States’ Safety Rest Area Program and Future Conference Discussion

Open Forum

Wednesday, October 6th, 2004

3:00 – 5:00 pm

 

Andy Keith (TxDOT) opened the forum for discussion on rest area program items in other states.

 

Connie Tyson (Pennsylvania DOT) mentioned that PA has installed five defibrillators in rest areas on IH-80.  She noted that none have been stolen or vandalized.  The American Heart Association asked PaDOT to choose five sites for installation.  The machines are furnished in a white box with an alarm, and can be accessed by anyone.  To date, they have not been used.  Dean Perkins (Florida DOT) expressed concern about untrained users.  Craig Tutor (Oregon TIC) mentioned that the machines are virtually “idiot proof”.  In other words, the machines will not work unless they are used on a person without a pulse.  Connie noted that the machines were about $1600.00 each, excluding the cabinet.  Rob Williams (Minnesota DOT) mentioned that it would be beneficial if they were marked or labeled as state property.  Connie noted that the machines are labeled as being legally covered under the Good Samaritan Law.

 

Art Thompson (Nebraska DOT) raised the question of playgrounds and play surfaces.  Steve Cook (Vermont DOT) stated that Vermont has playgrounds with a similar rubber surface as Medina County.  Art questioned the possibility of using sand as a playground surface.  Rob Williams (Minnesota DOT) said that MN has used sand for some playgrounds and rubber for others.  Dean Perkins (Florida DOT) noted that the use of sand meets building code requirements, but not the ADA requirements.  Ralph Carhart (CALTRANS) mentioned that CA has a “passive” approach to play areas, utilizing grassy areas rolling hills, and large boulders for children’s’ play areas.

 

Rob Williams mentioned the topic of pay telephone providers at rest areas.  Debbie Einwick (Arizona DOT) mentioned a partnership Arizona has with cell phone towers.  Towers are constructed on the rest area site, and pay telephones are nonexistent in newer facilities.  Art Thompson said that small phone companies in remote areas are unable to provide phones, and the state pays for the telephone and service with proceeds going back to the small telephone carrier.  Dean Perkins mentioned that Florida has overlapping telephone service in most areas.  Therefore, the state has a choice of phone providers, and the providers install and maintain public telephones.  Ralph Carhart noted that California has a single provider for all state facilities and provides three telephones at teach rest area.

 

Andy Keith brought up the question of construction contracts, and mentioned that Texas utilizes a lump sum low bid contracting method.  Dean Perkins stated that Florida almost exclusively uses design-build firms.  FL still has negotiated contracts with proposals, phase reviews, and projects complete approximately eight months earlier than normal contracting methods.  Steve Cook said that Vermont designs rest areas in house and issues a request for proposals to build.

 

Connie Tyson raised the question of truck parking provided at rest areas exclusively.  Dean Perkins noted that Florida provides up to sixty to seventy truck parking spaces for each new facility.  Connie noted that people will only walk so far to access restrooms and that truckers would rather use a portable container and dispose of it on the rest area grounds.  She offered the suggestion of using “satellite” toilets nearer the truck parking.  Dean said that the truck parking is compact and pull-through, and that FL has not seen a problem with the distance to restroom facilities.  Art Thompson asked if there has been demand for public showers (There has been in Nebraska).  Dean noted that there has been a conscious decision not to provide showers.

 

Andy Keith introduced the topic of construction followed by maintenance.  Debbie Einwick said that Arizona has had success with this.  Arizona’s contracts are broken into two phases with Phase I being construction and Phase II being a one year maintenance agreement.  Debbie promised to provide a copy of the maintenance agreement for the National Safety Rest Area Conference Proceedings CD.  Dean Perkins inquired about problems with FHWA in using this contract.  Debbie noted that Phase II of the contracts only utilize state funds, not federal.  Art Thompson noted that Nebraska utilized a one year warranty period upon completion of the contract.  At the end of the warranty period, the general contractor as well as its subcontractors performs a walk through of the facility.  Andy Keith noted that Texas has had a problem with the contractor’s warranty overlapping the beginning of the maintenance contract on newer facilities.  This promotes a lot of “finger pointing” when problems occur.

 

Debbie Einwick stated that Arizona has partnered with local communities to construct non-interstate rest areas.  The state builds the facilities and turn over maintenance and utility costs to the communities.  She noted that it has worked well so far.  Art Thompson mentioned that Nebraska has been researching this idea for non-interstate rest areas.  Rob Williams questioned if these facilities are considered state facilities.  Debbie responded that they are not considered state facilities and are not located on the state map.

 

Art Thompson questioned the usage of AASHTO standards for rest area programming.  Andy Keith responded that Texas does not use AASHTO standards, but creates its own program of work for three levels of rest areas based upon average daily traffic to determine fixtures and parking spaces.  Art noted that Nebraska has used AASHTO standards and commented that the standards are adequate for parking, but not for restroom fixtures.  Other states noted that they are looking at ways to “sharpen the pencil” when it comes to parking and fixture quantities.  Paul Gray (New Mexico DOT) inquired about the use of traffic counters.  Ralph Carhart noted that California has ramp and main lane counts.  Andy Keith said that Texas is looking into getting annual rest area counts.

 

Connie Tyson stated that legislation continues to increase limits on length and weight of trucks and that truck parking areas and rest area parking (older facilities) no longer meet newer capacities.  This began a discussion of design sizes of truck spaces.  Most states use angled parking at 33 to 45 degrees and about 80 feet in length.  Andy Keith then introduced the topic of lighting the truck parking areas.  Some states are using islands to place lighting in parking areas.  Andy noted that Texas wants to remove islands and utilize perimeter lighting due to damage to existing islands.  Christine Hunt (Ohio DOT) noted that islands help navigation into and out of parking areas.  Ralph Carhart mentioned that California tries to reduce lighting in truck areas for truckers that are sleeping.

 

Andy Keith turned the discussion to trucks rutting the pavement and earth on the ramps.  Art Thompson said the Nebraska has had this problem and solved it by placing reflective delineators to keep truck from driving off of and parking on ramps.  He noted that this has worked so far.  Christine Hunt mentioned that Ohio paves over the rutted areas.

 

Art Thompson inquired if any states are working with truckers’ associations.  Paul Gray noted that these associations are usually reactive and not proactive; therefore, they are not useful in design.  Ralph Carhart suggested the publication of accidents related to trucks parking on ramps in truck association news periodicals.  This may discourage truckers from parking on ramps.

 

The discussion then turned into preparations for the next conference, moderated by Rob Williams (Minnesota DOT), who will be hosting the National Safety Rest Area Conference in 2006.