RICWS Deployments in Minnesota

Transcription

1 Volume 33 Number 2 Spring 2016 INSIDE THIS EDITION RICWS Deployments in Minnesota Mark Wagner, SEH & Matt Gjersvik, WSB President s Message 3 In each issue, the INCITER features an article coordinated by one of NCITE s technical committees. This article is a contribution from the Intersection Traffic Control Committee. Upcoming Events ITE International VP Candidates 5 In rural Minnesota, crashes at stop-controlled intersections account for a significant portion of traffic injuries and fatalities. Stop-controlled intersections involve a major roadway intersected by a minor roadway. The major roadway is usually uncontrolled, as it carries a higher volume of traffic, and might have advance intersection warning signs. Minor roadways typically carry lower traffic volumes and are controlled by a stop sign. Section Meeting Updates Technical Committee Updates 6 7 Sponsor Article 11 Sponsors 15 Membership Updates 17 Mainline approach on Highway 55 at Wright County Road 3/County Road 136 (Photo courtesy of MnDOT) Recently, in an attempt to reduce the number of crashes at these intersections, agencies have turned to Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) as a way to improve safety at intersections, specifically with the Intersection Conflict Warning System. The primary goal of an Intersection Conflict Warning System (ICWS) is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes at stop-controlled intersections. These systems usually include detection, static signing, and dynamic elements such as LED warning signs and flashing beacons. ICWS can provide major roadway alerts, minor roadway alerts, or a combination of both. Cortney Falero Newsletter Editor (Continued on page 9) JOB OPENINGS Visit the NCITE website for current job openings nc-ite.org

2 EXECUTIVE COMITTEE STANDING COMITTEES President Joe Gustafson, Washington County Outreach OPEN POSITION Please contact a representative from the Professional Development Committee if interested. Vice President Mike Martinez, HDR michael.martinez@hdrinc.com Professional Development Nik Costello, Washington County nik.costello@co.washington.mn.us Secretary Scott Poska, SRF Consulting Group sposka@srfconsulting.com Nathan Koster, City of Minneapolis Nathan.koster@minneapolismn.gov Treasurer Jeff Preston, Stantec Jeff.Preston@stantec.com Student Activities and Career Guidance Abby Tutewohl, Alliant Engineering atutewohl@alliant-inc.com Directors Ken Levin, Hennepin County Kenneth.Levin@hennepin.us Kevin Peterson, Washington County Kevin.Peterson@co.washington.mn.us Max Moreland, Traffic Data Inc mmoreland@trafficdatainc.com Professional Certification Scott Poska, SRF Consulting Group sposka@srfconsulting.com Jacob Folkeringa, SRF Consulting Group jfolkeringa@srfconsulting.com MN / MUTCD Tim Plath, City of Eagan tplath@cityofeagan.com Past President Katie Schmidt, HDR katherine.schmidt@hdrinc.com Communications Jacob Folkeringa, SRF Consulting Group jfolkeringa@srfconsulting.com Geometric Design TECHNICAL COMMITTEES Kelly Besser, Stonebrooke Engineering kbesser@stonebrookeengineering.com Website Newsletter Jonah Finkelstein, Spack Consulting jfinkelstein@spackconsulting.com Cortney Falero, SRF Consulting Group cfalero@srfconsulting.com Intersection Traffic Control ITS Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Planning Methods and Applications Traffic Operation and Maintenance Discussion Group Mark Wagner, SEH mwagner@sehinc.com Morris Luke, MnDOT morris.luke@state.mn.us Natalie Lindsoe, HDR Engineering natalie.lindsoe@hdrinc.com Steve Wilson, SRF Consulting Group swilson@srfconsulting.com Adam Bruening, Washington County adam.bruening@co.washington.mn.us Membership Technology University of Minnesota North Dakota State University Midwestern ITE District International Director Nicklaus Ollrich, Metro Transit nicklaus.ollrich@metrotransit.org Joseph Devore, SRF Consulting Group jdevore@srfconsulting.com STUDENT CHAPTERS MIDWESTERN ITE Ellie Lee, President Jennifer Vanderheiden, President jennifer.vanderheiden@ndsu.edu John A. Davis, Ayers Associates davisj@ayresassociates.com Simulation and Capacity Analysis Ben Hao, AECOM ben.hao@aecom.com Midwestern ITE District International NCITE Officer Mike Bittner, KLJ mike.bittner@kljeng.com 2

3 Joe Gustafson, 2016 NCITE President Greetings, NCITE members! PRESIDENTS MESSAGE What a learning experience these past few months have already been! As noted in my Winter INCITER message, this is a very interesting time to be part of NCITE leadership, due to the many changes upon us with respect to communications, member dues, meeting registrations, professional development, and more. One of the first tasks of an incoming NCITE President is to propose the budget for the upcoming year. One item that became abundantly clear from completing this year s budget is that while our section meeting fees have remained at or below $25 for many years, room and food costs have continued to slowly trend upwards. As a result, although our fund balances are still sound, NCITE has been losing money on every section meeting recently. At the same time, revenues once helped to offset such losses, including member dues and income from professional development events, have also declined. To help prevent such losses moving forward, section meeting registration fees will need to be increased somewhat, the amount depending on the location of the event. Also, we will be reaching out to our members this year to evaluate what types of professional development needs NCITE should pursue in the coming years to best meet the needs of our membership and ensure strong attendance. That all said, our organization remains strong, with a positive outlook for the rest of Our NCITE Summer Social event this year will again be at Brit's Pub in downtown Minneapolis, scheduled for the evening of July 27th. Last year s event had great food and excellent weather, both perfect complements to some spirited rounds of rooftop lawn bowling among our attendees. Our June scholarship fundraiser is being planned once again, in order to help support our section s future members. Have a great summer and we hope to see you at our upcoming fun events this summer and at our committee and section meetings this fall! 3

4 UPCOMING EVENTS 2016 ITE Midwestern Annual Meeting June 26th - June 28th, 2016 Chicago, IL See the event website for more information 2016 NCITE Summer Social July 27, 2016 Time TBD Brit s Pub in Downtown Minneapolis 2016 ITE Annual Meeting August 14-17, 2016 Anaheim, CA See the event website for more information For professional development opportunities: NCITE Calendar: 4

5 2016 ITE INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT CANDIDATE Michael Sanderson, P.E., PTOE, LEED AP, FITE President/CEO, Sanderson Stewart, Billings, MT USA / Facebook / LinkedIn The world of transportation is transforming before our eyes. Big advances in technology, generational demographic shifts, and globalization are among the many forces that will transform our profession. This type of change can either be a threat, or it can present great opportunities. To seize the opportunities, ITE must take a leadership role to ensure that our members have the right information, the right connections, and the right opportunities to succeed. Develop a strong ITE brand. ITE needs to clearly define its space among transportation organizations and then provide decisive leadership where it can be most effective. Leverage technology and social media. ITE must modernize its approach to service delivery and communication by better utilizing technology, fully embracing online and cloud-based platforms, social media, and mobile technology. Embrace & encourage diversity. In our changing profession, ITE must position itself as the organization of choice for professionals of all diverse origins and backgrounds. Define ITE s global role. A global economy more strongly dominated by Asia and other emerging economies is impacting the transportation industry, even for those that never work outside North America. ITE needs to identify how it can best engage and support transportation professionals globally. Leadership. In our own organizations, in our profession, and in society, ITE members need to be the technical experts and the advocates leading the conversations and delivering the solutions to the transportation challenges of the 21st century. ITE is the organization that I have devoted my career to serving for the last 20 years. I have served ITE as an elected leader at the chapter, section, district, and international levels, and I have served on many committees, task forces, and technical councils. I love ITE for what it has done for me professionally and for the many personal relationships I value so much. ITE is at a crossroads and change is needed for ITE to be successful into the future. With your help and collaboration, I look forward to applying my knowledge of ITE, along with my education and experience as a business leader, to effectively lead our Institute through this transformative time. 5

6 MARCH SECTION MEETING The March Section Meeting was held on March 29th, 2016 at Mozza Mia in Edina, Minnesota. The meeting topics included: general items, an update from the MWITE International Director John Davis on the upcoming ITE International Annual Meeting, and a technical presentation. The presenter was Scott McBride, from Minnesota Department of Transportation, presenting on Making Transportation Work for Minnesota. Highlights of the presentation included: In 2017, MnDOT will have 18% less funding for roads and bridges. By 2019, MnDOT will have 49% less funding (i.e. fiscal cliff ). This will result in no additional capacity added to the State Highway system. The 10 year State system funding gap is $6 billion. Long-term investment plan is needed that is sustainable, dedicated, and predictable. Transportation investments fuel economic growth and support business expansion, enhance safety for traveling public, maintain existing infrastructure, and support to thousands of jobs in transportation sector Preservation vs. modernization is key focus at MnDOT. Examples include green epoxy steel reinforcement, aluminized pipe, and LED lighting. In the Metro District for example, LED lighting electricity costs are going down from $2.1 million in 2014 to $1.9 million in The Metro district has just under 150 bridges between Minneapolis and St. Paul on I-94. These bridges were all built around Mobility funding will wind down completely by

7 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE UPDATE Geometric Design Technical Committee Committee Chair: Kelly Besser - kbesser@stonebrookeengineering.com Recent Agenda Items: CAP-X: a software tool for planning level analysis of a variety of intersections. Summary of scan tour/peer exchange on SuperStreet corridors. DDI and Moorhead design alternatives. Incorporation of performance-based design into MnDOT s policy. Future Agenda Items: Meeting topic brainstorming session. Next Meeting: May 19, 2016, 8:30am to 10:00am at Stantec. Intersection Traffic Control Technical Committee Committee Chair: Mark Wagner - mwagner@sehinc.com Recent Agenda Items: Brainstorming for 2016 meeting topics and dates, attendee updates Future Agenda Items: TBD, based on brainstorming options and schedule Next Meeting: TBD (meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday of each month) Spring 2016 ITS Technical Committee Committee Chair: Morris Luke - morris.luke@state.mn.us Recent Agenda Items: Remote Monitoring Systems Engineering. Presented by Ginny Crowson. Monitoring of ITS field devices, remote monitoring functionality to ICWS, Round Robin. Future Agenda Items: Technology in the Squad Car. Presentation by Col. Matt Langer, Minnesota State Patrol. Next Meeting: TBD (meetings are typically held on the first Tuesday of even numbered months) Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Technical Committee Committee Chair: Natalie Lindsoe - natalie.lindsoe@hdrinc.com Recent Agenda Items: Project overview: City of Minneapolis multimodal transportation study for the West Lake LRT Station, Round Robin. Future Agenda Items: TBD Next Meeting: TBD (meetings are typically held on the second Wednesday of each month) Planning Methods and Applications Technical Committee Committee Chair: Steve Wilson - swilson@srfconsulting.com Recent Agendas Items: Have not met since Fall 2015 INCITER. Future Agendas Items: TBD Next Meeting: TBD (meetings are typically help on the last Wednesday of every other month) Traffic Operation and Maintenance Discussion Group Committee Chair: Adam Bruening - adam.bruening@co.washington.mn.us Recent Agenda Items: Uses of Omni Base, Slip Base and Telespar. Discussion on Road, Stock and Signal Inventory Future Agenda Items: Round Table Discussion Next Meeting: TBD (meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday of each month 11:30am 1pm) Simulation and Capacity Analysis Technical Committee Committee Chair: Ben Hao - ben.hao@aecom.com Recent Agenda Items: Blue Line Extension: Microsimulation Modeling Challenges and Lessons Learned. Presentation by Joe DeVore and Justin Sebens. Future Agenda Items: Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) modeling project for I-94. Presentation by Jim Henricksen. Next Meeting: May 24, 2016, 1:00pm to 3:00pm, MnDOT Waters Edge. 7

8 RICWS Deployments in Minnesota (continued from page 1) In the past few years, several major/minor road oriented Intersection Conflict Warning Systems have been designed and tested in states across the country. MnDOT, as part of the ENTERPRISE pooled fund project Developing Consistency in ITS Safety Solutions Intersection Warning Systems, has knowledge of dozens of different systems deployed at over 120 intersections throughout the United States. Based on simple before and after studies, deployment sites in North Carolina and Missouri have seen greater than a 30% reduction in total crashes. RICWS Predecessors Intersection Warning System (IWS) From , MnDOT sponsored the development and evaluation of the Intersection Warning System (IWS) as part of the Department s Innovative Ideas Program. The IWS project developed a low-cost, active roadside warning system to detect vehicles and prompt drivers to look for cross traffic at intersections controlled by stop signs. The IWS project was a cooperative effort among MnDOT, FHWA, Hennepin County, SEH Inc., and Network Transportation Technologies (NTT). The project consisted of design, field deployment, laboratory and field acceptance testing, and a six month operational field test of the system. The IWS used innovative methods of vehicle detection, data processing, wireless communication, signing, and solar/battery power systems. The field test location was the intersection of County Road 47 and Lawndale Lane in a rural area of Hennepin County, Minnesota The evaluation approach for the system consisted of both a qualitative assessment of the system s performance and a quantitative analysis to compare and contrast before and after evidence from the field operational test of the system. From the comparison of before and after conditions, the evaluation concluded that the rate of traffic conflicts at the intersection was reduced by 54% from the before to after condition and, even though the severity of traffic conflicts remained unchanged, overall the IWS had a positive safety impact on the intersection. RICWS Components Example (Image courtesy of MnDOT) (Continued on page 9) 8

9 RICWS Deployments in Minnesota (continued from page 8) Safe Intersection Systems The goal of this project was to field deploy at selected non-signalized low-volume intersections and investigate the use of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) traffic components to provide detection, processing, communications, and display for five Intersection Conflict Warning Systems to determine feasibility. The five locations for this project were: TH 29 at Douglas CSAH 5, TH 200 at Mahnomen CSAH 4, TH 210 at Ottertail CSAH 35, TH 75 at Clay CSAH 2, and TH 75 at Polk CSAH 21. The objectives of the project were to: (1) recommend low-cost, readily-deployable, reliable, low-maintenance, and cost effective systems that can be used by government agencies to improve safety at unsignalized rural intersections and (2) recommend three to five systems that can reduce the number and severity of crashes at rural, low-volume, unsignalized intersections to save lives, reduce personal injury, and reduce property damage resulting from intersection collisions by raising driver awareness of potentially dangerous situations. The lessons from this project were to be applied to the development of future RICWS systems. Advanced LED Warning System Developed by MnDOT as a low-cost measure to address rural thru-stop intersection crashes and to assess driver behavior and interaction with the system, the Advanced LED Warning System (ALWS) was installed at the intersection of West Tischer Road (major) and Eagle Lake Road (minor) in Duluth, Minnesota. The site was chosen because of poor intersection sight distance due to a vertical curve on the westbound approach. The ALWS system consisted of a mainline LED sign that displayed a static sign (CROSS TRAFFIC) and plaque (WHEN FLASHING). When a vehicle approached the intersection on either minor leg, LED lights on the edge of the sign would begin flashing. The signs for the stop-controlled minor approaches were similar to the mainline, displaying VEHICLE APPROACHING and WHEN FLASHING messages, and were placed at the intersection on the opposing traffic side of the road. The minor leg signs warned vehicles at the stop sign that a vehicle approaching on the major road from the east or west has been detected. Data collected from the site, for a duration of approximately one year, showed a statistically significant decrease in overall average vehicle speeds when the system was actuated for a potential conflict. Overall, the ALWS was found to be effective at modifying driver behavior at a rural thru-stop intersection with limited sight distance. One negative effect, however, was an increase in roll-thrus when there was no conflict indicated by the system. RICWS I The first RICWS deployment in Minnesota, under SP , was a Design-Build (DB) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) project that involved the design, construction and 2 year maintenance warranty of 50 warning systems at high crash risk locations across the state, ranging from Polk and St. Louis counties in northern Minnesota to Pipestone and Winona counties in the south. These systems were composed of signing, vehicle detection, and dynamic warning beacons. Traffic on the major roadway sees a static ENTERING TRAFFIC sign with a WHEN FLASHING plaque, while traffic on the minor roadway sees a constantlyilluminated blank-out message sign displaying TRAFFIC APPROACHING with a static WHEN FLASHING plaque. In the event of a malfunction or power outage, the blank-out message sign is black (off). The final two installations for the project will be completed in May 2016 at a total design-build and maintain cost of about $6,000,000. WSB & Associates designed the systems and prepared as-built packages as part of the Design Electric Design Build Team and SRF Consulting Group provided design review, construction inspection, and construction administration for all locations. (Continued on page 10) 9

10 RICWS Deployments in Minnesota (continued from page 9) Minor Roadway Alert Example (Image courtesy of MnDOT) Major Roadway Alert Example (Image courtesy of MnDOT) Lessons Learned from RICWS I The deployment of nearly fifty sites throughout Minnesota allowed MnDOT to collect some very valuable information regarding large deployments and what can be improved for future systems. One concern was the ability to monitor the functionality of deployed systems, especially in remote areas. MnDOT has acknowledged this is a concern for not only RICWS sites but other remote ITS deployments as well. Even though all 50 sites use the same hardware, each site can be very different from one another. It is important that predesign surveys are well-documented and that MnDOT district personnel be available for technical input. Utility coordination from an early stage is crucial and communicating your design intentions to the utility owners is a must for successful and timely project completion. Some of the sign hardware that includes LED flashers will create greater structural loads than typical static signs, and the sign supports need to be designed properly. Finally, communication between MnDOT, the designer and the field integrator is crucial at every step in the process so any unforeseen changes or problems can be resolved without compromising the project schedule or budget. RICWS II The second RICWS deployment in Minnesota, under SP , involved the construction of 5 additional warning systems at high crash risk locations in Crow Wing, Redwood, Sherburne, and Stearns Counties. The project was completed on November 6th, 2015 at a total cost of $600,000. SEH, Inc. was enlisted by MnDOT for final design plans and specifications on the project. To help provide consistency for all locations through both deployments, SRF Consulting Group provided design review, construction inspection, and construction administration for all locations. WSB & Associates is preparing as-built packages on behalf of the contractor, Design Electric. Sources Concept of Operations prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for Rural Intersection Conflict Warning Systems II Deployment, MnDOT, December 22, 2014 Intersection Warning System Minnesota Department of Transportation Innovative Ideas Program, Stage II, SEH Inc., June 2009 Final Evaluation Report Intersection Warning System, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., June 2009 MnDOT RICWS Safety, CH2M HILL, June 29,

11 MnDOT s District Safety Plan Updates Robert Paquin, CH2M Hill In each issue, the INCITER features an article coordinated by one of NCITE s sponsors. This article is a contribution from CH2M Hill. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is updating the safety plans for the seven districts in the Greater Minnesota region. The Office of Traffic, Safety, and Technology provided strategic oversight for the updated, comprehensive safety review and analysis across the state trunk highway system. The updated analysis was conducted because: The number of fatal crashes on the state system has been flat for several years. A systemic risk assessment of Minnesota s county roadways was completed in 2013, which generated a number of technical refinements in safety project development. The refinements resulted in widespread implementation of low-cost safety improvements. This implementation may be related to a 25 percent reduction in fatality rates on the county system (Figure 1). The previous safety plans were becoming outdated. This effort of updating the district safety plans identified four levels of prioritization: 1. The types of severe (fatal and incapacitating injury) crashes with the highest number of occurrences that represent the greatest opportunity for reduction (known as focus crash types). This first level also identified the roadway and traffic characteristics that are common to the locations with the focus crash types. 2. The prioritization of highway segments, horizontal curves, and intersections based on the presence of these common characteristics (known as risk factors) found at locations with the focus crash types. The locations with multiple risk factors were considered high-priority candidates for safety investment. 3. A prioritized list of safety strategies that have been proven effective at mitigating the focus crash types. 4. Suggested safety projects at locations identified as high-priority candidates for safety investment. The analysis provided a comprehensive list of suggested safety projects based on the site analysis, identification of the high-crash locations, and the systemic risk assessment of the state system. The analysis provided a comprehensive list of suggested safety projects based on the site analysis, indentation of the high-crash locations, and the systemic risk assessment of the state system. (Continued on page 12) 11

12 District Safety Plan Update (continued from page 11) Coordination with district staff was an integral part of the overall process to finalize the safety projects. Staff from the seven districts participated in two, safety-oriented workshops focusing on potential innovative solutions for problem locations and providing comments on the systemic risk process and the initial identification of locations considered high-priority candidates for safety investment. Network Overview Minnesota Fatality Rate Trend Line In total, 10,702 miles of trunk highway, 6,260 intersections, and 5,466 horizontal curves were included in the analysis (Table 1). Table 1. Statewide Network Overview Rural Urban District Miles Curves Intersections Miles Intersections 1 Duluth 1,434 1, Bemidji 1, Baxter 1, Detroit Lakes 1, Rochester 1,278 1, Mankato 1, Willmar 1, Total 9,994 5,466 4, ,980 (Continued on page 13) 12

13 District Safety Plan Update (continued from page 12) Systemic Risk Assessment Crash data supported the identification of candidates for safety investment through site analysis of high-crash locations. However, while a necessary part of a comprehensive safety program, the site analysis alone is not sufficient. Subsequently, a systemic risk analysis was conducted. Severe crashes may be widely scattered around the highway system, but a philosophy of the systemic approach is that these crashes are not randomly scattered. The basic premise behind the systemic approach is to prioritize locations based on the presence of traffic and design characteristics (known as risk factors) that have a strong correlation to severe crashes. Locations with more risk factors are considered more at-risk and, therefore, a higher priority for safety investment. Safety Project Development There were two primary objectives for the safety planning effort. The first objective was to prepare a safety plan for each district that includes a prioritized list of rural and urban facilities. The second objective is to suggest safety strategies at the specific high-priority locations. Results and Key Findings Safety projects were identified at the at-risk locations and the results were reviewed by district staff. The conclusion was the identification of 3,922 systemic-based safety projects with approved implementation costs of approximately $350 million of safety projects across the state system (Table 2), with an average cost of $123,547 per project. The most common projects for rural areas were enhanced pavement markings and edge and center rumble strips on two-lane highways; cable median barriers along expressways; enhanced curve warning signs; upgraded signs, markings, and street lights; and adding Reduced Conflict Intersections (RCIs, J-Turns, RCUT s) at expressway intersections. In urban areas, the most common types of projects were improved access management, confirmation lights at signalized intersections, and pedestrian amenities. In total, the analyses identified approximately $485 million of safety projects across the state system, of which approximately $350 million was approved to be included in the final plan. Projects derived from the District Safety Plan Updates were the source of approximately $12 million (75 percent of total submittal) of the Highway Safety Improvement Program submittal. Table 2. Systemic Based Project Summary At-risk Location Recommended Approved Rural Two-lane Segments $92,863,587 $71,543,504 Expressway Segments $27,751,437 $22,495,788 Freeway Segments $43,541,624 $13,167,194 Curves $22,667,776 $11,852,490 Two-lane Intersections $89,649,000 $50,838,000 Expressway Intersections $80,375,000 $52,963,000 Urban Urban Segments $37,078,859 $37,031,624 Urban Intersections (Right Angle) $79,167,400 $79,167,400 Urban Intersections (Pedestrian/Bicycle) $11,457,800 $11,457,800 Total $484,552,482 $350,516,799 13

14 14

15 Spring

16 16

17 MEMBERSHIP UPDATE New Members Clayton Bayer SRF Consulting Timothy Drew City of Minneapolis Jason Gottfried Hennepin County Morris Luke MnDOT Tom Peterson City of Minneapolis Jason Pieper Hennepin County William Prince City of Minneapolis Jenifer Hager City of Minneapolis Rebecca Hughes City of Minneapolis Michael Kondziolka Kimley Horn Moves Kate Miner Scott County, formerly with Carver County Joel Marcuson Hennepin County, formerly with City of Alexandria, VA Katie Schmidt HDR, formerly with Alliant Engineering Nathan Koster City of Minneapolis, formerly with SRF Consulting Dean Chamberlain City of Red Wing, formerly with Toole Design Group Sarah Tracy Dakota County, formerly with TKDA If you or a friend has changed jobs or moved, we would like to stay in touch. Members, please update your information by visiting To access this area, you will need to know your membership number. Your username is your membership number, and your password is the first 6 letters of your last name (e.g. Johnson=Johnso). Non-members please contact Nicklaus Ollrich via phone ( ) or (nicklaus.ollrich@metrotransit.org) for assistance. Please provide you name, title, employer, complete street address (including mailstop, if applicable), telephone number, fax number, and address. Cortney Falero Newsletter Editor CFalero@srfconsulting.com