U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
|
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-09-039
Date: April 2010 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pavement Marking Demonstration Project: State of Alaska and State of Tennessee-Report to CongressPDF Version (17.09 MB)
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader® FOREWORDThis report to the U.S. Congress provides information on four topics related to advanced pavement marking systems: (1) a study on the safety impact of wider edge lines, (2) an evaluation of the durability and cost effectiveness of alternative marking materials, (3) a review of the effects of State procurement processes on the quality of installed markings, and (4) an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of cost-effective pavement marking system. The intent of this report is to provide decisionmakers with information on materials and methods that will reduce the overall national expenditure on pavement markings while providing improved guidance and enhanced safety for the driving public. Monique R. Evans Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. 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. Technical Report Documentation Page
SI (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors Table of ContentsCHAPTER 2. SAFETY IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF WIDER PAVEMENT MARKINGS
CHAPTER 4. STATE BIDDING AND PROCUREMENT PROCESSES CHAPTER 5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ISSUES
APPENDIX A. CRASH SURROGATE STUDY RESULTS APPENDIX B. PAVEMENT MARKING TEST DECK DESIGNS APPENDIX C. DURABILITY TEST DECK INFORMATION
APPENDIX D. PAVEMENT MARKING RETROREFLECTIVITY DEGREDATION GRAPHS List of FiguresFigure 1. Equation. General form of negative binominal regression Figure 2. Chart. Map of 19 curve study sites Figure 3. Illustration. Horizontal curve traffic classifier layout Figure 4. Equation. Power analysis for sample size to detect a speed difference of 3 mi/h Figure 8. Photo. Tusculum, TN, test deck section 1 TN-T presence failure Figure 9. Chart. 2008 survey question-procurement process Figure 10. Graph. 2008 survey response-type of specification versus material Figure 11. Chart. 2008 survey question-procurement process change Figure 12. Chart. 2008 survey question-reasons for process change Figure 13. Graph. 2008 survey response-reasons for switching to performance-based specification Figure 14. Chart. 2008 survey question-expected and realized benefits Figure 16. Chart. 2008 survey question-unintended consequences Figure 18. Photo. Typical transverse test deck Figure 19. Photo. Transverse test deck in Alaska Figure 20. Photo. Glenn Highway SR-1 Figure 21. Photo. Proposed pavement marking installation sites Figure 22. Photo. Test section 3 Figure 23. Photo. Test section 5 Figure 24. Photo. Test section 6 Figure 25. Photo. Test section 7 Figure 26. Photo. Test section 8 Figure 27. Photo. Test sections 9 Figure 29. Illustration. Proposed pavement marking installation sites Figure 30. Illustration. Test sections 1 and 2 Figure 31. Illustration. Test section 3 Figure 32. Illustration. Test sections 4 and 5 Figure 34. Illustration. Proposed pavement marking installation sites Figure 35. Illustration. Test section 1 Figure 36. Illustration. Test section 2 Figure 37. Illustration. Test section 3 and 4 Figure 38. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation sections 5 AK a and 5 AK b Figure 39. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 1 TN-N Figure 40. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 2 TN-N Figure 41. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 3 TN-N Figure 42. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 4 TN-N Figure 43. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 5 TN-N Figure 44. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 6 TN-N Figure 45. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 7 TN-N Figure 46. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 8 TN-N Figure 47. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 9 TN-N Figure 48. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 1 TN-T Figure 49. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 2 TN-T a Figure 50. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 2 TN-T b. Figure 51. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 3 TN-T Figure 52. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 4 TN-T Figure 53. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 5 TN-T a Figure 54. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 5 TN-T b Figure 55. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 6 TN-T Figure 56. Graph. Retroreflectivity degradation section 7 TN-T List of TablesTable 1. Descriptive statistics for continuous Illinois segment variables Table 2. Descriptive statistics for categorical Illinois segment variables Table 3. Descriptive statistics for continuous Michigan segment variables Table 4. Descriptive statistics for categorical Michigan segment variables Table 5. Average crash rate (in million entering vehicles) per 1-mi segment of each roadway type Table 9. Safety-related controls for curve study Table 12. Change in speed and lateral position statistics for the treatment sites Table 13. Anchorage, AK, test deck edge line and outside lane line pavement markings Table 14. Nashville, TN, test deck edge line and lane line pavement markings Table 15. Tusculum, TN, test deck edge line and lane line pavement markings Table 16. Anchorage, AK, edge line pavement marking test deck results Table 17. Nashville, TN, test deck edge line durability information Table 18. Nashville, TN, test deck lane line durability information Table 19. Nashville, TN, lead-free thermoplastic test deck durability information Table 20. Tusculum, TN, test deck edge line durability information Table 21. Tusculum, TN, test deck lane line durability information Table 22. Pavement marking cost information Table 23. Estimated pavement marking costs for Anchorage, AK, test deck Table 24. Estimated 6-inch pavement marking costs for Nashville, TN, test deck Table 25. Estimated pavement marking costs for Tusculum, TN, test deck Table 26. Specifications for heavy metal content of glass beads (ppm) Table 27. Coded study site matrix Table 28. Sample size of crash surrogate study Table 29. Speed data by location Table 30. Change in speed data by location Table 31. Lateral position data by location Table 32. Change in lateral position data by location Table 33. Advantages and disadvantages of transverse test decks Table 34. Advantages and disadvantages of long-line test decks Table 35. Initially installed edge line and outside lane line pavement markings (8/7/06) Table 36. Pavement markings installed after the first winter in Anchorage, AK Table 37. Pavement markings installed after the second winter in Anchorage, AK Table 38. Initially installed edge line and lane line pavement markings in Nashville, TN Table 39. Lead-free thermoplastic pavement markings installed 6/5/08 in Nashville, TN Table 40. Initially installed edge line and lane line markings on 5/14/07 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLSAbbreviations
SymbolsAlpha, level of statistical significance Beta, regression coefficient (of a negative binomial model) Chi, covariate (of a negative binomial model) c Combinations, number of factor-level combinations in an interaction Delta (upper case), mean difference, in a given factor Delta (lower case), minimum detectable difference § Section (of a document) Standard deviation µ Microgram |