preparation and maintenance of bridge inventory records.

Structurally Deficient (SD) – term for a bridge where significant load carrying elements are in poor condition due to deterioration and/or damage.

Functionally Obsolete (FO) – term for a bridge where deck geometry, load carrying capacity, clearance (vertical or horizontal), or approach roadway alignment do not meet current standards.


Local Bridge Program – Program overseen by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) that allocates a limited amount of Federal and State funds each year to local agencies (cities, villages and road commissions) in Michigan for bridge construction projects. If a project is chosen for funding, the program typically covers 95% of the construction costs with the local agency responsible for all remaining costs.

Structure Rating – a calculated number based on the condition of bridge elements as determined by NBIS inspections

o Failed – NBIS rating of 0, bridge is closed o Poor/Critical – NBIS rating of 1-4, bridge has significant deterioration and could have

weight restrictions, closure of bridge could be imminent o Fair – NBIS rating of 5-6, bridge is sound but signs of deterioration are apparent o Good – NBIS rating of 7-9, bridge has minor to no problems

PERFORMANCE MEASURES Several metrics will be used to assess the effectiveness of the preservation plan. RCKC will monitor and report the annual change in the number of bridges rated fair/good (5 or higher) and the annual change in the number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. A tracking graph will be used to monitor progress toward an objective of maintaining the number of the county’s bridges rated fair/good and reducing the number classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

Progress Tracking The preservation plan is intended to extend the period of time that bridges remain in good and fair condition, thereby increasing their useful service life and reducing future maintenance costs. RCKC has been implementing some preventive maintenance and scheduled maintenance measures in the past, however has not specifically tracked their effects on bridge condition. Moving forward, RCKC will evaluate past inspection records and condition ratings and establish a baseline of past performance by determining the average period of time that a bridge remains in good or fair condition. The performance

3028

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Good (9‐7) Fair (6‐5) Poor (4‐1)

2017 RCKC Bridge Condition


measures will be the increased average amount of time a bridge is rated good or fair after implementation of the preservation strategy when compared to the baseline time before implementation.

BRIDGE ASSETS RCKC is responsible for 62 bridges. Detailed inventory data and condition ratings for each bridge are contained in Appendix A-1. The bridge inventory data was obtained from MDOT’s online bridge management and inspection system (MiBRIDGE). There is potential for the number of bridges to increase as RCKC replaces stream crossings the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has identified as undersized and would result in the new crossing exceeding the 20 foot threshold for bridge designation.

A summary and distribution of the bridge population is presented in the following table:

Bridge Type Number of Bridges 2017 Condition

Total Structurally Deficient

Functionally Obsolete

Weight Restricted Closed* Poor Fair Good

Concrete Other 1 1 1 1 Culverts 9 1 8 Steel Multi-girder 2 2 2 2 Multi-girder, galv 4 4

Culverts, Arch 2 2 Culverts, Multiple 11 1 1 10

Railroad 1 1 1 Continuous, multi-girder, galv

1 1

Pre-stressed concrete Multi-girder 3 1 2 1 Box beam 17 1 1 4 13 Spread box beam 1 1

Timber slab 3 2 2 1 slab, composite 2 1 2 Culvert 5 1 1 4 1 Total SD/FO/PSTD 5 3 8 0

Total 62 4 28 30 Percentage (%) 8.06% 4.84% 12.90% 6.45% 45.16% 48.39%

*Once a bridge has been closed for more than 3 years it is no longer included in the bridge inventory.


CONDITION ANALYSIS As detailed in the previous table, RCKC is responsible for 62 bridges of various designs and materials. As the material type often determines the type of maintenance activities that are appropriate for a structure, it is useful to note that RCKC’s structures consist of 10 concrete, 21 steel, 21 pre-stressed concrete, and 10 timber. The distribution of overall bridge condition is: 4 (6.5%) are poor; 28 (45.2%) are fair; and 30 (48.4%) are good. The RCKC bridge inventory includes 5 (8.1%) structurally deficient bridges, 4 are on local roads, and 3 (4.8%) functionally obsolete bridges, of which 1 is on a local road.

When using statistics from the Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC) to look at the condition of the bridges maintained by counties adjacent to Kalamazoo (Allegan, Barry, Calhoun, St. Joseph, and Van Buren), currently 17.0% are poor, 47.7% are fair, and 35.3% are good, indicating that RCKC’s bridge condition is comparatively in better condition than in the surrounding counties.

48.4%

45.2%

6.5%

2017 RCKC Bridge Rating Summary

Good (9‐7) Fair (6‐5) Poor (4‐1)

35.3%

47.7%

17.0%

2017 Allegan, Barry, Calhoun, St. Joseph, and Van Buren County Bridge Rating Summary

Good (9‐7) Fair (6‐5) Poor (4‐1)


Some of the severely degraded, structurally deficient, and functionally obsolete bridges will require replacement or major rehabilitation. Due to the restricted flow associated with the multiple steel culverts and the lack of a natural bottom, when required to be replaced all of the crossings of this type will have to be replaced with a different type of bridge. Many of the remaining bridges require one-time preventive maintenance actions to repair defects and restore the structure to a higher condition rating. A scheduled maintenance plan will group similar maintenance actions for groups of bridges of similar material and type, by location.

RCKC’s objective in formulating this preservation plan is to maintain the number of the agency’s bridges in fair to good condition and reduce the number classified as structurally deficient over the next 5 years.

RISK MANAGEMENT The RCKC recognizes that the potential risks associated with bridges generally fall into several categories:

Personal injury and property damage resulting from a bridge collapse or partial failure; Loss of access to a region or individual properties resulting from bridge closures, restricted load

postings, or extended outages for rehabilitation and repair activities; and Delays, congestion, and inconvenience due to serviceability issues, such as poor quality riding

surface, loose or missing expansion joints, etc.

RCKC asses these risks by administering biennial (and more frequently if conditions warrant) inspection of its bridges in accordance with NBIS and MDOT requirements. The inspector documents the condition of RCKC’s bridges on the MDOT Bridge Safety Inspection Report and evaluates them in order to identify new defects and monitor advancing deterioration. The inspector identifies items needing follow-up, special inspection actions and recommends bridge-by-bridge maintenance activities on MDOT’s Bridge Inspection Report. Both of these reports are provided to us and entered into MiBridge by the inspector.

Items identified in the inspection reports that would qualify as preventive or responsive to specific bridge conditions are prioritized to correct critical structural safety and traffic issues first, then to address other needs based on the operational importance of each bridge and the long-term preservation of the network. The inspection results are used to modify and update the Operations and Maintenance Plan.

PRESERVATION STRATEGY RCKC’s asset management plan employs a "mix of fixes" strategy made up of replacement, rehabilitation, preventive maintenance, and scheduled maintenance. The aim of this plan is to address the structures of critical concern by targeting poor rated elements, and to improve the overall condition of the bridge network to good or fair condition.

Replacement - complete structure replacement. Last resort when preventive maintenance and rehabilitation are no longer cost effective. Replacement is not considered a preservation activity.

Rehabilitation – provide complete, or nearly complete restoration of bridge elements or components. The work will restore deficient bridges to a condition of structural or functional adequacy, and may include upgrading geometric features. Rehabilitation actions are intended to improve the poor or fair condition bridges to fair or good condition.


Preventive maintenance - extend the service life of fair and good structures.

- Cyclical – performed on a pre-determined interval with the aim of preserving the existing bridge component. These activities are not always going to improve the bridge component, but delay deterioration.

- Condition Based – performed as needed based on items identified through the bridge inspection process. These activities will restore bridge components to a state of good repair.

Scheduled Maintenance – maintain the existing serviceability and reduce the deterioration rate. These activities sustain the current bridge condition longer whether the current condition is good, fair or poor.

The replacement, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance projects are generally eligible for funding under the Local Bridge Program, and the RCKC will submit requests for funding annually in an effort to maximize our budget.

RCKC’s scheduled maintenance program will be an integral part of the asset management plan, and is intended to extend the service life of the bridges by preserving them in their current condition for a longer period of time. Scheduled maintenance is proactive and not necessarily condition driven.

The "mix of fixes" strategy combines long-term reconstruction or replacement fixes, medium-term rehabilitation fixes, and short-term preventive maintenance fixes with a regular program of scheduled maintenance.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY RCKC’s implementation of the preservation plan strategy begins with an annual review of the inspection reports and work recommendations documented in MiBridge for all of the bridges. The preservation actions are selected in accordance with criteria contained in the table below. These criteria are based on MDOT’s Project Scoping Manual, which is intended to address MDOT’s trunk line bridges. RCKC has modified the selection criteria to more closely align with our specific bridge network.

Summary of Preservation Criteria

Preservation Action Bridge Selection Criteria Expected

Service Life

Replacement - $600,000 to $5,000,000 estimated cost Total Replacement - NBI Rating of 3 or less

- OR when cost of rehabilitation exceeds cost of replacement

- OR when bridge is scour critical with no counter-measures available

70 years

Superstructure Replacement

- NBI Rating for superstructure of 4 or less - OR when cost of rehabilitating superstructure and deck

exceeds replacement cost

40 years

Deck Replacement

Use guidelines in MDOT’s Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix - NBI Rating of 4 or for deck surface and deck bottom


Epoxy Coated Steel Black Steel

- OR when deck replacement cost is competitive with rehabilitation

70 years 40 years

Substructure Replacement (Full or Partial)

- NBI Rating of 4 or less for abutments, piers, or pier cap - OR existence of open vertical cracks, signs of

differential settlement, or presence of active movement - OR bridge is scour critical with no counter-measures

available

40 years

Rehabilitation - $100,000 to $1,000,000 estimated cost Concrete Deck Overlays Deep Shallow HMA/Membrane HMA Cap

Guidelines in MDOT’s Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix NBI Deck Rating <5 for surface and >5 for bottom NBI Deck Rating <5 for surface and >4 for bottom NBI Deck Rating <5 for surface and >4 for bottom NBI Deck Rating <5 for surface and <4 for bottom

25 years 12 years 8 years 3 years

Railing Retrofit/Replacement

- NBI Deck Rating greater than 5 - OR Railing/Barrier rated less than 5 - OR Safety Improvement is needed

Steel Beam Repairs - More than 25% section loss is present in an area of the beam that affects load carrying capacity

- OR in order to correct impact damage that impairs beam strength

Prestressed Concrete Beam Repairs

- Repair ends of prestressed I-beams when more than 5% spalling is present

- OR repair areas to correct impact damage that impairs beam strength or exposes prestressing strands

Repair/Replace Culvert - NBI Rating of 4 or less for culvert or drainage outlet structure

- OR existence of open vertical cracks, signs of deformation, movement, or differential settlement

Repair/Replace Retaining Wall

- NBI Rating of 4 or less for retaining wall - OR existence of open vertical cracks, signs of

differential settlement, or presence of active movement

Pin and Hanger Replacement

- NBI Rating for elements is 4 or lower; presence of excessive section loss, severe pack rust, or out-of-plane distortion

Substructure Concrete Patching and Repair

- NBI Rating for abutments or piers is 5 or 4 and less than 30% of the surface is spalled and delaminated

- OR in response to inspector’s work recommendation for substructure patching

Preventive Maintenance - $10,000 to $100,000 estimated cost Repair/Replace Deck Joint

- Include when doing deep or shallow overlays - OR NBI Rating for joint is 4 or lower - OR joint is leaking heavily


Repair/Replace Steel Bearing

- NBI Rating for girders and deck is 5 or higher and rating for bearings is 4 or lower

Complete Painting - NBI Rating for paint condition is 3 or lower - OR in response to inspector’s work recommendation for

complete painting

15 years

Zone Painting - NBI Rating for paint condition is 5 or 4 - OR less than 15% of existing paint area has failed and

remainder of paint system is in good or fair condition

10 years

HMA Overlay Cap without Membrane

- NBI Rating of 3 or less for deck surface and deck bottom; temporary holdover to improve rideability for a bridge in the 5-year plan for rehab/replacement

3 years

Concrete Deck Patching - Deck Surface Rating of 5, 6, or 7 with minor delamination and spalling

- OR in response to inspector’s work recommendation

5 years

Channel Improvements - Removal of vegetation, debris, or sediment from channel and banks to improve channel flow


Scour Countermeasures - Structure is categorized as scour critical and is not scheduled for replacement; NBI comments in abutment and pier ratings indicate presence of scour holes

Scheduled Maintenance - $500 to $10,000 estimated cost Superstructure Washing - When salt contaminated dirt and debris collected on

superstructure is causing corrosion or deterioration by trapping moisture


2 years

Vegetation Control - When vegetation traps moisture on structural elements or is growing from joints or cracks

- OR in response to inspector’s work recommendation for brush cut

1 year

Debris Removal - When vegetation, debris, or sediment accumulates on the structure or in the channel

- OR in response to inspectors work recommendation

1 year

Joint clean out - Clean debris from all joints 1 year Drainage System Clean-Out/Repair

- When drainage system is clogged with debris or drainage elements are broken, deteriorated, or damaged

2 years

Seal Concrete Cracks/Joints

- Concrete is in good or fair condition, and cracks extend to the depth of the reinforcement


5 years

Repair/Replace HMA Surface

- HMA surface is in poor condition - OR in response to inspector’s work recommendation

Seal HMA Cracks/Joints - HMA surface is in good or fair condition, and cracks extend to the surface of the underlying slab or sub course


- OR in response to inspector’s work recommendation Minor Concrete Patching

- Repair minor delaminations and spalling - OR in response to inspector’s work recommendation

Timber Repairs - NBI Rating of 4 or less for timber members - OR to repair extensive rot, checking, or insect

infestation

Repair/Replace Guard Rail

- Guard rail missing or damaged - OR safety improvement is needed

Repave Approaches - HMA is in poor condition - OR in response to inspector’s work recommendation

Repair Slopes - NBI Rating is 5 or lower - OR when slope is degraded or sloughed - OR slope paving has significant areas of distress, failure,

or has settled

Install Riprap To protect surface when erosion threatens the stability of side slopes of channel banks

Miscellaneous Repairs Uncategorized repairs in response to inspector’s work recommendation

COST ESTIMATE RCKC computes the estimated cost of each typical preservation action using unit prices in the latest Bridge Repair Cost Estimate spreadsheet provided by MDOT’s Local Bridge Program during the annual call for projects. The cost of items of varying complexity, such as maintenance of traffic, staged construction, scour counter-measures, and so forth, are computed on a bridge-by-bridge basis. The cost estimates are reviewed and updated annually.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN—ANNUAL ACTIVITIES/5-YEAR PLAN A primary objective of RCKC’s asset management plan is maintaining the number of bridges in fair to good condition and reducing the number of structural deficient bridges over the next 5 years through a program of replacement, rehabilitation, preventive maintenance, and scheduled maintenance. The work has been prioritized by considering each individual bridge’s needs, its importance, the present costs of improvements, and the impact (cost increase due to increased degradation) of deferral. The 5 year program incorporates annual scheduled maintenance activities designed to preserve bridges currently rated fair (5) or higher with the objective of extending their useful service life.

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA RCKC follows the MDOT prioritization formula that evaluates five factors and weights them as follows: condition – 30%, load capacity –25%, traffic –20%, safety –15%, and detour –10%. There are several components within each factor that are used to arrive at its score. Each project under consideration is scored, and its total score is then compared with other proposed projects to establish a priority order.


FIVE-YEAR ANNUAL COST PROJECTION Preservation

Activity 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total

Replacement 36th Street over Dorrance Creek

$885,000

C Avenue over Augusta Creek

$1,005,000

Bridge TBD $940,000 Bridge TBD $940,000 Subtotal $885,000 $1,005,000 $940,000 $940,000 $3,770,000 Preventive Maintenance 29th Street over Portage River

$109,000

9th Street over Amtrak Railroad

$74,000

Portage Road over Gourdneck Creek

$53,000

35th Street over Kalamazoo River

$100,000

Subtotal $400,000 Scheduled Maintenance $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000ANNUAL TOTAL $890,000 $1,010,000 $405,000 $945,000 $945,000 $4,195,000

IDENTIFY FUNDING SOURCES The replacement of bridges in 2018 and 2019 have been programmed and funded using RCKC funds. RCKC has received MDOT Local Bridge Program funds for the preventive maintenance projects in the 2020 funding year. $940,000 has been allocated for bridge projects in 2021 and 2022. While these amounts are currently shown for bridge replacements, the funds can also be used for rehabilitation and preventive maintenance as needed and depending on award of MDOT Local Bridge Program funds. Historically the Local Bridge Program has been underfunded. For funding year 2020, $48 million was available for the entire state of Michigan with $6,600,000 allocated to the Southwest Region which encompasses 9 counties including Kalamazoo. The local agencies in the Southwest Region had 66 applications totaling $45 million in bridge work for 2020. Since the amount of money available from the Local Bridge Program is limited and highly competitive, alternative funding sources for bridge construction need to be identified especially for bridges that are located on the RCKC local road system. Per RCKC policy, townships are responsible for 50% of the cost for bridge construction projects. It may become necessary in the future to consider utilizing sources similarly used for road funding, such as special assessments, millages, or private sources in order to improve the condition of our bridge network.

13382 HART DRIVE SAND CREEK Alamo Concrete, Culvert 2006 Local 8

12890 DE AVENUE SAND CREEK Alamo Steel, Mult Culverts 1974 Local 5

12888 2ND STREET SAND CREEK Alamo Steel, Mult Culverts 1976 Primary 5

12889 RAVINE ROAD RANSON DRAIN Alamo Steel, Mult Culverts 1979 Primary 5

4648 Y AVENUE PORTAGE RIVER Brady Concrete, Box Beam 1973 Local 6

12892 XY AVENUE BROWN CREEK Brady Steel, Mult Culverts 1977 Local 4 SD

4649 Y AVENUE BROWN CREEK Brady Timber, Culvert 1970 Local Yes 5 SD

4650 V AVENUE PORTAGE RIVER Brady Timber, Slab 1971 Local Yes 5

4647 Z AVENUE PORTAGE CREEK Brady Timber, Slab 1972 Local Yes 5

4625 29TH STREET PORTAGE RIVER Brady Concrete, Box Beam 1962 Primary 6

4624 W AVENUE PORTAGE RIVER Brady Concrete, Box Beam 1993 Primary 7

4626 U AVENUE PORTAGE RIVER Brady Steel, Multi‐girder, Galv 2016 Primary 8

4639 31ST STREET BROWN CREEK Brady Timber, Culvert 1962 Primary 6

4623 YZ AVENUE BROWN CREEK Brady Timber, Culvert 1966 Primary 5

4621 Y AVENUE PORTAGE CREEK Brady Timber, Slab ‐ Composite 1972 Primary Yes 5

4622 YZ AVENUE PORTAGE RIVER Brady Timber, Slab ‐ Composite 1976 Primary 5

4630 EAST MICHIGAN AVE KALAMAZOO RIVER Charleston Concrete, Multi‐stringer 1995 Primary 6

12891 37TH STREET GULL LAKE OUTLET Charleston Steel, Mult Culverts 1974 Primary 5

13830 O AVENUE PORTAGE RIVER Climax Concrete, Culvert 2014 Local 8

12885 S AVENUE LITTLE PORTAGE CREEK Climax Steel, Mult Culverts 1997 Local 6

12884 TS AVENUE LITTLE PORTAGE CREEK Climax Steel, Mult Culverts 1990 Local 6

4641 36TH STREET DORRANCE CREEK Climax Concrete, Other 1953 Primary Yes 4 SD

12883 R AVENUE WRIGHT DRAIN Climax Steel, Mult Culverts 1963 Primary 5

4642 35TH STREET KALAMAZOO RIVER Comstock Concrete, Box Beam 2008 Primary 7

4637 SOUTH SPRINKLE RD KALAMAZOO RIVER Comstock Concrete, Box Beam 2003 Primary 7

4638 SOUTH SPRINKLE RD NORFOLK SOUTHERN RR Comstock Concrete, Box Beam 1967/2003 Primary 8

4640 RIVER STREET KALAMAZOO RIVER Comstock Concrete, Spread Box 2012 Primary 8

4629 E MICHIGAN AVENUE COMSTOCK CREEK Comstock Steel, Multi‐girder, Galv 1940/2014 Primary 8

13244 D AVENUE W CHANNEL OF KAZOO RIVER Cooper Concrete, Culvert 2004 Primary 6

4635 RIVERVIEW DRIVE SPRING BROOK Cooper Concrete, Culvert 2000 Primary 8

4632 D AVENUE KALAMAZOO RIVER Cooper Concrete, Multi‐stringer 2004 Primary 7

12882 BROOKFIELD AVENUE DAVIS CREEK Kalamazoo Steel, Mult Culverts 1973 Local 5

12881 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE DAVIS CREEK Kalamazoo Steel, Mult Culverts 1979 Local 5

4631 MOSEL AVENUE KALAMAZOO RIVER Kalamazoo Concrete, Multi‐stringer 1990 Primary 6 FO

4651 8TH STREET AMTRAK RR Oshtemo Concrete, Box Beam 1980 Local 7 FO

4633 9TH STREET AMTRAK RR Oshtemo Concrete, Box Beam 2008 Primary 8

4628 AMTRAK STADIUM DRIVE Oshtemo Steel, Railroad 1934 Railroad 5 FO

4653 33RD STREET DORRANCE CREEK Pavilion Steel, Arch Culvert 1948 Local 5

4652 TS AVENUE PORTAGE RIVER Pavilion Steel, Multi‐girder 1933/1972 Local Yes 3 SD

14008 Q AVENUE PORTAGE RIVER Pavilion Steel, Multi‐girder, Galv 2017 Primary 9

4627 S AVENUE PORTAGE RIVER Pavilion Steel, Multi‐girder, Galv 2017 Primary 9

4654 YZ AVENUE FLOWERFIELD CREEK Prairie Ronde Concrete, Box Beam 1986 Local 8

4655 6TH STREET FLOWERFIELD CREEK Prairie Ronde Timber, Culvert 1965 Local 6

12648 DEER RUN FLOWERFIELD CREEK Prairie Ronde Timber, Culvert 1995 Local 7

12822 NORTH SPRINKLE RD SPRING BROOK Richland Concrete, Culvert 1998 Primary 8

13424 44TH STREET AUGUSTA CREEK TRIBU Ross Concrete, Culvert 2007 Local 8

4656 DE AVENUE GULL LAKE OUTLET Ross Steel, Arch Culvert 1937 Local 6

12887 37TH STREET GULL LAKE OUTLET Ross Concrete, Culvert 2012 Primary 8

13342 G AVENUE GULL CREEK Ross Concrete, Culvert 2007 Primary 7

4644 D AVENUE GULL LAKE OUTLET Ross Concrete, Box Beam 1984 Primary Yes 6

12886 C AVENUE AUGUSTA CREEK Ross Steel, Mult Culverts 1976 Primary 5

4634 PORTAGE ROAD GOURD NECK CREEK Schoolcraft Concrete, Box Beam 2006 Primary 7

13234 PORTAGE ROAD BARTON‐HOWARD LAKES CHAN Schoolcraft Concrete, Box Beam 2005 Primary 8

4636 24TH STREET PORTAGE CREEK Schoolcraft Steel, Conc, Multi‐girder, Galv 1949/2010 Primary 7

4657 O AVENUE AMTRAK/CONRAIL RR Texas Concrete, Box Beam 1992 Local 7

4660 V AVENUE LITTLE PORTAGE CREEK Wakeshma Concrete, Culvert 2006 Local 8

4643 38TH STREET LITTLE PORTAGE CREEK Wakeshma Concrete, Box Beam 1993 Local 6

4661 U AVENUE LITTLE PORTAGE CREEK Wakeshma Concrete, Box Beam 1981 Local 7

4659 X AVENUE LITTLE PORTAGE CREEK Wakeshma Concrete, Box Beam 1997 Local 7

4662 40TH STREET LITTLE PORTAGE CREEK Wakeshma Steel, Multi‐girder 1912 Local Yes 3 SD

4663 44TH STREET BEAR CREEK Wakeshma Timber, Slab 1988 Local 74645 42ND STREET LITTLE PORTAGE CREEK Wakeshma Concrete, Box Beam 1993 Primary 7

FO ‐ Functionally Obsolete

* SD ‐ Structurally Deficient

System

Cooper Township

Appendix A‐1RCKC Bridges ‐ Inventory and Inspection Summary

Structure

Rating

SD

or

FO*

Structure

NumberFacility Carried Features Intersected Township Bridge Material and Design

Year

Built/Recons

tructed

Weight

Restricted

Inspection SummaryInventory Data

Schoolcraft Township

Texas Township

Wakeshma Township

Brady Township

Alamo Township

Charleston Township

Climax Township

Comstock Township

Kalamazoo Township

Oshtemo Township

Pavilion Township

Prairie Ronde Township

Richland Township

Ross Township

01/16/2018

Appendix A‐2 RCKC Bridge Condition Breakdown

1112

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Good (9‐7) Fair (6‐5) Poor (4‐1)

2017 RCKC Local Road Bridge Condition

19

16

1

0

5

10

15

20

Good (9‐7) Fair (6‐5) Poor (4‐1)

2017 RCKC Primary Road Bridge Condition

3028

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Good (9‐7) Fair (6‐5) Poor (4‐1)

2017 RCKC Combined Bridge Condition

POLICYLOCAL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Reviewed: 9/20/94 Amended: 5/21/02 Amended: 11/9/10

33

Memo To: Board of County Road Commissioners of the County of Kalamazoo,


From: Travis D. Bartholomew, Operations Director

Bill DeYoung, General Superintendent

Date: January 19th, 2018

Re: (2) 64,000# Cab and Chassis Truck Purchase

Recommended Road Commission of Kalamazoo County (RCKC) Action We recommend the Board approve the purchase of two (2) 2019 Peterbilt, Model 367, tandem axle drive, 64,000# Cab and Chassis, including a 5 year/100,000 mile engine and emission warranty and a 2 year/200,000 mile extended vehicle warranty, from JX Peterbilt of Grand Rapids, through the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) purchasing program – in the best interest of the RCKC. Background Outlined in our 2018 Capital Outlay Budget is the purchase of two (2) 64,000# Cab and Chassis trucks. These units would replace our two current, tandem axle drive, semi-trucks. The units we are proposing to replace are a 1997 Mack with 10,661 engine hours and a 2000 Mack with unknown actual engine hours, as the hour meter was replaced in 2014. Staff is always identifying ways to better utilize our truck fleet throughout the year. Currently our semi-trucks are primarily used throughout the maintenance/construction seasons, but rarely used in the winter months. The 2 new cab/chassis we are recommending to purchase would be custom built/configured to be utilized in both summer and winter operations. They will be configured as semi-tractors from the manufacturer and then modified to become winter maintenance, plow trucks with deicer capability for the winter season. The semi- trucks would be utilized in our daily operations including winter maintenance, hauling aggregate/equipment and emergency storm cleanup. The larger trucks have reduced our labor, fuel and equipment cost in both winter and summer operations. These units would also be utilized for our chip seal program, transporting equipment and/or hauling aggregate to our chip seal operation. This cab and chassis purchase does not include the additional equipment and accessories necessary to place these units in service. Our 2018 Capital Outlay Budget includes $220,000 to purchase (2) hopper sanders, underbody scrapers, right-hand wing plows, hydraulic systems, controls, and components that are necessary to place these units in service for winter operations. The cab and chassis purchase needs to be awarded first to allow the custom truck builders to accurately quote the purchase and installation of the additional equipment. We received 3 responses from our 2018, 64,000# Cab/Chassis quote request including: Western Star, International and Peterbilt. Staff also solicited a quote from Kenworth with a deadline of 1-12-18 and Kenworth failed to provide a quote to date. Staff has researched all 3 dealership’s proposals and are recommending the Board approve the 2018, 64,000# Cab/Chassis purchase to JX Peterbilt of Grand Rapids based on the following research and history: International Truck ($117,517.43) – HV613 model cab/chassis. RCKC currently has 12 International Work Star, model 7600, tandem and tri-axle trucks in service. The International WorkStar 7600 is the previous comparable model to the new International HV613. The 12 International 7600 WorkStar units RCKC currently has in our fleet are tier 3 and interim tier 4 emission compliant trucks. We have experienced numerous repairs to these units including; high pressure fuel pump replacements, oil cooler replacements, radiator replacements, EGR cooler replacements and sensors failures. All of these components are related to International’s massive exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system engineered to meet tier 3 truck emissions standards and are now not being covered under warranty. Many of these repairs range from $2K - $8k each and cause excessive down time, particularly during winter maintenance operations when all units are used more frequently. The new International HV613 units no longer include massive ERG components and are now equipped with a Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) engine exhaust after treatment system in addition to the standard Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF). Removing the massive ERG components from the engine reduces the potential for cooler and sensors failures and allows the engine to run at a lower operating temperatures since the hot exhaust gas is not recirculated through the engines combustion process again.

The International truck does not meet our specifications of an aluminum cab. RCKC staff prefers the aluminum cab option since they are lighter to increase payload and will not rust, increasing the longevity of the truck as well as re-sale value. West Michigan International quoted a steel cab, since they do not offer an aluminum cab with the HV613 model. Although, International does offer the aluminum cab option in their HX model truck for an additional $4,000. Staff researched this option, however the HX model will not meet our ground clearance requirement for the underbody scraper. RCKC’s specifications also required dual, under cab, 50 gallon capacity fuel tanks. International cannot provide under cab fuel tanks because they are not able to meet our ground clearance requirement for our underbody scraper. International’s quote included a frame mounted, fuel tank for temporary use until the truck is custom built with a permanent fuel tank located behind the cab. There is a $1,000 extra charge for the custom truck builder to provide the “behind the cab” fuel tank. Staff prefers the dual, under cab fuel tanks since they are safer for the drivers to fuel, as the driver stands at ground level, versus the driver climbing up on the truck to fuel off the step, behind the cab. Other items not meeting our specification include 6” wide brakes vs. 7” wide brakes. The 7” brakes provide more surface area for increased stopping capability. RCKC is also working with our local International dealership to improve service related issues through quarterly meetings with RCKC staff and their service department. Our service concerns include, inconsistency in preventive maintenance service performance and the ability to diagnose and repair our units timely. Western Star Truck ($119,559) - 4900 model cab/chassis. The 4900 model is a true class 8 truck preferred for the harsh work environment of a municipal plow truck. Western Star does not currently offer a single rail, chassis frame required of our specifications. The heavy single rail system meeting our loading requirements is new to the industry and has only been available by some manufactures, in recent years. Currently, Western Star only offers a dual rail frame design in their 4900 model truck. The dual rail frame configuration requires a smaller frame to be fitted inside the main larger frame to gain the strength required for our additional loading of our winter maintenance equipment. The dual frame configuration creates open space between the rails allowing salt and other debris to collect. This leads to rust forming between the rails forcing them apart, also known as rust jacking. RCKC has experienced rust jacking with many of our current units, which lead to costly frame replacements. Typically we see the effects of rust jacking when trucks are over 10 years old. We are attempting to combat the rust jacking between rails, in our current units, by continuously rust proofing the frame structure annually.

Peterbilt Truck ($122,844) – 367 model cab/chassis. Peterbilt’s unit is a true class 8 truck with a very durable cab and body structure placed on a class 8 powertrain, suspension and frame structure. Numerous other manufactures place a class 7 cab on a class 8 drivetrain to compete on pricing. RCKC currently has six (6) 2016 Peterbilt 367 trucks in service. Advantages to the Peterbilt truck include:

• stainless steel trim and grill , verse plastic components • Aluminum riveted cab, verse stamped steel • Piano hinges on the doors and triple door seals • Mirrors attached to the cowl, verse door mounted • 2 piece windshield, much less costly to replace • Wiper motor and arms located inside cab – don’t freeze up • Large radiator for additional cooling capability • Saddle fuel tanks – operator can fuel from ground level • Individual gauges, less costly to replace verse entire cluster • No additional holes in frame rails to allow moisture penetration (salt brine)

Peterbilt also includes a ½’ thick, single chassis frame option that meets our specifications for strength without requiring 2 frame rails fitted together. The single rail would eliminate rust jacking, which we currently experience with all of our units and is the main cause of long term failure in our fleet. The single frame option is an additional $1,150 per unit. It costs RCKC $8,000 - $10,000 to partially replace frame rails behind the cab on our current units. RCKC team input includes:

• Peterbilt 367 truck – cab comfort when plowing for long hours, as well as increased power, better handling, and better traction. • International 7600 truck – lots of room in cab, turns tight, and better visibility.

Peterbilt’s model 367 truck meets our specification for drivetrain, frame and suspension components. The advantage to the Peterbilt unit is the single frame option, quality construction of the body, cooling system size/configuration, driver comfort, serviceability and resale value.

Warranty: Staff also recommends the purchase of a 5 year/100,000 mile Engine and Emission warranty for $2,885 per unit and a 2 year/200,000 mile extended vehicle warranty for $1,265 per unit for a total cost of $8,300.

JX Peterbilt of Grand Rapids bid includes cab and chassis delivery of 90 days.

Alternatives

1. Purchase the International cab/chassis. Staff remains concerned about service issues and cost of parts and labor. International trucks can be serviced locally in Kalamazoo.

2. Purchase the Western Star cab/chassis. Staff remains concerned about the dual rail frame configuration. Western Star trucks can be serviced in Mattawan, Michigan.

3. Advertise a public bid instead of using MIDEAL purchasing or National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) cooperative purchasing programs (the Dealerships have indicated utilizing the governmental purchasing programs would be their lowest price.)

Budget

Our 2018 Capital Outlay Budge includes $280,000 for the purchase of (2) 64,000# Cab and Chassis. The total amount of this purchase including the 5 year/100,000 mile Engine and Emissions warranty as well as the 2 year/200,000 mile extended vehicle warranty would be $253,988 ($126,994 each).

The (2) semi-trucks being replaced will be sold through an online public auction. The combined expect value of these units is estimated at $15,000

Our 2018 Capital Outlay Budget also includes $220,000 for the purchase of hopper sanders, underbody scrapers, right-hand wing plows, hydraulic systems, controls, and components for new trucks. This purchase is not included in the 2018 64,000# Cab/Chassis purchase and will be evaluated and recommended for Board approval to purchase at a later date once the cab/chassis are determined. Recommended RCKC Action We recommend the Board approve the purchase of (2) 2019 Peterbilt, Model 367 tandem axle drive, 64,000# Cab/Chassis, including a 5 year/100,000 mile engine and emission warranty and a 2 year/200,000 mile extended vehicle warranty to JX Peterbilt of Grand Rapids, through the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) purchasing program – in the best interest of the RCKC.