Bob Wagar

Not sure why this Dockett Item takes on just half on the requirements of Congressional mandate for "Pavement Markings" reflectivity. FHWA cost estimates are $64 million a year, and do not include any engineering costs. When this is combined with other FHWA requirements for sign retroreflectivity and changes required by 2009 MUTCD the costs must exceed the new $141.3 that is identified as limit for "Unfunded Mandates" Act. Dedicated Federal funding should be provided to implement the many changes that are identifed. If these programs have value (I think they do) the Federal goverment should provide funding. Local agencies simple do not have funding to support the many changes that have recently been identified. Saying funding may be available doesn't make it happen. Some specific concerns with Dockett item: Not sure why passenger car is identifed as vehicle for review of pavement markings when SUV was identified for sign reflectivity. It might be possilbe to do both at the same time if one vehicle were indicated for both. What is reason for using different vehicle for signs and pavement markings.? No minimum requirements for roadway with "Posted Speeds" of 30 mph or less. My observation is that most roadways that have a posted speed of 30 mph have an 85% speed of 35-40 mph. Should these be excluded??? Roadway with RRPM's are excluded. RRPM's do great job at night, but are they an acceptable alternative to clearly marked line during daylight hours? Shouldn't there still be basic requirement for lines during daylight hours? Not sure I agree with check reflectivtiy when conditions clear and dry. Value of lines is much greater during rainy weather. I didn't see anything within MUTCD changes that indicate how ofter along a route that readings of reflectivity would need to be made. Is there a distance identifed somewhere that would tell enginees whether they need to check at 300 feet intervals or some other distance? More later!