Research Article

Transportation Research Record

1–13
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
Pavement Marking Practices, Standards, Transportation Research Board 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Applications, and Retroreflectivity sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/03611981221107920
journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Uttara Roy1 , Omar Albatayneh2 , and Khaled Ksaibati1

Abstract
Pavement markings are important elements of roadway networks and help guide traffic flow in an orderly manner. In recent
years, transportation agencies are facing challenges to manage pavement markings because of the advent of new vehicle tech-
nologies. Existing pavement marking standards were developed for serving human road users but they may not be effective
for both human drivers and machine vision systems. Therefore, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
suggested amendments to the current pavement marking standards. Therefore, it is necessary to explore pavement marking
practices for a variety of states. With this aim, the Wyoming Technology Transfer Center conducted an online survey as part
of a comprehensive research project on developing pavement marking management plans for the Wyoming Department of
Transportation. The main objective of the survey is to document the various state Departments of Transportation (DOTs’)
pavement marking management plans, how the plans are developed, strategies for pavement marking data collection, and
pavement marking retroreflectivity. The survey has 31 questions dealing with pavement marking striping, pavement marking
data collection, pavement marking retroreflectivity, and a few miscellaneous questions. There are 29 DOTs who responded
to the survey. This paper summarizes the responses from the survey on evaluating pavement marking management practices
at a national level.

Keywords
retroreflectivity, pavement marking, policy and organization, executive management issues, transportation asset management,
asset management, general

Introduction vision systems in recognizing pavement markings (2).

Pavement markings are fundamental elements of road-
way networks. Drivers often find it difficult to keep
within their lane if pavement markings are not clearly
visible. Pavement markings are expected to reduce
crashes when they are appropriately visible at night (1).
Furthermore, with the advent of new vehicle technolo-
gies such as advanced driver assistance systems and
connected/autonomous vehicles, pavement marking stan-
dards need to be updated. Such state-of-the-art technolo-
gies use machine vision systems, which use algorithms to
process images from the vehicle’s cameras to analyze its
surroundings, particularly the pavement markings. The
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (NCUTCD) provides suggestions to the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) in relation to amend-
ments to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD). As of June 2019, the following rec-
ommendations were discussed to facilitate machine
The first is that longitudinal pavement markings would
be 6 in. wide for expressways, freeways, and their con-
necting ramps. For non-freeways with speed limits of
55 mph or higher and an average daily traffic (ADT)
volumes of 6,000 vehicles per day or higher, edge lines
should be 6 in. wide. If such conditions are not satisfied,
longitudinal lines are required to be 4–6 in. wide. In the
current MUTCD (Federal Highway Administration,
2009) (2), longitudinal lines may be 4–6 in. wide regard-
less of the road’s functional classification and traffic
1
Wyoming Technology Transfer Center, Department of Civil and
Architectural Engineering, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
2
School of Natural Resources Engineering and Management, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, German Jordanian University,
Jordan
Corresponding Author:
Uttara Roy, uroy@uwyo.edu
2 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
volume. Wide lines, in which widths are double those of
typical longitudinal lines, are suggested to be 8 in. or
wider when striped in conjunction with 4 in. lines, and
10 in. or wider when striped in conjunction with 6 in.
lines. Furthermore, NCUTCD recommended that for
expressways and freeways, broken longitudinal lines
should be 15 ft long. The spacing between the lines is
suggested to be 25 ft. Therefore, the combined length of
a broken line segment and spacing would be 40 ft.
With the recommended changes to the MUTCD
made to accommodate machine vision systems discussed,
it is worth exploring pavement marking practices of a
variety of states, especially those which implemented the
suggested pavement marking specifications. With this
aim, Wyoming Technology Transfer Center (WYT2C)
conducted an online nationwide survey at the beginning
of the fall of 2021. The survey was completed by 29
Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and this paper
summarizes the results. The survey was intended to ask
about the state DOTs’ strategic pavement marking man-
agement plans, how the plans were developed, marking
maintenance schedules, marking materials used, chal-
lenges faced, whether NCUTCD’s recommended mark-
ing guidelines were adhered to, and any other critical
information they wished to share. The results of this
study are invaluable and expected to provide stake-
holders with consistent approaches, enhance inventory
managing strategies, and improve field crew efficiencies.
Currently, several state DOTs and local transportation
agencies have multiple pavement marking needs and
desires, and may follow informal and unwritten guidelines;
therefore, systematic managing procedures and approaches
are needed as they are not addressed in a detailed manner
in many of the current manuals or guidelines.
This paper is organized as follows: the first section dis-
cusses existing studies related to pavement marking. In
the subsequent section, the study methodology is dis-
cussed, followed by the analysis of the results. In the final
section, the conclusions are summarized and limitations
and recommendations are proposed.
Literature Review
Pavement marking-based studies are mainly focused in
two directions: developing decay models for pavement
marking retroreflectivity and identifying the relationship
between pavement marking retroreflectivity and road
safety.
In an effort to establish a relationship between pave-
ment marking retroreflectivity and crashes, Smadi et al.
analyzed retroreflectivity data for three cumulative years
collected by Iowa DOT and corresponding crash, road-
way, and traffic data (3). The results of the study showed
a statistically significant negative correlation was found
for records with only low retroreflectivity. Carlson et al.
investigated the relationship between pavement marking
retroreflectivity and crashes using data from Michigan
from 2002 to 2008 (4). The result of the study showed
positive safety effects of maintaining pavement marking
retroreflectivity. In another study, the National
Transportation Product Evaluation Program data were
used to derive mathematical models of retroreflectivity
performance as a function of age, color, marking mate-
rial type, climate region, and amount of snow removal
for state-maintained freeways and highways in California
(5). Masliah et al. used time-series methodology to depict
the relationship between the safety impact of pavement
markings and their retroreflectivity (6). Karwa and
Donnell used artificial neural network to predict pave-
ment marking retroreflectivity as a function of several
variables such as the age of markings, traffic flow, pave-
ment marking type, initial retroreflectivity, and route
location information (7). Bektas et al. developed a series
of negative binomial models to investigate the effects of
segment length, line types, and imputed retroreflectivity
values on pavement marking retroreflectivity and crash
frequency using data from Iowa (8).
An extensive pavement marking study was conducted
by Wehbe et al. for the South Dakota Department of
Transportation (SDDOT) (9). The study was aimed at
assessing the conspicuity, service life, feasibility, and ease
of applying different types of pavement marking paints.
Wehbe et al. suggested that SDDOT implement stringent
protocols for assessing marking thicknesses and retrore-
flective material (M247, P40, Iowa DOT specification,
and Megablend) concentrations (9). Another suggestion
was that pavement marking inspections be conducted on
a regular basis to gauge the degradations of the markings
by region. Parker and Meja conducted a study in New
Jersey by using two types of data: measured retroreflec-
tivity by using Laserlux retroreflectometer and a survey
of the New Jersey driving public (10). These authors con-
cluded that the threshold value for the acceptable retro-
reflectivity level appeared to be in the range of 80 and
130 mcd/m2/lux for drivers under 55 and between 120
and 165 mcd/m2/lux for drivers older than 55 (10).
Choubane et al. presented a description of the pave-
ment marking management system in Florida (1). In this
study, a comprehensive database for the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) was defined and
developed. FDOT developed and adopted detailed pro-
tocols for calibrating the Mobile Retroreflectivity Unit
(MRU) equipment, applying it to collect the retroreflec-
tivity measurements, and processing the data. Data col-
lection quality assurance protocols were being followed
as well. Hand-held devices were occasionally used for
measuring pavement marking retroreflectivity for pur-
poses of constructing new roads and restriping markings.
Roy et al
In Michigan, challenges pertaining to pavement mark-
ing maintenance include cost constraints, weather condi-
tions, and few contractors (11). During the winter,
adverse weather damages the pavement markings and
disrupts maintenance schedules. The application of de-
icing salts disfigures the markings, and snow covers the
markings rendering them invisible. Michigan’s longitudi-
nal pavement marking maintenance strategy is to apply
specific types of marking materials for particular regions
and road segments.
There are many studies in the literature that have
developed pavement marking degradation models. Kopf
developed retroreflectivity degradation curves for road-
way pavement markings in the state of Washington (12).
Hummer et al. developed a decay model for waterborne
paint pavement marking retroreflectivity (13). Hummer
et al. developed a linear mixed-effects model for two-lane
highways in North Carolina (13). In another study in
North Carolina, Craig et al. examined the effect of lat-
eral location on the degradation of retroreflectivity in
thermoplastic pavement markings (14). The results of the
study showed that there was statistical evidence of differ-
ence in the rate of retroreflectivity degradation between
edge lines and center lines for both white and yellow
thermoplastic pavement markings. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) conducted
research to determine a threshold for acceptable retrore-
flectivity (15). Members of the general public drove state
and county roads after dark and were asked to grade the
visibility of edge lines and centerlines. As a result of the
project, MnDOT uses 120 mcd/m2/lux as a pavement
marking management program threshold value.
In an effort to implement a pavement marking man-
agement system, Sasidharan et al. developed a series of
pavement marking degradation models for both water-
borne and epoxy pavement markings in Pennsylvania
(16). Ozelim and Turochy developed linear models to
model the retroreflectivity performance over time for
thermoplastic markings in Alabama conditions (17).
Fares et al. developed pavement marking performance
models which predict the condition of different pavement
marking materials under various traffic and weather con-
ditions, and snow-removal plans (18). Yu et al. used a
linear mixed-effects model for prediction of individual
pavement conditions (19). The Weibull analysis method
was used to model pavement marking retroreflectivity
degradation in Pennsylvania (20). To depict the relation-
ship between striping age and ADT, Abboud and
Bowman developed an exponential regression model
(21). Zhang and Wu used smoothing spline and time-
series methods to predict the service life of a pavement
marking material based on its retroreflectivity (22).
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is only
one survey-based study (23), in which 32 state and local
3
highway agencies participated. Field measurements of
pavement marking retroreflectivity were conducted in the
fall of 1994. Selected sites were re-measured by six of the
participating agencies in the spring of 1995. A compari-
son between two surveys was conducted and statistical
analysis was done.
The literature review above suggests that although
much effort has been made to study pavement marking
and retroreflectivity, there has been no study that reviews
pavement marking management practices of multiple
state DOTs. Therefore, this study aims to fill this knowl-
edge gap by disseminating a survey to state DOTs
nationwide and summarizing the results.
Study Methodology
A survey was disseminated to all state DOTs nationwide
by the WYT2C. The survey had 31 questions associated
with pavement marking striping, pavement marking data
collection, and pavement marking retroreflectivity. Some
29 DOTs responded and the results were summarized.
Each DOT was asked questions related to pavement
marking striping, pavement marking data collection, and
pavement marking retroreflectivity. The participating
state DOTs are Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, California,
Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Michigan, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.
Analysis of Results
The survey questionnaire was classified into three sec-
tions: pavement marking striping, pavement marking
data collection, and pavement marking retroreflectivity.
A few miscellaneous questions were also asked. The
answers were summarized and listed below.
Pavement Marking Striping
In this section, a series of questions related to DOTs’ cri-
teria for selecting a particular pavement marking mate-
rial, frequency of restriping roadway facilities, criteria for
selecting more durable pavement marking material, and
so forth, were asked.
With the wide variety of pavement marking materials
available, choosing the material that best meets the needs
of the public can be a challenge. As shown in Figure 1,
the main criterion for choosing pavement marking mate-
rial selected by DOTs was durability, followed by price,
maintenance costs, and ease of striping. A lot of DOTs
chose multiple criteria when selecting pavement marking
4 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Figure 1. Departments of Transportation criteria for selecting pavement marking material.
materials. A small number of DOTs chose other criteria
such as road classification/road type, history of nighttime
crashes, annual ADT, tracking concerns, project fix type
and length, topography, and snow plowing.
One of the primary objectives of this study is to use
the survey responses gathered from different state DOTs
to propose optimum and recommended pavement mark-
ing materials options based on roadway classifications.
An optimum pavement marking material is referred to
as a cost-effective material that is compatible with the
roadway classifications to provide an appropriate service
life. As part of this study, different material types were
included such as acetone-based paints, epoxy-based
paint, water-based paint, thermoplastic paint, tape (pre-
formed plastic), and others. Thus, DOTs were asked
what type of pavement marking material they used for
different functional roadway classifications. The results
are shown in Figure 2. It can be seen from Figure 2 that
most DOTs used a variety of materials on each roadway
type, but tape was used by more states on rural inter-
states than any other product type, whereas water-based
paint was used by more states on other rural functional
classes. No DOT was found to use acetone-based paints.
However, epoxy-based paint and thermoplastic paint
were also used by a few DOTs for all the functional clas-
sification of roadways. A small number of DOTs as
shown in Figure 2 were found to use other pavement
marking materials such as polyurea, methyl methacry-
late, and sprayable thermoplastic.
Then, DOTs were asked how often they restriped
their roadway facilities. As shown in Figure 3, a few of
the DOTs restriped their road network annually. But a
majority of DOTs restriped their facilities depending on
pavement marking material types and their service life. A
very few DOTs also restriped their roadway facilities
biennially as well. Two DOTs responded that they
restriped their rural interstates semi-annually and only
one DOT restriped their rural principal arterials semi-
annually. Also, a few DOTs restriped rural minor arter-
ials, rural major collectors, and rural minor collectors
once every year and a half.
It is crucial to consider the variability of locations and
conditions of where the pavement marking material is
placed. In this study, three different variables were con-
sidered in the selection of durable pavement marking
material. Those consisted of high-volume roads, high
truck traffic volumes, and roads frequented by snowplow
operations. Figure 4 shows the usage of more durable
pavement marking material for different road condi-
tions. Figure 4a shows that the majority of DOTs used
more durable pavement marking material for high-
volume roads. Out of the 29 DOTs that took part in the
survey, only five DOTs mentioned that they did not use
more durable pavement marking materials for high-
volume roads. Also, more than half of all DOTs that
participated in the survey mentioned that they used more
durable pavement marking materials for roads with high
truck traffic volumes, as shown in Figure 4b. On the
other hand, when DOTs were asked whether they used
more durable pavement marking materials for roads fre-
quented by snowplow operations, a total of 14 DOTs
mentioned that they did whereas the rest did not. A few
DOTs which participated in the survey did not have
severe winter weather conditions, thus they did not have
roads frequented by snowplow operations.
Next, we investigated whether the DOTs implemented
pavement markings that accommodated vehicles with
machine vision technologies; a total of 12 DOTs
responded that they did whereas 17 of the DOTs that
took part in the survey mentioned that they did not.
Many DOTs mentioned that they used supplementary
black pavement markings to enhance the pavement
markings’ visibility by providing sufficient contrast. As
shown in Figure 5b, only five participating DOTs did
Roy et al 5

Figure 2. Pavement marking material used by different Departments of Transportation for different facilities.

Figure 3. Frequency of restriping roadway facilities by different Departments of Transportation.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4. Usage of more durable pavement marking material by different Departments of Transportation: (a) high-volume roads, (b) high
truck traffic volumes, and (c) roads frequented by snowplow operations.
6 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5. Usage of pavement markings in different scenarios: (a) pavement markings accommodating vehicles with machine vision
technologies, (b) usage of black pavement markings, and (c) pavement marking management database.

Figure 6. Frequency of collecting pavement marking quality data by different Departments of Transportation.

not use supplementary black pavement markings. Also,
only eight DOTs responded positively when they were
asked whether they had a fully fledged pavement mark-
ing management database accessible by its personnel that
was updated on a regular basis. A fully fledged pavement
marking management system database will allow DOTs
to store, manage, and manipulate data for evaluating the
performance of pavement markings.
Pavement Marking Data Collection
This section included a series of questions to identify how
frequently different agencies collected pavement marking
quality data for different functional classifications of
roadways. Quality data here refers to the condition of
pavement markings as established in the field based on
visual inspection. Several DOT personnel do this without
utilizing any instruments to determine when to restripe.
Also, a few questions were asked to determine whether
agencies collected data for both travel directions of roads
and whether the agencies measured the skid resistance of
pavement markings.
First, DOTs were also asked how often they collected
pavement marking quality data for different functional
classifications of roads. As shown in Figure 6, a majority
of DOTs collected data once a year for all functional
classifications of roads. Also, some DOTs responded
that they collected data as needed, such as after installa-
tion, within 3 weeks of roadway being painted, and so
forth. Eight among the 29 DOTs that participated in the
survey mentioned that they did not collect data at all for
any roadway functional classifications. Also noted, a few
DOTs were found to collect pavement marking quality
data both once a year and whenever needed.
DOTs were also asked whether they collected data for
both travel directions of roads. It can be seen from
Figure 7a that 18 DOTs responded positively whereas 11
DOTs mentioned that they did not collect data for both
travel directions of roads. It was also investigated
whether DOTs measured the skid resistance of pavement
Roy et al
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Pavement marking data collection by different
Departments of Transportation: (a) for both travel directions of
the road and (b) skid resistance of pavement marking.
Figure 8. Type of retroreflectometer used by different
Departments of Transportation.
markings. Only Indiana DOT stated that they did mea-
sure skid resistance of pavement markings, whereas the
rest of the DOTs did not.
Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
Transportation agencies are encouraged to specify and
maintain adequate pavement marking retroreflectivity.
Generally, to increase retroreflectivity, state DOTs
restripe road lines using glass beads or other materials
that have higher initial retroreflectivity. Determining
when to restripe lines, especially for agencies with limited
budgets, can be tricky, and each state DOT approaches
it differently. This section evaluated pavement marking
retroreflectivity-related questions. Specifically, questions
were asked to determine what kind of retroreflectometer
different DOTs implemented, criteria for collecting pave-
ment marking retroreflectivity data, and the minimum
threshold different DOTs maintained below which
7
maintenance was warranted. Not all DOTs responded to
all the questions in this section if they were not
applicable.
DOTs were asked whether they used hand-held, vehi-
cle-mounted, or other retroreflectometer. As shown in
Figure 8, a majority of DOTs used hand-held retrore-
flectometers, whereas 15 among 29 DOTs used vehicle-
mounted retroreflectometers. A few DOTs mentioned
that they implemented both hand-held and vehicle-
mounted retroreflectometers. Two DOTs chose other,
which they considered as hand-held for occasional data
collection and mobile retroreflectometer for projects on
the interstate loop. Time of collecting pavement marking
retroreflectivity data was also investigated with an aim
to determine whether time of day was considered when
collecting data. The intention of this part of the survey
was also to help WYDOT develop a data collection pro-
tocol. Therefore, what other states were doing in regard
to retroreflectivity data collection was worth investigat-
ing. When the time of collecting pavement marking ret-
roreflectivity data was examined, four DOTs stated that
they collected data once in the morning, three DOTs
indicated that they collected data once at midday and an
additional three DOTs mentioned that they collected
data once in the afternoon. A majority of DOTs col-
lected pavement marking retroreflectivity data as needed,
as shown in Figure 9.
Based on the previous results, it is clear that most
DOTs collect data once a year or as needed for various
functional classifications. In addition, the majority of
DOTs collect data for both travel directions. Moreover,
a hand-held retroreflectometer is the main device used by
state DOTs to measure retroreflectivity. However, it is
recommended that state DOTs should implement the
vehicle-mounted retroreflectometer, as it has several ben-
efits over the hand-held. A vehicle-mounted retroreflect-
ometer can carry out more comprehensive surveys across
the full roadway lane widths and at all traffic speeds.
We also investigated how pavement marking retrore-
flectivity data were collected in different scenarios.
Retroreflectivity is normally measured with instruments
such as hand-held or MRU. As shown in Table 1, 10
DOTs collected pavement marking retroreflectivity data
immediately after applying markings. When DOTs were
asked whether they collected pavement marking retrore-
flectivity data for both travel directions of roads, a total
of 17 DOTs responded positively, whereas only six DOTs
stated that they did not collect pavement marking retro-
reflectivity data for both travel directions of roads. Only
North Dakota DOT responded that they collected night-
time pavement marking retroreflectivity data during wet
conditions. Also, when DOTs were asked whether they
collected pavement marking retroreflectivity data for
roads with higher traffic volume, only North Carolina
8 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Figure 9. Time of collecting pavement marking retroreflectivity data.

Figure 10. Development of performance curves by different Departments of Transportation.

Table 1. Collection of Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity Data in Different Scenarios

Scenarios No. of DOTs with positive response No. of DOTs with negative response

Immediately after applying markings 10 16

For both travel directions of roads
Nighttime data during wet conditions
For roads with higher traffic volumes
For roads with higher truck traffic volumes
For roads with frequent snowplow operations
17 6
1 24
1 17
0 18
0 18

mentioned that they did, whereas 17 DOTs did not. No
DOT was found to collect pavement marking retrore-
flectivity data for roads with higher truck traffic
volumes. Also, 18 DOTs stated that they did not collect
pavement marking retroreflectivity data for roads with
frequent snowplow operations. As shown in Figure 10,
only four state DOTs (North Carolina, Kentucky,
Georgia, and Missouri) mentioned that they developed
performance curves based on the collected retroreflec-
tivity data.
Finally, DOTs were asked what the minimum pave-
ment marking retroreflectivity levels were below which
maintenance was warranted assuming neither street
lighting nor raised pavement markers were present. As
shown in Figure 11, a majority of DOTs responded that
they did not provide maintenance of pavement marking
based on retroreflectivity values. Two DOTs had thresh-
old values of 100 mcd/m2/lux for white lines. A minimum
threshold value of 150 mcd/m2/lux was selected for yel-
low lines by six DOTs. One DOT responded that they
had a threshold value of 250 mcd/m2/lux for both white
and yellow lines. A few DOTs also responded with dif-
ferent threshold values for white and yellow lines, which
are indicated as other in the figure. For example, one
DOT mentioned that the threshold retroreflectivity value
for restriping white lines was 130 mcd/m2/lux, whereas
Roy et al
Figure 11. Minimum retroreflectivity levels below which maintenance is warranted.
another DOT mentioned that the threshold value for the
white line was 375 mcd/m2/lux.
Miscellaneous Questions
DOTs were asked how their pavement marking manage-
ment practices differ by roadway surface type. We
received responses from 21 DOTs. Of those 21 DOTs,
five DOTs mentioned that there was no difference. A
few DOTs mentioned that they provided higher-quality
and durable markings on a pavement with a longer
expected lifespan or on higher ADT routes. A few other
DOTs responded that they applied thicker rates of paint
on chip seals. Another DOT mentioned that they applied
two coats of paint separated by a month for low-volume
roads, whereas for higher-volume roads they applied two
coats of higher-type liquid markings. ‘‘Higher-type liquid
markings’’ refers to epoxy-based paint. Some DOTs used
higher-quality markings or epoxy on concrete surfaces so
that they lasted longer. Also, one DOT mentioned that
on interstates and toll roads, asphalt pavements were
painted with thermoplastic and concrete pavement with
tape. Waterborne paints for deteriorated edge conditions
were also selected by one DOT.
To maintain the visibility and durability of pavement
markings that were covered by crack seals, different
DOTs were found to implement different practices. For
example, a few DOTs responded that they would restripe
if there was enough damage to the marking. Another
DOT stated that they restriped through maintenance
operations the following year unless crack sealing
resulted in extremely compromised markings. In that
case, they tried to restripe immediately. Some DOTs
indicated that they did not experience a significant loss
of marking visibility as a result of crack seals. A few
DOTs also mentioned that they did not have a separate
9
maintenance operation plan for pavement markings that
are covered by crack seals.
Pavement Marking Management Plan
It was also the intention of the study to identify pave-
ment marking maintenance practices of different state
DOTs. Only a few DOTs have developed pavement
marking management plans. For example, MnDOT pub-
lished a technical memorandum the purpose of which is
to provide a consistent statewide approach for pavement
marking operations on state trunk highways (24). The
technical memorandum provided guidance on material
usage for final pavement markings. The minimum retro-
reflectivity adopted by MnDOT is 100 mcd/m2/lux for
white and yellow lines. These minimum retroreflectivity
values are used by MnDOT to schedule maintenance or
replacement of all pavement marking installations.
Districts use expected life of pavement markings and a
visual inspection to determine whether maintenance or
replacement is necessary when retroreflectivity data are
not available. To increase the life expectancy of the
markings, various recessing techniques such as grooving,
inlaying, installing in a sinusoidal rumble strip, and
slightly raising the traveled lanes are used. MnDOT use
wet reflective and wet recoverable products to improve
the visibility of markings in adverse conditions. When
markings reach the minimum performance levels and are
scheduled to be replaced by maintenance, it is recom-
mended that the materials used are based on remaining
life of the pavement surface (24).
Oregon DOT (ODOT) developed a pavement mark-
ing plan which includes all pavement markings along
with other relevant information such as the edge of pave-
ment or curb line, centerlines with stationing when avail-
able, driveways, sidewalk, sidewalk ramps, highway/
10
street names, north arrow, and other features. A pave-
ment marking plan should include (25):
 Location of all longitudinal and transverse pave-
ment markings.
 Bubbles and leaders for each installed, removed,
or retained item.
 Definition of bubbles, if not shown on a pavement
marking details sheet.
 General notes, if not shown on a pavement mark-
ing details sheet.
During the initial stages of the pavement marking design,
ODOT takes care of the items listed as follows (25):
 Review and become familiar with the current
ODOT traffic line manual.
 Review the technical directives, bulletins, and
advisories website before each project to ensure
that the most current design guidance is used.
 A copy of signed approval letters from the state
traffic engineer or region traffic engineer for any
pavement marking design elements that require
approval.
 Refer to the ODOT traffic line manual and the
ODOT traffic manual for detailed information in
relation to delegated authority and design ele-
ments requiring approval.
Coordination with other disciplines is required through-
out the design process. Pavement marking design is
unique from most other technical disciplines in that two
separate disciplines typically produce pavement marking
plans (25):
 A roadway designed producing pavement marking
plans needs to coordinate with the signing and sig-
nals designers.
 A traffic designer producing pavement marking
plans needs to coordinate with the roadway, sign-
ing, and signal designers.
To assess pavement marking continuously at highway
speeds, FDOT focused on using mobile technology for
measuring retroreflectivity. This has allowed FDOT to
develop a pavement marking management system
(PMMS) including documentation, quality assurance
procedures, and a database. The primary objective of the
PMMS was to evaluate and manage statewide pavement
marking retroreflectivity in a timely and cost-effective
manner (1). A comprehensive PMMS database was also
developed by FDOT to store and display pavement
marking data. The PMMS provided quality data to the
state of Florida for pavement marking performance
Transportation Research Record 00(0)
evaluation and management. The data collected through
PMMS will be helpful in analyzing the long-term perfor-
mance of pavement marking materials and informing
best practices for pavement marking management.
Holzschuher et al. conducted a study to assess the MRU
precision in repeatability for pavement marking retrore-
flectivity (26). The study analyzed the data at six desig-
nated test locations of Florida to determine the pavement
marking characteristics for retroreflectivity at 80 km/h
(50 mph). The results of the study indicated that retrore-
flectivity on the same pavement marking test section
should not differ by more than 20.1 mcd/m2/lux if same
MRU were used. In another study in Florida (27), the
precision and bias of the MRU were assessed using the
hand-held retroreflectometer as a reference device. For
this study, 10 test sections with various pavement surface
types and pavement marking materials were selected. The
analysis of the results showed that MRU produced simi-
lar retroreflectance measurements as the hand-held
retroreflectometer.
Iowa DOT also developed a pavement marking man-
agement plan with an aim to fulfill the following objec-
tives (28):
 Providing information to allow effective selection
and design of future installation projects,
 Estimating future conditions versus funding sce-
narios accurately to evaluate current pavement
marking funding strategies, and
 Displaying analysis results in understandable for-
mats to allow Iowa DOT executive staff to easily
interpret the information.
The goal of the pavement marking management pro-
gram is to maintain existing pavement markings through
timely installation and limit the pavement markings
reaching ‘‘Poor/unacceptable’’ conditions.
To establish a policy for the selection of pavement
marking material, use of warranty-based pavement
marking material, and the minimum retroreflectivity of
pavement markings, California DOT (Caltrans) pub-
lished a memo. Caltrans recognizes the potential cost-
effectiveness and safety enhancement of warranty-based
pavement markings on a system-wide basis. It is the idea
to use durable pavement marking material such as per-
manent tape, methyl methacrylate, and enhanced wet-
night visibility thermoplastic traffic striping during the
pavement marking selection process. The selection
should be based on estimated remaining pavement ser-
vice life, pavement type, climate resulting from elevation
of roadway, location, expected performance of the strip-
ing material, and cost. Caltrans is adopting the policy to
require a minimum retained retroreflectivity level of
150 mcd/m2/ls for white and yellow on all traffic striping
Roy et al
and pavement marking material for use on the State
Highway System.
To provide information and instruction on the depart-
ment’s statewide pavement marking program,
Pennsylvania DOT published a handbook (29). The
handbook provided information and instruction on the
department’s statewide pavement marking program. The
handbook also contains current policies applicable to
pavement markings. There are two district-wide marking
programs: one for the truck-mounted paint machine and
the other for the small paint machine. Several factors
affect the life expectancies of pavement markings such as
the number of winter aggregates used, snow plowing,
traffic volumes, locations of markings, material formula-
tions, and so forth. Priorities are given to the types of
highways to be painted as well as maintenance and con-
struction projects during scheduling. The annual work
plan should consist of separate listings, by county, of
roadways to be painted by month during the painting
season. The primary responsibility for the pavement
marking program has been assigned to the Assistant
District Executive-Maintenance and/or Service.
Pavement marking materials are purchased from annual
contracts obtained for the DOT by the Department of
General Services. Each contract specifies minimum ship-
ments, order dates, and delivery dates. Each district has
copies of the contracts. The truck-mounted paint
machine program places longitudinal retroreflective traf-
fic lines on state highways with machines equipped to
place rapid dry paint.
Conclusions
In this paper, a comprehensive literature review about
pavement marking practices was presented. In addition,
pavement marking management practices survey results
from 29 state DOTs were summarized. Transportation
agencies nationwide will have information in relation to
pavement marking management practices, pavement
marking retroreflectivity data collection, analyzing mark-
ing retroreflectivity data, and developing a strategic long-
term pavement marking management plan from the find-
ings of this survey. The responses of the survey can be
summarized as follows:
 A majority of DOTs selected durability as the
main criterion for choosing pavement marking
material. Some other criteria which were chosen
by a few DOTs were price, ease of striping, main-
tenance costs, and so forth. It was also found that
the majority of DOTs used tape for rural inter-
states, whereas water-based paints were used for
all other facilities.
11
 A significant number of DOTs indicated that they
restriped their roadway facilities annually. But the
main criteria to restripe the roadway facilities were
chosen by DOTs as marking material type and
their service life.
 Among the 29 DOTs that responded to the survey,
24 mentioned that they used more durable pave-
ment marking materials for high-volume roads,
whereas 17 DOTs used more durable pavement
marking materials for roads with high truck traffic
volumes. To enhance the pavement marking’s visi-
bility, 24 DOTs mentioned that they used black
pavement markings. More than half of the DOTs
that responded to the survey mentioned that they
did not have pavement markings accommodating
vehicles with machine vision technologies. Also,
only eight participating DOTs had a fully fledged
pavement marking management database.
 Different pavement marking data collection stra-
tegies were also investigated. A majority of DOTs
collected pavement marking quality data once a
year. It was found that a few DOTs do not collect
pavement marking data for any roadway func-
tional classifications. Some DOTs, on the other
hand, collected data as needed. Interestingly, only
Indiana DOT was found to measure the skid resis-
tance of pavement markings.
 Pavement marking retroreflectivity data-related
questions were also asked. Although a majority of
DOTs implemented hand-held retroreflectometers,
15 DOTs implemented a vehicle-mounted retrore-
flectometer. In addition, two DOTs stated that
they used hand-held or mobile retroreflectometers
for occasional data collection. Most of the DOTs
collected retroreflectivity data as needed.
 When the collection of pavement marking retrore-
flectivity data in different scenarios was examined,
it was found that only 10 participating DOTs col-
lected retroreflectivity data immediately after apply-
ing markings, 17 DOTs collected retroreflectivity
data for both travel directions of roads, and only
North Dakota collected nighttime pavement mark-
ing retroreflectivity data during wet conditions.
 When investigating whether the DOTs have devel-
oped pavement marking management plans, it
was found that very few DOTs have such plans.
Florida, Oregon, and Iowa DOTs have dedicated
pavement marking management plans. Apart
from them, Caltrans and MnDOT published a
memo and a technical memorandum respectively.
Pennsylvania DOT also published a handbook
that provided information and instruction on the
department’s statewide pavement marking pro-
gram. The rest of the DOTs that responded to the
12
survey do not have dedicated pavement marking
management plans.
As marking specifications are currently being updated
with the advent of advanced automobile technologies
that have machine vision systems, it was necessary to
investigate current marking specifications adopted by
state DOTs nationwide. The results of this study will
therefore lay a foundation for developing a fully fledged
PMMS that takes into account budget, labor resources,
and the newly suggested marking specifications.
Limitations and Recommendations
Although the survey questionnaire addresses the most
important issues related to pavement marking practices,
several other aspects, such as budget for maintenance of
pavement markings and who collects data for pavement
marking, were not investigated and should be addressed
in future studies. Based on the results of the study, the
following recommendations could be proposed for prac-
titioners to follow: pavement marking data should be
imported into a GIS database and pavement marking
management plan should be developed. Creating pave-
ment marking degradation models considering several
factors such as annual ADT, snowplow operations,
marking color and type, and any other factors could help
in developing maintenance schedules. Also, establishing
performance-based level of service increments using the
proposed minimum standards and the degradation rates
established from the degradation model could be
proposed.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge all state DOTs that
responded to the survey. The authors also appreciate the help
from Dr. Ahmed Farid in developing a survey questionnaire
for this study.
Copyright Ó 2022. All rights reserved, the State of Wyoming,
Wyoming Department of Transportation
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows:
study conception and design: U. Roy, O. Albatayneh, and
K. Ksaibati, data collection: U. Roy, O. Albatayneh, and K.
Ksaibati, analysis and interpretation of results: U. Roy and K.
Ksaibati; draft manuscript preparation: U. Roy, O.
Albatayneh, and K. Ksaibati. All authors reviewed the results
and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The authors will like to acknowledge that this work is
part of project #RS06221 funded by the Wyoming Department
of Transportation (WYDOT). All figures, tables, and equations
listed in this paper will be included in a WYDOT final report
at the conclusion of this study. Matching fund for this study
was secured from the Mountain Plains Consortium.
ORCID iDs
Uttara Roy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3564-9793
Omar Albatayneh https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4504-7286
Khaled Ksaibati https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9241-1792
References
1. Choubane, B., J. Sevearance, C. Holzschuher, J. Fletcher,
and C. Wang. Development and Implementation of a
Pavement Marking Management System in Florida. Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2018. 2672: 209–219.
2. National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Proposal for Changes to the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. 19B-MKG-02. National Committee on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Sun City West, AZ,
2020. https://ncutcd.org/wp-content/uploads/meetings/2020A/
04.19B-MKG-02.LineWidthforCAV.pdfAccessed April 1,
2020.
3. Smadi, O., R. R. Souleyrette, D. J. Ormand, and N. Haw-
kins. Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity: Analysis of
Safety Effectiveness. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2008. 2056:
17–24.
4. Carlson, P. J., E. S. Park, and D. H. Kang. Investigation
of Longitudinal Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity and
Safety. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2013. 2337: 59–66.
5. Bahar, G., M. Masliah, T. Erwin, and E. Tan. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Web-Only Docu-
ment 92: Pavement Marking Materials and Markers: Real-
World Relationship Between Retroreflectivity and Safety
Over Time. National Cooperative Highway Research Pro-
gram Synthesis of Highway Practice 291. National Coop-
erative Highway Research Program, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2006.
6. Masliah, M., G. Bahar, and E. Hauer. Application of
Innovative Time Series Methodology to Relationship
Between Retroreflectivity of Pavement Markings and
Crashes. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2007. 2019: 119–126.
7. Karwa, V., and E. T. Donnell. Predicting Pavement Mark-
ing Retroreflectivity Using Artificial Neural Networks:
Exploratory Analysis. Journal of Transportation Engineer-
ing, Vol. 137, No. 2, 2011, pp. 91–103. https://doi.org/
10.1061.
Roy et al
8. Bektas, B. A., K. Gkritza, and O. Smadi. Pavement Mark-
ing Retroreflectivity and Crash Frequency: Segmentation,
Line Type, and Imputation Effects. Journal of Transporta-
tion Engineering, Vol. 142, No. 8, 2016, p. 04016030.
https://doi.org/10.1061.
9. Wehbe, N., A. Jones, and T. Druyvestein. Mountain Plains
Consortium 17-341: Optimization of Pavement Marking
Performance. Mountain Plains Consortium, Fargo, ND,
2017.
10. Parker, N. A., and M. S. Meja. Evaluation of Performance
of Permanent Pavement Markings. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2003. 1824: 123–132.
11. Dwyer, C., C. Satterfield, and C. Holzschuher. Pavement
Marking Maintenance: Proposed Standards and Practices.-
Transportation Research Board, 2018. https://onlinepubs.
trb.org/onlinepubs/webinars/180329.pdf
12. Kopf, J. Reflectivity of Pavement Markings: Analysis of
Retroreflectivity Degradation Curves. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington State Department of Trans-
portation, 2004.
13. Hummer, J. E., W. Rasdorf, and G. Zhang. Linear Mixed-
Effects Models for Paint Pavement-Marking Retroreflec-
tivity Data. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol.
137, No. 10, 2011, pp. 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000283.
14. Craig, W. N. III, W. E. Sitzabee, W. J. Rasdorf, and J. E.
Hummer. Statistical Validation of the Effect of Lateral
Line Location on Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity
Degradation. Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 12,
No. 2, 2007, pp. 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1087724X07308773
15. Loetterle, F. E., R.A. Beck, and J. Carlson. Public Percep-
tion of Pavement-Marking Brightness. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2000. 1715: 51–59.
16. Sasidharan, L., V. Karwa, and E. T. Donnell. Use of Pave-
ment Marking Degradation Models to Develop a Pave-
ment Marking Management System. Public Works
Management & Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2009, pp. 148–173.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X09349513
17. Ozelim, L., and R. E. Turochy. Modeling Retroreflectivity
Performance of Thermoplastic Pavement Markings in Ala-
bama. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 140, No.
6, 2014, p. 05014001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.
1943-5436.0000661.
18. Fares, H., K. Shahata, E. Elwakil, A. Eweda, T. Zayed,
M. Abdelrahman, and I. Basha. Modelling the Perfor-
mance of Pavement Marking in Cold Weather Conditions.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 11,
13
2012, pp. 1067–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.
2010.504212.
19. Yu, J., E. Y. Chou, and Z. Luo. Development of Linear
Mixed Effects Models for Predicting Individual Pavement
Conditions. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol.
133, No. 6, 2007, pp. 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-947X(2007)133:6(347).
20. Sathyanarayanan, S., V. Shankar, and E. T. Donnell. Pave-
ment Marking Retroreflectivity Inspection Data: A Wei-
bull Analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, 2008. 2055: 63–70.
21. Abboud, N., and B. L. Bowman. Cost-and Longevity-
Based Scheduling of Paint and Thermoplastic Striping.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, 2002. 1794: 55–62.
22. Zhang, Y., and D. Wu. Methodologies to Predict Service
Lives of Pavement Marking Materials. Journal of the
Transportation Research Forum, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2010,
pp. 5–18.
23. Migletz, J., J. L. Graham, K. M. Bauer, and D. W. Har-
wood. Field Surveys of Pavement-Marking Retroreflectiv-
ity. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 1999. 1657: 71–78.
24. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Technical Mem-
orandum. Traffic Engineering, 2019. https://www.dot.state.
mn.us/trafficeng/publ/techmemo.html
25. Oregon Department of Transportation. Pavement Marking
Design Guidelines: Delivery and Operations Division -
Traffic-Roadway Section. 2022. https://www.oregon.gov/
odot/Engineering/Documents_TrafficStandards/Pavement-
Marking-Design-Guide.pdf
26. Holzschuher, C., B. Choubane, J. Fletcher, J. Sevearance,
and H. S. Lee. Repeatability of Mobile Retroreflectometer
Unit for Measurement of Pavement Markings. Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2010. 2169: 95–106.
27. Choubane, B., J. Sevearance, H. S. Lee, P. Upshaw, and J.
Fletcher. Repeatability and Reproducibility of Mobile Ret-
roreflectivity Units for Measurement of Pavement Mark-
ings. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2013. 2337: 74–82.
28. Sassani, A., O. Smadi, and N. Hawkins. Developing Pave-
ment Marking Management Systems: A Theoretical Model
Framework Based on the Experiences of the US Transpor-
tation Agencies. Infrastructures, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2021, p. 18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6020018
29. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. PennDOT
Pavement Marking Handbook. Publication 648 (6–17).
2017. https://www.penndot.gov/Pages/default.aspx