Kuehl, Renae

This form letter was created as part of Report 2010RIC02, "Sign Retroreflectivity - A Minnesota Toolkit." It was created to be sent by other agencies as a follow-up to the County letter, to stress the importance of addressing FHWA requirements.

This form letter was created as part of Report 2010RIC02, "Sign Retroreflectivity - A Minnesota Toolkit." It is meant to be sent by County Engineers to small local agencies within their county, to notify them of requirements and resources.

This spreadsheet was created as part of Report 2010RIC02, " Sign Retroreflectivity - A Minnesota Toolkit." It contains blank versions of forms used in evaluating sign retroreflectivity.

This presentation was created to accompany Report 2016-34A, System Preservation Guide: A Planning Process for Local Government Management of Transportation Networks, published in 2016.

As a supplement to the rural mailboxes brochure, the following information was provided by the City of Eagan as an example to provide guidance for urban mailbox installation. The city developed the following documents to educate the city council and residents on the need for proper mailbox installation: - Standard Plate – Mail and Paper box installation guidelines - Memo to Mayor and City Councilmembers – Summary of need to standardize mailboxes to reduce damage due to winter maintenance. - Resident notice flyer – sent to residents with non-complying mailboxes notifying them of the need to modify their mailbox to avoid damage due to winter maintenance.

The Local Road Research Board (LRRB), with assistance from Sibley County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), conducted a field evaluation of traffic data collection sensors. This study was initiated to explore low-cost and non-intrusive options to collect traffic data as possible alternatives to traditional methods such as tube counts, which require personnel to work close to or on the roadway rather than from a safer roadside position, as some non-intrusive sensors allow. This project reviewed new developments and alternatives to conventional road tube, inductive loop and piezo sensor data collection. This project conducted a comparison of multiple traffic data collection sensors along on a rural two-lane road with low traffic volumes (Sibley County State Aid Highway 9) in both winter and spring conditions. The project gathered information on ease of deployment, accuracy, and costs associated with each technology. The following sensors were installed and monitored as part of this study: Countingcars.com COUNTcam, Miovision Scout, JAMAR Radar Recorder, Wavetronix SmartSensor HD, Houston Radar Armadillo Tracker, Sensys VSN240F (Sensys), JAMAR Stealth Stud, Road Tubes with PicoCount 2500 classifier

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) collects traffic volume counts for cities and counties outside of the Twin Cities Metro Area. Volume “coverage” counts are performed on various roads including trunk highways, county roads, county state aid highways, and municipal state aid streets. The counts assist with planning, design, development, maintenance priorities and snow removal. This research implementation project considered options for cities and counties to gather traffic data; the focus of this project was to shadow three data collection processes. The three collection processes include MnDOT collecting the data (current process), the respective county collecting the data with equipment and training provided by MnDOT, and a consultant collecting the data. Sibley County volunteered to administer the county data collection process. MnDOT data collection is generally collected by District field technicians. The Sibley County data collection was conducted by County staff including an engineering intern. After the data collection process, each organization was interviewed to determine the effectiveness of the data collection method. A quantitative analysis determined how long each organization spent per count site.

The Minnesota LRRB has developed this Sign Retroreflectivity Toolkit, designed to provide local governments, especially small cities and townships, with guidance on FHWA’s sign retroreflectivity requirement as well as resources they can use to meet this requirement. (This toolkit was originally published in 2010 (2010RIC10 and updated in 2014.) Current federal requirement: By June 13th, 2014 - Public agencies or officials having jurisdiction shall use an assessment or management method that is designed to maintain sign retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels in Table 2A-3. The toolkit includes a variety of resources: • Know Your Retro – Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity (FHWA-SA-07-020) • 2014 Traffic Sign Retroreflective Sheeting Identification Guide (FHWA-SA-14-022) • MN MUTCD Requirements – Official Minimum Retroreflectivity Requirements in Minnesota. • Sign Assessment and Management Methods fact sheets Appendix A: Examples of Sign Inventory/Inspection Forms Appendix B: Examples of Sign Policies Appendix C: Examples of Sign Management Agreements

This spreadsheet tool is designed to be a data management resource for county engineering offices to better track and manage gravel roads. This spreadsheet can be used as an inventory tool, providing one location for keeping all maintenance and construction data about a gravel road system. It can also be used to track costs and optimize spending. The tool was developed to be flexible and customizable for a variety of purposes and system sizes.

The purpose of this guidebook is to provide local agency staff with a best practice approach to addressing citizen’s common requests for traffic safety concerns (i.e. signing and pavement markings, not larger scale infrastructure or planning projects). This guidebook focuses on the importance of communication with citizens when responding to traffic safety concerns or requests. It also provides guidance on logging requests, steps for following up on a request, standard responses, and an explanation of why a requested strategy may or may not be the appropriate solution. Because of the differences between urban vs. rural environments, city vs. county agencies and staff availability, there is no one size fits all approach. This document provides general guidance that can be modified to meet each agency’s needs. Each request should be investigated to ensure the safety of all modes of transportation.