Bituminous Insurance Companies
Release Date: April 23, 2010
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has proposed to amend the 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to include standards, guidance, options, and supporting information relating to maintaining minimum levels of retroreflectivity for longitudinal pavement markings. The intent of the proposal is to establish minimum levels of nighttime pavement marking performance based on the visibility needs of nighttime drivers. The MUTCD is recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on all streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel.
The proposal adds a new Section 3A.03 to the MUTCD. The section requires agencies to use a method designed to maintain longitudinal pavement markings to a minimum level of reflectivity as defined in the section. Guidance information accompanying the section describes methods that may be used.
The minimum retroreflectivity levels vary depending on the marking configuration of the roadway and its posted speed. The levels are higher for two-lane roads with only centerline markings than for all other roads because research has shown that nighttime drivers report significantly shorter pavement marking visibility distances on roadways marked with only centerline markings versus roadways with both centerline and edge line markings. In addition, visibility and safety studies indicate that visibility distance is increased and run-off-the-road crashes are decreased with the presence of edge line markings.
Markings on roads with posted speeds of 30 mph or less would not have to meet any minimum retroreflectivity values because FHWA believes that low-beam headlight illumination provides sufficient visibility at these low speeds. The FHWA also proposes to exempt pavement markings from meeting minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels on roadways where continuous roadway lighting assures that the markings are visible.
When retroreflective raised pavement markers (RRPMs) supplement or substitute for a longitudinal pavement marking, FHWA proposes that three RRPMs must be visible along a line, because research has shown that a minimum of three point sources of delineation is needed for drivers to estimate roadway alignment, particularly roadway curvature, as well as provide the necessary preview time based on roadway speed and typical application practices.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 4 years from the date of Final Rule for implementation and continued use of a maintenance method that is designed to maintain pavement marking retroreflectivity at or above the established minimum levels, and 6 years from the date of the Final Rule for replacement of pavement markings that are identified as failing to meet the established minimum levels.
The FHWA recognizes that there is a liability concern on the part of some jurisdictions with the establishment of pavement retroreflectivity levels and methods in the MUTCD. However, the FHWA believes that the selection of a reasonable method for maintaining pavement marking retroreflectivity and adherence to the same might serve to defend highway agencies in tort liability claims and litigation. Public agencies and officials that implement and follow a reasonable method in conformance with the national MUTCD would appear to be in a better position to successfully defend tort litigation involving claims of improper pavement marking retroreflectivity than jurisdictions that lack any method.
The FHWA's rulemaking notice can be accessed on-line at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-9294.htm. Comments on the proposal must be received by the U.S. Department of Transportation on or before August 20, 2010.
The 2009 edition of the MUTCD can be accessed online at : http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/pdf_index.htm.
COPYRIGHT ©2010, ISO Services Properties, Inc.
The information contained in this publication was obtained from sources believed to be reliable. ISO Services Properties, Inc., its companies and employees make no guarantee of results and assume no liability in connection with either the information herein contained or the safety suggestions herein made. Moreover, it cannot be assumed that every acceptable safety procedure is contained herein or that abnormal or unusual circumstances may not warrant or require further or additional procedure.