Pavement Markings: Past, Present, and Future. TxDOT Short Course October 2016

Similar documents
CHAPTER 1 STANDARD PRACTICES

Pavement Markings to Reduce Lane Departure Crashes. Paul Carlson, PhD, PE Road Infrastructure Inc.

CHAPTER 3A. GENERAL PAGE CHAPTER 3B. PAVEMENT AND CURB MARKINGS PAGE

Section 3A.04 Colors. Section 3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions

SECTION 12 ROAD MARKINGS AND DELINEATION

Pavement Markings (1 of 3)

2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

Appendix Work Zone Traffic Control

California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

RE: 2007 NPA Text (Clean Version)

Work Zone Traffic Safety

Human factors studies were simulator-based studies not transferable Safety impacts were not well understood

SECTION 48 - TRAFFIC STRIPES AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS

County of Sacramento Standard Construction Specifications January 1, 2008 TECHNICAL PROVISIONS

TRAFFIC LINE MANUAL Edition Revision 1 June 2012 TRAFFIC-ROADWAY SECTION

Attachment No. 13. National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices RWSTC RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWING SPONSOR COMMENTS

Traffic Signs and Markings. Instructor: Dr. Yahya Sarraj Associate Prof. Of Transportation

PERFORMANCE ACTIVITY 405 LIMB MANAGEMENT

MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES INTRODUCTION

SECTION 12 ROAD MARKINGS AND DELINEATION

Meeting Agenda Marking Technical Committee National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices January 19-20, 2011 Arlington, VA

CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION

TRAFFIC LINE MANUAL. June 2011 TRAFFIC-ROADWAY SECTION

Figure 3B-1. Examples of Two-Lane, Two-Way Marking Applications

Proven Safety Countermeasures. FHWA Office of Safety January 12, :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time

ATTACHMENT NO. 11. RRLRT No. 2. Railroad / Light Rail Transit Technical Committee TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: Busway Grade Crossings STATUS/DATE OF ACTION


Proposed changes to Massachusetts MUTCD Supplement

MUTCD, 2003 Edition. FHWA, US DOT March R

RURAL HIGHWAY SHOULDERS THAT ACCOMMODATE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN USE (TxDOT Project ) June 7, Presented by: Karen Dixon, Ph.D., P.E.

CE576: Highway Design and Traffic Safety

Driveway Design Criteria

CW20-1D 48" X 48" (Flags- See note 1) G " X 24" (See note 2)

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT STUDY

New Trends In Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) Spring Occupational Safety & Health Committee Conference Philadelphia, PA

An Investigation of Longitudinal Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity and Safety

Addendum to SDDCTEA Pamphlet 55 17: Better Military Traffic Engineering Revision 1 Effective: 24 Aug Crosswalk Guidelines

Fundamentals of Traffic Control Devices

TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SIGN AND MARKING PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

The 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (Brief) Highlights for Arizona Practitioners. Arizona Department of Transportation

SCOPE Application, Design, Operations,

GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION STREETS TABLE 1A CG-6 CURB AND GUTTER SECTION

Attachment No. 4 Approved by National Committee Council

WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL PROCEDURES

City of Dallas Standards and Guidelines for Traffic Control and Safety Treatments at Trail-Road Crossings

SECTION 48 - TRAFFIC STRIPES AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS

Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

(This page left intentionally blank)

Edison Electric Institute. Work Zone Safety October 4-7, 2009

CHAPTER 6H. TYPICAL APPLICATIONS

INTERSECTION WITH RIGHT TURN TAPER

STREET and UTILITY REPAIRS WORK AREA PROTECTION GUIDE

ARLINGTON COUNTY PAVEMENT MARKING SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION 2 VIRGINIA WORK AREA PROTECTION MANUAL. Ginger Quinn & Paul Kelley April 11, 2018

DRIVER NEEDS, RETROREFLECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS, AND INFORMATION THROUGH WORD AND SYMBOL MARKINGS

WYDOT DESIGN GUIDES. Guide for. Non-NHS State Highways

CHAPTER 6H. TYPICAL APPLICATIONS

General References Definitions. (1) Design Guidance. (2) Supporting Information

Developed by: The American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) 15 Riverside Parkway, Suite 100 Fredericksburg, VA

Off-Road Facilities Part 1: Shared Use Path Design

PART 9. TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR BICYCLE FACILITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS

City of Roseville Section 13 Design Standards. _Bikeways January 2016 SECTION 13 BIKEWAYS

PENNDOT HPMS DATA COLLECTION GUIDE. Bureau of Planning and Research Transportation Planning Division April 2016 (Updated March 2018)

NCUTCD Proposal for Changes to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons

Name Roads Station Distance Miles

PENNDOT HPMS DATA COLLECTION GUIDE

Acknowledgements. Mr. David Nicol 3/23/2012. Daniel Camacho, P.E. Highway Engineer Federal Highway Administration Puerto Rico Division

Task 4 Wayfinding Elements, Placement and Technical Guidance 4.1 Wayfinding Elements

by MUTCD standards and guidance include signs, signals, pavement

Traffic Sign Handbook for Local Roads. Third Edition. July 2008 CLRP Report 08-04

3-13 UFC - GENERAL PROVISIONS AND GEOMETRIC DESIGN FOR ROADS, STREETS, WALKS, AND OPEN

Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

NOT TO SCALE PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DETAILS CURB DETAILS DATE: MARCH 2013 FILE NAME: CURB.DWG

An Analysis of Reducing Pedestrian-Walking-Speed Impacts on Intersection Traffic MOEs

ENGINEER S PRELIMINARY REPORT. for the #######-###### COLLISION

Geometric Design Tables

Chapter V TRAFFIC CONTROLS. Tewodros N.

Horizontal Curve Safety Gregory J. Taylor, P.E.

RAISED MEDIAN EFFECTIVENESS

FOR LOOP RAMPS-TAPERED DECELERATION LANE

MUTCD Part 6D: Pedestrian and Worker Safety

SECTION TRAFFIC REGULATIONS

WYDOT DESIGN GUIDES. Guide for. NHS Arterial (Non-Interstate)

WORK ZONE SAFETY TOOLBOX

Traffic Control Devices

MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY DESIGN DESIGNATION INDEX OF SHEETS LENGTH OF PROJECT SHEET 1 COUNTY

PERFORMANCE ACTIVITY 306 DRAINAGE PIPE WORK DESCRIPTION 4

MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY DESIGN DESIGNATION INDEX OF SHEETS LENGTH OF PROJECT SHEET 1 COUNTY

MANUAL OF TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ON CITY STREETS

CTCDC California Traffic Control Devices Committee

Pedestrian Treatments by

PERMANENT PAVEMENT MARKING PLAN

TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR LOW VOLUME ROADS

Welcome! Urban Work Zone Design. Training Course 0-1

Tract or Parcel Project Name PCN Checked By Date

NCHRP Task 350. U.S. Bicycle Route Signing

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT EVALUATION GUIDELINE FOR UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS

Including Revision 1 dated May 2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012

Transcription:

Pavement Markings: Past, Present, and Future TxDOT Short Course October 2016

Then 1911 640,000 registered vehicles in the US 200,000 miles of paved roads 2,000 fatalities

First Pavement Markings 1911 Wayne County, Michigan White center line along horizontal curves 1917 Oregon Yellow center line along horizontal curves Circa 1917 Black center lines on concrete

Road Markings 1917 5,000,000 registered vehicles in the US 370,000 miles of paved roads 9,500 fatalities

Before MUTCDs 1927 AASHO Standard Road Marker & Signs Markings not addressed, only signs 1930 Manual on Street Traffic Signs, Signals, and Markings Center lines On curves, wide streets, and signalized intersections White or yellow on bituminous pavements Black or white on concrete pavements

1935 MUTCD 1935 First Edition Center lines color was not specified Edge lines not considered paint or lacquer of contrasting color Minimum width = 4 inch Maximum width = 8 inch

Retroreflectivity 1937 Initial testing of light retro-directing glass spheres in pavement markings

1941 - US40 in West Virginia

1942 MUTCD White and yellow markings were favored due to war blackout conditions Chromium pigment was reserved to support war but yellow markings were continued with earth pigments

1948 MUTCD No black markings White was preferred for all markings except double centerlines (yellow) and nopassing zones, but white was still permitted for these markings Recommended against edge lines

Major Non-Uniformity in 1949

Texas Markings in 1949 Austin, Congress St. Dallas, Central Expressway

1948 MUTCD Retroreflectivity better for night visibility but neither practicable nor necessary doubtful value on lit city streets Should be used: Center lines No passing lines On vertical surfaces of objects in or near the roadway

1954 Revision of the 1948 MUTCD Famous for what?

STOP Sign Color

1954 Revision of the 1948 MUTCD All rural pavement markings required to be retroreflective Generally desirable for other markings that must be visible at night

1961 MUTCD Yellow mandated for center lines on multilane roadways and no-passing markings Center line width: 4-6 inch Edge line width: 2-4 inch

Retro Research Circa 1969 Reflective Edge Lines Reflective Center Line Non-Reflective Center Line

1971 MUTCD First FHWA Manual Yellow chosen as color to separate opposing traffic when used as a center line Introduced red markings as shall not be entered Width: 4-6 inch for all markings

1978 MUTCD Yellow specified as used today: center line on two-way roadways and left edge line on divided roadways Lane line: 10-30 ft ratio

1988 MUTCD (Rev 7 2000) Warrants for center lines and edge lines based on: Functional class Traffic volumes Travelway width

Public Law 102-388 Oct 6, 1992 Secretary of Transportation shall revise the MUTCD to include: Standard minimum level of retroreflectivity for pavement markings and signs, and (partially completed) Standard to define roads that must have a center line and or edge lines. (completed in 2000)

April 2010 FHWA publishes Notice of Proposed Amendment to add minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity to MUTCD

FHWA 2010 NPA Minimums Posted Speed (mph) 30 35 50 55 Two-lane roads with center n/a 100 250 line markings only All other roads n/a 50 100 Exceptions: 1. When RRPMs supplement or substitute for a longitudinal line (see Section 3B.13 and 3B.14), minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity levels are not applicable as long as the RRPMs are maintained so that at least 3 are visible from any position along that line during nighttime conditions. 2. When continuous roadway lighting assures that the markings are visible, minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity levels are not applicable.

Current Status FHWA plans a Supplemental NPA Currently at OMB for review 1200 800 300 100 40 mcd/m 2 /lux

The Now Topics Contrast markings Audible markings Marking performance on seal coat Wet-retroreflective markings ASTM Test Methods E1710 Dry Retro E2177 Wet Recovery Retro E2832 Continuous Wet Retro

Now Near Future Orange WZ Markings

Now Near Future Lane Departure Warning Lane Keeping Assistance

Near Future

Far Future

Far Future

Far Future

Thanks! Paul Carlson, P-Carlson@tti.tamu.edu TTI Open House @ RELLIS, Wed NOON 3:00

The Future