Object Markers at Narrow Bridges on Low Volume Rural Roadways [MATC 1998]

University Transportation Centers Program1998PDFTech ReportRys, Margaret J.Pudi, Rajasekhar R.Stokes, Robert W.Kansas State University, ManhattanKansas. Dept. of TransportationMid-Atlantic Universities Transportation CenterKansas. Dept. of TransportationKansasUnited StatesTraffic signsBridgesLow volume roadsHighway safetyLiterature reviewsAlternatives analysisAgricultural equipmentObject markersRural roadsMBTC-FR-1083Additional funding was provided by the Mid-American Transportation Center.Bridges are a necessary part of any roadway system. Their construction requires a more sophisticated engineering design analysis and a higher construction cost than that for the roadways connecting them. Until relatively recently, bridge width on low volume roads would often be reduced for economic reasons. Bridges and culverts that are narrower than the approach roadway cause considerable problems for a driver because they violate his/her expectations. In such cases, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states that Type 3 object markers shall be used on each approach. However, if narrow bridges are used by low, wide farm equipment, the object markers are frequently knocked-down. There is a need for signing and marking practices that allow rural, low volume bridges and culverts to be marked in accordance with the MUTCD and still allow farm equipment to pass over the bridge without destroying or damaging the object markers. Kansas State University conducted a study to identify and evaluate potential alternatives for marking narrow bridges. Several alternative signing strategies for low volume bridges were formulated. These alternatives include: 1) do not use object markers on low volume roadways, 2) reduce the height of object markers on low volume roadways, 3) stagger the object markers on low volume roadways, 4) use flexible sign supports, 5) use removable object markers, and 6) redesign the object marker and/or support. Implementation of such practices statewide could result in substantial cost savings to the highway agencies.136