Art 8 of the Fedro Ordinance on Road Traffic Controls

Frequently Asked Questions - Role iii - Markings

The following alphabetical list of questions relates to the MUTCD Part 3 - Markings:

• Centerlines
• Colored Pavement
• Crosswalks
• Dissimilarity Striping
• Longitudinal Markings
• Passing Sight Distance
• Retroreflectivity
• Rumble Strips
• Finish / Yield Lines
• Symbols

Centerlines

1. Why can't a single solid yellow center line be used on a roadway open to public travel?
2. Is information technology illegal to cross a double yellow centerline on a route when making a left turn into a private driveway?
3. My agency is considering using internally-illuminated raised pavement markers (IIRPM) to supplement centre line and lane line markings through a peculiarly astringent horizontal curve to help route users navigate the bend. Is it allowable to wink those IIRPMs when approaching vehicles exceed a given speed threshold?
4. Given the answer to the previous question, could my bureau set up the IIRPMs to be ordinarily "off" and only turn them on (in a steadily-illuminated mode) for a certain number of seconds when a vehicle is detected approaching the bend?

Colored Pavement

1. What are the approved uses for red-colored pavement?
2. What are the canonical uses of green-colored pavement?
3. What are the canonical uses of purple-colored pavement?
4. Does the MUTCD allow intersection murals or widespread application of artwork to the street?

Crosswalks

1. What are the warrants for installing a marked crosswalk at a midblock location?
2. Tin can I put whatsoever design or collection of art treatments in a crosswalk as long as the transverse white lines are present?
3. My city is trying to make the downtown area more than aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian-friendly. We are installing brick sidewalks, benches, trees, and other "streetscaping" features along the business concern district streets. Every bit part of the project, we plan to install brick pavers or other similar treatments to serve every bit the crosswalks at intersections. Can this blazon of crosswalk meet the MUTCD requirements?
4. I've heard nigh a crosswalk design that simulates three-dimensional (3-D) objects in the roadway. Is such a concept compliant with the MUTCD?

Dissimilarity Striping

1. When black markings are used to provide enhanced dissimilarity for white or yellow pavement markings, what widths and patterns of black markings should be used?

Longitudinal Markings

1. Does a solid white lane line prohibit crossing to change lanes?
2. Why does the MUTCD recommend a 3:ane ratio for gap length and skip length for a broken lane line? What research is this based on?
3. Why doesn't the MUTCD provide for a dotted lane line, rather than a normal broken lane line, on the arroyo to a lane-reduction transition? Isn't this another example of a "non-continuing lane" that would be appropriate for use of a dotted lane line?

Passing Sight Distance

1. What are the minimum passing sight distances for no-passing zone markings in Table 3B-ane in the MUTCD based on? Where did they come from?
2. Why practise the MUTCD and the AASHTO Green Book accept unlike values for passing sight distance?

Retroreflectivity

1. I noticed that Section 3A.03 in the 2009 MUTCD is reserved for future minimum levels of pavement mark retroreflectivity. What is the status of pavement marking retroreflectivity?

Rumble Strips

1. Are rumble strips considered traffic control devices and, if so, does the MUTCD govern their blueprint, spacing, etc.?

End / Yield Lines

1. Does the MUTCD let the stop line (or yield line) to be "staggered" by lane? That is, tin the stop line for the right lane be closer to the intersection than the stop line for the other lanes on an arroyo?
2. Is it mandatory that a terminate line be used with all Finish signs and traffic signals?
3. Can a terminate line be used in accelerate of a midblock crosswalk to testify vehicles where to stop for a pedestrian?

Symbols

1. My agency wishes to utilise an alternative symbol for the International Symbol of Accessibility. Does the MUTCD allow this alternative symbol?

---

Part 3 - Markings: Frequently Asked Questions

Centerlines

1. Q: Why tin can't a unmarried solid yellow heart line exist used on a roadway open to public travel?

A: A single solid yellow centerline for bi-directional traffic does not have whatsoever legal definition and introduces ambiguity to the motorist. The practise to provide a unmarried solid yellow centerline on rural roads, residential streets or narrow roadways is non appropriate and the additional pocket-sized price of a second longitudinal line instead of one is not a valid justification for compromising any legal code associated with traffic operations or traffic command devices. Further, private State laws may define the legal connotation of the single solid xanthous line, only these legal definitions vary from state to country thereby resulting in non-uniformity nationwide.

The FHWA is not enlightened of any association where a single solid yellowish centerline indicates any consistent procedure, enforcement, or achieves positive results in any specific motorist beliefs. In fact, the traveling public consistently demonstrates that the single solid yellowish centerline does not communicate adequately in terms of whether passing is immune or prohibited in one or both directions.

The double xanthous centerline arrangement is well established and collectively understood past road users. Using a single yellow eye line would merely salvage vi-eight inches in width compared to a double line and, even on narrow roads, this savings is not considered to exist significant enough to warrant compromising the well-understood double-line organization.

Render to Summit

2. Q: Is it illegal to cantankerous a double yellowish centerline on a road when making a left turn into a private driveway?

A: Usually this is not illegal, but it is necessary to bank check individual State and/or local laws to be certain. The MUTCD calls for "two-direction no-passing zone" centerline markings to divide opposing directions of traffic on undivided multilane roads. That is, the double yellow line separates the opposing flows and prohibits travel to the left of the centerline for "passing" (i.e., overtaking a slower moving vehicle) in either management. The text in the MUTCD does not in itself prevent left turns into driveways. That is an issue that can vary from state to state.

The Uniform Vehicle Code, which is a model for State and local traffic ordinances that is published by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (www.ncutlo.org), states in department 11-301(c) that on whatsoever two-way roadway having four or more lanes of moving traffic no vehicle shall exist driven to the left of the centerline, and "this shall not be construed as prohibiting the crossing of the centerline in making a left turn into or from an aisle, individual road, or driveway." Nigh States have patterned their laws on the Uniform Vehicle Code but at that place are a very few States and/or local jurisdictions whose traffic laws or ordinances make it illegal to make a left turn beyond any double yellow line into a driveway. Also, Land laws often prescribe certain conditions, such every bit obstacle of lanes, in which it is legal to drive to the left of the centerline.

Render to Elevation

3. Q: My agency is considering using internally-illuminated raised pavement markers (IIRPM) to supplement eye line and lane line markings through a particularly astringent horizontal curve to assistance route users navigate the curve. Is it allowable to flash those IIRPMs when budgeted vehicles exceed a given speed threshold?

A: No, not without FHWA granting experimentation approval under the provisions of Section 1A.10. That is because Section 3B.11 states that, when used, IIRPM shall be steadily illuminated and shall not be flashed. Such markers, when flashed, are considered In-Roadway Alarm Lights and are governed past the provisions of Affiliate 4N, which limits the utilise of such flashing devices to crosswalks beyond uncontrolled approaches.

Return to Top

4. Q: Given the answer to the previous question, could my agency set up the IIRPMs to be normally "off" and only turn them on (in a steadily-illuminated mode) for a sure number of seconds when a vehicle is detected approaching the curve?

A: Aye. There is no requirement in the MUTCD that IIRPMs must be "on" at all times. Turning them on only when "needed" (i.eastward., when vehicles are present) is consequent with MUTCD basic principles.

Return to Summit

Colored Pavement

1. Q: What are the approved uses for red-colored pavement?

A: In that location is none. Ruby-red-colored pavement for use every bit a traffic control device is not permitted. This is provided in Paragraph 3 of Section 3G.01. Cerise bricks or stamped red pavers in a crosswalk is an artful handling and is not a traffic command device.

Red-colored pavement may exist used merely with FHWA granting experimentation approval under the provisions of Section 1A.10.

Return to Summit

2. Q: What are the approved uses of dark-green-colored pavement?

A: Greenish-colored pavement is only approved for use in bicycle lanes in accordance with Interim Approval 14, and is not approved for full general apply in whatsoever bicycle facility. Employ of light-green-colored pavement for other bike facilities other than wheel lanes may exist used simply with FHWA granting experimentation approval under the provisions of Section 1A.10. More information is provided here.

Agencies sometimes use green-colored pavement to supplement, fill in, or outline parking areas or parking stalls for electric vehicle charging stations in society to express the agency'south commitment to environmentally friendly initiatives. This do is not in compliance with Interim Approval fourteen and the FHWA is non considering this culling use of green-colored pavement for experimentation. Although the applicability of the MUTCD may be express in sure settings involving parking stalls, agencies are encouraged to adhere to the MUTCD with respect to disallowing green-colored pavement in parking facilities for the purpose of maintaining uniformity amongst like facilities.

Render to Elevation

3. Q: What are the approved uses of purple-colored pavement?

A: There is none. Purple as a colored pavement may also not be used on a toll facility in accordance with Paragraph 3 of Section 3G.01. Purple may be used as a longitudinal marking to flank a longitudinal lane line as provided in Paragraphs 5 and 6 in Section 3G.01.

Purple-colored pavement may be used only with FHWA granting experimentation approval under the provisions of Department 1A.ten.

Return to Top

4. Q: Does the MUTCD allow intersection murals or widespread application of artwork to the street?

A: Exclusive of a crosswalk that may be present, intersection murals and street artwork are non traffic command devices and the MUTCD most likely does not straight apply. Intersection murals and street artwork then go a correct-of-way upshot. Paragraph (b) of 23 CFR ane.23 provides that all property within the right-of-way boundaries shall exist devoted exclusively to public highway purposes. Intersection murals and street artwork have a potential to compromise motorist condom by interfering with, detracting from, or obscuring official traffic control devices. They can also encourage road users—especially bicycles and pedestrians—to directly participate in the pattern, loiter in the street, or requite reason to non vacate the street in an expedient or anticipated way. For these reasons, exceptions for intersection murals and street art are non made in accordance with Paragraph (c) of 23 CFR 1.23.

By practices of intersection murals and street art accept compromised the veracity of the crosswalk. The crosswalk is a traffic control device and is under the potency of the MUTCD. Guidance for aesthetic treatments in crosswalks is provided hither. Discussion in the memo on the potential of crosswalk art equally a source of distraction could be coordinating to intersection art and street murals.

Return to Top

Crosswalks

1. Q: What are the warrants for installing a marked crosswalk at a midblock location?

A: Section 3B.18 of the 2009 MUTCD states: "Crosswalk lines should non be used indiscriminately. An engineering science study should be performed before they are installed at locations away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a Terminate or YIELD sign" and it describes the factors that should be considered in the report. Section 3B.xviii also gives very specific guidance most where a new crosswalk should not be installed across an uncontrolled arroyo on roads with 4 or more lanes and speeds of over forty mph without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, heighten driver sensation of the crossing, and/or provide active alarm of pedestrian presence. This guidance is based on a report performed for FHWA in 2002 by Zegeer, Stewart, and Huang entitled "Prophylactic Furnishings of Marked vs Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines", which may be viewed and downloaded at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/cros.pdf.

Render to Top

2. Q: Can I put any design or collection of fine art treatments in a crosswalk every bit long as the transverse white lines are nowadays?

A: No. The FHWA has consistently stated since 1984 through viii Official Interpretations that nothing except an aesthetic treatment is allowed between the white transverse lines of a crosswalk. If non-retroreflective colored pavement, including bricks and other types of patterned surfaces, is used as a purely aesthetic handling and is non intended to communicate a regulatory, warning, or guidance bulletin to road users, the colored pavement is not considered to be a traffic control device, even if it is located between the lines of a crosswalk. Boosted guidance and a summary of past Official Interpretations on this topic is summarized here.

Return to Elevation

3. Q: My city is trying to brand the downtown area more than aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian-friendly. We are installing brick sidewalks, benches, trees, and other "streetscaping" features along the business district streets. As part of the project, we plan to install brick pavers or other like treatments to serve as the crosswalks at intersections. Can this blazon of crosswalk meet the MUTCD requirements?

A: The brick pavers solitary would non constitute a legal crosswalk. White, retroreflective pavement marking lines must be used to officially constitute a legal crosswalk. Every bit discussed in Chapter 3G of the 2009 MUTCD (Colored Pavements), brick pavers and colored decorative paving treatments that simulate brick or other patterns may be used betwixt the white crosswalk lines. However, colors that degrade the contrast of the white crosswalk lines with the adjoining areas and colors that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application or might otherwise plant a distraction should not be used for this purpose. So, for example, the standard colors of red and yellow used for Terminate signs and warning signs should not exist used, nor should the colors white and yellow as these are used for pavement marker lines. Likewise, retroreflective colored pavements of any color or design are prohibited between crosswalk lines.

Return to Top

4. Q: I've heard near a crosswalk design that simulates 3-dimensional (3-D) objects in the roadway. Is such a concept compliant with the MUTCD?

A: This concept does not comply with the MUTCD. As a consequence of demonstrated safety concerns, the FHWA is no longer considering field experimentation with "3-D" crosswalk designs. The FHWA had previously approved field experimentation with "three-D" markings until i such experiment showed unintended—and potentially dangerous—effects. A significant percentage of drivers swerved upon seeing the markings, possibly perceiving them to be real raised objects on the roadway. While this type of commuter reaction did decrease over fourth dimension, the experiment showed that at to the lowest degree more than one in ten drivers might make an evasive or erratic maneuver upon experiencing this or similar installations for the beginning fourth dimension. The results suggest that a "3-D" mark design can upshot in unsafe beliefs by drivers. If the design is effective at portraying a 3-dimensional object and drivers believe there are real raised objects on the roadway, information technology is a reasonable expectation that drivers volition take evasive action, such as braking abruptly, in fear of colliding with the perceived obstacle. This type of commuter reaction is, in fact, what the experiment showed. The potential for a significant percentage of drivers to react unpredictably is too not bad a gamble to allow further field experimentation.

Return to Top

Contrast Striping

1. Q: When black markings are used to provide enhanced contrast for white or yellow pavement markings, what widths and patterns of black markings should be used?

A: The MUTCD is silent on this, other than saying that black may be used with standard color markings to increase contrast with lite colored pavements. There are many different practices effectually the U.S. to highlight broken lines, some States put 1″-ii″ black stripes along both outside edges of the line segments, some States fill in the entire gap betwixt line segments with a normal width black line, some put a length of normal width black line in front of the line segment, and some put the black later the line segment. For more data, a study past the Texas Transportation Institute by Carlson, Miles, Pike, and Park entitled "Evaluation of Moisture-Weather and Contrast Pavement Mark Applications: Concluding Report" may exist viewed and downloaded at: http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5008-2.pdf.

Return to Top

Longitudinal Markings

1. Q: Does a solid white lane line prohibit crossing to change lanes?

A: MUTCD Section 3B.04 says to use a single solid white line to "discourage" crossing the lane line and a double white line to prohibit crossing it. A single solid white line is used for a multifariousness of lines that drivers should be discouraged from crossing in "normal" situations but which drivers practise need to cross in some situations. An example is the "edge line"---the line that separates the rightmost travel lane from the shoulder. The single solid white line discourages crossing onto the shoulder but does not prohibit information technology because information technology is sometimes desirable and/or necessary to cantankerous information technology in some situations, such as an emergency stop. The MUTCD sets the national standards for pavement markings, but information technology does not establish what the laws of the private States may define as the legal meanings of various types of lines in each State. Some States may have laws that prohibit crossing a single solid white line in specific circumstances. Some states also take laws that go across just the pregnant of the lines, by making certain driving maneuvers illegal under certain situations regardless of the markings, such equally changing lanes when it is "unsafe to practice so".

Return to Top

2. Q: Why does the MUTCD recommend a 3:1 ratio for gap length and skip length for a broken lane line? What enquiry is this based on?

A: The 1971 edition of the MUTCD provided a ratio of iii:v based on long-standing practice by usa for rural highways using 15-foot skips and 25-pes gaps to suggest a total length of xl feet. Section 205 of the Highway Safety Act in 1973 established a pavement marking demonstration plan to enable u.s. to by and large improve the pavement markings to all highways. Equally a upshot, this MUTCD language became the normal for States acting to comply with Section 205.

The energy crunch of 1973-74 caused the cost of traffic paint to double or triple and suppliers were unable to furnish well-nigh States enough pigment to attain basic pavement mark operations. Because of the materials shortage and the need to comply with Section 205, several States experimented with culling skip-gap pattern lengths. In the interest of conserving pigment and providing a device that would convey the same significant as the three:5 ratio, or "flicker rate" on rural roads and freeways, research ended that the ten:30 ratio provided logistical and financial benefits, with no discernible negative effects on rubber. Thus, nigh States adopted the 10:30 ratio or switched to that ratio to achieve financial savings.

The National Advisory Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted the ratio at a coming together in the spring of 1974 resulting in a change to Section 3A-6 of the 1978 MUTCD.

Return to Top

3. Q: Why doesn't the MUTCD provide for a dotted lane line, rather than a normal broken lane line, on the arroyo to a lane-reduction transition? Isn't this some other example of a "non-standing lane" that would be appropriate for use of a dotted lane line?

A: Although the FHWA originally proposed to also require a dotted lane line approaching a lane-reduction transition, that proposal was not adopted in the concluding rule for the 2009 MUTCD. FHWA adamant that lane-reduction transitions may exist significantly different from lane driblet situations, because a lane-reduction transition occurs between interchanges or between intersections and thus all vehicles in the ending lane must merge into the adjacent lane, while at a lane drop, vehicles that are unable to leave the lane practise have the ability to stay in the lane and proceed to exit or turn. Likewise, the lack of whatsoever lane line mark for ¾ of the distance from the Lane Ends alarm sign to the point where the lane-reduction taper begins (equally the current standard calls for) may aid to reinforce the need to merge early on rather than waiting to the last moment. Additional experimentation and research is needed to determine whether the use of a dotted lane line for some altitude in advance of the lane-reduction transition is preferable to the longstanding standard marker pattern for a lane-reduction transition.

Return to Tiptop

Passing Sight Distance

1. Q: What are the minimum passing sight distances for no-passing zone markings in Tabular array 3B-1 in the MUTCD based on? Where did they come from?

A: In that location is back up to advise that these values were those presented to the 1940 AASHO Policy on marking no-passing zones. In addition, the outset edition of the Traffic Engineering Handbook by ITE from 1941 provided that in some States, especially in generally level terrain, the bulk of the highways are considered to accept a uniform design speed for the purpose of establishing no-passing zones. A fixed minimum sight altitude (oft 500 to 800 feet) was so more often than not agreed upon. This suggests that at all times motorists should be subject to a minimum of 500 feet of sight distance based on existing practise at that fourth dimension.

Return to Elevation

2. Q: Why exercise the MUTCD and the AASHTO Greenish Book have dissimilar values for passing sight distance?

A: Similar many aspects of highway design, the values used for design of a new facility are often more bourgeois than what operating agencies find to be "reasonable minimums" for actual operating highways, given the practicalities involved and the wide mix of vehicle types, driver behaviors, etc. NCHRP Report 605 should be consulted for a full word of why the MUTCD and AASHTO Light-green Book values have diverged over fourth dimension. That report concluded that the AASHTO Green Volume should exist modified to employ passing sight distance values that are the aforementioned as those in the MUTCD.

Return to Pinnacle

Retroreflectivity

1. Q: I noticed that Department 3A.03 in the 2009 MUTCD is reserved for time to come minimum levels of pavement mark retroreflectivity. What is the condition of pavement marking retroreflectivity?

A: Pavement marking retroreflectivity is required merely minimum levels are not currently quantified. Department 3A.02 states that markings that must be visible at night shall be retroreflective unless ambient illumination assures that the markings are adequately visible, and that all markings on Interstate highways shall be retroreflective. On Apr 22, 2010, the FHWA published in the Federal Annals a Notice of Proposed Amendments for proposed Revision No. 1 of the 2009 MUTCD. This proposed revision would add more specific provisions for maintaining minimum retroreflectivity of longitudinal pavement markings. For more information on this proposal, see https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/proposed09mutcdrev1/index.htm. A status on the current supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is provided here.

Return to Top

Rumble Strips

1. Q: Are rumble strips considered traffic command devices and, if so, does the MUTCD govern their design, spacing, etc.?

A: It depends on whether the rumble strips are made of white or colored marking fabric or are cutting into the pavement (and thus have the same color as the pavement.) A new Chapter 3J in the 2009 MUTCD addresses pavement markings that are used in conjunction with rumble strips. Transverse rumble strips can exist formed past the utilize of strips of thermoplastic pavement marking material then they must be white if placed beyond the travel lanes. Rumble strips cut into the pavement as grooves and in essence the same color as the pavement are not considered pavement markings in the MUTCD. Thus, permanent rumble strips consisting of longitudinal patterns of grooves cut on the shoulder or next to a centerline are not currently considered traffic control devices and are not governed past the MUTCD. Section 6F.87 contains standards, guidance, and options for temporary rumble strips used in temporary traffic control zones. That section does cover both types of rumble strips---those formed from marker material and those formed from grooves in the pavement---and describes spacing, placement, and other application data. (It should be noted that Part 6 is unique in the MUTCD in roofing certain treatments that are not traffic control devices, including glare screens, attenuation devices, etc.).

Return to Top

End / Yield Lines

1. Q: Does the MUTCD permit the stop line (or yield line) to be "staggered" by lane? That is, tin the stop line for the right lane be closer to the intersection than the terminate line for the other lanes on an arroyo?

A: Staggered stop lines are specifically immune by an Choice in Section 3B.16 of the 2009 MUTCD (paragraph xvi of that section) and are illustrated in Drawing D of Effigy 3B-thirteen. This type of application of stop lines is a valuable tool used past some jurisdictions to accost certain rubber and operational bug, including sight distance for right turns on red after stop and visibility of pedestrians. Information technology is a practice that is specifically mentioned in The Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety, a publication of the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Return to Height

2. Q: Is it mandatory that a stop line exist used with all STOP signs and traffic signals?

A: The 2009 MUTCD, in Section 3B.16, states the post-obit Guidance: "stop lines should be used to indicate the signal backside which vehicles are required to end in compliance with a traffic command indicate."

The 2009 MUTCD besides states in Department 3B.16 that cease lines may exist used to point the point behind which vehicles are required to stop in compliance with a Stop sign, a End Here For Pedestrians sign, or another traffic command device that requires vehicles to stop. States tin can prefer policies or supplements to the MUTCD that are more restrictive than the national MUTCD. Well-nigh States require stop lines on all signalized approaches, and some States practice make the apply of a stop line mandatory with all STOP signs in their State.

Render to Top

3. Q: Can a cease line exist used in advance of a midblock crosswalk to show vehicles where to stop for a pedestrian?

A: Aye, only but if there is a State law that requires vehicles to Terminate for (rather than yield to) pedestrians in crosswalks. Department 3B.sixteen contains the applicable language limiting the employ of terminate lines to locations where a traffic command device requires vehicles to stop. A crosswalk is a traffic control device, and if State police requires road users to stop (rather than yield) if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, a stop line for this awarding would be appropriate. Withal, if the Country law requires drivers to YIELD to pedestrians in crosswalks, a Yield Line marking must exist used rather than a cease line if a transverse mark is needed in accelerate of the crosswalk.

Render to Top

Symbols

1. Q: My agency wishes to utilise an culling symbol for the International Symbol of Accessibility. Does the MUTCD let this alternative symbol?

A: The International Symbol of Accessibility in the form of a pavement marking is provided in Paragraph 18 of Section 3B.xx and is illustrated in Figure 3B-22 of the MUTCD. The International Symbol of Accessibility is established through a standard past the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in ISO 7001 to specify graphical symbols for the purposes of public information. The ISO 7001 official symbol adopts a blue colored groundwork with a superimposed white image of a person using a wheelchair. A direct relationship between the pavement marking symbol and the ISO 7001 standard was adopted in the 2000 MUTCD.

The MUTCD does not provide for the culling symbol. Further, the United States Section of Justice and the United states Access Board recognize the official symbol established in ISO 7001 and neither agency has adopted or endorsed the culling symbol.

Return to Top

Return to Frequently Asked Questions.

You will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the PDFs on this page.

valentinwoothe.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part3.htm

Share this post