Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home
Research Home
Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-09-039
Date: April 2010

Pavement Marking Demonstration Project: State of Alaska and State of Tennessee-Report to Congress

PDF Version (17.09 MB)

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

FOREWORD

This report to the U.S. Congress provides information on four topics related to advanced pavement marking systems: (1) a study on the safety impact of wider edge lines, (2) an evaluation of the durability and cost effectiveness of alternative marking materials, (3) a review of the effects of State procurement processes on the quality of installed markings, and (4) an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of cost-effective pavement marking system. The intent of this report is to provide decisionmakers with information on materials and methods that will reduce the overall national expenditure on pavement markings while providing improved guidance and enhanced safety for the driving public.

Monique R. Evans
Director, Office of Safety Research and Development

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-HRT-09-039

2. Government Accession No. 3 Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle

Pavement Marking Demonstration Project: State of Alaska and State of
Tennessee—Report to Congress

5. Report Date

April 2010

6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)

Paul Carlson, Eun-Sug Park, Carl Andersen, Beverly Kuhn, Adam Pike,
Jeffrey Miles, Robert Brydia, Wendy Ealding, and R.J. Porter

8. Performing Organization Report No.

 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Texas Transportation Institute
The Texas A&M University System
College Station, TX 77843-3135

Under Contract To:

SAIC
1710 SAIC Drive
McLean, VA 22102

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-05-D-00025
Task T-06-002

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration
Office of Safety Research and Development
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

 

15. Supplementary Notes

Projects were performed with the cooperation and participation of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.

16. Abstract

Under Public Law 109-59, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation was directed to conduct a demonstration project in Alaska and Tennessee to study the safety impacts, environmental impacts, and cost effectiveness of different pavement marking systems and the effect of State bidding and procurement processes on the quality of pavement marking material employed in highway projects.

 

This report outlines the development of the demonstration projects and the research findings to date. Preliminary findings indicate that States are pursuing alternative procurement strategies to provide high-quality durable markings in a cost-effective manner, often as part of their Strategic Highway Safety Plans, while industry has responded to requirements for more environmentally benign materials. A multistate retrospective analysis suggests that the use of 6-inch edge lines does result in a reduction in several crash types on rural two-lane two-way roads, as compared to 4-inch edge lines. As of the date of this report, pavement markings installed as part of the demonstration project in Tennessee have not yet degraded to the point where comparisons of the cost effectiveness of alternative pavement markings can be made.

17. Key Words

Acrylic waterborne paint, Durability, Environmental impacts,
Pavement markings, Retroreflectivity, State bidding
procedures, Wider edge lines

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service Springfield, VA 22161

19. Security Classification
(of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classification
(of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

115

22. Price
Form DOT F 1700.7 Reproduction of completed page authorized

SI (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2. SAFETY IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF WIDER PAVEMENT MARKINGS

CHAPTER 3. COST EFFECTIVENESS

CHAPTER 4. STATE BIDDING AND PROCUREMENT PROCESSES

CHAPTER 5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ISSUES

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX A. CRASH SURROGATE STUDY RESULTS

APPENDIX B. PAVEMENT MARKING TEST DECK DESIGNS

APPENDIX C. DURABILITY TEST DECK INFORMATION

APPENDIX D. PAVEMENT MARKING RETROREFLECTIVITY DEGREDATION GRAPHS

REFERENCES

List of Figures

Figure 1. Equation. General form of negative binominal regression

Figure 2. Chart. Map of 19 curve study sites

Figure 3. Illustration. Horizontal curve traffic classifier layout

Figure 4. Equation. Power analysis for sample size to detect a speed difference of 3 mi/h

Figure 5. Equation. Power analysis for sample size to detect a lateral placement difference of 6 inches

Figure 6. Equation. Power analysis for sample size to detect a speed difference of 3 mi/h with two interactions

Figure 7. Equation. Power analysis for sample size to detect a lateral placement difference of 6 inches with two interactions

Figure 8. Photo. Tusculum, TN, test deck section 1 TN-T presence failure

Figure 9. Chart. 2008 survey question-procurement process

Figure 10. Graph. 2008 survey response-type of specification versus material

Figure 11. Chart. 2008 survey question-procurement process change

Figure 12. Chart. 2008 survey question-reasons for process change

Figure 13. Graph. 2008 survey response-reasons for switching to performance-based specification

Figure 14. Chart. 2008 survey question-expected and realized benefits

Figure 15. Graph. 2008 survey response-benefits of switching to a performance-based or warranty-based specification

Figure 16. Chart. 2008 survey question-unintended consequences

Figure 17. Graph. 2008 survey response-unintended consequences of switching to a performance-based or warranty-based specification

Figure 18. Photo. Typical transverse test deck

Figure 19. Photo. Transverse test deck in Alaska

Figure 20. Photo. Glenn Highway SR-1

Figure 21. Photo. Proposed pavement marking installation sites

Figure 22. Photo. Test section 3

Figure 23. Photo. Test section 5

Figure 24. Photo. Test section 6

Figure 25. Photo. Test section 7

Figure 26. Photo. Test section 8

Figure 27. Photo. Test sections 9

Figure 28. Photo. SR-840

Figure 29. Illustration. Proposed pavement marking installation sites

Figure 30. Illustration. Test sections 1 and 2

Figure 31. Illustration. Test section 3

Figure 32. Illustration. Test sections 4 and 5

Figure 33. Photo. SR-34

Figure 34. Illustration. Proposed pavement marking installation sites

Figure 35. Illustration. Test section 1

Figure 36. Illustration. Test section 2

Figure 37. Illustration. Test section 3 and 4

Figure 38. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation sections 5 AK a and 5 AK b

Figure 39. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 1 TN-N

Figure 40. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 2 TN-N

Figure 41. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 3 TN-N

Figure 42. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 4 TN-N

Figure 43. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 5 TN-N

Figure 44. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 6 TN-N

Figure 45. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 7 TN-N

Figure 46. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 8 TN-N

Figure 47. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 9 TN-N

Figure 48. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 1 TN-T

Figure 49. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 2 TN-T a

Figure 50. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 2 TN-T b.

Figure 51. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 3 TN-T

Figure 52. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 4 TN-T

Figure 53. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 5 TN-T a

Figure 54. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 5 TN-T b

Figure 55. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 6 TN-T

Figure 56. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 7 TN-T

List of Tables

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for continuous Illinois segment variables

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for categorical Illinois segment variables

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for continuous Michigan segment variables

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for categorical Michigan segment variables

Table 5. Average crash rate (in million entering vehicles) per 1-mi segment of each roadway type

Table 6. Estimates of regression coefficients of the negative binomial regression model applied to Illinois rural two-lane highway crash data for 6 years (2001-2006)

Table 7. Average crash rate (in million entering vehicles) per 1-mi segment of Michigan rural two-lane highways for each of before (2001-2003) and after (2005-2006) periods

Table 8. Results of EB before-after safety evaluations based on Michigan crash data with 3 years (2001-2003) of before and 2 years (2005-2006) of after data

Table 9. Safety-related controls for curve study

Table 10. Study site matrix

Table 11. Sample size summary

Table 12. Change in speed and lateral position statistics for the treatment sites

Table 13. Anchorage, AK, test deck edge line and outside lane line pavement markings

Table 14. Nashville, TN, test deck edge line and lane line pavement markings

Table 15. Tusculum, TN, test deck edge line and lane line pavement markings

Table 16. Anchorage, AK, edge line pavement marking test deck results

Table 17. Nashville, TN, test deck edge line durability information

Table 18. Nashville, TN, test deck lane line durability information

Table 19. Nashville, TN, lead-free thermoplastic test deck durability information

Table 20. Tusculum, TN, test deck edge line durability information

Table 21. Tusculum, TN, test deck lane line durability information

Table 22. Pavement marking cost information

Table 23. Estimated pavement marking costs for Anchorage, AK, test deck

Table 24. Estimated 6-inch pavement marking costs for Nashville, TN, test deck

Table 25. Estimated pavement marking costs for Tusculum, TN, test deck

Table 26. Specifications for heavy metal content of glass beads (ppm)

Table 27. Coded study site matrix

Table 28. Sample size of crash surrogate study

Table 29. Speed data by location

Table 30. Change in speed data by location

Table 31. Lateral position data by location

Table 32. Change in lateral position data by location

Table 33. Advantages and disadvantages of transverse test decks

Table 34. Advantages and disadvantages of long-line test decks

Table 35. Initially installed edge line and outside lane line pavement markings (8/7/06)

Table 36. Pavement markings installed after the first winter in Anchorage, AK

Table 37. Pavement markings installed after the second winter in Anchorage, AK

Table 38. Initially installed edge line and lane line pavement markings in Nashville, TN

Table 39. Lead-free thermoplastic pavement markings installed 6/5/08 in Nashville, TN

Table 40. Initially installed edge line and lane line markings on 5/14/07

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

Abbreviations

AADT Annual average daily traffic
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEN European Committee for Standardization
Cr(VI) Hexavalent chromium
EB Eastbound
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPA TCLP EPA toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HSIS Highway Safety Information System
MC Midpoint of curvature
mcd/m2/lux Millicandela per square meter per lux
MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation
mil One thousandth of an inch
MMA Methyl methacrylate
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NTPEP National Transportation Product Evaluation Program
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PC Point of curvature
ppm Parts per million
RRPM Raised retroreflective pavement marker
RTLTW Rural two-lane two-way highway
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
 A Legacy for Users
SAS® Statistical Analysis Software
SD Standard deviation
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SPF Safety performance factor
SR State route
TDOT Tennessee Department of Transportation
U Upstream
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
VOC Volatile organic compound
W Location of advance warning sign
WB Westbound

Symbols

Alpha Alpha, level of statistical significance

Beta Beta, regression coefficient (of a negative binomial model)

Chi Chi, covariate (of a negative binomial model)

c Combinations, number of factor-level combinations in an interaction

Uppercase Delta Delta (upper case), mean difference, in a given factor

Delta Delta (lower case), minimum detectable difference

§ Section (of a document)

Sigma Standard deviation

µ Microgram

Table of Contents    Next

ResearchFHWA
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration