. . . by Ira Allen . . . . . . . . .

The U.S. Departmentof Transportation(USDOT) recently

funded a survey to deter-mine the state-of-the-prac-tice for bridge inspectionacross the United States1.State departments of trans-portation (DOTs) participat-ed in the survey, along withdozens of local highwaydepartments and contractors.Questions centered oninspection team staffing for visual testing,administrative requirements and the generaluse of nondestructive evaluation (NDE)techniques. Here are some of the findings.

Where’s the PE?Most DOT respondents reported aProfessional Engineer (PE) on site forbridge inspection less than half the time.The two most frequently mentioned reasonsfor a PE to be present were: 1) coincidence,or 2) the PE was present as a follow-up to a

NewsletterA Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) of The University of Kansas Transportation CenterIn cooperation with Kansas Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration

KUTC

An issue dedicated to road department administration

Spring 2001

Inside:

Bridge inspection,continued

More Mulinazzi

A safety officer’s bestfriend

Gravel roads newsrelease

How to keep foot outof mouth and othertips for talking with

the media

More on GASB 34:the modified

approach

Kansas Roads ScholarProgram planning is

under way

What’s happeningwith the Low Volume

Roads Manual?

Pedestrian advocatesencourage walkers to

speak out

CalendarVideo ReviewsLending Library

and more!

previous routine inspection.Contractors were more like-ly than states or counties tohave PEs on site duringinspections.

Vision concernsVisual inspection was themost frequently used inspec-tion technique for thebridges reported in the sur-vey—whether concrete,steel, or timber. Yet 42DOT respondents indicatedthat eyesight testing was notrequired of inspectors as

part of their job qualifications. Of the 66county respondents, only two tested thevision of their inspectors. No respondentsindicated that their eyesight testing wasbeyond that normally required for a driver’slicense exam.

The researchers recommended addition-al study to determine whether minimumeyesight standards would benefit bridgeinspection. Additional study was also recom-mended to determine whether having a PEon site during inspection increases bridgeinspection reliability.

More NDEThe study showed a rise in the use of non-destructive evaluation techniques nation-

Highway Bridge Inspection: Are Things OK Out There?A national study raises concerns. Are they shared by Kansans?

continued on page 2 ➤

1This survey, conducted by Wiss, Janney,Elstner Associates, Inc., was published inJune 2001, and titled “Highway BridgeInspection: State-of-the-Practice Survey.”

inspection.” More important thanperfect vision, she pointed out, isknowledge of what to look for.

And equally important is havingtwo sets of eyes (at least) on eachinspection. That helps prevent thepossibility of one person’s unidentifiedpoor eyesight causing serious prob-lems later.

The practice of looking at bridgesregularly also helps to reduce the riskof missing potential problems.

One related issue raised byWhisler was first-aid training. This

obvious. Whisler said, “If one of myguy’s eyesight was really bad, I’d makehim do something to correct it.”Whisler conceded that formal eyesighttesting for inspectors “probably wouldnot hurt.”

Jim Pickett thought an eyesighttesting program “would be a burden-some thing without much real benefitto the program,” and added that as itis now “it’s kind of self-regulating.”

Penny Evans was equally un-concerned, saying, “It’s probablysomewhat important, but you don’tneed fighter pilot eyes to do a bridge

Page 2 KUTC Newsletter

wide (see box at right). Further, theuse of American Society forNondestructive Testing (ASNT) LevelIII personnel has climbed approxi-mately 76 percent (from 7 of 37 statesin 1994 to 14 of 42 in 2001).2

Survey respondents gave sugges-tions for improvement in bridgeinspection. Their ideas covered betterbridge management, training andcontinuing education issues, andother operation areas.

What do Kansans think aboutthese survey results? Do we have simi-lar experiences here, and if, so, isthere cause for concern? I asked thefollowing Kansans in-the-know aboutbridge inspection for their thoughts:● Jim Pickett, consultant withKirkham Michael & Associates,Louisburg, KS;● Penny Evans, county engineer,Miami County,● Kim Thompson, Assistant BridgeInspection Engineer, Bureau of LocalProjects, Kansas DOT (KDOT),● Don Whisler, State BridgeInspection Engineer, also with theKansas DOT.

Good vision isn’t the wholepictureDon Whisler said, “I would like tohave everyone with good eyesight, butyou’d have to have pretty bad eyesightto miss anything big.” Whisler addedthat he does have an approach tomaintaining vision standards, but it isinformal. He noted that inspectionteam members work closely with oneanother, so vision problems become

Bridge inspection,continued from page 1 Common Nondestructive Evaluation Techniques

While the most prevalent NDE testing method for steel, concrete, and timber bridges for the survey participants was visual testing, liquidpenetrant and ultrasonic testing were also popular for steel bridges, aswas magnetic particle testing. Mechanical sounding was used frequentlyfor both concrete and timber bridges, and the cover meter and reboundhammer were commonly used for concrete. Ultrasonic testing was usedinfrequently.

Visual Testing (VT)—looking at defects in the material with the unaid-ed eye. The method requires a high degree of expertise and experiencewith bridge inspection. It is by far the most commonly used method forinspection. Frequently, visual testing is done first, and results may showthat a more in-depth look is necessary.

Liquid Penetrant Testing (PT)—used to find cracks (surface discontinu-ities) that are not readily visible to the eye.

Magnetic Particle Testing (MT)—like PT, except instead of a color-changing liquid, a powder is usually used; also used to find surface dis-continuities.

Mechanical Sounding (MS)—generally used on concrete or timber tocheck for delamination or cavities.

Cover Meter (CM)—an instrument measuring the depth of the rein-forcing steel.

Rebound Hammer (RH)—used to check the density, strength, andhardness of a material. The amount of bounce-back is proportional tothe rigidity and surface hardness of the material.

Ultrasonic Testing (UT)—used to measure surface and subsurface frac-tures (much like radar or sonar).

2ASNT Level III certified individualsare involved in policy-level decisionsabout the use of their specialty areasof Nondestructive Testing (NDT),and are certified experts in at leastone NDT technique (and must befamiliar with the use of others). continued on page 12 ➤

Spring 2001 Page 3

Bridge Inspection in Our State

Local bridges. There are over 20,000 non-state bridges inKansas, most of which are inspected every two years.This is an enormous undertaking, often requiring coop-eration among counties, cities, and contractors.

Jim Pickett said bridge inspection has received clos-er scrutiny nationwide in the past 20 years. Educatingcommissioners and highway managers about the needfor bridge maintenance and replacement has been par-ticularly important, along with instituting a uniformreporting system for all counties. The latter effort stillhas many glitches and is a frustration for some counties.

Bridge inspection is a federal mandate. The federalgovernment developed inspection procedures andreporting techniques that states, counties, and contrac-tors are all expected to follow. Some inspectors, likePenny Evans, go beyond these requirements inthe techniques and reporting systems theyuse, adding lengthy written descriptions tothe numeric ratings system required.

Pickett speaks for every Kansas bridgeinspector saying, “our primary purpose is toprotect the public.” Evans and Pickett believe thatthe bridge inspection program in Kansas serves this pur-pose well; bridge problems are identified before theybecome serious enough to endanger the traveling public.

Thompson would like to see more funds spent onbridge inspection. “Bridge decison-makers must strike abalance between funding inspection, MR&R (mainte-nance, repair and rehabilitation) and new design. I seegreat value in knowing what problems might be outthere before other funds are committed,” he said.

Pickett said that sometimes lack of funding can bea problem. “The process of going with the lowest pricedoesn’t always lend itself to doing additional evaluationprocedures that might be desirable,” he said. Of course,he hastened to add that his firm does what needs to be done to ensure safety. He said it is the job of aresponsible professional to alert clients to the desir-ability of further testing, even when that testing wasnot initially budgeted.

For example, when Pickett spots a flaw that is notimmediately threatening, he prefers to follow up withdeeper tests to determine the extent of the flaw andwhen the bridge will require maintenance. Unfor-tunately, city and county budgets do not always havethe funds to perform extensive evaluations. And becauseof lack of funds, most city and county inspections—asmany as 98 or 99 percent—are conducted visually,

rather than with more advanced NDE techniques.Many counties do not have the expertise to do

their bridge inspections in-house, and they hire it out.But hiring contractors to conduct bridge inspectionscan pose potential problems. Evans noted, “There arebridge inspection consultants that are considered theMcDonald’s of inspection—they’ll do it fast and theygive you the minimum.” She thinks counties are oftenbetter off taking a slightly higher bid from a firm witha reputation for high quality work. Counties can findsuch firms by contacting KDOT or speaking withother counties to share experiences.

State Bridges. Nearly 5,000 bridges in Kansas fall direct-ly under KDOT’s jurisdiction. Unlike many counties,the vast majority of state bridge inspections are donein-house. These inspections must also comply with fed-

eral testing regulations. Whisler said of KDOT’s program,

“Our number one mission is traffic safetyand our number two mission is mainte-nance—and I feel we do a good job of

both.” Whisler emphasized the importance ofinspectors being comfortable getting right up on

and in the framework of the bridge. “We had one guywho had good experience, but he was afraid of heights,and he was a safety issue the whole time,” he said.

While counties generally have more constrainedfiscal circumstances, bridge inspection on the state levelcurrently enjoys “blessed times,” said Whisler. In addi-tion to doing funding through bonds, state bridgeinspection is receiving adequate federal and state fund-ing—a relatively rare occurrence for an unglamorousprogram like bridge inspection.

Whisler’s primary complaint about the inspectionprocess is that “the new bridges and new technology arenot very inspector-friendly,” because they are designedwith vital structural pieces out of sight. To combat this,his department has increased their use NDE techniques.

Whisler said, “I wouldn’t say we’re precisely cuttingedge, but I will say that not too many states are doing abetter job [of using ultrasound for pin-and-hangarstructures.]” KDOT is also gradually switching fromusing liquid dye penetrant to eddy currents (similar toa magnetic field) for testing surfaces. When testingwith eddy currents, inspectors don’t have to scrape offpaint the way they do with liquid dye—a time-con-suming and laborious process when applied to literallythousands of bridges. The use of eddy currents alsoallows inspectors to detect subsurface fractures.

Kansas

KUTC NewsletterPage 4

Gravel Roads News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Kansas has 95,000 miles of gravel, soil or stone roads. It would be veryrare to find a Kansan who hasn’t driven—or ridden—on one of these sur-faces. However, considering all the miles we travel on these roads, we havevery little instruction on being a wise consumer of gravel, soil or stoneroads. Here are a few important tips for drivers.

1. The most important thing to keep in mind when driving on these surfacesis to DRIVE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE of the road. Roads don’t justhappen—they aren’t just smooth surfaces cut across an area to designatewhere cars might drive. They are designed to work in a particular way.

Gravel/dirt roads have three distinct parts. The crown—the center ofthe road and the road’s highest point; the driving surface—the area on eitherside of the crown, and the ditch—the area on either side of the driving sur-face, designed to collect run-off water. When drivers use the crown for adriving surface, the road can’t move water to the ditches as effectively. Roadmaintenance will be required more often. Driving on the right-hand side ofthe road will help maintain the crown. This will facilitate good drainage tothe ditches and help provide the best possible driving surface.

2. BE ALERT TO HOW MUCH SPACE IS NECESSARY FOR AMOTOR GRADER TO OPERATE. Most motor grader operators cantell you a story about backing-up onto or into something. Operators arebusy doing their job—in front of them. It is difficult for them see thosewho encroach on their grader’s operating area.

So keep your distance. Most operators are aware of traffic and willprovide passing opportunities at frequent intervals.

3. NOT ALL GRAVEL ROADS “GROW UP” TO BE PAVED ROADS.Roads are surfaced in keeping with the amount and kind of use they receive.Planning and budgetary constraints are also important. Surfacing optionsare affected by three major considerations: 1) volume—when a road carriesmore than 200 vehicles per day; 2) vehicle weight—depending on theweight of the loads carried on the road. Kansas law allows up to 85,500 lbs.for commercial vehicles on local roads; and 3) road maintenance—when thelocal government has done adequate planning and has set aside adequatemaintenance funds. A well maintained gravel road has the advantage oflower construction and maintenance costs. When compared with lightlypaved roads, gravel roads can withstand greater loads with less expensivemaintenance. Sometimes when gravel roads “grow up,” they are still gravelroads.

As a result of our Motor Grader Operator workshops, we havedeveloped a short news release that you might pass along to yourlocal newspaper. Feel free to tweak it so that it best addressesyour population. —Rose Lichtenberg, LTAP training coordinator

Good Newsfrom KU

He’s baaaaaack! Tom Mulinazziwill be spending more timewith the Kansas LTAP start-

ing this fall.He recentlyretired fromhis adminis-trative dutiesas associatedean at theSchool ofEngineeringat theUniversity of

Kansas. He plans to devote more timeto university teaching and LTAPtraining.

Tom’s workshops have been verywell received over the years, so this isgood news for Kansas local agencies.Look for more of Tom’s workshopsdown the road. ■

A local government in Kansascan receive a break on itsworkman’s comp premium if

it conducts regularly-scheduled safetyprograms. But sometimes it’s a chal-lenge for the safety coordinator tofind new information to present.

The KUTC’s Lending LibraryCatalog excels at providing safetyinformation for road departmentstaff. It lists hundreds of videos. Manycontain safety-related information aswell as dozens of other road-relatedtopics—from tilt bed trailers to tum-bleweed removal.

Many of you received the green-covered 2001 catalog in the mail. Ifyou haven’t, just ask—they’re free. Seepage 15. Or visit www.kutc.ku.eduand order materials on-line. ■

A Safety Officer’sBest Friend

Spring 2001 Page 5

How to Keep Foot Out of Mouth

. . . by Lisa Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If you are a highway departmentmanager, you’ve been there...thesweaty palms, the dread, the dry

throat when a reporter asks you abouta hot subject. In your job there is noway around this, so as the saying goes,the best defense is a good offense.Here are some strategies for talkingwith the media to help you keep yourfeet on the ground when a reportercomes a-calling.

✔ Always think carefully before youanswer a question. People often ram-ble—and something they wish theyhadn’t—if they jump in with bothfeet. Take a moment to consider whatyou want to say.

✔ Remember that silence is golden!Don’t talk just to keep a conversationgoing with a reporter. Experiencedreporters will be silent because oftenpeople they interview will talk to fillawkward voids—and say somethingthey don’t mean to say.

✔ Listen carefully to questions andrespond clearly. Avoid jargon. If youhave a key idea you want to getacross, repeat it several times, perhapsusing different words. This is especial-ly useful for radio or TV broadcast:no matter how the tape is edited, youwill make your point.

✔ Don’t hurry. Speak slowly, usingshort, concise sentences. State yourposition in simple, easy-to-understandlanguage. Use everyday examples and

analogies, when possible. You will bebetter understood that way.

✔ Never talk down to a reporter. Youare partners in getting your messageacross. Arrogance will come acrossnegatively to an audience. An “atti-tude” can turn an interview into aconfrontation.

✔ Don’t lose your temper! No matterhow antagonized you feel, recognizethat this can be a tactic to get you tosay something you don’t wish to say.If a reporter provokes you, politelyterminate the interview and and offerto call back later. And do so—afteryou cool down.

✔ Some reporters may ask to tape aninterview over the telephone. This is a

and other tips for talking with the media

Off the Record?

Avoid speaking “off the record.” It’s sim-ply a bad idea unless you are experi-

enced in dealing with media and know thereporter involved. Promises to keep informa-tion off the record are routinely broken.Don’t depend on them.

A conversation or comment is not offthe record just because you say it is. Nothingis off the record unless the reporter agrees toit. Even then, you have little recourse if thereporter breaks his word. If you don’t want astatement quoted, don’t make it.

Of course it’s useless and foolish totell a reporter that something is “off therecord” after you’ve said it. It isn’t. You saidit. And he wrote it down.

common practice for radio reportersto obtain “sound bites” and to getaccurate quotes. The reporter shouldinform you of the taping before itbegins.

✔ If you don’t know the answer to areporter’s question, or don’t wish toanswer, just say “No.” A lie or a badguess will return to haunt you. Youwill lose credibility.

✔ If you anticipate an interview maybecome testy, bow out gracefully.

Adapted from “Working With theNews Media—a Faculty Guide,” USC News, University of SouthernCalifornia, March 26, 2001. ■

. . . by Tom Maze, Vice President,Howard R. Green Company . . . . . . .

Editor’s note: This is our fourth articleon GASB 34. Here’s a brief summary ofthe first three articles:

The Governmental AccountingStandards Board (GASB) sets GenerallyAccepted Accounting Practices (GAAP)for governmental agencies. Your city orcounty either prepares an annual GAAPfinancial statement or has a GAAPwaiver from the Kansas Division ofAccounts and Reports and prepares asimpler statement called KMAG.

In June 1999, GASB StatementNo. 34 (or GASB 34) set new GAAPrequirements for reporting major capitalassets, including infrastructure likeroads, bridges, water and sewer facili-ties, and dams. Under GASB 34, overthe next few years Kansas governmentalagencies that use GAAP reporting mustbegin showing the value of these assets intheir financial reports. Agencies mayreport assets using either depreciationmethods or a “modified approach.”

To use the modified approachfor asset reporting, agenciesmust demonstrate they do

each of the following:

● maintain an up-to-date inventory ofinfrastructure assets,

● regularly assess the condition of allinfrastructure and summarize theresults using a measurement scale, and

● annually estimate the cost requiredto maintain the assets at a minimumcondition level.

Clearly, the modified approachrequires more data collection thandoes the depreciation approach. Inaddition, processes for valuing infra-

structure assets under the modifiedapproach are undefined in GASB 34;agencies are merely required to use“consistent” and “reasonable” methodsfor valuing assets.

With more front-end work andso much ambiguity, why would agen-cies choose to use the modifiedapproach?

Benefits of modified approachPerhaps the most significant advan-tage of the modified approach is thatthe reported value of assets will reflectthe positive effects of maintenanceactivities—particularly preventivemaintenance—on the condition (andtherefore the value) of roads, bridges,and other assets. Such an approachreflects a more accurate portrayal ofactual infrastructure value than doesthe use of a calculated depreciation.

Using depreciation does not take intoaccount the value added or main-tained due to maintenance efforts.

For example, an ongoing studyfor the Iowa Department ofTransportation by Iowa StateUniversity has cited literature report-ing that strategic applications ofmaintenance treatments improvepavement life cycles, as demonstratedin Figure 1.

The dark gray curve shows a pre-sumed life cycle of a new pavementwith no preventive maintenance. Notethe accelerated deterioration of pave-ment condition after about 10 years.The light gray curves show howstrategically timed, relatively low-costapplications of preventive mainte-nance treatments before accelerateddeterioration begins can restore thepavement to near-excellent condition

100 Excellent

Good

60 Fair

Poor

20 Very Poor

0 Failed

5 10 15 20

Life in Years

Spending $1.00 for maintenance here ...

...will save $4-5.00 here

PCI Pavement Condition Index

40% drop inquality

75% of life

40% drop in quality

12% of life

KUTC NewsletterPage 6

More on GASB-34: The “modified approach” aspart of an asset management system

Figure 1Typical Pavement Life Cycle

Spring 2001 Page 7

(and therefore near-new value). Using calculated depreciation, the

depreciated value of this pavementover the years does not reflect the sig-nificant value added by preventivemaintenance activities. Under themodified approach, the pavementmanager assigns a more realistic valueto this pavement, based on its actualcondition following preventive main-tenance activities.

In addition, GASB 34’s require-ments for using the modifiedapproach (maintaining up-to-dateinventories, regularly assessing infra-structure conditions, and estimatingmaintenance costs) will result in agen-cies having better information abouttheir infrastructure systems. Thisinformation will help guide commis-sioners and staff in planning overallresource allocation decisions.

Asset management and GASB 34GASB 34 requires that agencies reportthe current value of infrastructureassets but does not require that theydevelop a system for managing thoseassets. However, GASB allows agen-cies to use a modified approach as amore realistic and useful alternative todepreciation. The modified approachprovides a strong incentive to agenciesto take steps toward developing a full-fledged asset management system.

How?The required elements of the modi-fied approach are also the basic ele-ments of an asset management sys-tem. In fact, if an agency develops athorough infrastructure inventory andthen regularly assesses the conditionof its infrastructure (the first tworequirements of the modifiedapproach), it has completed most ofthe work involved in establishing anasset management system.

What is asset management?According to the Federal HighwayAdministration’s (FHWA) web page,asset management systems assess the

economic trade-offs among alternativeinvestment options, providing informa-tion that helps decision makers makecost-effective investment decisions.

The web site states “The adventof increasingly powerful computer

systems has made the practice of assetmanagement possible. These comput-er systems not only put sophisticatedanalytical tools at a highway staff ’sfingertips but also allow agency offi-

Inventory of infrastructure asset systemspavement segmentsbridgessewer lines, etc.

Assessment of asset conditions

Forecast asset conditions(optional for GASB 34)

Infrastructure budget(optional for GASB 34)

Apply resource allocation model(optional for GASB 34)

Value infrastructure assetspavement segmentsbridgessewer lines, etc.

Agency’s comprehensive financial report

Figure 2Components of an asset management system

Shaded components are optional for the GASB 34 (GAAP) approach to valuingcapital assets. All other components are required for GAAP reporting.

asset descriptions

existing asset conditions

current and future conditionsbefore maintenance and rehabilitation

resources

conditions after maintenanceand rehabilitation

value of infrastructure assets

continued on page 13 ➤

KUTC NewsletterPage 8

. . . by Lisa Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Many professionals, fromattorneys to nurses toplumbers, must have spe-

cific training before they are consid-ered qualified do their jobs. Not sofor most highway workers. Employeesare hired based on a subjective assess-ment of skills. Employers sometimesfind it difficult to compare one appli-cant’s skills with another. Andemployees applying for jobs may findskills are needed for which they havehad no training—either because theircurrent job did not require it or notraining exists. You can’t just go signup for highway management school.

This situation is being addressedby the Kansas County HighwayAssociation (KCHA). At their Spring2001 meeting in Hays, the Associationagreed to form a task force to developrecommendations for a “RoadsScholar” program in Kansas. There aremany such programs across the country.

This program would provide stan-dardized training for Kansas countyhighway department employees inthree different areas: 1) technical skills,2) supervision, and 3) leadership. Itwould also provide separate orienta-tion training for county engineers whoare new to county highway work.

A planning task force was formedand includes Ron Karn (chair), RodMeredith, Ron Bonjour, and HubCasper from KCHA; Larry Emigfrom KDOT; Marla Fluentes with theKansas Association of Counties(KAC) and Rose Lichtenberg and PatWeaver from Kansas LTAP. The taskforce has met several times since May,and has developed recommendationsfor KCHA to consider.

Karn explained that one ofKCHA’s goals with the Roads Scholar

Roads Scholar ProgramPlanning in Process

Program is to “help take out some ofthe shock” when counties change keyadministrative personnel. He said itcan take up to a year for a newemployee to get up to speed on all theprocedures and regulations associatedwith county road work.

For the certification program, thetask force recommends three differenttraining programs, each with its owncertificate of completion:

1. Roads Scholar Certificateemphasizes technical training—approx. 50 hours of training in:● risk and liability issues● work zone and traffic control safety● snow and ice control● gravel and paved road maintenance● signing and striping● workplace/site safety● pre-trip inspections● what every employee needs to know

about county government● communicating effectively with

citizens

2. Advanced Roads ScholarCertificateemphasizes supervisory skills—requires Roads Scholar certificationand aprox. 50 additional hours oftraining in:● legal issues for supervisors● effective communication● managing employee performance● employee discipline● ethics● providing employee safety● building teamwork● decision-making skills● road and bridge management

3. Master Roads ScholarCertificateemphasizes executive skills—requires Roads Scholar and

Advanced Roads Scholar certifica-tion and approx. 50 additionalhours of training in:● budgeting, managing public

funds, state reporting● human resource management● public presentations and media

relations● project planning/management● intergovernmental relations with

local, state and federal agencies● legal issues in public works● decision-making and problem-

solving for effective supervision● asset management, job costing,

purchasing, and property dis-posal permits and regulations

● local project coordination with KDOT

● engineering in public works● resource management in public

works● fleet and equipment management

and maintenance

County Engineer OrientationThis component of the RoadsScholar Program has not yet beenfleshed out. It is not part of thecertificate programs. The orienta-tion will include helping engineerswho are new to county highwaywork become familiar with work-ing with KDOT on local projects.

The Roads Scholar planning taskforce’s work is nearly complete. Thenext step is for their work to beendorsed by the KCHA. Then a new,standing committee would be formed

Spring 2001 Page 9

KDOT Korner

What’s Happening with the Low Volume Roads Manual?

. . . by Lisa Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

An indispensible reference forlocal road departments inKansas is a small gold-colored

booklet. Most folks call it the LVRManual, short for Handbook of TrafficControl Practices for Low Volume RuralRoads. KDOT puts it out, along withthe Kansas County HighwayAssociation, with legwork by K-State.

Published a decade ago, some ofthe information is about as current asRoy Williams’ first days at K.U.

A committee has recently beenformed to develop a strategy forreviewing the handbook to addupdated information. The committeewill be suggesting changes to beincorporated in the next edition.

Committee members are:Jerry Fowler, Saline Co.Mike Graf, Ellis Co.Dale Pfannenstiel, Trego Co.Gary Rosewicz, Marshall Co.Glenn Larson, Washington Co.Ronald Karn, Jefferson Co.Frank Young, Neosho Co.Doug Daugherty, Wichita Co.

Dan Harden, Riley Co.Gary Schneiders, Pawnee Co.Chip Woods, Lyon Co.Hub Casper, Anderson/Coffey Co.Andy Haney, City of OttawaLarry Mangan, City of WellingtonBruce Remsberg, City of El DoradoBob Alva, FHWAJoel Breakstone, KDOTLee Roadifer, KDOTCharles Brunson, KDOTEugene Russell, Kansas State Univ.Bob Smith, Prof. Emeritus, KSU

The LVR Manual update is partof a K-TRAN research projectthrough Kansas State University.Another part of the project is toupdate the Traffic Control Manual forSmall Cities and combine the twoupdated publications in one binder.

The committee is one year intothe two-year project, but they have hita snag.

“We’ve done substantive work onparking, regulatory and advisory signsand speed zones,” said Joel Breakstone,traffic safety engineer for KDOT’sBureau of Local Projects, “but we’retreading water right now until we get

the new MUTCD.” The project speci-fies that the updated manual will con-tain guidance from the new MUTCD.

The Millennium edition of theMUTCD has been released, but sub-stantial revisions are forthcoming.

Asked when these revisions will beready, Breakstone replied, “We’ve justreceived word [from the federal gov-ernment] that the MUTCD is printedand they are getting ready to ship it.”

The committee has completedmost of its preliminary work; K-Stateis currently compiling it. The com-mittee must wait for the MUTCDrevisions before doing any more work,and they have found that frustrating.“As a result it may take us longer thantwo years to complete this project,”Breakstone said.

For more information on theLVR Manual update, call JoelBreakstone at 785/296-3861. ■

to help develop and oversee the pro-gram. Some task force members wouldcontinue to be on this committee.

The Roads Scholar training ses-sions will not reinvent the wheel—thetraining will include a combination ofexisting or adapted courses offered byLTAP and the KAC, plus some newcourses yet to be developed.

Questions About the RoadsScholar ProgramWho’s going to pay for it?We don’t know yet. Funding consider-ations will be worked out after KCHAgives the go-ahead for the proposedcurriculum. There might be an appli-cation fee to cover administration ofthe application process.

Can I get credit for training (or jobexperience) I’ve already received?The task force is exploring the idea ofgrandfathering-in pertinent trainingtaken within a reasonable number ofyears. The applicant would likely listthe training they’ve received and pro-vide proof of participation; a commit-

“We’re treadingwater right now...”

continued on page 13 ➤

KUTC NewsletterPage 10

A Leg Up

Hey! We need more time than thatto cross the street!

. . . by Emily Smith of the Universityof North Carolina Highway SafetyResearch Center

“We don’t go walking onour street,” saysEvelyn Moe. “I don’t

even allow my kids out in the frontyard unless I’m out there.”

Moe and her husband, Mike, livein the country outside Sumner,Wash., about an hour and a half drivesouth of Seattle. Tulips and rhubarbgrow in the fields near the 3-bedroomhome where they are raising their twoyoung boys: Kevin, 4 and Lyle, 2.

“The area that we live in is most-ly a rural area with lots of farmingnearby,” 30-year-old Moe said.“Often, large trucks go by withrhubarb on the back and when thathappens, basically, the whole houseshakes.”

The speed limit on the narrowtwo-lane street in front of the Moe’shome is 35 miles an hour, but oftenvehicles whiz by exceeding 45 mph.The street has no sidewalks nor shoul-der for walking.

“There’s just enough room forthe cars to go by,” Moe explained. “Ifyou wanted to walk there, you’d bewalking out in the muddy fields alongthe side of the road.”

“The road winds too,” she added,“so there are a lot of blind curves andcars can pop out all of a sudden goingpretty fast.”

David Perez lives on the otherside of the United States from theMoes but has a similar problem: hisstreet isn’t safe for his kids either.The street in front of his home ina tree-lined neigh-borhood inDurham, N.C. isused as a short-cut for com-muters tryingto gain a fewextra minutesgoing to and fromwork.

The speed limit is25 but people often exceedit, 37-year-old Perez said. “Thisyear a car ran into the front of thehouse on the opposite corner ofwhere we live,” he said. “The guy wasgoing so fast that if it wasn’t for a bigtree in the yard, he probably wouldhave ended up in the house.”

These street conditions under-standably make Perez and his wife,Melannie, nervous about allowingtheir 5-year-old son, Jordon, to playin the front yard. And unless some-thing is done, the situation is onlygoing to be worse when their 5-month-old daughter learns to walk.

Making America WalkableThe complaints of the Moe and Perezfamilies are not isolated examples.Rather, they are practically the normin neighborhoods all across the

United States these days. But howdoes one person or one family or onecommunity go about making the

changes necessary to make ourstreets safer for our childrenand for pedestrians in general?

According to JerryScannell, president of theNational Safety Council inChicago, national aware-ness of the problem is theseed of change.

“I think people tendto think of themselves pri-

marily as drivers and onlyincidentally as walkers and

because we’re not aware thatwe’re pedestrians and that we

deserve consideration, we accept con-ditions we shouldn’t accept,” he said.Priority needs to be given to provid-ing places where we can walk safely.”

Scannell is the chairman of the“Partnership for a WalkableAmerica”—a coalition of private, stateand federal organizations from allacross the United States who havecome together with the commoncause of increasing public awarenessabout the unquestionable need forour communities to be safer and moreaccessible for walkers.

Another focus of the Partnershipis to emphasize the healthiness ofwalking — both the physical benefitsit provides for those who do it andthe social benefits communities reapfrom this activity.

�

Pedestrian partnership encourages walkers to speak out.

Spring 2001 Page 11

In order for change to happen,the public is going to have to ask forit, said Partnership member BillWilkinson, who is also the director ofthe Pedestrian Federation of Americain Washington D.C.

“The only thing that’s going tomake pedestrians be a priority is peo-ple getting out there and saying: ‘Thisis not okay in the community I’mgoing to be living in. I want a placewhere I don’t have to worry about mykids walking to school or me havingto drive everywhere I want to go,’” hesaid. “The public doesn’t have to havethe answers. They just have to havethe indignation to say: ‘Excuse me,this isn’t what I want. I want a trans-portation system that is a whole lotfriendlier toward the community.’”

Children At RiskThe members of this growing part-nership, which includes private, stateand federal groups, are particularlyconcerned about the safety of childpedestrians. According to figures fromthe U.S. Department of Transpor-tation (US DOT), 806 children, ages15 and younger were killed in pedes-trian crashes in the United States in1994. These data also show that onaverage, 10 boys and 5 girls, in thatsame age bracket, died each week in apedestrian crash in 1994.

The incidence of injuries amongchildren due to pedestrian crashes iseven higher. Many of these injuries arealso grave. The USDOT figures forthat year show that 30,833 children,ages 15 and younger, were injured inpedestrian crashes. Those figures alsoshow that 340 boys and 250 girls, ages15 and younger, were injured eachweek in pedestrian crashes.

The injury and fatality rates foryoung pedestrians are troubling, butthey can be changed, said Partnershipmember Dr. Alfred Farina, a researchpsychologist in charge of pedestrianand bicycle safety research for theUSDOT National Highway TrafficSafety Administration (NHTSA).

Dr. Farina said kids need to betaught to be more careful aroundmoving vehicles. He added that manyprograms to educate children to stopand look left, right and then left oncemore before entering the street havebeen successful in reducing the inci-dence of injury and death in youngpedestrians.

“Kids are unacquainted with thedangers of the road and they also tendto think of adults as people who takecare of children and that attitude mayextend to how they think of drivers,”Dr. Farina said.

“We did a study one time aboutthe street crossing behaviors of kids,ranging in age from kindergartners tothird graders,” he said. What we foundwas that about 90 percent of the cross-ings made by young children were inerror. “ One of the most commonerrors young children make, Dr. Farinasaid, is to dart out” into the street with-out first checking left, right and thenleft again for traffic. In fact, 46 percentof the pedestrian crashes involving chil-dren, ages 5 through 14, can be attrib-uted to “dart out” behavior.

Another factor contributing tochild pedestrian crashes is that manyparents tend to overestimate theirchild’s ability to deal with street condi-tions, said John Moffat, director of theWashington Traffic Safety Commission.Moffat is a member of the NationalAssociation of Governors’ HighwaySafety Representatives, which is amember of the Partnership.

Pedestrian crashes are one of thebiggest killers of children ages 5 to 9,”he said. “That’s because children oftendart out into the road and by the timea driver detects them and is able tostop, it is often too late.”

Parents Often OverestimateCognitive Abilities Of ChildrenAllowing children to play unattendednear a street is also dangerous, accord-ing Partnership member RichardBlomberg, the president of Dunlap &Associates in Stamford, Conn., a

research organization that specializesin pedestrian safety research.

“Parents often say to their chil-dren: ‘Well, you can play outside, butdon’t leave the driveway,’” Blombergsaid. “We tend to look at children aslittle adults and forget that they aren’tfully developed yet. Their ability tolocalize sound isn’t fully developed.Their judgment isn’t fully developed.Their vision isn’t fully developed. Weas adults have to have an understand-ing of the limitations of a child.”

Children are often so focused ontheir play activities that they don’tnotice cars, said Partnership memberJohn Fegan, the bicycle and pedestri-an program manager for the Office ofthe Secretary of the USDOT.

“If a ball or something rolls outinto the street, they just run out afterit without thinking about the cars,”he said.

“Kids also don’t have an apprecia-tion for the dynamics of how carswork,” he added. “A car obviously justcan’t stop on a dime and kids don’thave an understanding of that. I don’tthink they have a sense of the dangerthat a car could hit them. And they’rerewarded for that belief and thatbehavior because most likely, theyhave run across the street many timesand have not been hit by a car. But itonly takes one time.”

Changes That Can HelpCars parked on streets are anothersafety hazard for children, accordingto Fegan.

“We know that children dart outand with parked cars, drivers can’t seethem,” he said. “There are severalthings we can do to limit that hazard.One would be to change how carspark. Engineers could eliminate streetparking or switch to angled parkingon one side of the street. Anotherwould be to lower the vehicle speedso there is more time to detect a childand reduce potential injuries if there’san unfortunate crash.”

continued on next page ➤

KUTC NewsletterPage 12

used to be a part of the state bridgeinspection program, but the budgetfor it was cut during a period of low

funding. Whisler suggested establish-ing some sort of first-aid training/health check program for inspectors,and remarked that such a programwould likely be more valuable than aneyesight testing program.

PEs not needed in most casesThe lack of PEs at inspection siteswas equally unruffling to our Kansascontacts. Whisler said, “Would I liketo have all engineers? Of course. AllPEs? Probably. But my technicians arevery well trained. You’d be surprised

what they know.” He added that one advantage of

technicians over professional engi-neers is that “technicians stick around.The majority of PEs, if they’re compe-tent, don’t.” For Whisler, the maindifference between having a PE or a

technician on his inspection staff ishow long they have to work for himbefore he really trusts their inspectionjudgment. For technicians, “a year,year and a half.” For an engineer,“usually about six to eight months.”

Jim Pickett said, “I believe thatPEs have a role [in bridge inspection],but for the vast majority of bridges itis not really cost-effective to have yourhigher-paid engineers doing theinspection.” He sees PEs more as aresource for trained technicians whenthey encounter a problem they’re notsure how to deal with. In other words,you don’t need a heart surgeon to takeyour blood pressure—anyone who’sproperly trained can do it.

An experienced technician canspot a flaw or fracture as well as a PEin most cases. Kim Thompson said,“anyone can run the tests—I wouldhave no trouble accepting the results

Bridge inspection concerns,from page 2

“We had one guy who had good experience,but he was afraid of heights. He was a safetyissue the whole time.”

But lowering the vehicle speedassumes there will be adequate enforce-ment of the law. And removing parkedcars from streets assumes developersand engineers will offer different kindsof housing and street designs than theydo now. Both these things and morecan be accomplished, according toPartnership member Carol Tan Esse,program manager for pedestrian andbicycle safety research for the FederalHighway Administration.

“If people want a walkable com-munity, they need to let the engineersand architects and developers know,”she said. “In the end, the consumerdictates the market.”

In Praise Of SidewalksAccording to Blomberg, many com-munity developments these days sim-ply aren’t safe for children.

“I consult with several school dis-tricts to help make their school bus-

ing safer and some of the problemsare zoning laws that don’t make anysense,” he said.

“One of those laws is if you build13 or fewer homes, you don’t have toput in sidewalks. And if you addhomes later, you still don’t have tobuild sidewalks. So guess how manyhomes each developer builds initially?And then two years later, they’rebuilding another 5 or 10 homes andmeanwhile, they’re grandfathered andthere are no sidewalks.”

Many of these neighborhoodslater have problems transporting chil-dren to school, Blomberg said. Theroads there are narrow and windingwith lots of blind curves and sincethey don’t have sidewalks, children areforced to walk and wait for the bus inthe road.

This problem is not isolated toConnecticut, said Partnership mem-ber Charles Zegeer, who is associatedirector of roadway studies at theUniversity of North CarolinaHighway Safety Research Center in

Chapel Hill, N.C. He also is a mem-ber of the Institute for TransportationEngineers, a Partner organization.

“In many areas of the country,sidewalks are kind of an exceptionrather than a rule and children areexpected to walk to school or to thebus stop in roadways or ditches,” he said.

Making our communities morewalkable is a shared responsibility,according to Scannell.

“Maybe one of the best messagesthat something like the Partnershipcan bring forward is that we all havegot to come together and shareresponsibility for this,” he said.

“If parents did their part andschools did their part and traffic engi-neers and developers did their part—all of that over time would create abetter environment and one in whichour children would not only be safer,but come to value walking more.” ■

This article is reprinted with permissionof Partnership for a Walkable America.

Pedestrian Safety, from page 11

Spring 2001 Page 13

cials to perform ‘what if ’ analyzes ...”Many agencies already systemati-

cally manage various physical assetsthrough pavement management sys-tems, bridge management systems,etc. These help decision makers allo-cate resources among construction,maintenance, and other needs withineach system. Individual managementsystems can be the building blocks forthe type of broad asset managementsystem described by the FHWA andsupported, at least implicitly, byGASB 34. Such an asset managementsystem helps decision makers allocateresources effectively among a varietyof different systems (e.g., pavements,bridges, and sewers) that compete foran agency’s resources.

A basic flow chart of an assetmanagement system is shown inFigure 2 on page 7. The elements ofan asset management system that arealso required for GASB 34’s modifiedapproach to asset valuation are shown,as well elements that are not part ofGASB 34’s modified approach (theseare shaded and are labeled “optional.”)

Start with the upper left corner—conducting an inventory of infrastruc-ture assets. The resulting inventory ofroad segments, bridges, sewer lines,dams, etc., is the foundation of anoverall asset management system. Theinventory includes basic informationon construction cost, location, designcharacteristics, and construction his-tory, but may include more detailedinformation on maintenance per-formed, use (e.g., traffic characteris-tics), conditions during construction(weather, temperature, etc.), materialsspecifications and origin, etc.

The next element is the processof conducting field observations todetermine the current condition ofassets identified and described in theinventory.

The next three elements in Figure

2 are not explicitly required as part ofGASB 34’s modified approach. How-ever, using these processes, which arecentral to an asset management system,will greatly enhance agencies’ ability toaccurately predict needed annualexpenditures to preserve assets at orabove the level they have prescribed.

A multi-year asset managementsystem uses a computer program toforecast the condition of assets basedon possible maintenance activities, andanother module that allocates resourcesfor asset maintenance and rehabilita-tion, given a multi-year budget.

What’s next?Our next article on GASB 34 will dis-cuss using asset condition informationto estimate an asset’s value under themodified approach. As deadlines forcomplying with GASB 34 near, theKUTC Newsletter will periodicallyprovide updated information.

Adapted with permission from the May-June 2000 issue of Technology News,Iowa Center for TransportationResearch and Education. ■

of a technician.” This is particularlytrue for those fortunate enough tohave a crew like Whisler’s, whoseinspection team has only one memberwith less than five years of experience.

Use of NDE TechniquesAs in the federal survey, the most com-monly used nondestructive evaluationtechnique reported by the Kansansinterviewed was visual testing.

Jim Pickett said his firm does notdo much beyond visual testing andsome work with “rebound hammers,that sort of thing.” They refer clientsto a firm that specializes in more in-depth NDE techniques when theneed arises.

Whisler’s crews at KDOT do alot of testing with ultrasound andeddy current techniques, and alsowith liquid dye penetrant.

Evans said, “When we [in MiamiCounty] visually determine there’s aproblem, we bring in the additionalmethods.” In her case, these includetaking corings for timber, using apotentiometer, and doing underwaterinspection, among other methods.

Note: As we were going to press,FHWA released its first follow-upreport on visual testing. Results are stillinconclusive about whether eyesightstandards would be helpful. However,the study did find inconsistencies andinaccurate bridge inspection data frominspectors using visual testing. Thestudy has several recommendations,including revising the ConditionRating System to make it more sys-tematic and less subjective, and bettertraining for inspectors about types ofdefects that should be identified andhow best to detect them.

For a copy of the follow-up report,turn to page 15. ■

Ira Allen is a junior in English at theUniversity of Kansas and writes anddoes research for the Kansas UniversityTransportation Center.

Kansas Roads Scholar Program,continued from page 9

tee would determine which classes canbe applied towards certification. On-the-job experience would also be con-sidered for credit by the committee.

Who will be the certifying authority?This needs to be worked out. KDOTand LTAP were both discussed, butLTAP could only verify participationin the courses.

Can I take classes for Levels 1 and 2 at the same time?The planning task force recommendsyes, pending KCHA approval.

Stay tuned for more updates in futureissues of this newsletter. ■

The modified approach,continued from page 7

KUTC NewsletterPage 14

“Get the Dirt”(8:44 min.) This video promotesproper procedures for utility locates,emphasizing use of one-call programs.It discusses how damage prevention isa shared responsibility.

The four steps for digging safelyare stressed and demonstrated: 1) callbefore you dig; 2) wait the requiredamount of time; 3) respect the marks;and 4) dig with care. The video is wellproduced and provides a good intro-duction to considerations for safe dig-ging. Produced in 2000 by Dig Safelyproject, with 23 co-sponsors, includ-ing the Minnesota DOT and utilitycompanies and contractors.

Road Blading—Forest ServiceStyle(18 min.) This production combinesfootage of blading roads and interviewswith operators to show the ForestService’s “light on the land” approach

to maintaining low volume roads. The Forest Service uses a four or

five pass process, and each step isdemonstrated. The video also shows aan operator grading a drainage dipand how lead-out ditches are main-tained. This video is useful for roadcrews. Produced by the U.S. ForestService.

Making Small Rocks out of BigRocks(12 min.) Road crews operate theForester C-2000, a mobile rock crush-er, at three demonstration projects onU.S. Forest land. This machine is usedfor in-place road reconditioning inlocations where the quality andexpense of standard crushed aggregateis not warranted. Includes interviewswith operators describing themachine’s maintenance requirements.

This is an interesting video forviewing road professionals describing

how they do their work. [It also hassome fine slide-guitar blues music inthe background.] Produced by theU.S. Forest Service in 1998.

Night Lights(13:45 min.) This video focuses onretroreflectivity—what is is, how itworks, and how retroreflective prod-ucts are made. It also discusses otherconsiderations in nighttime driving,such as decreased vision with age,fatigue, and recklessness. Proper mark-ings for bicycles and jogging clothesare also stressed.

This would be a good introduc-tion to the topic of retroreflectivityand nighttime driving for commis-sioners, high school students, and thegeneral public. Produced in 2001 bythe ATSSA in cooperation withUSDOT/FHWA. ■

Video Reviews

Calendar

. . . 2001 . . . . .

APWA Public WorksRoundtable Discussions10/18—Ottawa11/15—Phillipsburg12/13—AbileneCall Mike Fraser at785/826-7380

*LTAP Course onSuccessful Supervision10/9—Fredonia10/10—Emporia10/16—Garden City10/17—Great Bend10/18—Wichita10/23—Colby10/24—Hays10/25—Salina10/30—Topeka

October 6-9League of KansasMunicipalities AnnualConferencein Wichita, Ks.Call 785/354-9565

October 10National “Put the Brakeson Fatalities Day”

*LTAP Course on Snowand Ice Control10/15—Garden City10/16—Oakley10/17—Hutchinson10/18—Chanute10/19—Topeka

November 1Kansas Asphalt PavingConferencein Lawrence, Ks.Call 887-404-KUCE

November 13-152001 FHWA LocalRoads & StreetsConference (Midwest)in Columbus, OhioCall 614/292-2871 orvisit www.ohioltap.org

November 18-20Kansas Association ofCounties AnnualConferencein Wichita, Ks.Call 785/272-2585

November 19Fall Meeting of theKansas County HighwayAssociationin Wichita, Ks.Call Jim Harris at316/223-3800, ext. 32

. . . 2002 . . . . .

*Traffic EngineeringInspection School2/5-8—Hutchinson2/12-15—Lawrence

*April 2NHI Course: WorkZone Traffic Control forMaintenanceOperations on RuralRoadsin Hutchinson, Ks.

For information on calendar items indicated witha * or to suggest a topic for a future LTAP work-shop, contact:

Rose LichtenbergLTAP Training CoordinatorKansas University Transportation Center1530 W. 15th Street, Room 2011Lawrence, KS 66045-7609785/864-2594

or visit our Web site at www.kutc.ku.edu

Spring 2001 Page 15

Name Phone number

Position

Agency

Street Address

City State Zip+4

*For all international requests, the requester must pay postage. We will notify you of the postage cost and will send materials after receiving payment.

Check off your selections, fill in the bottom portion, and return this form to:

KUTC Materials Request, 1530 W. 15th St., Room 2011, Lawrence, Kansas 66045or fax to 785/864-3199

Free Resources

Order Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Videotapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Two videotapes or one-hour’s worth of material per lendingrequest. Two week lending period.

❑ “Get the Dirt”8:44 minutes, by the Dig Safely project, 2000.

❑ Road Blading—Forest Service Style18 minutes, by USDA-Forest Service.

❑ Making Small Rocks Out of Big Rocks12 minutes, by USDA-Forest Service, 1998.

❑ Night Lights13:45 minutes, by ATSSA, 2001.

Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .You are free to keep these unless otherwise noted.

❑ A Citizen’s Guide to Transportation Decisionmaking(32 pages) Provides basic information for the general pub-lic on how transportation decisions are made at the feder-al, state, and local levels. Published by FHWA, 2001.

❑ 2001 KUTC Lending Library Catalog(60 pages) Latest version of this resource for Kansas trans-portation departments. Lists hundreds of videotapes forloan and free publications on a variety of highway andtransit topics. Also includes information on contactingother sources for transportation training resources.

❑ NDE Techbrief on Reliability of Visual Inspection for Highway Bridges, Volume 1 and Volume 2(4 pages) A technical summary of a two-volume reportwhich follows-up a national survey on bridge inspection.Published by FHWA, September 2001.

Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Available free—for loan to local highway agencies. Call us at(785) 864-5658 to arrange time period needed for loan. There could be a waiting list for these items.

❑ Jamar Technologies, Inc. (DB-400) Turning MovementCounter Board

A basic model for recording turning movements at intersec-tions. The board is is lightweight and comes with its own case.

❑ Jamar Technologies, Inc. (TDC-8) Turning MovementCounter Board

Can be used to do turning movement counts, classificationcounts, gap studies, stop-delay studies, speed studies, and trav-el time studies. The board is is lightweight and comes with itsown case.

❑ send materials indicated

❑ address correction

❑ add to newsletter mail list

❑ send KUTC 2001 LendingLibrary Catalog

Let us at the KUTC help you find the answers to your transportation-related questions.

KUTC, 1530 W. 15th St. #2011, Lawrence, KS, 66045Call 785/864-5658 (fax 785/864-3199)www.kutc.ku.edu

The Kansas Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) is an edu-cational, research and service program of the Kansas UniversityTransportation Center (KUTC), located in the University ofKansas School of Engineering. Its purpose is to provide informa-tion to local and county highway agencies and transportation per-sonnel by translating into understandable terms the latest tech-nologies in the areas of roads, highways and bridges.

The KUTC Newsletter is one of the KUTC’s educational activ-ities. Published quarterly, the newsletter is free to counties, cities,towns, tribal governments, road districts and others with trans-portation responsibilities. Editorial decisions are made by theKUTC. Engineering practices and procedures set forth in thisnewsletter shall be implemented by or under the supervision of alicensed professional engineer in accordance with Kansas statestatutes dealing with the technical professions.

Spring 2001 issue—Copyright 2001 by the KUTC. Allrights reserved. Reproduction of material in this newsletterrequires written permission.

Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joe LeeEditor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lisa HarrisContributing Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . Rose Lichtenberg, Ira Allen

KUTC Resource and Education Staff

Traffic and Hwy. Engineering . . . . . . . Joe Lee / Tom MulinazziRoad Surface Mgmt./Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steve CrossBridge Structures, GIS and CAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carl KurtMass Transit Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pat Weaver /Alan BlackSpecialized Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pat WeaverEngineering Computer Applications . . . . . . . Mehrdad GivechiDrainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dave ParrEnvironmental Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dennis LanePublications Editor (785) 864-2590 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lisa HarrisWorkshops Coordinator (785) 864-2594 . . . . Rose LichtenbergLending Library Coordinator (785) 864-5658 . . Jennifer Noblitt

2000/2001 LTAP Program Advisory Committee

Ron Bonjour . . . . . . . . .County Engineer, Montgomery CountyDennis Clennan . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Works & Engineering,

City of HutchinsonLarry Emig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Local Projects, KDOTSteve Foust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas Division, FHWAMark Huffhines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas Division, FHWAWilliam Jacobs . . . . . . . . . . . . Research and Materials, KDOTGlenn Larson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Public Works Administrator,

Washington CountyRichard Maginot . . . . Business Administrator, Soldier TownshipJ. R. McMahon II . . . . . Roads Superintendent, Miami CountyMike Novak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City Engineer, LenexaJames Pickett . . . . . . . Kirkham, Michael, & Assoc., LewisburgGene Russell . . . . . . Civil Engineering, Kansas State UniversityRichard Teaford . . . . . . . . . .County Engineer, Jefferson CountyWarren Chip Woods . . . . . . . . County Engineer, Lyon County

The University of KansasKUTC NewsletterK. U. Transportation Center1530 W. 15th St., Room 2011Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7609

Return Service Requested

PRSRT STD

U.S. Postage

PAID

Lawrence, Kansas

Permit No. 65

Kansas LTAP

co-sponsored by the FHWA and KDOT