Vol 24 No 012010

The new version of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was released on Decem-

ber 16, 2009. The MUTCD is the national standard for all traffic control devices used in all streets,

highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel, ensuring the uniformity of traffic control

devices across the nation to help reduce crashes and traffic congestion. “Safety is this Department’s

top priority” declared Ray LaHood, U.S. Transportation Secretary, during the release of the compre-

hensive update of the MUTCD. “These new and updated standards will help make our nation’s roads

and bridges for drivers, construction workers and pedestrians alike”.

The MUTCD 2009 promotes the “complete streets” concept, an effort to ensure roads accommodate

all types of travel modes, not just the automobile. Among the new and updated requirements include

brighter, larger, and more legible highway signs, adding different lane markings for non-continuing

lanes, extending walk times for pedestrians at intersections, better pavement markings for bike lanes,

use of high visibility garments by road workers, adding overhead lane use control signs in multi-lane

roadways, expanding the use of flashing yellow arrow signals, and identifying electronic toll lanes.

This article presents some of the main changes in the MUTCD 2009 related to pavement markings and

traffic signals. Previous editions of EL PUENTE presented the proposed changes in Part 2 Signs and

Part 6 Temporary Traffic Control. (article continues in page 4)

In this issue

Revised rules for traffic control de-vices in the MUTCD 2009 P.1 Commercial and bus drivers banned from texting while driving P.2 MASH 2009 replaces NCHRP350 for new road safety hardware P.3 Center news P.8

Transportation week at UPRM P.9

Training workshops & seminars P.10

Meet the trainer P.10

Message from the editor P.11

EELL PPUENTEUENTE Newsletter of the Puerto Rico Transportation Technology Transfer Center University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez

Volume 24, Number 01, Year 2010

New Technical Re-

sources in our Library:

● AASHTO Manual for

Assessing Safety

Hardware

● FHWA Comprehen-

sive Intersection Re-

source Library DVD

● FHWA Manual on

Uniform Traffic Con-

trol Devices 2009

● FHWA Red-Light Run-

ning Handbook

● FHWA Sign Retrore-

flectivity Toolkit CD-

ROM

States must adopt the 2009 National MUTCD as their legal State standard for

traffic control devices within two years. Visit mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov for details.

The Puerto Rico Transportation Technology Transfer Center is part of a network of 58 centers through the United States that com-prises the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and the Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP), which enable local gov-ernments, counties, and cities, to improve their roads and bridges by supplying them with a variety of training programs, an infor-mation clearinghouse, new and existing technology updates, personalized technical assistance, and newsletters.

Revised rules for traffic control devices in the MUTCD 2009

Commercial and bus drivers banned from texting while driving

The use of cell phones and other electronic

devices while driving is a significant and grow-

ing concern, particularly since it has increased

exponentially in recent years.

Research indicates that texting while driving

represents an even greater risk than talking on

a cell phone. Texting while driving involves a

convergence of visual, manual, and cognitive

distractions that make this practice especially

hazardous and potentially deadly.

The federal government enacted a ban on all

large commercial trucks and bus drivers from

sending text messages while at the wheel to

tackle distracted driving, which claims thou-

sands of lives on roads each year. This federal

rule is applicable to all interstate drivers of

Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV’s) subject to

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administra-

tion (FMCSA) regulations.

The prohibition was announced on January 26,

2010 by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray

LaHood and was immediately putted on effect.

Drivers violating the ban could lead to civil or

criminal penalties such as fines of up to $2,750.

"We want the drivers of big rigs and buses and

those who share the roads with them to be

safe." said Secretary LaHood during the an-

nouncement of the initiative. "This is an impor-

tant safety step and we will be taking more to

eliminate the threat of distracted driving."

President Obama also signed the Executive

Order 13513 Federal Leadership on Reducing

Text Messaging While Driving, effective Decem-

ber 30, 2009, directing all federal employees

and contractors to not engage in text messag-

ing while:

Driving a vehicle that is owned, leased, or

rented by the government.

Driving privately-owned vehicles whilst on

official government business.

Using electronic equipment supplied by

the government to text while driving any

vehicle.

The FMCSA is working on additional regulatory

measures to avoid the use of electronic devices

while driving that will be announced in coming

months.

Safety facts and stats on distracted drivers

Nearly 6,000 people died and more than

500,000 were injured in 2008 in crashes

involving a distracted driver in the United

States.

Using a cell phone while driving, whether

it’s hand-held or hands-free, delays driver's

reaction as much as having a blood alcohol

concentration of .08%.

Younger and inexperienced drivers under

20 years old have the highest proportion of

distraction-related fatal crashes.

Drivers who send and receive text messages

take their eyes off the road for an average

of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds while

texting. At 55 miles per hour, this means

that the driver is traveling the length of a

football field, including the end zones, with-

out looking at the road.

Drivers who text while driving are more

than 20 times more likely to get in an crash

than non-distracted drivers.

Visit www.distraction.gov to learn about the

U.S. DOT safety strategies, such as the “PUT IT

DOWN” national campaign to combat distracted

driving.

Sources: U.S. DOT 14

-10 News Release

and distraction.gov

Twenty states, Washington, D.C., and Guam have already approved laws banning

texting while driving for all drivers.

EL PUENTE NEWSLETTER, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 2010 2

Types of

Distractions

Visual -

taking your

eyes off the

road

Manual -

taking your

hands off the

wheel

Cognitive -

taking your

mind off what

you’re doing

MASH 2009 replaces NCHRP350 for new road safety hardware

There were 17,818 fatal roadway departure

crashes in the United States in the year 2008,

resulting in 19,794 fatalities .

A roadway departure crash is defined as a non-

intersection crash which occurs after a vehicle

crosses an edge line or a center line, or other-

wise leaves the traveled way.

One of the engineering strategies often used to

reduce the severity of run-off-road crashes is

the installation of proper road safety hardware.

The AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hard-

ware (MASH), in effect since May 2009, pre-

sents uniform guidelines for crash testing per-

manent and temporary highway safety features

and recommends evaluation criteria to asses

test results.

MASH is an update to and supersedes the

NCHRP Report 350 for the purpose of evaluat-

ing new safety hardware devices. MASH does

not supersede any guidelines contained within

the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide.

Some of the major changes in test matrices,

test vehicles, and evaluation criteria are sum-

marized.

Changes in Test Matrices

Length-of-need tests with the pickup truck

are required to meet occupant risk criteria.

Longitudinal channelizers are added as a

category and a test matrix is recom-

mended.

The impact speed for single-unit truck tests

is increased from 80 km/h to 90 km/h to

better distinguish the TL-4 test from TL-3.

The small car impact angle is increased

from 20 to 25 degrees to match the impact

angle used with light truck testing.

The impact angle for length-of-need testing

of terminals and crash cushions is increased

from 20 to 25 degrees to match that for

longitudinal barriers.

The impact angle for oblique end impacts

for gating terminals and crash cushions is

reduced from 15 to 5 degrees.

The critical impact point for the small car

terminal test is defined as the point where

the terminal behavior changes from redi-

rection to gating.

Changes in Test Vehicles

The 820C vehicle (820 kg small car) is re-

placed by the 1100C (1100 kg small car).

The 2000P vehicle (2000 kg pickup truck) is

replaced by the 2270P (2270 kg pickup

truck).

The single unit truck mass increases from

8,000 kg to 10,000 kg.

The light truck test vehicle must have a

minimum center of gravity height of 28

inches.

(article continues in page 9)

The NCHRP report 350 was published in 1993 to provide full-scale crash testing criteria and

safety performance assessment for road safety hardware.

EL PUENTE NEWSLETTER, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 2010 PUERTO RICO TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CENTER 3

47%

24%

10%

17%2%

2008 Road Fatalities in the United States

Non roadway departure Run-off road right

Run-off road left Crossovers

Unknown roadway departure

Revised rules for traffic control devices… (continues from page 1)

MUTCD formatting

Paragraph numbering and paragraph cross ref-

erences were added to the MUTCD.

Metric dimensions were removed from the

text. Metric conversions are now provided in

an appendix.

Part 1 General

Several definitions, acronyms, and abbrevia-

tions were revised or added to Part 1. Table

1A-2 indicates the abbreviations for messages

in portable changeable message signs.

Section 1A.12 Color Code

The color PURPLE was assigned to identify

lanes restricted to use only by vehicles with

restricted electronic toll collection accounts.

Part 3 Markings

Section 3A.02 Standardization of Application

The MUTCD clarifies that the temporary mask-

ing of markings no longer applicable to road

conditions is to be “approximately the same

color as the pavement” to avoid road user con-

fusion as to which path to follow.

Section 3B.01 Yellow Centerline Pavement

Markings and Warrants

A new Standard clearly prohibits the use of a

single solid yellow line as a center line marking

on a two-way roadway.

Section 3B.04 White Lane Line Pavement Mark-

ings and Warrants

A new Standard requires that dotted lines,

rather than broken lines, shall be used for sepa-

rating non-continuing lanes from through lanes

at:

Lane drops at intersections and inter-

changes

Auxiliary lanes

Deceleration and acceleration lanes

This Standard applies to freeways, expressways,

and conventional roads. A compliance date of

12/31/2016, or resurfacing, whichever occurs

first, is established for replacing any existing

broken lane lines for these conditions with dot-

ted lane lines.

Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines

New Standards and Guidance were added to

indicate the use of Stop and Yield lines.

Stop lines shall not be used at locations

where drivers are required to yield.

Yield lines shall not be used at locations

where drivers are required to stop in com-

pliance with a traffic control device.

Yield (or Stop) lines and Yield Here To (or

Stop Here For) Pedestrians signs should not

be used in advance of crosswalks that cross

an approach to or departure from a round-

about as these lines would be too close to

the yield lines and yield signs at the entry to

the circulatory roadway and could be con-

fusing to road users.

Stop and Yield lines may be staggered longi-

tudinally on a lane-by-lane basis to improve

drivers’ view of pedestrians and sight dis-

tance for turning vehicles, and to increase

the turning radius for left-turning vehicles.


Section 3B.17 Do Not Block Intersection Mark-

ings

A section was added with provisions for the use

of markings to indicate it is illegal for a driver to

block an intersection. Four markings alterna-

tives are authorized, including word messages,

a white box, and a cross-hatching.

Section 3B.18 Crosswalk Markings

New Guidance statements are added reflecting

the results of recent safety research studies. At

locations controlled by traffic control signals or

on approaches controlled by STOP signs, cross-

walk lines should be installed where engineer-

ing judgment indicates they are needed to di-

rect pedestrians to the proper crossing path.

At locations across uncontrolled approaches,

an engineering study should be performed be-

fore installing a crosswalk marking. Factors to

consider include the number of lanes, the pres-

ence of a median, the distance from adjacent

signalized intersections, the pedestrian vol-

umes and delays, the average daily traffic

(ADT), the posted speed limit, or 85th percentile

speed, the geometry of the location, the possi-

ble consolidation of multiple crossing points,

the availability of street lighting, and other ap-

propriate factors.

New marked crosswalks alone, without other

substantial measures to reduce speeds, shorten

crossing distance, enhance driver awareness of

crossing, and/or provide active warning of pe-

destrian presence, should not be installed

across uncontrolled roadways with four or

more travel lanes, speed limits exceeding 40

mph, and either:

A. an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater,

without a raised median or refuge island; or

B. an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater,

with a raised median or refuge island.

A new Chapter 3C titled Roundabout Markings

was added that includes updated practices for

pavement markings at single-lane and multi-lane

roundabouts, including lane lines, edge lines,

yield lines, crosswalk markings, and pavement

word, arrow, and symbol markings.

Example of Markings for Single-lane Roundabout

A new Chapter 3D Markings for Preferential

Lanes consolidates all the information about

markings for special types of restricted-use

lanes, such as bicycle lanes, bus only lanes, HOV

and HOT lanes, electronic toll lanes, and other

forms of managed lanes. Information is added

about longitudinal pavement markings for buffer

-separated left-hand and right-hand side prefer-

ential lanes, and for counter-flow preferential

lanes on divided highways.

Additional new chapters include Chapter 3E,

Markings for Toll Plazas, to increase pavement

marking uniformity at toll plazas and Chapter 3J,

Rumble Strip Markings, to address the proper

use of markings in combination with transverse

and longitudinal rumble strips.

Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals

Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour

Indicates that a signal installed based only on

this warrant should be traffic-actuated and may

be operated in flash-mode during the hours

when the warrant is not met.

(continues on next page)


Revised rules for traffic control devices… (continues from page 5)

Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume

Two new criteria replace the former two crite-

ria in the MUTCD, based on a combination of

vehicular and pedestrian volumes for either 4-

hours or a single peak hour, and only one of the

criteria needs to be met. The net effect of the

revisions is that this warrant is slightly easier to

meet with lower pedestrian volumes on streets

with high vehicle volumes, but it is slightly

more difficult to meet on streets with low vehi-

cle volumes.

In addition, signals

based only on Warrant

4 (pedestrian volume)

or Warrant 5 (school

crossing) should also

control the minor

street or driveway.

Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal

Indications

The definition of “Intersection” was reviewed

(Sect. 1A.13), indicating that at a location con-

trolled by a traffic signal, these areas shall also

be part of the intersection:

•On approach: area beyond stop line or cross-

walk

•On departure: area extending to far side of

crosswalk

Clarified meanings of flashing yellow and flash-

ing red (circular and arrow) signal indications

(including for pedestrians) and the use of flash-

ing circular red as beacons supplementing an-

other device are included in this section.

A flashing yellow arrow indication in a separate

signal face is included as an optional alternative

to a circular green for permissive left-turn

movements. The flashing yellow arrow has a

high level of understanding and correct re-

sponse by left-turn drivers and a lower fail-

critical rate than the circular green.

A new option is added allowing the use of a

flashing red arrow for permissive turn move-

ments, but only in circumstances where an en-

gineering study determines that each succes-

sive vehicle must come to a full stop before

making the turn permissively.

It is clarified that a flashing green signal indica-

tion, countdown vehicular signals, or similar

displays intended to provide a “pre-yellow

warning” interval are specifically prohibited

because they lengthen the “dilemma zone” and

thereby result in increased crash rates.

Section 4D.07 Size of Vehicular Signal Indica-

tions

T w e l v e - i n c h

diameter indi-

c a t i o n s a r e

required for all

n e w t r a f f i c

control signal

faces, except

for six special

circumstances.

A “grandfather” clause for existing 8-inch signal

indications not covered by the new Options al-

lows retaining the indications for the remainder

of their useful life.

Section 4D.11 Number of Signal Faces on an

Approach

A clarification is included that two signal faces

are required for a straight-through movement if

it exists, even if it is not the major movement on

the approach. This ensures that the straight-

through movement, or major signalized turning

movement in absence of a straight-through

movement, contains redundant signal faces, in

case of one of the signal faces fails.

A Guidance is also added about the number,

location, and design of signal faces at intersec-

tions where approach speeds are 45 mph or

higher (shown in figure below).


A Guidance recommends that the same design

and layout provisions should also be for be con-

sidered for any major urban or suburban arte-

rial street with four or more lanes, even if the

speeds are less than 45 mph.

Section 4D.13 Lateral Positioning of Signal

Faces

A new Standard

requires that if an

overhead signal is

installed for a

dedicated turn

lane, the sepa-

rate turn face

shall be located

over th e turn

lane.

A Guidance is added that circular green indica-

tions for permissive left-turns should not be

located over or in front of the left-turn lane.

Sections 4D.17 to 4D.20: Signal indications for

left turns

The new MUTCD removed provisions that al-

lowed the use of separate left-turn signal faces

that include circular green indications for per-

missive turns.

A Standard is added that prohibits the use of a

protected-only mode left-turn (or right-turn)

phase that begins or ends at a different time

than the adjacent through movements unless

an exclusive left (or right) turn lane is provided.

The Option of us-

ing a circular red

ind icat ion in a

p r o t e c t e d - o n l y

mode turn signal

face is deleted. A

red arrow is the

only allowed red

indication in a protected-only mode left turn

signal face, and no LEFT TURN SIGNAL signs are

required.

New sections and figures are added in order to

enhance understanding of the correct applica-

tion of the relatively complex requirements and

options for turn signals.

Section 4D.26 Yellow Change and Red Clear-

ance Intervals

A Standard is added to indicate that the dura-

tions of the yellow change interval and, when

used, the red clearance interval, shall be deter-

mined using engineering practices. The compli-

ance date for this standard is 12/31/2014 or

when timing adjustments are made.

Section 4E.06 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal

Phases

The new MUTCD provides a change in the rela-

tionship of the display of the flashing upraised

hand to the display of yellow change and red

clearance intervals.

New requirement indicates a minimum 3 sec-

ond “buffer” interval between the end of the

pedestrian change interval (flashing UPRAISED

HAND display) and the release of any conflicting

vehicular movements. During the buffer inter-

val, a steady UPRAISED HAND must be dis-

played. The sum of the time of the pedestrian

change interval and the buffer interval shall not

be less than the calculated ped clearance time.

The recommended walking speed for calculating

the pedestrian clearance time is reduced from 4

feet per second to 3.5 feet per second.

A Guidance added that the total of the walk

phase and pedestrian clearance time should be

enough to allow a pedestrian to walk from the

pedestrian detector to the opposite edge of the

traveled way at a speed of 3.0 feet per second.

New installations of pedestrian signals must use

pedestrian countdown displays, except where

the duration of the pedestrian change interval is

7 seconds or less.

The PR-LTAP Center will be offering seminars to

discuss the main changes in the MUTCD. Check

the seminar calendar at our web page to know

dates and locations.

(Information Source: FHWA MUTCD Team)


Center news

A delegation of nine students, the PR-LTAP

Center Directors and two other professors from

the Civil Engineering and Surveying Department

of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez

(UPRM) participated in the 89th Annual Meeting

of the Transportation Research Board (TRB)

held from January 10 to 14, 2010 in Washing-

ton, D.C. The TRB Meeting reunites annually

around 10,000 professionals from around the

world that share the new developments and

research in transportation related topics.

The students’ participation to TRB was spon-

sored by the Dwight David Eisenhower Trans-

portation Fellowship of the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA).

The 2009-2010 UPRM Eisenhower Fellowship

Recipients are: Carlos Calero, Jeannette Fe-

liciano, Ivelisse Gorbea, Alvin Nieves, Máximo

Polanco, Zaida Rico, Liza Ríos, Reinaldo Silvestry

y Víctor Uribe.

Zaida Rico presented at the meeting her re-

search titled Organizational Factors in Transit

Services as part of the Innovative Doctoral

Transportation Research session, where studies

and new advances in the transportation field

are exposed by doctoral students. Jeannette

Feliciano presented her poster titled Driver Eye

Movement during Merging Maneuvers into

Incoming Highway Traffic showing her research

results conducted during her participation in

the Summer Exchange Program between the

University of Rhode Island and the UPRM.

The UPRM students visited the headquarters of

the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

and shared with fellow students from other ITE

Student Chapters and ITE officials and members.

Another visit made by the UPRM Eisenhower

Fellows included the facilities and laboratories

of the FHWA Turner Fairbank Highway Research

Center located in McLean, Virginia. Eng. Jorge

Pagán Ortíz, Director of Research and Develop-

ment of Infrastructure, accompanied the UPRM

delegation to visit four of the laboratories of the

Center. This federal highway research center is

one of the most important in the American na-

tion, with 24 laboratories that perform ad-

vanced researches for the development of road

infrastructure in the US.

The UPRM group had the opportunity to meet

researchers and scientists (in the above photo

with Paul Tremont), learn about recent studies

being conducted at Turner Fairbank and about

the opportunities and challenges in transporta-

tion research.

Superb participation of UPRM Students and PR-LTAP Center Directors at the 89th

Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board in Washington, D.C.

From left: Henry Murdaugh (Eisenhower Fellowship Administrator), Víctor

Uribe, Jaime Rivera (UPR-Río Piedras), Máximo Polanco, Carlos Calero,

Alvin Nieves, Reinaldo Silvestry, Zaida Rico, Jeannette Feliciano, Liza Ríos,

Ivelisse Gorbea and Dr. Benjamín Colucci.

UPRM group at ITE headquarters. From left: Ivelisse Gorbea,

Héctor Santiago (FHWA), Liza Ríos, Reinaldo Silvestry, Paul Eng

-Wong (ITE International President), Jeannette Feliciano, Zaida

Rico, Ray Davis (ITE) and PR-LTAP Directors Benjamín Colucci

and Alberto Figueroa.


MASH 2009 replaces NCHRP350… (continued from page 3)

The option for using passenger car test

vehicles older than 6 years is removed.

Truck box attachments on test vehicles are

required to meet published guidelines.

External vehicle crush must be docu-

mented using National Automotive Sam-

pling System (NASS) procedures.

Changes in Evaluation Criteria

The windshield damage evaluation and the

occupant compartment damage evaluation

use quantitative, instead of qualitative,

criteria.

Windshield damage criteria is applied to

permanent support structures, in addition

to work zone traffic control devices.

All evaluation criteria will be pass/fail,

eliminating the “marginal pass”.

Maximum roll and pitch angles

are set at 75 degrees.

The subjective criteria for evalu-

ating exit conditions are elimi-

nated; reporting the exit box

evaluation criterion is required.

Documentation on vehicle rebound in crash

cushion test is required.

MASH Implementation Plan

All highway safety hardware accepted prior to

the adoption of MASH using criteria contained in

NCHRP Report 350 may remain in place and may

continue to be manufactured and installed.

The highway safety hardware accepted using

NCHRP Report 350 criteria does not require be-

ing retested using MASH criteria. However, new

highway safety hardware not previously as-

sessed must utilize MASH for testing and evalua-

tion.

Transportation Week at the UPR-Mayaguez is

an annual celebration held to disseminate the

importance of transportation for our quality of

life. This event is free of charge and is open to

all the community. The event organizers are the

Student Chapter of the Institute of Transporta-

tion Engineers and the PR-LTAP Center.

Traffic Safety — Tuesday, April 27

Different exhibitions, simulations, theatrical

plays, interactive talks, and information booths

from different safety-related organizations will

be presented at the UPR-Mayaguez Students’

Center and the Angel F. Espada Parking Lot from

9 AM to 4 PM.

Activities on April 28-30 will be held at the Civil Engi-

neering Auditorium at UPR-Mayaguez or at the

CIAPR-Chapter House in Miradero, Mayaguez.

Sustainability in Transportation — Wednes-

day, April 28

Transportation Infrastructure — Thursday,

April 29

Workforce Development in Transportation —

Friday, April 30

Visit our webpage www.uprm.edu/prt2/ for a com-

plete list and schedule of activities and organizations

participating during UPRM Transportation Week.


http://www.uprm.edu/prt2

Training workshops & seminars

10-hr. OSHA Accreditation for Safety in Areas of Road Construction

Instructor: Mr. Omar López, ARTBA Instructor

This seminar will be offered in four different locations

Dates: April 12-13, 2010, Place: CIAPR-Mayagüez, Hours: (Apr. 12) 8:00AM-4:00PM, (Apr. 13) 8:00AM-1:00PM

Dates: April 15-16, 2010, Place: AMA-San Juan, Hours: (Apr. 15) 8:00AM-4:00PM, (Apr. 16) 8:00AM-1:00PM

Dates: April 19-20, 2010, Place: St. Thomas, Hours: (Apr. 19) 8:00AM-4:00PM, (Apr. 20) 8:00AM-1:00PM

Date: April 22-23, 2010, Place: St. Croix, Hours: (Apr. 22) 8:00AM-4:00PM, (Apr. 23) 8:00AM-1:00PM

Construction Engineering Management

Instructor: Dr. Francisco Maldonado, UPR-Mayaguez

Date: April 21-22, 2010, Place: CIAPR-Mayaguez, Hours: 8:30 AM—4:30 PM

Changes in the New Version of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCD 2009

Instructor: Dr. Alberto M. Figueroa Medina, UPR-Mayaguez

Date: April 28, 2010, Place: University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Civil Engineering Auditorium, Hours: 1:00-4:30 PM

For more information about our seminars and how to register please contact: Ms. Grisel Villarrubia at (787) 834-6385 or at [email protected] or visit our website at www.uprm.edu/prt2.

Omar Lopez, a native of Ecuador,

is a Spanish language specialist

and safety training instructor for

the American Road and Transpor-

tat ion Bui lders Associat ion

(ARTBA). He is the lead instructor

for ARTBA’s minority and disad-

vantaged worker training pro-

gram, conducted under contract

to the Washington, D.C. Depart-

ment of Transportation. Fluent in

both English and Spanish, Omar also provides translation ser-

vices for the association’s publications and training materials.

Before coming to ARTBA in early 2007, Omar served as a trans-

lator assisting with labor arbitration cases. He earned an asso-

ciate law degree in Ecuador before moving to the USA, where

he is now pursuing a degree in Business Administration.

According to Omar, “promoting safety awareness through

Spanish-language materials and training courses is a very re-

warding job because it directly helps people who may not

know how to work safely or where to go for help. It is gratify-

ing working with ARTBA and transportation because I know

there are workers who return home every day to their love

ones safe and healthy because of what we

do—and that is a very valuable reward.”

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

MBA – Northern Virginia Community College (In progress)

School of Law - University of Loja, Quito, Ecuador

(Associate law degree)

ESL – English as-a-Second Language NOVA

OSHA 500 Certified Instructor: OSHA 10 and 30 hours

National Safety Council Certified Instructor; Flagger

Safety, First Aid-CPR

FHWA – NHI Advanced Work Zone Management and

Design

Courses in Building Construction, Construction Manage-

ment, and Cost Estimating.

Meet the Trainer: Omar López


Welcome to our first edition of the EL PUENTE newsletter for 2010. We have decided to give our magazine a new face to keep it

fresh and improve its reading. In this issue you will learn about the main aspects and changes for traffic control devices and crash

protection roadside hardware included in the MUTCD 2009 and MASH, respectively. These manuals were published recently by

FHWA and AASHTO, respectively, and both have major relevance to improve the safety of our highways and streets.

In this issue, we added a new section titled “Meet the trainer” devoted to portrait our trainers to allow our readers to know

about the excellent group of professionals serving our customers at the seminars in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Heading into its 24th anniversary this year, the PR-LTAP Center is more committed than ever to satisfy the transportation

information needs of its local and state stakeholders. Tell us what you think about the magazine and share with us how we can

improve it and what topics you would like to read about. Also, send us your requests about transportation technical information

and training seminars by using the form below or writing to [email protected] or [email protected]. Thanks!

Alberto M. Figueroa Medina, Ph.D., P.E.

Message from the Editor

Please complete the following form: DATE: ____________________________

NAME______________________________________________________________ TITLE _________________________________________________

MUNICIPALITY/AGENCY ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CITY_____________________________________________________ STATE ___________________ ZIP CODE______________________________

TELEPHONE__________________________ FAX _______________________________ E-MAIL ________________________________________

Help us keep updated our Mailing List by completing this form and sending it via FAX at (787) 265-5695.

ADD ME TO THE MAILING LIST _______ REMOVE ME FROM THE MAILING LIST _______ UPDATE MY INFORMATION ______

Provide us with details of the situation, project, transportation issue, etc. that you seek information or technical as-

sistance or request us a technical document, video or training/workshop manual from our transportation library.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS:___________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Center’s staff welcomes all your comments and suggestions. To contact the Center, please send all correspon-dence to the following e-mail address or contact us at:

Phone: (787) 834-6385, Fax: (787) 265-5695, E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://www.uprm.edu/prt2/

Technical Information, Publication, Video or Training Request Form


EL PUENTE is published by the Puerto Rico Transportation

Technology Transfer Center located at the Department of Civil Engi-

neering and Surveying of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez.

PUERTO RICO TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CENTER

University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez

Department of Civil Engineering and Surveying

Call Box 9000, Mayagüez, PR 00681

787.834.6385 phone

787.265.5695 fax

EL PUENTE

NEWSLETTER

The opinions, findings, or recommendations expressed in this newsletter are those of the Center staff

and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Highway Administration, the Puerto Rico De-

partment of Transportation and Public Works, the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority,

or the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Public Works.

PR LTAP Staff

Benjamín Colucci Ríos Director

Alberto M. Figueroa Medina Deputy Director

Gisela González Program Administrator

Grisel Villarubia Irmalí Franco Administrative Coordinators

Anthony Noriega Negrón Samuel E. Ortiz Angleró Mireya M. Quiñones Fernández Raymon Reyes Negrón Ismael A. Román Rivera Student Interns

EL PUENTE Newsletter

VOL. 24, NO. 01, 2010

Vol 24 No 012010

Documents

Transcript of Vol 24 No 012010