Summary Report 

February 2008
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. 
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-08-003 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Workshops Summary Report 

5. Report Date 

February 2008 

6. Performing Organization 

Code 

7. Authors 

Katherine W. Falk, P.E., PTOE and Paul J. Carlson 

8. Performing Organization 

Report No. 

 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

13221 Woodland Park Road 

Suite 400 

Herndon, VA 20171 

Texas Transportation Institute 

The Texas A&M University System 

College Station, TX 77843-3135 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-06-D-00005/ 

T-07-00504 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Safety 

Federal Highway Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered 

Summary Report 

June 2007 – December 2007 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

The workshops and this report were conducted under subcontract to SAIC as part of a contract with 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 

Matt Lupes, COTM 

Barry Zimmer, COTR 

16. Abstract 

The FHWA is preparing to develop proposed language for the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD) regarding pavement marking retroreflectivity. The purpose of this report is to summarize the 

recommendations from the two pavement marking retroreflectivity workshops that the FHWA held in the summer 

of 2007 regarding the upcoming proposed rulemaking on pavement marking retroreflectivity. This rulemaking 

effort is a result of the 1993 U.S. DOT Appropriations Act requiring the Secretary of Transportation to “...include 

a standard for minimum level of retroreflectivity that must be maintained for traffic signs and pavement markings 

for all roads open to public travel.” In response to this legislative mandate and after many years of research and 

proposed rulemaking, the FHWA has developed and adopted a set of minimum retroreflectivity levels for traffic 

signs, which became effective in January 2008. 

17. Key Words 

traffic control devices, minimum retroreflectivity, 

pavement markings, workshop 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this 

report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No of Pages 22. Price 

N/A 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. 
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION 

FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS 

SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha 

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 

MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 grams g 

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg 

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric 

ton") 

Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 or (F-32)/1.8 Celsius oC 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx 

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL 

LENGTH 

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA 

mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz 

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb 

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl 

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 

poundforce per square 

inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with 

ii
Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ................................................................................1 

Chapter 1 Workshop Participants and the FHWA Team ............................3 

Chapter 2 Summary of Workshop Discussions .......................................4 

Chapter 3 Recommended MUTCD Language ........................................10 

Chapter 4 Summary ........................................................................11 

References ..................................................................................12 

Appendices: 

A Workshop Participants 

B Workshop Agenda 

C Suggested MUTCD Wording from Denver Workshop Participants 

D Suggested MUTCD Wording from Pittsburgh Workshop Participants 

E Additional Photos from Pittsburgh Workshop 

iii
Introduction 

The FHWA conducted two workshops on pavement marking retroreflectivity in the summer of 

2007. The primary function of the workshops was to solicit input for the FHWA on future 

standards for the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) pertaining to pavement 

marking retroreflectivity (1). The first workshop was held on July 26th and 27th in Denver, 

Colorado. The second workshop was held on August 8th and 9th in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

following the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) International Meeting. 

Denver Workshop 

Pittsburgh Workshop 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 1

Workshop Summary Report 
The purpose of the workshops was to solicit city, county, and State transportation agency input 

regarding minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity levels. These workshops provided three 

major benefits to the FHWA and the participants: 

• The FHWA was able to identify the participants' concerns, impacts, and limiting factors 

associated with the implementation of minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity 

levels. This information will be helpful as the FHWA develops a proposed rule and 

technical assistance. 

• The participating agencies contributed to the process of developing recommended 

structure and content for minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity levels. 

• The participants learned from other agencies represented and became familiar with the 

most recent FHWA-sponsored research aimed at developing recommended minimum 

retroreflectivity levels.

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 2

Workshop Summary Report 
Chapter 1 

Workshop Participants and the FHWA Team 

Participants who are involved in pavement marking issues were invited to attend the workshops 

and were selected in a manner designed to maximize geographical coverage and to ensure that 

State and local jurisdictions were represented in each workshop. The retroreflectivity team 

identified potential State government participants and worked with the President of the National 

Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) Association to identify potential county and city 

participants. There were approximately 15 participants in each workshop. The lists of 

participants at each workshop are shown in Appendix A. The breakdown of workshop attendee 

affiliations is shown in Table 1 below. 

Table 1: Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Workshop Attendee Affiliations 

Location State County City Attorney Professional 

Association 

Industry Total 

Denver 7 2 2 1 1 1 14 

Pittsburgh 9 3 1 1 0 1 15 

TOTAL 16 5 3 2 1 2 29 

The retroreflectivity team was made up of the following individuals: 

• Greg Schertz – FHWA, Federal Lands Highway Division, FHWA Retroreflectivity 

Team Leader 

• Matt Lupes – FHWA Office of Safety, Retroreflectivity Contact 

• Paul Carlson – Texas Transportation Institute, Retroreflectivity Researcher 

• Gene Hawkins – Texas A&M University and Texas Transportation Institute, 

professor and retroreflectivity researcher. Gene served as the facilitator for the 

Denver workshop. 

• Kathy Falk – Kimley-Horn and Associates, MUTCD consultant. Kathy served as the 

note taker for the Denver workshop and the facilitator for the Pittsburgh workshop. 

• Bruce Friedman – Kimley-Horn and Associates, MUTCD consultant. Bruce served 

as the note taker for the Pittsburgh workshop. 

The same agenda (see Appendix B) was used for each workshop; however, the retroreflectivity 

team decided to use two different facilitators in order to foster different, independent ideas from 

each workshop. 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 3

Workshop Summary Report 
Chapter 2 

Summary of Workshop Discussions 

The workshops were essentially divided into three main parts. During the first part of the 

workshop, the participants introduced themselves and the background material was presented, 

including the latest research findings (2,3). In the second part of the meeting, the workshop 

participants identified and discussed key factors pertinent to potential minimum pavement 

marking retroreflectivity language for the MUTCD. The third part of the workshop was devoted 

to soliciting input from the participants regarding the FHWA effort to develop a proposed rule on 

minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity levels. This input was the main reason for 

conducting the workshops and it will provide great value to the FHWA in future rulemaking 

efforts. 

MAJOR DISCUSSION TOPICS 

The main discussion topics from the participants are listed below by subheadings and in no 

particular order. 

Maintenance Methods 

• It does not seem possible to have a “one-size-fits-all” policy for the nation. 

• What are the processes that can be used to identify when pavement markings fall below 

certain retroreflectivity levels? 

• What type of equipment is available to measure retroreflectivity of pavement markings? 

• In one workshop, the following methods were identified as being reasonable in terms of 

managing pavement marking retroreflectivity (the other workshop did not attempt to 

develop such a list): 

o Measurement 

o Nighttime inspections 

o Programmed replacement or expected life (based on service life) 

o Representative section 

• The expected life of pavement markings is difficult to project because of the variety of 

factors that impact pavement markings when they are installed. More research is needed 

to determine the factors that impact pavement marking durability so that more reliable 

life cycle figures can be developed to allow agencies to establish robust pavement 

marking management programs. 

• Methods to manage pavement marking retroreflectivity need to be fully identified and 

developed and tied to minimum retroreflectivity levels. 

• Having the flexibility in the MUTCD to develop and implement agency-by-agency 

customized pavement marking management programs is an essential requirement to 

offset the expected burdens of the rulemaking. 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 4

Workshop Summary Report 
Seasonal/Regional Constraints 

• How can the MUTCD language accommodate agencies that receive regular snowfall and 

therefore have winter snow removal activities that can destroy pavement markings until 

the spring time when the markings can be refurbished? 

• Seasonal pavement marking application periods in many regions of the country (those 

with snow). 

Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Factors 

• Many participants would like to see lower numbers when raised retroreflective pavement 

markers (RRPMs) and/or lighting are present. 

o How should RRPMs be incorporated in the MUTCD language? Can the 

retroreflectivity of RRPMs be measured? If RRPMs are used in the MUTCD 

minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity language, should they also have 

minimum retroreflectivity requirements? 

o What if a roadway is lighted? Should the lighting level of the roadway be 

measured if lighting is used as a factor in the MUTCD minimum pavement 

marking retroreflectivity language? Continuous lighting can be defined a number 

of ways. 

• Should white and yellow pavement markings have different retroreflectivity levels? 

Some participants thought that the yellow line was more important than the white line, 

but many others felt that in order to keep the requirement simple, the color of the marking 

should not be used to specify different levels. 

• Credit (lower minimum retroreflectivity pavement marking values) should be provided 

for snow belt agencies that use continuous roadside delineation to supplement their 

markings. 

• Should wider lines be given a credit? 

• Can ceramic buttons or other raised markers be used in lieu of pavement markings? 

(MUTCD Section 3B.14) 

• Transverse markings (crosswalks, symbols, word messages, stop lines, yield bars, lane 

reduction arrows, railroad symbols, etc.) are completely different from longitudinal 

markings. Many of the participants felt that transverse markings should be excluded 

from the requirements. 

• Should speed or functional classification of the roadway be used to distinguish between 

different levels of retroreflectivity if a constant preview time is going to be the goal? 

• Should the pavement type be addressed in the MUTCD? 

• Average daily traffic (ADT), lane width, and horizontal alignment can impact the service 

life of markings. 

• If different minimum levels are used in the MUTCD or in a supplemental document, then 

there should be a large enough difference between the values such that it makes sense to 

have two values. One participant thought the difference should be at least 50 

millicandelas per square meter per lux (mcd/m2/lx). 

• If retroreflectivity is so important, should the requirement also include a contrast 

requirement? 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 5

Workshop Summary Report 
• FHWA should consider the information a driver really needs from a marking. Is a curb 

in an urban area enough guidance for a driver in that environment? Why must markings 

be maintained on lower speed urban streets with curbs and often with lighting? 

Economic Impacts 

• The following question was raised in various forms at both workshops: What will the 

economic impact be? (The FHWA is completing a study of the economic impacts of the 

expected rulemaking effort.) 

• How will local agencies that currently only restripe every 3 years be able to meet the 

minimum retroreflectivity levels? 

• There will be a significant budget/financial concern for local agencies. 

• If the FHWA goes forward with rulemaking, then a phase-in time is needed so that 

agencies can begin to build a case for the needed increase in budget, equipment, and 

personnel. Many local agencies will have to fight for the money and it will take time to 

convince board members and elected officials of the need for an increased budget. 

Retroreflectivity Measurements 

• How should pavement marking retroreflectivity be measured? Every inch of a long line 

can have a different retroreflectivity value. Is there a standard sampling technique that 

can be used when assessing the retroreflectivity for purposes of comparing to a minimum 

threshold? How long of a line should be measured? What if it is near an intersection 

with heavy turning movements, or near a gravel pit, or along a horizontal curve (or other 

areas where pavement marking retroreflectivity generally wears out in a localized fashion 

before the rest of the same line)? 

• How and where would an agency measure retroreflectivity to determine if it is in 

compliance with MUTCD requirements? 

• If values are generated, then they should be average values over a certain length of line or 

classification of roadway, but not each individual measurement. 

• Can rumble stripes and other profiled markings be measured accurately? 

• Is there a reliable method to measure wet markings? 

• Is a windshield survey adequate? Many participants thought that a large difference in 

mcd/m2/lx is needed before a driver, even a trained driver, can notice a difference. 

However, others felt that trained drivers could detect differences less than 50 mcd. 

• The cost of equipment to measure retroreflectivity is high for local agencies. 

• What is the correlation between hand-held measurements and mobile measurements? 

• Having long periods without rain in some areas can cause dirt/dust build up that leads to a 

low retroreflectivity measurement. Should pavement markings be cleaned before 

measuring? 

• Many participants felt that the minimum retroreflectivity levels should only apply to 

clean and dry markings, realizing that clean is subjective. 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 6

Workshop Summary Report 
Safety Benefit 

• Does the B/C ratio of minimum retroreflectivity justify the effort? Is there an associated 

crash reduction factor? 

• Is there any evidence linking maintained retroreflectivity levels and safety? The NCHRP 

research project 17-28 was not designed to evaluate the safety relationship of 

retroreflectivity levels near the minimum values so it only provides indirect information – 

and the information it does provide says that the important thing is that markings are 

present and visible to drivers, but what is less important with respect to safety is whether 

the markings are: “new marking bright” or “old marking bright.” The researchers think 

drivers adjust their driving to compensate for lower visibility conditions, but little 

research exists to support their hypothesis. The data they used (from CalTrans) had very 

little samples of pavement marking retroreflectivity less than 100 mcd/m2

/lx. 

Tort Liability 

• Will tort liability potential increase with minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity 

standards established in the MUTCD? 

• Setting a threshold in the MUTCD will increase liability for agencies needing to maintain 

the markings to that standard. 

• Having a maintenance management system in place and documented will be key to avoid 

tort liability. 

• Some participants expressed preference not to have the values in the MUTCD. 

MUTCD Language 

• It does not seem reasonable to expect that agencies meet minimum retroreflectivity levels 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Many times snow and debris cover the 

roadway. Even rainy or just wet conditions can have a significant impact on 

retroreflectivity. How will FHWA address these issues? 

• The standard should be simple with many options. 

• It was felt that maintenance methods need to be included in the MUTCD and possibly 

should be included as a Standard statement without having the minimum retroreflectivity 

levels included in a Standard statement – although many participants questioned whether 

this approach would truly satisfy the Congressional directive since the minimum 

retroreflectivity levels would not be included as a standard. 

• Can the MUTCD language look like the edge line and center line warrants so that they 

include “shall,” “should,” and “may” language (i.e., Standard, Guidance, and Option 

statements)? 

• When markings fall below the minimum levels, they should be “programmed for 

replacement”? 

• Since the sign rulemaking has excluded some signs, it is probably OK to exclude some 

pavement markings. 

o About half of the participants thought that the retroreflectivity requirements 

should only apply to markings that are required by the MUTCD. One of the 

thoughts supporting this position was that if requirements are included for all 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 7

Workshop Summary Report 
markings, then agencies might choose not to provide markings that are not 

required by the MUTCD. 

o Do temporary markings in work zones have to meet minimum retroreflectivity 

levels? 

• The MUTCD language should be flexible enough so that agencies can be considered to 

be in compliance as long as they have a pavement marking program in place so that if a 

marking is found to be deficient, it should be programmed for replacement in a 

reasonable time frame, but the agency would not be held liable as long as the program 

was in place, documented, and a schedule for refurbishing exists. 

• If agencies conduct and document their own research, they should be allowed to set the 

requirements as per the research recommendations. 

• Is there a way for the FHWA language to end up specifying certain types of materials 

based on ADT (similar to the exemptions that FHWA included in the minimum 

retroreflectivity rule for sign sheeting)? For instance, if you have an ADT > 4,000, then 

do not use waterborne paints. 

Other Comments 

• A supplemental document, like that being proposed along with the minimum sign 

retroreflectivity levels, is needed to address the plethora of issues pertinent to pavement 

marking retroreflectivity minimums that will not be evident in the typically condensed 

MUTCD language. Potential items for the supplemental document include: 

o Effect of climate on pavement marking retroreflectivity 

o Expected Pavement Marking Life Table 

o Color shift, particularly of yellow pavement markings 

o Assessment methods – take into consideration various methods for assessment 

and can even use multiple methods in different geographical areas of a 

jurisdiction or at different times of the year. 

• Nighttime visual inspections – at night in a sedan using individuals trained in 

marking inspection. Agencies shall adopt an inspection procedure that relates 

the inspection to the minimum values in Table 3A-1. The visual inspection 

evaluation point should be located 30 meters in front of the vehicle. 

• Retroreflectivity measurement – using American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) standard method (method under development) or a formal 

measurement procedure adopted by an agency. 

• Representative section – a specific portion of a roadway segment is identified 

as representative of that roadway. The retroreflectivity of the segment is 

monitored to determine retroreflectivity of the full roadway section. 

• Predictive model – an agency develops a model that considers material type, 

pavement surface, traffic volume, weather conditions, and other factors to 

predict the expected life of a marking. 

o Management methods 

• Agencies should maintain a record keeping process that identifies materials, 

application dates, contractor information, retroreflectivity test results, and 

other factors. 

• Programmed replacement interval. 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 8

Workshop Summary Report 
o Marking materials 

• Agencies should consider using marking material and/or applications (such as 

recessed markings) that are durable enough to last through a period of time 

when it is not feasible to replace markings whose retroreflectivity falls below 

the minimum values. 

o Potential for lower retroreflectivity values for rumble strips. Related situations 

are internally illuminated markers. 

• A general increased focus on pavement markings is needed. Many participants believed 

that the Congressional directive will provide the catalyst and might even lead industry to 

develop brighter and longer lasting pavement marking materials. 

• One of the possible outcomes of the rulemaking is that agencies might begin using more 

durable materials. However, others pointed out that in snow areas it has been shown that 

retroreflectivity is only a dream in the spring time. These participants felt that what 

might happen is that more and more agencies will move away from durable products to 

using more two-cycle waterborne paint applications – one installation as early as possible 

in the spring and then one more as late as possible in the fall. 

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED 

The first half of each workshop included many discussions related to the factors that should be 

addressed, or at least discussed, in terms of the FHWA’s role in developing minimum pavement 

marking retroreflectivity levels for the MUTCD. The discussions up to this point were all group 

discussions. As the first day was closing, the facilitator from each workshop asked the 

participants to spend some time thinking about and developing a table of minimum 

retroreflectivity levels that might be appropriate for the MUTCD. The homework assignments 

were collected the morning of the second day of the workshop and summarized in order to 

develop a priority of topics to help facilitate the discussions. The following factors were 

included in the submitted assignments, shown in the order of their respective frequency of 

appearance: 

21 Rulemaking requirement should be applicable for longitudinal lines only 

17 Allow a discount for Retroreflective Raised Pavement Markers (RRPMs) 

16 Retroreflectivity levels should be classified by roadway speed 

11 Retroreflectivity levels should be classified by color of markings 

9 Retroreflectivity levels should be classified by marking configuration (center line or 

center line with lane lines/edge lines) 

6 Allow a discount for roadway lighting 

2 The requirements should be coordinated with pavement marking warrants 

2 Retroreflectivity levels should be classified by function classification 

2 Retroreflectivity levels should be classified by ADT 

1 Retroreflectivity levels should be classified by pavement type 

1 Retroreflectivity levels should be classified by environment (urban versus rural) 

1 Allow a discount for continuous roadside delineation 

1 Allow a discount for rumble stripes 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 9

Workshop Summary Report 
Chapter 3 

Recommended MUTCD Language 

This chapter describes the specific recommendations originating from the workshops for the 

FHWA to consider in developing the proposed rule for the Federal Register. These 

recommendations reflect the general opinions of the majority of the workshop participants as 

interpreted by the report authors. Given the range of opinions regarding minimum 

retroreflectivity levels for pavement markings, the participants worked together to develop 

recommendations for the FHWA to consider. Suggested MUTCD wording from each workshop 

is shown in Appendices C and D. 

MUTCD Language 

• A phase-in time is needed to allow agencies time to study/customize the most appropriate 

method to manage pavement marking retroreflectivity in their jurisdiction. This should 

include a time for the study of the method, and then additional time to gear up, which 

might require reprioritizing as well as presentations and reports to budget personnel (e.g., 

city council) for the funds needed to purchase equipment, survey current conditions, 

attain management services, etc. 

• The MUTCD language should include a Standard statement requiring a method to 

maintain pavement marking retroreflectivity in accordance with a table to be published in 

the MUTCD. The requirements in this Standard statement should only apply to markings 

that are required by the MUTCD. The Standard statement should also require that 

pavement markings with retroreflectivity levels below the minimum shall be scheduled 

for replacement when conditions permit. 

• An Option statement should be included that exempts symbols, arrows, and words, unless 

otherwise required by the MUTCD. 

• An unambiguous measurement protocol is needed to compare marking retroreflectivity to 

the minimum levels developed by the FHWA. 

Table of Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels 

• Include classifications based on speed of the roadway. 

• Provide a discount for RRPMs and lighting, but include unambiguous information 

concerning the working condition of RRPMs and lighting. 

• Include classifications based on color of the marking. 

Maintenance Methods 

• List maintenance methods that the FHWA considers acceptable. 

• Allow flexibility for agencies to customize their own method based on their specific 

needs in their jurisdiction. 

• Provide a supplemental document that includes additional information. 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 10

Workshop Summary Report 
Chapter 4 

Summary 

The FHWA is preparing to develop proposed language for the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices regarding pavement marking retroreflectivity. The purpose of this report was to 

summarize the recommendations from the two pavement marking retroreflectivity workshops 

that the FHWA held in the summer of 2007 regarding the upcoming proposed rulemaking on 

pavement marking retroreflectivity. This rulemaking effort is a result of the 1993 U.S. DOT 

Appropriations Act requiring the Secretary of Transportation to “...include a standard for 

minimum level of retroreflectivity that must be maintained for traffic signs and pavement 

markings for all roads open to public travel.” In response to this legislative mandate and after 

many years of research and proposed rulemaking, the FHWA has developed and adopted a set of 

minimum retroreflectivity levels for traffic signs, which became effective in January 2008. The 

FHWA is now prepared to continue with pavement marking retroreflectivity rulemaking. 

Through the course of these workshops, the participants’ major discussion topics included: 

• Maintenance methods 

• Seasonal/regional constraints 

• Minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity factors 

• Economic impacts 

• Retroreflectivity measurements 

• Safety benefit 

• Tort liability 

• MUTCD language 

 The FHWA plans to use the information gathered from the workshops to continue forward with 

proposed pavement marking retroreflectivity rulemaking. The following activities are planned as 

part of that process: 

• The FHWA develops proposed language for the MUTCD and issues a Notice of Proposed 

Amendments to the MUTCD in the Federal Register to solicit public comment on the 

proposed language. 

• The public has a 6-month period during which to submit comments. 

• The FHWA reviews the comments that are submitted and develops the Final Rule for the 

MUTCD. 

• The FHWA publishes the Final Rule for pavement marking retroreflectivity in the 

MUTCD and in the Federal Register. 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 11

Workshop Summary Report 
 

References 

 1. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Federal Highway 

Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2003. 

2. Debaillon, C., P.J. Carlson, Y. He, T. Schnell, and H.G. Hawkins. Review and Development 

of Recommended Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Levels. 

3. Deballion, C., P.J. Carlson, Y. He, and T. Schnell. Updates to Research on Recommended 

Minimum Levels for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity to Meet Driver Night Visibility 

Needs, FHWA- HRT-07-059, FHWA, US DOT, Washington, DC, 2007. 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Page 12

Workshop Summary Report 
Appendix A 

Workshop Participants 

Denver Workshop Participants 

Name Agency 

Vagn Askjaer Flint Trading 

Nathan Beauheim City of Cheyenne, WY 

Shane Chevalier Colorado DOT 

Brian Field Dodge County, WI 

Steve Ford Mendocino County, CA 

Brad Henry Kansas DOT 

Jon Jackles Minnesota DOT 

Rick Knowles City of West Des Moines, IA 

Ron Kroop Oregon DOT 

Ed Lagergren Washington DOT 

San Lee Colorado DOT 

Charles Meyer Colorado DOT / AASHTO 

Harry Morrow Colorado DOT 

Dan Waddle Nebraska DOT 

Pittsburgh Workshop Participants 

Name Agency 

Keith Browning Douglas County, KS 

Derrick Castle Kentucky DOT 

Eric Hedman 3M 

Joe Hursen Allegheny County, PA 

Allen Lee City of Lincoln, NE 

Mark McConnell Mississippi DOT 

Meredith McDiarmid North Carolina DOT 

Jill Morena Michigan DOT 

Eric Pitts Georgia DOT 

Tobey Reynolds New Hampshire DOT 

Steve Smallhover Allegheny County, PA 

Jay Smith (via phone) Missouri DOT 

Ken Williams Pennsylvania DOT 

Roy Wright Texas DOT 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Appendix A

Workshop Summary Report 
Appendix B 

Workshop Agenda 

GOAL: Develop input for the FHWA on future language for the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD) pertaining to pavement marking retroreflectivity. 

AGENDA: 

DAY 1 

1. Welcome 

1.1. Opening comments 

1.2. Review meeting objectives and schedule 

1.3. Self-introductions 

2. Congressional Language 

3. MUTCD rulemaking process 

4. Review MUTCD language for min sign retro (NPA & SNPA) 

5. FHWA research recommendations 

6. BREAK 

7. Discussion of Key Issues 

7.1. Identify critical pavement marking minimum retroreflectivity issues as 

determined by the participants 

7.2. Identify pavement marking minimum retroreflectivity stakeholders and 

expectations of stakeholders 

7.3. Suggestions of additional critical issues by the facilitator 

7.4. Identify basic strategies for MUTCD language 

7.5. List of issues that need to be identified during the discussion 

7.6. Related issues 

8. Develop basic outline for MUTCD language 

DAY 2 

9. Refine/finalize MUTCD language 

10.Break 

11.Develop recommendations for FHWA consideration 

12.Meeting wrap-up (review recommended MUTCD language) 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Appendix B

Workshop Summary Report 
Appendix C 

Suggested MUTCD Wording from Denver Workshop Participants 

Standard: 

Public agencies or officials having jurisdiction shall use an assessment or management 

method to maintain pavement marking retroreflectivity at or above the minimum values 

established in Table 3A-1 for all pavement markings required by this Manual. The 

minimum retroreflectivity values in Table 3A-1 shall be applied to markings using the 

following: 

• Clean and dry markings 

• An average of retroreflectivity values over a representative length of marking 

If the retroreflectivity of a pavement marking falls below the minimum values, markings 

shall be scheduled for replacement when conditions permit. 

Option: 

Agencies may exclude the following types of pavement markings from the retroreflectivity 

maintenance guidelines described in this section: 

A. Markings that are not required by the MUTCD 

B. Symbols, arrows, and words 

Table 3A-1. Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels (mcd/m2/lx) 

 Without RRPMs With 

Marking Configuration ≤ 50 mph 55-65 mph ≥ 70 mph RRPMs or 

Lighting

With Edge Lines or Lane Lines 40 60 90 40 

Yellow Center Line Only 90 250 570 50 

Add note that retroreflectivity values (RL) apply to all colors 

Speed is the nighttime speed of the road 

[There are questions about the values for roads that are curb and gutter or median divided.] 

If RRPMs are used to reduce the minimum retroreflectivity level, there shall be at least three in 

view and in good working condition. [Need to revise “good working condition” to provide a 

quantitative measure of RRPM performance.] 

If roadway lighting is used to reduce the minimum retroreflectivity level, the reduction shall be 

applied only to those markings that receive an adequate level of illumination from the roadway 

lighting. [Need to define “adequate.”] 

Compliance Dates 

2 years to adopt a method 

5 years for markings to comply with minimums and methods 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Appendix C

Workshop Summary Report 
Appendix D 

Suggested MUTCD Wording from Pittsburgh Workshop Participants 

Standard: 

Agencies shall have an assessment or management program to maintain longitudinal 

pavement marking retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels established in Table 

3A-1. 

Guidance: 

The pavement marking management system should provide a system for planning the normal 

application of pavement markings systemwide, for monitoring the quality of the pavement 

markings, and a plan for correcting deficiencies that fall outside of the normal pavement marking 

cycle. The pavement marking management system should account for normal cycles of wear, 

tear, and deterioration in a way that allows agencies to identify areas that are approaching 

minimum levels and the agency should schedule pavement markings to be replaced in a 

reasonable and timely manner before non-compliance occurs. 

If unforeseen circumstances occur that cause pavement markings to fall below the minimum 

levels, the agency should replace those pavement markings in a reasonable and timely manner. 

One or more of the following assessment or management methods should be used to maintain 

pavement marking retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels identified in Table 3A-1. 

Three suggested options for Table 3A-1: 

Option 1

Table 3A-1 Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels (mcd/m2/lx) 

Without RRPMs 

50 mph or less > 55 mph With RRPMs 

White 80 100 X 

Yellow 65 80 X 

Option 2

Table 3A-1 Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels (mcd/m2/lx) 

Without RRPMs 

50 mph or less 55-65 mph > 70 mph With RRPMs 

White 40 60 90 40 

Yellow 90 250 570 50 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Appendix D 

Workshop Summary Report 
Option 3

Table 3A-1 Minimum Maintained Retroreflectivity Levels (mcd/m2/lx) 

Other Streets 

Less than 50 mph 50 mph or more 

All streets with RRPMs, 

lighting, or delineation 

100 150 50 

Four suggested options for assessment methods: 

Option 1

1. Sample panel of stripe at minimum level. Place sample panel next to roadway stripe and 

compare. Procedure must be performed by a qualified inspector. 

2. Expected Stripe Life: Develop stripe replacement schedules based on durability of varying 

stripe materials. 

3. Sample X locations on a stripe project length. Average the retro readings for those samples. 

Pass or fail based on minimum requirement. 

4. Use a mobile reflectometer to get retro readings. Pass or fail based on minimum requirement. 

Note: Exceptions to these assessment methods are between the months of __ and __ (winter 

months) in northern states. 

Option 2

One or more of the following assessment or management methods shall be used to maintain 

pavement marking retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels identified in Table 3X-X. 

A. Measured Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity: Pavement marking retro is measured using a 

reflectometer. Markings with retro below the minimum levels should be replaced. 

B. Blanket Replacement: All pavement markings in an area/corridor, or of a given type, should 

be replaced at specified intervals. This eliminates the need to assess RL or track the life of the 

individual markings. The replacement interval is based on the expected marking life, compared 

to the minimum levels, per Table 3X-X. 

C. Expected Marking Life: When markings are applied, the application date is recorded so that 

the age of the marking is known. The age of the marking is compared to the expected marking 

life, as stated in Table 3X-X. Markings older than the expected life shall be replaced. 

Expected Life Table: 

Option 3

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Appendix D 

Workshop Summary Report 
1. Measure retroreflectivity, handheld or mobile per ASTM, in April or May. Restripe locations 

within 90 days. 

2. Trained inspector reviews x% of roadway. If y% are unacceptable, restripe within 90 days. 

3. Restripe every X (days, years, months) based on model (previous experience or research, or 

data from ...). No review required. 

Option 4

Each agency should have an assessment method in place for monitoring and then for the 

replacement. This should be set from the data gathered that indicates the typical life span of the 

marking for rural and urban roadways. 

• Assessment method in place 

• Replacement schedule for pavement markings that fall below minimum 

retroreflectivity levels (take into account seasons when you cannot restripe, etc.) 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Appendix D 

Workshop Summary Report 
Appendix E 

Additional Photos from Pittsburgh Workshop 

FHWA Minimum Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Appendix E

Workshop Summary Report