USA Banner
  U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Here's how you knowOfficial US Government Icon
              **Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
            Secure Site Icon
              **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                  A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 
 U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation
 Search DOT
            Search
                    About FHWAFHWA Organization
                Headquarters Offices
                Field Offices
                Strategic Plan
                Business Opportunities
                Staff Directories
                Careers
                Highway History
                Contact UsProgramsAcquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                Safety
                Browse by TopicsResourcesCore Highway Topics
                Federal Aid Essentials
                Automation
                Complete Streets
                Laws and Regulations
                Policy & Guidance Center
                Section 508
                Publications and Statistics
                Professional Development
                National Highway Institute
                Resource Center
                Accessibility Resource Library
                FHWA Research LibraryNewsroomPress Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Photos
                Videos
                Media ContactsMenu FHWA Highway Safety Programs Home
                        Synthesis of Pavement Marking Research


            
            In This Section
        Other Safety Areas
                Road Diets
                Lighting and Visibility
                                Overview
                Sign Retroreflectivity
                Pavement Markings
                Roadway Lighting
                Focused Approach to Safety
                Motorcyclist Safety
                Older Road Users
                                Overview
                Crash Facts
                Engineering and Training
                Federal and State Programs
                Community Resources
                Articles
                Work Zone Safety
                Transportation Safety Planning (TSP)
                
                Chapter 1: Introduction
Background

Pavement markings are a relatively new concept in the overall history of paved roads. Prior to the mid-1900s, the majority of our highways were "naked"–highways without white and yellow pavement markings that exist on all major highways in the United States today. The research on adding markings to naked highways goes back over half a century when most highways did not have markings. While the findings from these studies are based on naïve statistical analysis methods, the studies all clearly indicate that pavement markings provide crash reductions.(1-4) A 2004 synthesis on pavement marking research includes a brief description of the value of installing pavement markings on naked highways.(1)

Pavement markings delineate the travel lanes and other features of the roadway, providing benefits that are inherently linked to safety. Pavement markings provide lane position assistance in the near field and roadway alignment guidance in the far field. They have been designed to be visible to drivers in both day and night conditions. Pavement marking research has covered topics such as durability, visibility, vehicle operational impacts using speed and lane position, and safety impacts using crash types such as run-off-the-road and head-on crashes. Less research has been devoted toward how to cost-effectively optimize the performance of pavement markings–i.e., their durability, best practices on size and brightness, and interactions with other treatments such as roadway lighting or raised pavement markers. Some other questions that may need more research are:

When are markings needed?
	What types of markings should be used?
	How should the markings be maintained?
	Do narrow highways need both center line and edge line markings? If not, is one safer than the other?
	What width should pavement markings be?
	How bright do they need to be?
	How can pavement markings be optimized when used in areas with roadway lighting and/or raised pavement markers?
	What is the value of different types of glass bead coatings?
	How round do the glass beads (the optics of most markings) need to be?More research is needed to definitively answer these questions and determine specific methods of enhancing the performance of pavement markings.

Purpose of this Report

This report provides a synthesis of recent research focused on longitudinal pavement markings. It offers a review of the United States standards for when and where longitudinal pavement markings are used. It also covers two of the most important parameters in terms of increasing the effectiveness of pavement markings: width and retroreflectivity. These items are within the control of owners and operators. By better understanding how width and retroreflectivity impact performance, highway agencies would be able to increase the effectiveness of their pavement marking policies and improve safety.

This synthesis is intended to provide a reference about what is known on the subject and what questions still remain. The research recommendations are based on the synthesized material. Ongoing or pending research that is known is noted where appropriate.

Organization of this Report

The structure of this report is based on the parameters that impact pavement marking placement and performance. The report is structured as follows:

**Chapter 2** summarizes when and where longitudinal pavement marking are typically installed.
	**Chapter 3** addresses research findings related to longitudinal pavement marking width.
	**Chapter 4** addresses research findings related to pavement marking retroreflectivity, based on the factors within the control of highway owners/operators.
	**Chapter 5** addresses wet nighttime pavement marking retroreflectivity. Although wet pavement marking retroreflectivity is a subset of retroreflectivity described in Chapter 4, this chapter is separated out due to heightened interest in this area.
	**Chapter 6** addresses the impacts of raised retroreflective pavement markers (RRPMs).
	**Chapter 7** describes research that provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate pavement marking materials.
	**Chapter 8** includes thoughts concerning the future of pavement markings.
	**Chapter 9** briefly describes related topics not specifically addressed in this report.Chapters 3 through 5 are divided into three key performance metrics: operational impacts, visibility, and safety. Where appropriate, standards and specifications are summarized. Each section of this report includes a brief summary and recommendations for future research. Remarks are also provided where ongoing work is underway or pending.

Specifically excluded from this synthesis are object markers and pavement marking design issues that are the purview of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Additionally, this report does not include pavement marking symbols, crosswalk markings, and marking types other than traditional longitudinal markings. This is a synthesis of research rather than a synthesis of practice.

Report Summary

The MUTCD describes when and where longitudinal pavement markings shall and should be installed, using criteria based on traffic volume, roadway width, and functional classification. When the MUTCD criteria were drafted, specific research was not available to help set the criteria. Research results (such as those from the Missouri Department of Transportation [MoDOT] described in Chapter 2) have become available and suggest that there may be enhanced safety benefits to implementing criteria more aggressive than those currently described in the MUTCD warrants. However, additional research may be needed to assess what criteria would be appropriate.

The default pavement marking width is generally 4 inches in the United States, although 6inch wide pavement markings are also used. The width of pavement markings up to 6 inches has negligible impacts on operating speed and lateral placement on two-lane highways. Additional research regarding the operational performance of pavement markings wider than 6 inches or on highways other than two-lane, two-way facilities may be of interest. Regarding visibility of wider lines, there are some inconsistencies in the research, but the most recent studies indicate that wider pavement markings can increase pavement marking visibility. Research also has shown that wider pavement markings may provide a way to reduce driver workload along horizontal curves.

More research is needed to understand the trade-offs between using wider and brighter pavement markings. Many agencies strive for higher retroreflectivity levels without considering wider markings. Increasing pavement marking width may offer more benefits than installing and/or maintaining markings with relatively high retroreflectivity levels. Wider pavement markings have been shown to have a positive safety relationship on rural two-lane, two-way highways; however, on multilane divided highways, wider pavement markings have not been found to have a significant positive safety impact.

The research on the effects of dry pavement marking retroreflectivity has demonstrated little to no impact on operational measures of performance such as vehicle speed or lateral placement. While research of this type is generally focused within horizontal curves, the findings are likely to be similar along tangent sections. If additional research is performed in this area, it should include new considerations, such as studying the benefits of retroreflectivity when dry conditions are not ideal (e.g., when on-coming vehicles are approaching and nighttime visibility is limited).

Research shows that pavement marking detection distance provides an objective way to measure pavement marking visibility, although it may not be directly tied to a specific driving task. Subjective studies and visibility modeling have been used to determine visibility-derived recommendations for minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels. If additional research in performed in this area, it should include objective human factors testing with an aim to derive replacement retroreflectivity levels.

As more data become available, research on the relationship between retroreflectivity and safety is starting to show consistent evidence that specifying and maintaining adequate pavement marking retroreflectivity can increase safety. Additional research is needed to strengthen the understanding of how specific retroreflectivity levels impact nighttime safety.

Currently, a national model for a performance-based specification for pavement marking retroreflectivity does not exist. While a test method and specification for handheld pavement marking retroreflectivity measurements exist, similar test methods and specifications for mobile equipment do not. There is also no national certification program for mobile retroreflectivity measurements, which are similar to other mobile measurements such as pavement friction.

Wet-retroreflectivity is one of the newest topics of interest for pavement marking performance. The research on its effects show, like dry pavement marking retroreflectivity, that wet pavement marking retroreflectivity performance does not impact operational measures of performance such as vehicle speed or lateral placement. Additional research in this area could include new considerations, such as determining the benefits of retroreflectivity during wet conditions and when driving can be particularly challenging (e.g., driving on undivided highways with opposing vehicle headlamp glare).

Research has shown that dry retroreflectivity is almost always higher than wet retroreflectivity, but wet performance cannot be predicted based on dry retroreflectivity measures. The wet retroreflectivity performance is very dependent on the pavement marking optics. More work is needed to validate appropriate research recommendations for minimum wet retroreflectivity. Additional research is also needed to understand how wet retroreflective pavement marking visibility affects nighttime crashes.

Markings that provide long-lasting wet retroreflectivity performance are not yet widely available. Initial research results with a new, more controlled ASTM test method for measuring the performance of pavement markings under a continuous condition of wetting indicate placing wet-night markings in a groove may be necessary (at least in climates with regular snow plow activities) to help maintain an adequate performance level. The ASTM test method for continuous wetting has recently been approved; however, there are still some concerns about the repeatability of the test method.

Other items in this report include a discussion of the combined impacts of raised pavement markers, pavement marking selection tools, ideas about the future of pavement markings, and a list and brief description of other important aspects of pavement markings.
      
  Book traversal links for Chapter 1: Introduction
      ‹ Synthesis of Pavement Marking Research
                    Up
                    Chapter 2. MUTCD Warrants ›
                
                Book:Synthesis of Pavement Marking Research
              Chapter 1: Introduction
                Chapter 2. MUTCD Warrants
                Chapter 3. Pavement Marking Width
                Chapter 4: Dry Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
                Chapter 5: Wet Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
                Chapter 6: Combined Impacts of Markers
                Chapter 7. Pavement Marking Selection Tools
                Chapter 8. Future of Pavement Markings
                Chapter 9. Other Topics of Interest
                References U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

**Federal Highway Administration**

1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, SE

WASHINGTON, DC 20590

202-366-4000Subscribe to email updates
                    About
  

        
              About FHWA
                Careers
                Org Chart
                Staff Directories
                Work with UsPrograms
  

        
              Acquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                SafetyPolicies, Rights, Legal
  

        
              About DOT
                Accessibility
                Budget and Performance
                Civil Rights
                FOIA
                Information Quality
                No FEAR Act
                Office of Inspector General
                Privacy Policy
                USA.gov
                Web Policies and Notices
                Web StandardsNews & Events
  

        
              Newsroom
                Press Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Media Contacts
                Connect with Us