Skip to content Skip to main navigation Report an accessibility issue

FHWA Issues Revised Proposal for Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity

by Matt Cate, P.E.

A supplemental notice of proposed amendments (SNPA) addressing minimum retroreflectivity levels for pavement markings was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2017. The SNPA modifies the April 2010 proposal for minimum pavement marking retroreflectivity levels by offering a simplified set of standards. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is currently seeking comments regarding the proposed changes to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

If adopted, the proposed amendments will add new language to the MUTCD that will require transportation agencies to maintain some markings at or above a specified level of retroreflectivity. These rules will be similar to those added to the MUTCD to address traffic sign retroreflectivity in 2008. The new standard will apply only to longitudinal markings (including center lines, edge lines, and lane lines) and only on roadways with a regulatory speed limits of 35 mph or greater.

Where applicable, longitudinal markings should be maintained so that their measured retroreflectivity does not fall below 50 millicandelas per square meter per lux (mcd/m2/lx). Retroreflectivity values should be established using 30-meter geometry (entrance angle of 88.76° observation angle of 1.05°).

A number of guidance, option, and support statements accompany this standard. These statements provide additional information above and beyond the standard (mandatory practice) described above.

  • Longitudinal markings should be maintained at or above 100 mcd/m2/lx on roadways with a speed limit of 70 mph or greater (guidance).
  • Agencies should use one or more FHWA-approved methods to maintain pavement marking retroreflectivity. If using a method which has not been tested by FHWA, it should be the result of an engineering study which has demonstrated the ability to maintain markings at or above applicable retroreflectivity levels (guidance).
  • Agencies may exclude certain types of markings from the minimum retroreflectivity levels described above (option). Examples include:
    • markings in areas where ambient lighting assures visibility,
    • markings on roadways where ADT is less than 6,000 vehicles per day,
    • dotted line extensions at intersections, major driveways, or interchanges,
    • curb markings,
    • parking space markings, and
    • shared-use path markings.
  • Some special circumstances may cause markings to fall below minimum acceptable levels, but do not permanently exempt marking from these standards. Agencies will be considered to be in compliance if action is taken to restore retroreflectivity to appropriate levels in a timely fashion (support). These circumstances include:
    • isolated locations of unusual marking degradation,
    • periods preceding imminent resurfacing or reconstruction,
    • unanticipated events (including equipment breakdown and material shortages), and 4loss of retroreflectivity (damage) resulting from winter maintenance activities (primarily plowing).

The SNPA also proposes that, if adopted, the new pavement marking retroreflectivity standard will have a compliance date which is 4 years from the effective date of the final rule.

For those familiar with methods to maintain traffic sign retroreflectivity, the list of approved management techniques for pavement markings will look familiar. The following procedures are approved for use in the "Methods for Maintaining Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity" report (FHWA-SA-14-017):

  • Visual nighttime inspection
    • Calibrated marking procedure
    • Consistent parameters procedure
  • Measured retroreflectivity
    • Handheld units
    • Mobile units
  • Expected service life
  • Blanket replacement

Additionally, this FHWA report identifies several retroreflectivity techniques which have not been demonstrated to produce consistent results when attempting to compare in-service markings to a known retroreflectivity standard. As a result, use of these techniques will not place an agency in compliance with the new standards. Examples of techniques in this category include: sun over the shoulder, comparison panels, lane line counting, control markings, windshield markings, and comparison light boxes. Agencies using an unapproved technique are not protected when individual markings or locations fall below the values indicated in applicable standard or guidance statements.

To view the SNPA in its entirety, please visit the Federal Register website at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-31249. The comment period for this proposed change to the MUTCD will close on May 4, 2017.

Additional Resources:


Back-Contents-Forward