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
                        The Benefits of Pavement Markings: A Renewed Perspective Based on Recent and Ongoing 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)
                
                MEASURES OF PAVEMENT MARKING VISIBILITY
In this paper, visibility evaluations include research directed toward the identification of correlation rates between pavement marking visibility (measured in terms of retroreflectivity) and crashes, and research evaluating the detection of pavement markings with various characteristics and properties. Detection distances are thought to be a surrogate for crash data in that longer detection distances have a positive effect on vehicle-control measures and, consequently, crashes. Because of this, incremental visibility improvements provided by pavement markings have been viewed as a proxy for improved roadway safety, although no direct link has been established.

**Studies of Visibility in Terms of Retroreflectivity and Crashes**
Recently, there have been several attempts to statistically link pavement marking retroreflectivity levels to crash rates. A significant challenge has been that pavement marking retroreflectivity levels are dynamic in that they continuously change. Attempts to model pavement marking retroreflectivity degradation curves have not been widely successful (*39, 40*). While there is some predictability to pavement marking retroreflectivity (it is generally accepted that ADT is a significant predictor variable), it can change unpredictably and substantially as a function of frequency and intensity of rain (to clean markings), quality of installation, or even the condition of the pavement. Therefore, it is difficult to know the retroreflectivity levels of the pavement markings at the exact time and location of each crash. While crash data are available, researchers have had to make assumptions regarding the retroreflectivity levels for their analyses. Some researchers model retroreflectivity using various sources of measured data, while others make assumptions about the retroreflectivity without measurements. This section of the paper describes attempts to statistically link pavement marking retroreflectivity levels to crash rates.

In 2006, researchers in New Zealand studied the safety impacts of brighter pavement markings and concluded that there was a not a conclusive improvement in safety (*41*). In 1997, New Zealand implemented a minimum maintained retroreflectivity policy of 70 mcd/m2/lx for their state system. Using a before-after approach, the authors compared the crash rates before the change in policy. They assumed that markings were brighter during the after period. It should also be pointed out that, in New Zealand, all state roadways are delineated as a function of traffic volume. As volumes increase, they progressively apply the following treatments: delineators, centerlines, edge lines, and then RRPMs. Therefore, roadways with centerlines had delineators too. Previous research in the United States has shown that supplemental delineation treatments, such as delineators or RRPMs, overpower the potential effect of pavement markings (*42*).

Also in 2006, the results of a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study were published with the following conclusions: “...the difference in safety between new markings and old markings during non-daylight conditions on non-intersection locations is approximately zero” (*43*). While the study incorporated large amounts of crash data and utilized the latest statistical techniques, there were significant limitations to the study. For instance, the research only included crashes from California and *modeled* retroreflectivity (no measurements were made). While the study included efforts to overcome the possible limitations in modeling retroreflectivity, these efforts presuppose that markings in California never reach a value where there is an adverse impact on safety. The pavement marking maintenance policy of California is such that they restripe their higher-volume highways up to three times a year with paint, or every two years with thermoplastic markings. As a result, there is only the occasional roadway with retroreflectivity levels below 100 mcd/m2/lx.

Overlooking the concerns regarding the modeled retroreflectivity levels, perhaps even more concerning is the binning of the modeled retroreflectivity levels. The binning thresholds were derived linearly, which by itself is a limitation since the performance of retroreflectivity has been repeatedly shown to be best modeled logarithmically rather than linearly (*47, 48*). In addition, the authors binned the modeled retroreflectivity data such that the lowest bins for the edge lines included retroreflectivity levels from 21 to 183 mcd/m2/lx, thus including both inadequate levels and near-desired levels in the same bin (see TABLE 2). Eight additional bins included retroreflectivity levels up to 413 mcd/m2/lx. Therefore, all binning used in the analyses included levels deemed to be acceptable or at least above minimum retroreflectivity levels. Combined, these limitations and concerns seriously challenge the quoted concluding remarks shown above.

In 2007, researchers reported results from an effort to develop a statistical association between measured pavement marking retroreflectivity and traffic crash frequency (*44*). The results suggest that increased levels of the average pavement marking retroreflectivity on multi-lane highways may be associated with lower expected target crash frequencies; however, the association is small in magnitude and not statistically significant. On two-lane highways, the association between pavement marking retroreflectivity and crash frequency is larger in magnitude and marginally significant. While this study used measured retroreflectivity levels (recorded once per year), it should be noted that all the retroreflectivity data were well above what might be considered minimum levels, and even near what might be considered desired levels (all data were above 100 mcd/m2/lx with an overall average of 240 mcd/m2/lx). These researchers are continuing to evaluate their data using innovative techniques such as modeling retroreflectivity using neural networking techniques.

In 2008, a similar effort was reported that included 3 years of measured retroreflectivity (measured once per period) in Iowa (*48*). These data were analyzed along with crash records from the same year. The distributions and models of the entire database, and a subset including only two-lane highways, did not show that pavement marking retroreflectivity correlated to crash probability. When truncating the data to only records with retroreflectivity values ≤ 200 mcd/m2/lx, a statistically significant relationship was determined. However, the correlation was small. This research is also being continued using retroreflectivity thresholds near the generally accepted minimum levels of 100 mcd/m2/lx.

**Studies of Visibility in Terms of Detection Distances**

Pavement marking detection distances are usually measured with two different techniques. In a static setup, the driver counts the number of skip lines visible. In a dynamic setup, where the research participant is driving the vehicle, the driver is tasked with detecting either the beginning or end of a long line, an isolated skip line (*52*), or a discontinuity such as a taper (*46*). The results are reported in maximum nighttime detection distances. These studies are usually conducted with pavement markings of various retroreflectivity levels (measured dry or wet), of different widths, and from different vehicles (in consideration of their size and headlamp type). The studies have repeatedly shown that pavement marking detection distances are correlated to retroreflectivity in a logarithmic fashion (*47, 48*).

While the use of wider pavement markings continues to grow across the United States (*49*) and research results are looking favorable in terms of the impact on safety, the results of studies based on maximum detection distances of pavement marking widths are inconclusive. On one hand, a number of research efforts show increased visibility for wider lines (*22, 50, 51*), while on the other hand, research findings also show that there are no consistent statistical or practical differences (*23, 52*). An empirical study has shown that theoretical calculations of marking detection distance as a function of marking width are invalid, and more work is needed to develop mathematical relationships between marking width and detection distances (*53*).
      
  Book traversal links for MEASURES OF PAVEMENT MARKING VISIBILITY
      ‹ EFFECT OF PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON VEHICLE OPERATIONS
                    Up
                    OTHER PAVEMENT MARKING STUDIES ›
                
                Book:The Benefits of Pavement Markings: A Renewed Perspective Based on Recent and Ongoing Research
              ABSTRACT
                INTRODUCTION
                ANNUAL PAVEMENT MARKING EXPENDITURES
                BENEFITS OF PAVEMENT MARKINGS
                PAVEMENT MARKING SAFETY STUDIES
                SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS
                EFFECT OF PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON VEHICLE OPERATIONS
                MEASURES OF PAVEMENT MARKING VISIBILITY
                OTHER PAVEMENT MARKING STUDIES
                FINDINGS
                DISCUSSION
                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