Southern California Area Section 2009-2010 Annual Report · Location: Restaurant at Kellogg Ranch,...

INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS

SSoouutthheerrnn CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa AArreeaa SSeeccttiioonn 22000099--22001100 AAnnnnuuaall RReeppoorrtt

For the period of

April 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010

Institute of Transportation Engineers Southern California Section 2009 Annual Report

1

CONTENTS 2009 – 2010 ELECTED OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS ……….………………….. 2

CURRENT MEMBERSHIP ……………………………………………………………………….. 2

FINANCIAL STANDING (as of March 31, 2010) ……………………………………………….. 3

TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES …………………………………..……………………………………. 3

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES ………………………………………………………………………. 3

MEETINGS HELD DURING THIS PERIOD:

Monthly Luncheon Meetings ………………………………………………………………….. 4

Continuing Education Workshops ……………………………………………………….….. 4

Joint / Special Meetings ………………………………………………………………………. 5

Student Chapter Activities ……………………………………………………………………. 6

Meeting Summary / Abstract …………………………………………………………………. 9

AWARDS & SPECIAL TRIBUTES ………………………………………………………………. 23

ACTIVITES SUMMARY …….……………………………………………………………………. 23

NEWSLETTER / MEETING SPONSORSHIP………………………………………………….. 26

WEBSITE …………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

APPENDIX

Attachment 1 – “Providing Traffic Control Consistency in a Large Agency Using Standard Plans”, John E. Fisher, P.E., PTOE

Attachment 2 – January 2010 Issue of Southern California Section Newsletter

Attachment 3 – “High-Speed Rail and the Transportation Professional”, David M. Schwegel, P.E., PTOE


2

2009-2010 Officers:

President Arief Naftali Vice President Lisa Martellaro-Palmer Secretary/Treasurer Steve Itagaki 1st Past President Carlos Ortiz 2nd Past President Ruth Smith

Chairs:

Technical Chair Bernard Li Membership Chair Sri Chakravarthy Legislative Coordinator Walter Okitsu Student Chapter Coordinators Neelam Sharma & Giancarlo Ganddini Newsletter Editors David Schwegel & Jay Dinkins Industry Coordinator Janna McKhann FTA / FHWA Liaison Lawrence (Jesse) Glazer Scribes John Dorado & Sri Chakravarthy Sponsorship Coordinator Julia Wu Webmaster Andrew Maximous Student Chapter Representative Omar Alameddine

Current Membership as of March 2010:

Number Membership Grade Section Annual Dues 0 Honorary N/A

11 Esteemed N/A

89 Fellow $ 22

505 Member $ 22

90 Students $ 20

19 Institute Affiliates $ 22

714 Total

N/A = Not Applicable


3

Financial Standing as of March 31, 2010: Federal Employer Identification Number: 33-0432732 Balance of Funds on hand at the Beginning of the Reporting Period: Income for the Reporting Period: Membership Dues $ 1,095 Gross Income from Meetings $ 10,446 Advertising Income $ 1,350 ________ Total Income $$1122,,889911 Expenditures for the Reporting Period Newsletter Printing/Postage (email) $ 0 Travel $ 2,179 Meetings $ 7,973 Awards $ 0 Website Fee $ 94 Banking Fees, Stamps, Name Tags $ 110 _________ Total Expenditures $$ 1100,,335566 Balance of Funds at the End of the Reporting Period $$22,,553355 There was no change in the Section By-Laws during this Reporting Period Technical Activities: The Technical Committee initiated a study of what practices were being used by local transportation agencies to provide uniform and consistent traffic engineering decisions that arise on a daily basis. Mr. John E. Fisher, of the City of Los Angeles’ Department of Transportation (LADOT) has prepared a technical paper entitled “Providing Traffic Control Consistency in a Large Agency Using Standard Plans”. This paper noted that the use of standard plans has enabled LADOT to respond to transportation-related situations in a consistent manner as design and operational guides to junior professional staff. In addition, these plans have been valuable in tort liability cases where LADOT can demonstrate that they followed their own design and operational practices and conformed in meeting or exceeding requirements of the California MUTCD. A copy of this paper is included in the appendix of this report. Legislative Activities: Throughout the year, our Section has been fortunate to have Walter Okitsu, managing director of Crain and Associates, for providing legislative analysis articles that were not only timely but also highly relevant to the transportation profession. Legislative Analysis editorials were published within the nine editions of our Section's newsletters; April through March with the exception of July, August and December of 2009.


4

Meetings Held During this Reporting Period To better serve the members of the Southern California Section, we provide four types of meetings, held monthly from August through June, with the exceptions of July and December. Our “Regular Luncheon/Seminar Meetings” rotate between Los Angeles and Orange County locations to better reach our full membership. We have “Continuing Education Workshops” that typically have four speakers that discuss updates and current trends in the transportation profession. We also have “Joint/Special Meetings” that bring chapters and/or sections together for socializing, networking, training and sharing information. Finally, we have an event devoted to all five of our Student Chapters. This event, considered “Student Chapter Activities,” bridges the gap between professionals and students. Many transportation students have been hired after networking with our members at this event. It is highly recommended that students bring their personal resume to this event. RReegguullaarr LLuunncchheeoonn//SSeemmiinnaarr MMeeeettiinnggss:: Date: April 15, 2009 Location: Monterey Hill Restaurant, Monterey Park, CA Purpose: Monthly meeting Technical Presentation: “American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) – Latest Federal and

State Requirements” by Mr. Jesse Glazer and Mr. Kirk Cessna Attendance: 53 Date: August 26, 2009 Location: Los Angeles Police Academy, Los Angeles, CA Purpose: Monthly Meeting, Annual Steak Fry BBQ Technical Presentation: None, Social Networking Event Attendance: 34 Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Radisson Suites Hotel, Buena Park, CA Purpose: Monthly Meeting Technical Presentation: “Overview of the Artic: Moving Cooler?” by Mr. John Lower Attendance: 61 CCoonnttiinnuuiinngg EEdduuccaattiioonn WWoorrkksshhooppss::

Date: June 10, 2009 Location: Monterey Hill Restaurant, Monterey Park, CA Purpose: Monthly meeting, Mini-Workshop and Annual Business Meeting Technical Presentation: “New Parking Signs for California – Completing the Gap” by Mr. John Fisher Workshop Presentations: “Orange County Traffic Signal Synchronization Master Plan” by Mr. Ron Keith

“How Transportation Liability Impacts Civil Engineers” by Mr. Nazir Lalani “Latest Regulations for Establishing Speed Limits in California” by Mr. Hamid Bahadori “Los Angeles County Measure R Update” by Mr. Krishniah Murthy

Attendance: 50


5

Date: June 11, 2009 Location: Hyatt Regency, Newport Beach, CA Purpose: Updates on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Technical Presentations: “New Signalized Intersection Methodology” by Mr. Jim Bonneson “Updated Freeway Facilities Methodology” by Mr. Bastian Schroeder “Interactive Elements of Volume 4” by Mr. Paul Ryus “”Input on HCM Issues” by Mr. Rick Dowling Special Note: Also joint meeting with the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway

Capacity and Quality of Service Committee Date: September 16, 2009 Location: Monterey Hill Restaurant, Monterey Park, CA Purpose: Monthly Luncheon Meeting Technical Presentation: “Overview of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) with a Focus on the

Role of Simulation in the new HCM” by Mr. Loren Bloomberg and Mr. Erik Ruehr Attendance: 53 JJooiinntt // SSppeecciiaall MMeeeettiinnggss:: Date: November 18, 2009 Location: Restaurant at Kellogg Ranch, Cal Poly Pomona Purpose: Monthly Meeting and joint meeting with Riverside/San Bernardino section Technical Presentation: “Rail Plans for Riverside County featuring The Perris Valley Line Project” by Mr.

John Standiford Attendance: 53 Date: January 20, 2010 Location: Monterey Hill Restaurant, Monterey Park, CA Purpose: Monthly Meeting and joint meeting with City Traffic Engineers Technical Presentation: “LA MTA Looks Ahead…” by Mr. Doug R. Failing Attendance: 96 Date: February 9, 2010 Location: Plug Nickel Restaurant, Westlake Village, CA Purpose: Monthly meeting and joint meeting with ITE Central Coast section Technical Presentation: “Transportation in 2010 – Challenges Ahead for Ventura County” by Mr. Darren

Kettle Attendance: 40


6

Date: March 19, 2010 Location: El Adobe Restaurant, San Juan Capistrano, CA Purpose: Monthly meeting and joint meeting with ITE San Diego section Keynote Address: “Performance and Innovation – Vision for Transportation Systems Management”

by Mr. Samuel Johnson Technical Presentations: “Improving Traffic Data Collection: Technology and Methodology Updates” by

Mr. Kevin Deal “Nevada State Highway 318: Closing a Public Highway for a Land Speed Record & Various ITE Updates” by Mr. Ken Ackeret “Current Trends and Pending Legislation in the Transportation Industry” by Mr. Clark Fernon

Attendance: 42

SSttuuddeenntt CChhaapptteerr AAccttiivviittiieess:: Date: May 20, 2009 Location: Radisson Suites Hotel, Buena Park, CA Purpose: Monthly meeting, joint meeting with Orange County Traffic Engineering Council

(OCTEC) and Student Chapter Presentation Night Technical Presentation: “California Professional Engineering License Update” by Mr. Walter Okitsu with

Student presentations from UCLA, UC Irvine, Cal State Long Beach, Cal State Los Angeles and Cal Poly Pomona

Attendance: 120 Student Chapter Reports By Cal Poly Pomona and UC Irvine Cal Poly Pomona The Cal Poly Pomona ITE (CPPITE) Student Chapter has been an exceptionally active chapter for many years. During the past year as well as this year, the CPPITE Student Chapter was actively involved at the student, section and district level. At the student level, they were vastly involved in various events. Some events consisted of general meetings, volunteering work, mock interviews, and resume workshops as well as outreach. They had bi-weekly general meetings which consisted of informing the club members about upcoming events and updates. Guest speakers from industry were invited to all of their meetings as well. They were fortunate to have had guest speakers from the City of Santa Ana, Fehr & Peers, CH2MHill, KOA, Wildan Engineering and Iteris. The students are also pleased to announce that they will be having guest speakers from LADOT, RBF, City of Corona, and City of Rialto. Every meeting was a success thanks to the help of these companies because CPPITE was able to provide food for the average meeting size of 50 people. Aside from these club meetings, they also had biweekly officer meetings, often led by the Internal Vice President, Antonio D. Salas, which made it easier for the officers to communicate and stay as involved as possible.


7

The CPPITE Student Chapter also helped the College of Engineering during the Open House event in February 28, 2009. The CPPITE Student Chapter was in charge of three different events at the same time. One team helped the Civil Engineering Department to check in and answer any questions from future Civil Engineering Students. Another team assisted Dr. Xudong Jia (a transportation professor) with his presentation about Transportation Engineering. Finally, the third team was in charge of incoming traffic to campus and parking for this event. At the end of the Fall 2008 Quarter, CPPITE switched their Student Chapter Advisor. For the past 26 years, Professor Peter J. Clark was a wonderful and dedicated advisor. Unfortunately, Professor Peter Clark retired at the end of the Winter 2009 Quarter as he had been a full time professor at Cal Poly Pomona for 31 years. The good news is that he will be returning to CPP as a part-time professor. At the same time, they are pleased to have Dr. Jia as their new CPPITE advisor. “We wish both Professor Clark and Dr. Jia the best of luck and health for many years to come,” said the CPPITE Officers. At the section level, they participated at the RSBITE and SoCal ITE Sections. They sent as many students as possible to their general meetings. The Student Chapter also participated at their student presentation meeting. For fundraising, they participated at their golf events and vendor shows when possible. At the district level, they participated at their annual and mid-year meetings and competitions. At the Western District Annual Meeting in Anaheim, CA, they provided as much assistance as possible. They were in charge of the James H Kell Student Competition as well as staffing the information booth. On the other hand, they had a booth to sell T-shirts as a fundraising event. These were the primary activities that they did to participate with WesternITE. At the Western District Mid-Year Board Meeting, they were lucky enough to send their president, Victor Ling, to the meeting. During the meeting, he participated by informing the WesternITE about the CPPITE Student Chapter’s involvement and providing suggestions from a students’ perspective. In summary, the CPPITE Student Chapter was a model chapter in the WesternITE. They accomplished many activities and made excellent contributions to the ITE community. The year of 2009 was a remarkable year for the CPPITE. UC Irvine The University of California, Irvine, (UCI) Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Student Chapter enjoyed an active year in 2008- 2009. The 23 student Chapter members are guided by the leadership of President Christopher Long, Vice-President Paul Harer, and Secretary/Treasurer Stan Ng. Notable activities include the ITE District 6 Annual Meeting in Anaheim, the Annual Project, Recruitment Meetings and Career Fair Preparations, National Engineering Week, Senior Graduation Cords, and website development. UCI students actively participated in the student competition featuring diverse technical activities. One of these entailed designing speed humps from newspapers and tape to slow down energetic RC cars provided by competitors. All UCI participants placed in at least one competition from their group. The 2008-2009 Annual Project was for the UCI Parking and Transportation Services Department and entailed retiming the Bison/East Peltason Drive intersection on campus and conducting a study on the relationship of gasoline prices and travel frequency/distance. The Chapter presented the findings at the ITE/So Cal May meeting. The Chapter held a series of campaigns to boost student membership, educating transportation engineering students on the value of ITE student chapter membership. A key benefit is providing expertise for students engaged in career pursuits. One of the largest career exploration opportunities is an engineering-oriented career fair called Engitech, providing outstanding networking opportunities with local engineering professionals.


8

The Chapter actively participated in the Engineering Student Council (ESC), a consortium of engineering clubs on campus that put together a week-long event in conjunction with National Engineers Week. Highlights include club competitions and a barbecue for the engineering community. The Chapter has a long standing tradition of providing graduating students with blue and silver graduation cords, the colors of ITE on the ITE logo. For the past seven years, the Chapter has enjoyed maintaining a website disseminating information on activities and technical topics of interest to transportation students. For the latest Chapter update, please visit http://www.its.uci.edu/ite/.


9

Abstract of Monthly Luncheon Meetings: APRIL 2009 The ITE Southern California Section monthly meeting was held on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at the Monterey Hill Restaurant in the City of Monterey Park. The topic of this meeting was the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) – Latest Federal and State Requirements”. Our guest presenters were Mr. Lawrence “Jesse” Glazer, ITS Engineer for Southern California Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Mr. Kirk Cessna, Local Assistance Chief for Caltrans District 7. Mr. Glazer opened up with a presentation regarding the “American Recovery and Reinvestments Act of 2009”, now called the “Recovery Act” and provided a brief overview of the funds:

1. The funds are coming from the tax-payers general funding source, and its main objective is to provide jobs

2. All federal funds will flow through Caltrans Office of Local Assistance. They will sign contracts with local agencies with qualified projects

Then Mr. Glazer began with the outline of his presentation:

• Objectives of the Act • Funding Availability/Distribution • Requirements/Provisions • Reporting & Oversight

He emphasized that the main objectives of the Recovery Act are to preserve and create jobs, invest in infrastructure, energy efficiency and science, assist the unemployed, and to provide fiscal stabilization for State/local agencies. There is approximately $48.1 billion for transportation, including:

• $27.5 billion for highways • $8.4 billion for transit • $8.0 billion for high speed rail • $1.3 billion for Amtrak • $1.5 billion for National Surface Transportation Discretionary Grants

The eligible uses of the funds include restoration, repair, construction, and other improvements under the Surface Transportation Program. Other eligible uses include passenger/freight rail transportation and port infrastructure projects. The allocation of funds will be distributed twice under the following conditions:


10

• First Distribution ♦ 50% of funds apportioned to the State must be obligated to qualified projects within 120 days

after the bill was signed, or the remainder will be redistributed • Second Distribution

♦ After 1 year, all unobligated balances will be redistributed. Recipients must obligate by September 30, 2010 for qualified projects

To ensure the trust and accountability of the taxpayers, there are extensive reporting requirements providing the proper transparency for the American public including, but not limited to, the following:

• Certification (once) • Periodic (90 days, 180 days, and annually, up to 3 years) • Quarterly • Data for periodic and quarterly reports

♦ Projects ♦ Finance ♦ Number of jobs maintained and created

For updates and for more information regarding the summary of highway provisions, funding distribution tables, frequently asked questions (FAQs), and best practices visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery.

MAY 2009

The ITE Southern California Section monthly meeting was held jointly with the Orange County Traffic Engineering Council (OCTEC) on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at the Radisson Suites Hotel in the City of Buena Park. This is an annual meeting, in which students from our local universities are invited to attend and give technical presentations regarding transportation-related projects. The local universities included:

• California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona) • California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) • California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) • University of California, Irvine (UCI) • University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

Our guest speaker was Mr. Walter Okitsu, PE, PTOE, PTP, Managing Director of Crain & Associates and our ITE Western District Licensing Certification Chair. Mr. Okitsu provided a presentation regarding the “California Professional Engineering License Update”. Our first presentation was provided by students from Cal Poly Pomona. The topic of their presentation was “SR-74 at I-215 Interchange Improvement Project”, an interchange improvement analysis project. The purpose of this project was to analyze three design alternatives, and to provide a recommended alternative. The following identifies the three alternatives:


11

It was a great turnout (120), especially from all of the students and professors.

1. Single point interchange 2. Partial cloverleaf interchange 3. Relocation of off-ramp

Each of these alternatives was analyzed through Synchro/SimTraffic software to obtain the following:

• Level-of-service (LOS) analysis • Traffic modeling/simulations

The students concluded that the relocation of the offramp was the “best” alternative. The second presentation was provided by students from CSULB. The topic of their presentation was “Long Beach – Atherton Street at Palo Verde Avenue”, an intersection analysis project. The purpose of this project was to determine if the survey intersection was operating at its optimum level, utilizing results from the following:

• Intersection volume counts • Signal timing • Speed survey • Intersection delay (LOS) • Accident analysis

The students concluded that the intersection is currently operating at an acceptable LOS and the current signal timing should be maintained. The third presentation was provided by students from CSULA. The topic of their presentation was “Pedestrian Safety Improvements for Communities of East Los Angeles”. In order to build a case regarding the reasons “why” this study was initiated, the students “walked” us through different types of “potential pedestrian accident” scenarios, which is prevalent throughout East L.A. After identifying these unsafe scenarios, various proposed improvements were introduced, such as:

• Raised crosswalks • Countdown pedestrian signals • In-pavement lighting systems

The fourth presentation was provided by students from UCI. The topic of their presentation was “Local Effects of Gas Price Hikes on Transportation Systems”, a focused analysis regarding the effect of gas prices and its relation to the number of freeway vehicle miles traveled (VMT), including other factors. This type of analysis has never been studied, but with assistance from their professors, the students came up with a very logical and systematic approach. Local freeway sections were analyzed including peak period flow rates. The analysis compared years 2008 vs. 2005 and identified fluctuations in VMT. This showed that traffic volumes have not steadily increased throughout the comparison timeframe (which is predominately contrary to the initial assumption).


12

Other factors were included in the analysis such unemployment rate, but the students identified that further research needs to be completed before publishing conclusive findings. The fifth presentation was provided by Steve Sy from UCLA. The topic of the presentation was “An Operational Study of Culver Boulevard in Downtown Culver City”, a corridor and intersection analysis project. The project corridor was Culver Boulevard between West Washington Boulevard and the realignment of Washington Boulevard. This corridor was chosen to be analyzed due to the non-conventional original alignment (“X” type intersection), realignment(s), and its location (within the centralized downtown area). Pedestrian circulation and local businesses were also considered in this analysis. The student concluded that the current alignment is the “best” alternative. During dinner, Mr. Okitsu, provided a presentation regarding professional engineering licenses. He provided an overview of how the following professional engineering licenses or certifications are obtained and their respective responsibilities:

• Professional Engineer (P.E.) • Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (P.T.O.E.) • Professional Transportation Planner (P.T.P.)

He also walked us through the hierarchy of the following professional engineering licenses and how they could potentially overlap:

• Civil • Electrical • Mechanical • Traffic

He concluded that the person with a Civil Engineering license has the most flexibility between all of the aforementioned licenses. Throughout Mr. Okitsu’s presentation there was a common theme geared towards the students to “Take the Engineer-In-Training (E.I.T) Exam!!” At the end of the presentations, little did the students know that a panel of judges was selected to ask questions, rank the students presentations, and to provide monetary awards for each school. Our honorary distinguished panel of judges included Ruth “The Ruler” Smith, Ron “The Hammer” Keith, and Glen “The Gavel” Pedersen. They asked rigorous questions regarding each presentation and through deliberations, determined the following the rankings and awards:

1. “Best Overall Project Award” to Cal Poly Pomona - $500 2. “Most Unique & Thought Provoking Award” to UCI - $400 3. “Most Enthusiastic Award” to CSULA - $300 4. “Back-to-the-Basics Award” to CSULB - $300 5. “Survivor Award” to UCLA - $300

The monetary awards were provided by ITE Southern California Section and OCTEC.


13

JUNE 2009 The ITE Southern California Section monthly meeting was held on June 10, 2009 at the Monterey Hill Restaurant, in the City of Monterey Park. This was a combination monthly meeting, mini-workshop and annual business meeting. Mr. John Fisher gave a Technical Presentation on “New Parking Signs for California – Completing the Gap”. Workshop presentations included: “Orange County Traffic Signal Synchronization Master Plan” by Mr. Ron Keith, “How Transportation Liability Impacts Civil Engineers” by Mr. Hamid Bahadori, “Latest Regulations for Establishing Speed Limits in California” by Mr. Hamid Bahadori and “Los Angeles County Measure R Update” by Mr. Krishniah Murthy. For John Fisher’s speech, June 2009 Mr. Fisher explained:

• The California Vehicle Code (CVC) identifies the types of traffic restrictions that Caltrans and local agencies are allowed to implement.

• The California MUTCD provides standards for the traffic controls allowed in the CVC. • The California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) makes recommendations to Caltrans for

standard traffic control devices. However, there were 17 types of parking restrictions, allowed by the CVC, which had no corresponding standard signs in the California MUTCD. They included various loading zones, preferential parking, car share zones, night-time restrictions, weight restrictions, street sweeping and various others. Mr. Fisher lead a statewide task force and recommended to the CTCDC the adoption of the new standard signs for these specialized parking purposes. They were adopted by Caltrans into the California MUTCD. The signs make greater use of the No Parking symbol, the Tow Away symbol and uses symbols for passenger loading, school loading, bus loading and taxicab loading zones. AUGUST 2009 The ITE Southern California Section “2009 Annual Steak Fry” was held on Wednesday, August 26th, 2009 at the Los Angeles Police Academy in the City of Los Angeles. This is the annual kick-off meeting for the year 2009-2010. Like usual, it was a beautiful summer evening, nice breeze, wooded area, and festive people. It was great social gathering, very informal, including all you can eat steak, beverages and more. New board and committee members were introduced as well as acknowledging previous members. This meeting was sponsored by Kimely-Horn and Associates, Inc. and cosponsored by South Coast Lighting and Design. Last year our meetings were typically sponsored by vendors only. So, it’s great having an engineering consultant firm and vendor team up, it helps reduce the sponsor fees creating a win-win situation!! For more information regarding our sponsor’s services please visit: www.kimley-horn.com, www.southcoastlighting.com


14

Loren Bloomberg and Erik Ruehr graciously presented the important topic on the Highway Capacity Manual 2010. They were part of the Highway Capacity Committee.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. was one of the sponsors with a strong presence at the meeting. Bill Dvorak, Jean Fares, Queenie Ye, and Irina Constantinescu from Kimley-Horn attended the meeting which was held at the Police Academy in downtown Los Angeles. South Coast Lighting was also a sponsor. As always, the food was great, but the conversation was better. Thank you all for your attendance and support. SEPTEMBER 2009 The regular ITE Southern California Section monthly luncheon meeting was held on September 21, 2009 at the Monterey Hill Restaurant in the City of Monterey Park. The meeting was very well attended by both public agency staff as well as private sector staff. Following the individual introductions, Mr. Ed Cline was recognized at the meeting by Ms. Monica Suter (City of Santa Ana) for the recent Presidential Proclamation he received from ITE. Members of Mr. Cline’s family (wife and son) were also present at the meeting. Some job opening announcements were made and Walter Okitsu, Crain and Associates, reminded us that the Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors requested all currently registered Traffic Engineers to complete the online survey. Our Section President, Mr. Arief Naftali, Advantec, introduced the speakers of the day. The topic of the meeting was “Overview of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) with a focus on the role of Simulation in the new HCM” and was presented by Mr. Loren Bloomberg (Senior Transportation Engineer, CH2M HILL) and Mr. Eric Ruehr, PE (Director of Traffic Engineering, VRPA Technologies). Mr. Ruehr provided an overview of the HCM 2010 and the incorporation of new research from NCHRP. Mr. Bloomberg presented an overview of the HCM guidance for traffic simulation that will include broad guidance, technical guidance for model developers, and application guidance. The new HCM is expected to be available mid to late next year. At the completion of a question and answer session, Arief recognized Mr. Ruehr and Mr. Bloomberg by presenting them with souvenirs and ITE mementos as tokens of our appreciation.


15

OCTOBER 2009 The ITE Southern California Section monthly meeting was held on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at Capistrano’s Restaurant in the City of Buena Park. Our guest speaker was Mr. John Lower, AICP, PTP with Circulation Systems Associates and provided a presentation regarding the “Overview of the “Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC): Moving Cooler?”. Mr. Lower’s presentation was titled “Moving Cooler: Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Fuel Consumption”, and he discussed the various types of sustainable transportation approaches that will help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases including California High Speed Rail. You may ask yourself, “Why are sustainable transportation approaches so important.” The reason is that studies have been conducted to determine the types of factors/industries that create GHG emissions and transportation contributes the highest. In 2006, studies and analyses have shown that transportation accounted for 29 percent of total U.S. GHG missions and is the fastest-growing source of GHGs in the U.S., accounting for 47 percent of the net increase in total U.S. emissions since 1990. Transportation is also the largest end-use source of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Source: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/basicinfo.htm So, transportation cannot be overlooked when it comes to forming strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Mr. Lower indicated that other transportation studies have been conducted for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the analysis shows that in the future our VMT will rise and so will our CO2 emissions. To counteract this problem the state has set goals reduce the amount of GHG emissions statewide. The goal is to reduce 2.5 MPM and transportation needs to contribute State and federal grants will be provided to fund these projects. High speed rail is considered as one strategy to reduce GHG emissions in transportation. In California, the voters approved Proposition 1A on the November 4, 2008 ballot provided $9 billion in bond funding for the 800-mile statewide network and $950 million to finance capital improvements to commuter and intercity rail as well as local transit lines that will connect existing infrastructure to the high-speed train system.


16

Currently, preliminary planning and analysis are being conducted for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), and it is planned that the ARTIC will provide the California High Speed Rail service and its associated capital improvements including required mitigations of the existing roadway system. Overall, reducing greenhouse gases is an integrated, multistrategy approach that combines techniques such as travel activity, local and regional pricing, operational and efficiency strategies can contribute to significant GHG reductions. Mr. Lower closed with an overview of the “Top Moving Cooler Strategies” that contribute the most to reducing GHG emissions:

• Local and regional pricing and regulatory strategies that increase the cost of single occupancy vehicle travel;

• Regulatory strategies that reduce and enforce speed limits; • Educational strategies to encourage eco-driving behavior that achieves better fuel efficiency; • Land use and smart growth strategies that reduce travel distances; and • Multimodal strategies that expand travel options.

Mr. Lower also promoted Intelligent Transportation Society of California Annual Meeting that will be held on November 16 and 17, 2009 at Anaheim Stadium in the City of Anaheim. He briefly went through the daily agenda, and announced that he will be a presenter for the Smart Parking Sessions. Our attendance is encouraged, so sign up as soon as you can. To download the program, go to: http://www.itsa.org/itsa/files/pdf/ITSCA2009PreliminaryProgram.pdf As a token of appreciation, our guest speaker was presented with a multifunctional pen with a laser pointer and flash drive. Thank you Mr. Lower for your time and insight.


17

NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2009 The ITE Southern California Section and the Riverside-San Bernardino ITE Section held a joint monthly meeting on Wednesday November 18, 2009 at The Restaurant at Kellogg Ranch in Cal Poly Pomona. The meeting was filled to capacity with ITE members from both sections, as well as members from the Cal Poly Pomona ITE Student Chapter. During the traditional self-introduction, each participant was asked to announce their name, company, and college they attended. The meeting was kicked off with a brief presentation by Neelam Sharma (DKS Associates) about the new mentor program for future transportation professionals. Students will be able to receive career advice and guidance from experienced ITE members through this program. ITE members are encouraged to provide feedback and suggestions to the program. Mr. John Standiford, the Deputy Executive Director of RCTC, presented “Rail Plans for Riverside County featuring The Perris Valley Line Project”. This included an overview of Metrolink service in Southern California and the predicted changes in socioeconomic conditions in Riverside County. He pointed out that the County currently has the longest average commute in the SCAG region. In 20 years, its population will increase to 3.3 million from 2.1 million now, and jobs will be doubled to 1.1 million from the current 500,000. The presentation outlined the Perris Valley Line Project, which is approximately a 24 mile extension of rail service from Hunter Park Area Station to South Perris Station. The new section of rail line includes 4 new stations, and plans to provide 12 trips per day. The project will cost $232.7 million. It is projected that the daily ridership for the Perris Valley Line will be 45,000 system-wide with 4,350 on the opening day. As a transit alternative to I-215, the project will not only extend more rail service to a larger area of Riverside County, it will also act as a rail transit backbone for Western Riverside County. The project will take advantage of Federal support and funding with state and local matches.


18

The scope of the project includes the following items:

• Fully rehabilitate or reconstruct existing track or construct new alignment adjacent to existing track • Replacement of existing drainage culverts • Safety enhancements • Reconstruction of bridges • Upgrade existing at-grade crossings • Install signal and communication systems • Add 4 new stations • Construct layover facility

In addition, the presentation introduced the schedule of the project. It plans to start construction by 2011 and begin to provide service in 2012. For more information visit www.perrisvalleyline.info At the completion of question and answer session, both ITE Southern California section and Riverside-San Bernardino ITE presented John with a digital pointer and flash drive as a token of appreciation.


19

The event featured over 100 delegates packing the grand Ballroom at the Monterey Hill Restaurant.

Mr. Doug Failing speaks passionately about exciting opportunities ahead

JANUARY 2010 The January 2010 Southern California Section meeting was held at the Monterey Hill restaurant in the City of Monterey Park. The first ITE Southern California monthly luncheon meeting in 2010 was held on January 20th at the Monterey Hill Restaurant in Monterey Park. It was a joint meeting with City Traffic Engineers (CTE) Association. As expected, it was a very well attended meeting by both public agency and private sector staff. After self-introductions, our ITE Southern California Section President Mr. Arief Naftali (Advantec) introduced the speaker of the day, Mr. Doug Failing, Executive Director for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Highway Program. Prior to joining Metro, Doug served as the District Director for Caltrans District 7 for many years and was recognized among “The Most Influential People in Los Angeles”. The topic of Doug’s presentation was “LA MTA Looks Ahead”, and following were the key highlights of Doug’s presentation:

• Funding generated by “Measure R” – County wide half-cent sales tax of up to $7.8 billion for Highway Program in the next 30 years. The program will include Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects as well as signal synchronization projects. The potential projects include ITS improvements along I-710 and in the high desert area, dynamic lanes on SB SR 110 and NB SR 110 to the NB I-5 interchange, and integrated traffic management of Foothill Blvd with I-210. Doug indicated that Metro will continue to partner with Caltrans, the Cities, Los Angeles County and consultants to make this program successful.

• I-710 Freeway gap between

Alhambra and Pasadena – A tunnel feasibility study to close this gap has been completed and will be submitted to Metro Board by April 2010. Staff’s recommendation to the Board would be to move forward with the environmental document. Doug indicated that a public-private partnership could be considered for this project.


20

Mr. Darren Kettle speaks before a captive audience

Attendees listen attentively to announcements

• HOV/HOT Lanes – Doug mentioned that Caltrans District 7 has the largest carpool network in the world, but has been a victim of its own success. High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes can help improve the carpool lanes’ performance. HOT lanes are being proposed on I-10 and SR 110 freeways as part of the funding received by Metro from the Urban Partnership Program (UPP). This project will also be a demonstration to give impetus to introduce more congestion pricing projects for other HOV lanes. The project’s environment study is expected to be completed by April and the project will be awarded for implementation by June-July 2010. Four (4) toll facility integrators have been short listed for this project. More information can be found on the Metro’s website (http://www.metro.net/index.asp).

• Goods Movement Coordination – Doug indicated that more coordination is necessary between

highway and railroad stakeholders to meet the region’s significant needs in goods movement. Alameda Corridor East (ACE) has about $800 million in funding available for various grade separation projects and more funding will be made available to ACE to identify projects for improving goods movement operations. Metro and the Gateway Cities Council of Governments are working on a specific ITS plan and an RFP that will be released in 6-8 months.

At the completion of question and answer session, Arief presented Doug with a digital pointer and flash drive as a token of appreciation. After the presentation, Mr. Ed Norris, Public Works Director for the City of Downey introduced CTE and encouraged more City engineers to join its bi-monthly meetings at Sambi of Tokyo in Downey. Mr. Jesse Glazer from FHWA reminded the audience of the opportunity of systems engineering training on February 9th and 10th in the City of Diamond Bar. FEBRUARY 2010 The February 9, 2010 ITE Southern California Section meeting was held jointly with the Central Coast Section at the Plug Nickel restaurant in the City of Westlake Village. The meeting was well attended by transportation professionals from agencies and companies in Los Angeles, Orange, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. The featured guest speaker was Mr. Darren Kettle with the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). Mr. Kettle has been the Executive Director of VCTC for over two years. Prior to this, he was with the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG). Mr. Kettle spoke about “Transportation in 2010 –

Challenges Ahead for Ventura County”.


21

Mr. Kettle revisited the discussion he had at the joint ITE meeting one year ago, which focused on the budget challenges facing the County’s transportation development. He was frank to indicate that the same problems from stringent funding still exist, and have gotten even worse for the County. He indicated the need for innovative transportation financial sources, since the traditional gas usage based Highway Trust Funding is shrinking with higher gas prices, reduced travel and improved vehicle fuel efficiency. Mr. Kettle noted that the political environment of Ventura County is unlike most other regions in the State. This unique environment poses considerable challenges for raising funds using sales tax measures. Mr. Kettle announced that the County is currently involved in two freeway related projects. The first one is to complete the Highway 118 widening project, which is currently under progress. The second is the 101/23 Interchange improvement design, which will be completed by the City of Thousand Oaks with consultant CH2M Hill. This project is unique because Caltrans typically completes interchange design projects in-house. In this case, however, a local agency along with a consultant is leading the project with oversight from VCTC and Caltrans. Mr. Kettle indicated that if this type of public-private partnership becomes successful, it could pave the way for more similar opportunities. Due to the expected budget cuts, Mr. Kettle mentioned that the Metrolink service may be discontinued in Ventura County in about one year. Mr. Kettle discussed the operation challenges of Metrolink with the current low to moderate ridership and concluded that it may not be financially feasible to continue the service. The same services can be provided with a much lower cost with the existing County-wide transit service, which also provides connection to the Los Angeles County transit connection stations. When asked about the State’s recent focus in high-speed rail development, Mr. Kettle indicated that the high-speed railroad is still in design stage and may run into similar financial situations for construction, maintenance, and operation. After the presentation, Lisa Martellaro-Palmer (Vice President, ITE Southern California Section) presented Mr. Kettle with a digital pointer and flash drive as a token of appreciation. MARCH 2010 The March 19, 2010 ITE Southern California Section meeting was held jointly with the San Diego Section at the El Adobe restaurant in the City of San Juan Capistrano. The meeting was well attended by transportation professionals from agencies and companies in Los Angeles, Orange, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. Mr. Samuel Johnson, who currently serves as ITS’s Chief Technology Officer, gave the keynote address on “Performance and Innovation – A Vision for Transportation Systems Management”. Mr. Clark Fernon, a newly appointed vice president of TY Lin’s Southern California Transportation Business Group, spoke on “Current Trends and Pending Legislation in the Transportation Industry”, Mr. Kevin Deal, of NDS, spoke on “Improving Traffic Data Collection: Technology and methodology Updates” and Mr. Ken Ackeret, ITE District 6 International Director, spoke on “Nevada State Highway 318: Closing a Public Highway for a Land Speed Record & Various ITE Updates”. Mr. Johnson discussed how technology will be used in the transportation industry. He mentioned how transit riders will be using a TAP card for passing through checkpoints. He mentioned IntelliDrive and how computers will be on-board in new cars. He also mentioned how video camera technology and light sensors will be able to detect


22

human passengers in the carpool lane. Mr. Fernon discussed various funding sources such as gas tax monies and ARRA stimulus monies. He discussed the potential for Public-Private Partnerships, otherwise known as P3’s. He also discussed potential transportation projects in the Southern California region worthy of funding.

Mr. Deal showed how video technology has improved and can be used for many traffic applications. For example, left-turn studies can be monitored by video. Your existing cameras can be used but they will install the software that will provide the data. Unreliable manual counts and human error do not have to be a part of the data collection process. “Our decisions should be based on reliable data.”

Mr. Ackeret mentioned that the State of Nevada closes Highway 318 for a driving event. The rules state that you can drive and reach your destination at your own estimated time of arrival or drive quickly. He explained the many safety features that have become a part of this event. Mr. Ackeret also informed us that ITE headquarters has moved to a new location.


23

Awards and Special Tributes presented during this reporting period: Notable awards were presented at the Section's June 2009 Mini-Seminar and Luncheon Meeting, which included: Young Transportation Engineer of the Year. A plaque and certificate were presented to Mr. Jason Rondou of the City of Los Angeles. Lifetime Achievement Award. The Lifetime Achievement Award was bestowed upon Ed Cline by the ITE Western District President, Monica M. Suter. Activities Summary ANNUAL OCTEC/ITE GOLF TOURNAMENT Orange County Traffic Engineering Council (OCTEC) and ITE Southern California Section joined forces in sponsoring an Annual Golf Tournament which was held on May 15, 2009 at the Green River Golf Club, in Corona, California. Members of the Southern California Section also participated in the San Diego Section Golf Tournament held at the Vineyard Golf Course on May 1, 2009. Our Southern California Section has several members also active at the District level. Walter Okitsu, our Legislative Coordinator, is a 2010 Western District candidate for Secretary/Treasurer. Also, several of our members attend Western District conferences, international conferences and other conferences.

Ms. Monica M. Suter (City of Santa Ana), Western District President, presented Mr. Ed Cline with a Presidential Proclamation from District 6 for his Lifetime work and dedication to the transportation profession.


24

ITE Southern California Section attends Inter-Mountain Conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Southern California Section members that attended are Western District International Director, Zaki Mustafa, Western District Past President, Monica M. Suter and Lisa Martellaro-Palmer.

ITE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SECTION ATTENDS INTER-MOUNTAIN CONFERENCE 2009 VENDOR SHOW AND SOCIAL NIGHT On October 27, 2009, the Traffic Signal Association of Southern California presented the 2009 Vendor Show and Social Night at the Mile Square Golf Course in Fountain Valley, CA. This was one of the largest events of this kind that has been presented. ITE Southern California Section members were in attendance with vendors, Traffic Signal Association members and friends from the traffic signal industry. WHAT IS ITS / SYSTEMS ENGINEERING COURSE On June 17, 2009 an introductory training course “ITS-101” was held to introduce the basis concepts and terminology of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) as they relate to the transportation engineer’s responsibilities. The course was presented by Mr. Jesse Glazer and was held at the Southern California Association of Governments facility. This introductory course is presented periodically and is intended for anyone who is involved in planning or implementing an ITS project. Past attendees include: transportation planners, traffic engineers, public-transit operators, emergency-service providers, IT professions, elected officials, funding agencies and others. No technical degree or prior knowledge of ITS or Systems Engineering is required.


25

Walter Okitsu of Crane and Associates and Pat Gibson of Gibson and Associates mentor UCLA students on a tour of Pasadena’s Department of Transportation.

Western District International Director, Mr. Zaki Mustafa, City of Los Angeles mentors transportation students at Cal Poly Pomona

MENTORING PROGRAM The Mentoring Program is a strategic effort to develop talented transportation professionals and is available to both young professionals and students. The purpose of mentoring program is to match the learning and development goals of the mentee with the mentor’s experience.


26

Newsletters and Meetings Sponsorship We are pleased to have David Schwegel and Jay Dinkins as our newsletter editors. They have consistently produced our newsletter with accuracy, quality and in a timely manner. They have also encouraged our members to submit technical articles for the newsletter. The January and February issues of 2010 had several articles from our members. We are also pleased to note that we have become green. We are now releasing the newsletter only via e-mail and the Internet. Our members have agreed that they could access our newsletter online and therefore, we have reduced our production cost and saved a few trees. Finally, with many thanks to the hard work and dedication of Julia Wu, our Advertising Chair, the Section was able to secure a company to sponsor for every edition of the newsletters from April 2009 and March 2010 as shown in the following table:

TABLE 1

Apr-09 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May-09 Al Grover & Associates

Jun-09 Linscott, Law & Greenspan

Sep-09 URS

Oct-09 PBS & J

Nov/Dec-09 Advantec Consulting Engineers

Jan-10 Minagar & Associates

Feb-10 Phoenix Highway Products, Inc.

Mar-10 Iteris, Inc. Website

We have updated our website. We are fortunate to have Andrew Maximous as our website master. He has changed the look of our website and made it more contemporary. It is now easier to find items on the website and it downloads information faster, such as previous newsletters. We also changed our website address to www.itesocal.org.


27

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – “Providing Traffic Control Consistency in a Large Agency Using Standard Plans”

John E. Fisher, P.E., PTOE Attachment 2 – January 2010 Issue of Southern California Section Newsletter Attachment 3 - “High-Speed Rail and the Transportation Professional” David M. Schwegel, P.E., PTOE


1

Providing Traffic Control Consistency in a Large Agency

Using Standard Plans

John E. Fisher, P.E., PTOE

Abstract. The application of defined practices for similar situations throughout a jurisdiction can promote uniformity, achieve consistency, maintain high standards, improve motorist response and minimize tort liability exposure. However, the implementation of consistent practices becomes challenging with large jurisdictions, due to numerous field situations, the number of persons authorized to make decisions and the discretion allowed in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) has successfully addressed this issue through the development of standard plans and the diligence in adhering to them. THE CHALLENGE LADOT is responsible for the operation of the surface street system in the second largest city in the United States. The magnitude of its responsibilities is demonstrated by the following statistics (rounded): Population: 4.0 million persons Area: 470 square miles Street Mileage: 6,500 miles Intersections: 40,000 Traffic Signals: 4,400 Traffic Signs: 700,000 The magnitude of professionals participating in operational decisions is suggested by the size of LADOT’s transportation engineering staff. LADOT has 1,600 full-time employees (and 500 part-time crossing guards), dedicated to planning, design, operations, maintenance, traffic safety, parking provision, parking enforcement, bikeway development, traffic calming, community transit service and street improvement programs. (Street resurfacing, street lighting and street construction projects are accomplished by the City’s Department of Public Works, while the operation of freeways is undertaken by the California Department of Transportation.) Included in this staffing are 280 persons each with one of five transportation engineering position titles, and each with some degree of decision-making responsibility with respect to the application of traffic control devices and traffic signal phasing and timing. Finally, the magnitude of discretion is demonstrated in the MUTCD, or, in California, the California MUTCD. There are numerous Option statements (permissive or “may” situations) and Guidance statements (recommended or “should” situations) that offer engineers a wide degree of latitude in decisions involving operations or design. Option statements carry no requirement or recommendation and allow the user to exercise discretion. Guidance statements are recommended practice, but are not mandatory and allow deviations based on engineering judgment or an engineering study. Because there are many persons in LADOT with some degree


2

of decision making authority in combination with the wide discretion allowed in the MUTCD, similar situations potentially might be handled in a variety of ways. This can give the impression that an agency has inconsistent practices, which has the potential to undermine its credibility with the public, elected officials and juries in tort liability cases. THE RESPONSE In response to the challenge of the potential for inconsistent practice, LADOT started developing an extensive series of standard plans beginning 20 years ago. One of the first standard plans identified the traffic controls that should be in place at uncontrolled marked crosswalks across high volume arterial streets with four or more lanes. Traffic safety measures for pedestrians had always been a sensitive issue, given that an average of 72 pedestrians per year in the City died of injuries sustained while crossing the street. In years past when a pedestrian collision would occur in an uncontrolled marked crosswalk, the transportation engineering staff responsible for one area of the City might respond by adding PED XING pavement markings, while those in another area of the City might add warning signs, pavement markings or both. Today, at all locations where uncontrolled marked crosswalks are to be retained, we diligently provide advance pavement markings, advance warning signs, left and right mounted intersection warning signs, ladder-style crosswalks, and approach red curb sufficient to enable the motorist to see the pedestrian at a safe stopping distance. This is a practice that is consistent throughout the City and exceeds the requirements of the California MUTCD. The condition where through lanes become mandatory turn lanes had always been a problematic operational issue and was treated in a variety of ways with respect to signing, striping and the length of the transition zone. In response, a standard plan was developed which shows the applicable striping and signing treatment. The treatment includes so-called “Elephant Tracks” (8-inch wide stripes, 3-feet in length, separated by a 12-foot gap) and two and advance warning signs. This treatment on surface streets was pioneered by LADOT long before it appeared in the California MUTCD and then the MUTCD. The treatment enables motorists to know well in advance that the lane is discontinuous, thus minimizing sudden lane vacation maneuvers. Another early standard plan involved the treatments to be applied to a variety of signalized jogged intersections. Jogged or offset intersections present challenges to motorists which can include interlock, “yellow trap” and unexpected conflicts. In various areas of the City a variety of controls had been used, including opposed phasing (for the jogged approaches) internal limit lines (on the street intersecting the jogged streets), slot clearance signal phasing, concurrent pedestrian phases, left-turn prohibitions, protected left-turn phasing and far-side signals. However, the controls were not always used in a consistent manner for similar types of jogged intersections. Today, there is a standard treatment at jogged intersections, depending on whether it’s a left offset or a right offset, the degree of offset separation and other factors. A third early standard plan concerned channelized right turns. Depending on the situation, the prior signing might include either a Stop, Yield, Merge, or Added Lane sign, or possibly no sign at all. However, the signing was not applied consistently. Also, the crosswalk under prior practice might be paralled to the curb, diagonal to the channelizing island or non-existent. Today, we have explicit design criteria for each of these treatments, in order to ensure consistency. The standard plans grew in number after the initial early ones were found to be helpful. After several years some were updated to reflect the current state-of-the art. Today, there are 35


3

standard plans, involving 125 sheets, that identify the standard practice to be undertaken in the City of Los Angeles. Each plan is between one to 16 sheets, depending on the complexity of the subject. For example, the standard plan for signalized jogged intersections is 12 sheets in length, due to the number of combinations. The standard plan on overhead guide signing is 16 sheets in length, in order to illustrate the appropriate signing concept to be applied to various hypothetical types of multi-legged and Y-type intersections, as well as freeway on-ramps. Most standard plans are one or two sheets. They are listed below: Traffic Signals: Title Sheets Typical Location of Traffic Signal Standards 1 Typical Layout for Activated Pedestrian Warning Devices 1 Fire Station Warning Beacons 1 Mastarm Signal Head Placement 2 Limit Line Inductive Loop Detector Placement 2 Special Detector Applications 5 Application of Visibility-Limited Traffic Signal Heads 12

Operation and Design of Signalized Jogged Intersections 12 Typical Traffic Signal Layouts 7 Mastarm Signal Head Installation Criteria 1 Criteria for 12” Signal Heads 2 Overhead Guide Signing 16

Gap Acceptance and Visibility Requirements for Left Turn 2 Lanes with Permissive Phasing

Striping and Signing: Typical Major Highway Striping Treatments 1 Typical Secondary Highway Striping Treatments 1 Intersection Striping 2 Left Turn and Median Channelization Pavement Markings 7 Roadside Freeway Guide Signing 9 Overhead Guide Signing 16 On-Street Angle Parking Stalls 2 Narrowed Roadway Delineation (Without Lane Drop) 1 Sign Posting for Street Termini 1 Typical Placement of Pavement Turn Arrows 1 Traffic Controls for Marked Crosswalks on Non-Controlled Approaches 1 Speed Hump 2 Lane Reduction 2 Exclusive Bus Lane Pavement Markings 1 Worksite Traffic Control Plan 6 Crosswalk Alignment 1 Advance Turn Lanes 1 Location of Limit Lines and Crosswalks 7 Channelized Right Turns 5 Supplemental Curve Warning Signing 2 Community and Neighborhood Signs 2


4

Three examples of standard plans are enclosed. They include “Traffic Controls for Marked Crosswalks on Non-Controlled Approaches”, “Advance Turn Lanes” and “Channelized Right Turns”. BENEFITS The standard plans have enabled LADOT to respond to situations in a consistent manner and speak with a consistent voice. They have served as helpful design and operational guides to junior professional staff. Further, they have been valuable in tort liability cases where we can demonstrate that we have followed our own design and operational practices which not only achieve uniformity but also meet and often exceed the requirements of the California MUTCD. AVAILABLITY The LADOT Standard Plans are available on the LADOT website, www.ladot.lacity.org, by clicking on “TIPS and FAQs” and then “Developer Services”. Author Information: John E. Fisher, P.E., PTOE Assistant General Manager Los Angeles Department of Transportation 100 S. Main Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 972-8424 Fax (866) 530-3154 E-mail [email protected] John E. Fisher, P.E., PTOE (Fellow) is the LADOT Assistant General Manager responsible for transportation operations. He has been with LADOT for 36 years.


5

Examples of

Standard Plans


6


7


8


9


10


11


12


1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9


10


11


1

High-Speed Rail and the Transportation Professional

David M. Schwegel, PE, PTOE Last month’s infrastructure evaluation article notes how the United States (US) infrastructure was once the envy of the world. Unfortunately, economic challenges over the last 40 years caused the US to lose its competitive edge on infrastructure to European and Asian nations, especially China, which is expected to have more miles of interstate freeway than the US three years from now. Widespread infrastructure projects in China and other overseas nations could create a severe case of “infrastructure envy” among infrastructure decision makers in the US1. Last month’s article also notes how California was once seen as an infrastructure pioneer for the US. The state pioneered freeway construction. SR 110, between Los Angeles and Pasadena, is the nation’s first freeway. Unfortunately, infrastructure spending in California declined significantly from 15-20 percent of the state budget in the sixties to a fraction of a percent by 2005. The situation is especially pronounced in transportation. By 2004, per capita transportation spending in California dropped to dead last among the 50 states. Fortunately there is a renewed interest in a transportation mode offering unique mobility, environmental preservation, and economic stimulation characteristics that could get California back on track. While this mode does not restore the US to the world’s infrastructure model that it enjoyed in the 50’s, it gives California another opportunity to pioneer a mode of transportation for the US. This mode is High-Speed Rail (HSR). Benefits are astounding: Safety/Punctuality: With over 40 years in operation, HSR has a track record for being the “safest and most reliable form of transportation.” Systems have been running for 45 years in Japan and 30 years in France and Italy without a passenger fatality. The Japanese Shinkansen has an on-time performance record of 99 percent. In the unusual case when a train is late, it is only by an average of 28 seconds2. Mobility: HSR connects passengers between city centers, 150-600 miles apart, faster than automobiles or airplanes. Environmental Preservation: HSR in California eliminates 12 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions every year3. Economic Stimulation: HSR adds 450,000 overall jobs to California4 including 45,000 in tourist-oriented San Diego5 and 48,000 in the affluent San Francisco Bay Area6. HSR also injects up to $19 billion into the struggling Central Valley economy7. Let’s examine HSR technology, the California HSR project, and the transportation professional’s role. HSR Technology While HSR technology is new to the US, it is not new to the world. The closest version of HSR in the US is the Acela Express, covering the 432-mile Washington DC to Boston corridor in 6 hours and 30 minutes. This is lightly less than automobile travel time by under unimpeded conditions. At a typical speed of 110-120 miles per


2

hour, it falls short of 175+ mile-per-hour speed needed to qualify for true HSR. Japan, on the other hand, has had high-speed trains running since 1964. Numerous European countries including Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden launched successful HSR projects in the 80’s. China opened a 100+ mile link near Beijing, transporting Olympic athletes and spectators to soccer venues in 2008. Widespread construction work is underway in China on a 16,000-mile nationwide HSR network, the “largest, fastest, and most technologically sophisticated in the world.” Construction on the Beijing-Shanghai route is well underway with 110,000 construction laborers on this line alone1. Considerable discussion has taken place in the US for over 40 years with projected routes shown in the most heavily populated corridors between 150 and 600 miles. Prime locations include the Northeast Corridor (Washington DC to Boston), Florida, and Texas. In fact, Texas had an extremely ambitious project planned in the mid 90’s, resembling the French Train a’Grand Vitesse (TGV) system, linking Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. However, the project was derailed by competing interest groups. A common theme of US HSR attempts is that such projects take a back seat priority to highways and aviation, struggle to procure adequate funding, and fail to move forward2. HSR discussions have taken place in California over the last three decades. The concept for a high-speed train system between Southern California and Las Vegas emerged in the 70’s during the Arab Oil Embargo, threatening the “lifeblood” of Las Vegas. While critics dubbed this project as a “gambler’s paradise at California’s expense,” proponents suggest that numerous visitors to Las Vegas, one of America’s most popular tourist destinations, may enthusiastically embrace a new form of transportation to explore Southern California attractions2. There are two competing high-speed ground transportation concepts to Las Vegas. The first is the “DesertXpress,” a privately funded conventional rail project from Victorville. The second is a magnetic levitation (maglev) train from Anaheim. Former President Bill Clinton emphasized California’s HSR need during an interview on the Arsenio Hall show shortly after Clinton’s presidential inauguration as long ago as 1993. There is some indication that California HSR may move beyond the discussion and into the implementation stages. Slightly over a year ago, California voters passed Proposition 1A on November 4, 2008, encouraging the allocation of $9.95 billion in bonds for HSR in California. This issue helps accelerate a 220-mile-per-hour HSR project linking major California cities, pending the successful sale of these bonds8. The California HSR Project An MSNBC article dated November 3, 2009 identifies the world’s seven colossal construction projects as follows: (1) International Space Station, (2) Ancient Roman Road Update in Greece, (3) New Orleans Storm Protection System, (4) Panama Canal Expansion, (5) London Crossrail Commuter Rail, (6) China Water Diversion, and the (7) 800-mile California HSR project, the largest “new public-private partnership venture” in the US9. While the $45 billion price tag for this California HSR project may be steep, the price tag for the airport and freeway expansion alternative is three times as high to meet California’s mobility needs in 2030. Several key decision makers note this enormous investment must be dealt with now. The longer we wait, the more expensive the project becomes. French, German, and Japanese consultants have thoroughly reviewed plans for California’s HSR project, and found them to be “sound,” identifying California as the “perfect corridor” in terms of length and topography. Construction contracts could be awarded as early as 2011. The project could be completed as early as 2020. 54 million passengers are expected to use this system by 2030.10

This California HSR project consists of a series of corridors linking the major cities of Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Fresno, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Irvine, Riverside, and San Diego. Passengers are expected to complete the 465-mile San Francisco to Anaheim journey in 2 hours and 57 minutes11, less than half the time it takes the Acela Express to complete the slightly shorter 432-mile Washington DC to Boston journey. By comparison, it takes a motorist between 6 hours 30 minutes and 7 hours to make the same 465-mile journey traveling by freeway between 65 and 70 miles per hour under unimpeded conditions. Key corridors on the California HSR project include: (1) Sacramento to Merced, (2) San Francisco to San Jose, (3) San Jose to Merced, (4) Merced to Fresno, (5) Fresno to Bakersfield, (6) Bakersfield to Los Angeles, (7) Los Angeles to Irvine, (8) Los Angeles to Riverside, and (9) Riverside to San Diego11. None of the two high-speed ground transportation concepts to Las Vegas are a part of this project. Each of these corridors is at various stages of planning, preliminary engineering, and funding12. The Los Angeles to Irvine corridor is way ahead of the pack thanks to initial funding from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and advocacy from Anaheim Mayor Mr. Curt Pringle.


3

The California HSR Authority (www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov) has been diligently promoting HSR in California since 1996. Among the authority’s numerous promotional activities was getting Proposition 1A on the November 2008 ballot. The Authority is running the California HSR project. Mayor and HSR Advocate Curt Pringle is the HSR Authority Board Chairman10. The HSR Authority has hired numerous consultants to prepare the Alternatives Analyses, Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and Preliminary Engineering functions. Parsons Brinckerhoff is the program manager under the direction of Project Manager Mr. Bruce Armistead (Los Angeles), orchestrating the efforts of the nine consulting firms, each assigned to a different corridor13. The primary focus right now is getting each corridor through the environmental process. The consultants and other transportation professionals are actively involved in the scoping and public comment meetings. Overall the project is well received, but there are several oppositions that need to be overcome including “not in my back yard” (NIMBY-ism) in Palo Alto11. Parsons Transportation Group is handling the 125-mile San Jose to Merced corridor under the direction of Project Manager Mr. Dave Mansen (San Francisco)12. Mr. Mansen notes the tremendous pleasure and satisfaction of working on such a fascinating and high-profile project. California HSR’s key hurdle is procuring additional funding to make this project a reality. Much of the funding is expected from bonds. California’s widespread economic hardships over the past decades may pose challenges in attracting investors. Fortunately, in addition to the Proposition 1A starter funding, the Obama Administration has pushed for the allocation of $8 billion in economic stimulus funds for HSR projects throughout the US. The California HSR commission has requested over $4 billion of these funds. A decision could be made as early as next January13. However, regions throughout the nation have put in a total of $38 billion in requests for these limited funds10. California’s ability to present the state as competent to take on the pioneering of this new mode of transportation for the US will be integral in successful funding procurement. In addition to California’s promise to pioneer HSR in the US, key selling points for the HSR technology in general and the California project specifically include environmental preservation and cost effectiveness relative to other modes. Take the Fresno to Los Angeles corridor as an example. The HSR trip takes 1 hour and 24 minutes and saves 191.25 lb CO2. The $38-HSR trip cost is slightly less than the $49 automobile cost, and significantly less than the $175 air cost11. The Transportation Professional’s Role All of us transportation professionals must play numerous roles as we see the California HSR project moving through the environmental, engineering, public participation, and construction processes. First, become educated on the technological aspects of this new mode of transportation as well as project specific developments. If successful, this California HSR project will serve as a model for many other states to follow as they embrace this technology. Get on the mailing lists for the corridors, especially those that are closest to your business and residence. For many of us, it is the packleading Los Angeles to Anaheim corridor. Dave Manson notes there are 5,000 subscribers on the San Jose to Merced corridor mailing list alone12. Our local corridors likely have many more. Review articles. Watch simulations. Study statistics on the California HSR Authority website. This website has a wealth of information from around the world. Use this as a vehicle to educate transportation professionals, stakeholders, and the public around the nation on this unique mode of travel. Second, review the Alternatives Analyses, EIS’s, and Preliminary Engineering documents readily available on websites and at project scoping and public participation meetings. As transportation professionals, we bring a wealth of transportation engineering expertise to the table. It is imperative that we are at the forefront of this project in whatever capacities we can take on. We are charged with “protecting the public health, safety, and welfare,” and improving the quality of life for our citizens. Become actively involved politically and professionally. Let your views be known by politicians, elected officials, project leaders, and the public. Take a proactive role in reshaping our profession for future generations. Third, attend as many scoping and public meetings as possible, and provide insightful comments for the benefit of engineers, elected officials, and the public. Transportation professionals are often significantly underrepresented at such meetings. Consequently key decisions are made by officials with limited transportation engineering expertise. The Texas TGV experience indicates competing interest groups may inflate and distort projected project impacts, thereby confusing the public and killing high-profile projects that are critical for mobility improvement, congestion relief, economic stimulation, and environmental preservation.


4

Fourth, encourage partnerships among compatible interest groups. In Germany, for example, Lufthansa Airlines is heavily involved in HSR projects, operating HSR service in connection with its flights2. Recognize that HSR is not necessarily in competition with other transportation modes. It simply allows each mode to focus on their optimum distances. Automobile travel is best suited for one-way trips of up to 150 miles. Air travel is best suited for trips over 600 miles. HSR is best suited for 150-to-600-mile trips. As indicated in Mr. Jeffrey Lower’s presentation at the October 21 ITE/So Cal Luncheon in Buena Park, HSR stations are a “fireplace” for the new downtown, integrating multiple modes of transportation, and significantly changing the downtown landscape within a one-to-two mile radius of the station. The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) for example is projected to be a “drop-your-car-off” destination featuring an 18,000-space parking structure, significantly larger than Disneyland’s Mickey and Friends 11,000-space structure. ARTIC is strategically located to provide convenient foot and transit access to Disney attractions, Angel Stadium, and the Honda Center15. Fifth, proactively anticipate how HSR is changing the practice of transportation engineering and mobilize yourself accordingly. The profession has been primarily geared toward the airplane and automobile entailing the planning and design of features complementing these modes of travel. The introduction of HSR demands the design of considerable direct access (1) vehicle connections for freeways to intermodal center parking structures and (2) pedestrian connections to the high-trip generators within walking distance of these intermodal centers. One mode expecting a significant impact is transit. While transit market share has increased significantly over the years, numerous critics still characterize this mode as unable to compete with the automobile in terms of commute travel times. The fact that HSR, the new form of transit, delivers passengers to diverse destinations significantly faster than the private automobile, will cause these critics to give transit a second look, especially between Los Angeles and Anaheim. Seamless connections between HSR and other transit modes significantly escalates transit’s market share across the board. An HSR network in Southern California could even boost attendance at our Section luncheons while increasing interaction and collaboration with the Riverside-San Bernardino Section to the east, and the San Diego Section to the southeast. Also related to HSR is the need for professionals to think outside the box on additional practical applications such as the facilitation of goods movement. One carrier with goods movement potential is the Eurostar, which has successfully transported both passengers and automobiles at top speeds between England and France beneath the English Channel since the early 90’s16. Sixth, encourage college students to actively embrace the new transportation engineering profession. Recent economic activity and widespread layoffs has been somewhat of a deterrent for students to consider and stick with the rigors of a transportation engineering program. As transportation professionals, it is imperative that we become actively involved in student chapters, educating them on the economic potential for this new mode of transportation and the exciting ways it is projected to transform our profession. Make frequent presentations at student chapter meetings on this new technology. Get students actively engaged in such projects through internships and volunteer opportunities. One of the items that inspired me to stick with the rigors of my seven-year dual-degree engineering program was the opportunity to prepare a research report on High-Speed Trains: Bridging the Time Gaps in Intercity Transportation and present it at an American Public Works Association (APWA) meeting. Seventh, use HSR as a tool to both unify the Engineering profession and increase collaboration with other professions. There are numerous professional societies that have a vested interest in HSR, some focused specifically on transportation, others focused on related technical aspects. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has a Transportation Institute (TI) that has interests in both road and transit projects. HSR is a popular topic at TI-sponsored meetings. Mechanical Engineering societies have interests in locomotive design. Electrical Engineering societies have interests in the power supply and distribution systems. Computer and Control Systems Engineering societies have vested interests in the centers that operate the expansive train network. Public Relations and Information Technology (IT) professionals also have a vested interest in the on-board passenger communication and public promotion aspects of this new technology. Increased collaboration with such professionals advances engineering and non-engineering professions alike. As transportation professionals, please learn as much as possible about this new mode of transportation, prepare technical presentations for diverse organizations, and write articles for diverse publications including our own ITE So Cal Newsletter. This article is merely the tip of the iceberg on this expansive topic. Thank you.


5

Notes

1. CNN Money.com, “China’s amazing new bullet train,” August 6, 2009. 2. Vanich, Joseph, Supertrains: Solutions to America’s Transportation Gridlock. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993. 3. California High-Speed Rail Authority, California High-Speed Train System Environmental Protection, 2009. 4. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Nearly 160,000 Construction-Related Jobs 450,000 New Permanent Jobs,

2009. 5. California High-Speed Rail Authority, High-Speed Train Service Offers Boost to San Diego, September 24, 2008. 6. California High-Speed Rail Authority, High-Speed Train Expected to Support Bay Area Economy and Smart

Growth, October 2, 2008. 7. California High-Speed Rail Authority, High-Speed Train Offers Economic Boost to Central Valley, October 1,

2008. 8. Telephone Interview with Ms. Kris Deutchman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority on Tuesday, November

3, 2009 9. MSNBC.com, “The World’s 7 Colossal Projects,” November 2, 2009. 10. Gertner, John, New York Times, “Getting Up to Speed,” June 14, 2009. 11. California High Speed Rail Authority website, www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov. 12. Telephone interview with Mr. Dave Mansen of Parson’s Transportation Group on November 3, 2009. 13. Telephone interview with Mr. Bruce Armistead of Parsons Brinckerhoff on November 2, 2009. 14. Telephone interview with Ms. Valerie Martinez of VMA Communications on November 2, 2009. 15. Jeffrey Lower, ARCTIC: Moving Cooler, presented at ITE Southern California Section Luncheon in Buena Park on

October 21, 2009. 16. Griffiths, Jeanne, London to Paris in Ten Minutes: The Eurostar Story, Great Britain: Images of Publishing Ltd.,

1995.

Southern California Area Section 2009-2010 Annual Report · Location: Restaurant at Kellogg Ranch,...

Documents

Transcript of Southern California Area Section 2009-2010 Annual Report · Location: Restaurant at Kellogg Ranch,...