Study Details
Study Title: Safety Evaluation of Wet Reflective Pavement Markers
Authors: Lyon et al.
Publication Date: OCT, 2015
Abstract: The Federal Highway Administration organized a pooled fund study of 38 States to evaluate low-cost safety strategies as part of its strategic highway safety effort. One of the strategies selected for evaluation was the application of wet-reflective pavement markings. This strategy involves upgrading existing markings from standard marking materials to wet-reflective markings applied as a paint, tape, or thermoplastic material. The purpose was to provide an improved level of retroreflectivity in wet-road conditions. Geometric, traffic, and crash data were obtained for treated freeway sections in Minnesota, North Carolina, and Wisconsin; treated two-lane rural road locations in Minnesota; and treated multilane road sections in Wisconsin. To account for potential selection bias owing to regression-to-the-mean, an Empirical Bayes (EB) before-after analysis was conducted. The analysis also controlled for changes in traffic volumes over time and time trends in crash counts unrelated to the treatment. Intersection-related, snow/slush ice, and animal crashes were excluded from the analysis. For freeways, the combined results for all States indicated reductions in crashes that are statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level for injury and wet-road crashes, with estimated crash modification factors (CMFs) of 0.881 and 0.861, respectively. For multilane roads, statistically significant reductions were estimated for total crashes (CMF = 0.825), injury crashes (CMF = 0.595), run-off-road crashes (CMF = 0.538), wet-road crashes (CMF = 0.751), and nighttime crashes (CMF = 0.696). For two-lane roads, the sample of crashes was too small to detect an effect with statistical significance for any of the crash types, but there were indications that the treatment had a safety benefit for wet-road crashes. Benefit-cost ratios estimated with conservative cost and service life assumptions were 1.45 for freeways and 5.44 for multilane roads. The results suggest that the treatment-even with conservative assumptions on cost, service life, and value of a statistical life-can be cost effective, especially for multilane roads.
Study Citation: Lyon, C., B. Persaud, and K. Eccles. "Safety Evaluation of Wet-Reflective Pavement Markers". Report No. FHWA-HRT-15-065. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C. (October 2015).
Related Citations: Lyon, C., B. Persaud, and K. Eccles. "Safety Evaluation of Wet-Reflective Pavement Markings". Presented at the 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., (2016).
Study Report: Download the Study Report Document
CMFs Associated With This Study
Category: Delineation
Countermeasure: Upgrade existing markings to wet-reflective pavement markings
| CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
|---|
| 1.153 | -15.3 |  | Run off road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.949 | 5.1 | | Sideswipe | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.614 | 38.6 | | Wet road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.002 | -0.2 | | Dry weather | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.756 | 24.4 | | Nighttime | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.181 | -18.1 | | Nighttime,Wet road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.977 | 2.3 |  | All | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.881 | 11.9 |  | All | K,A,B,C | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.964 | 3.6 | | Run off road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.01 | -1 | | Sideswipe | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.861 | 13.9 | | Wet road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.009 | -0.9 | | Dry weather | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.966 | 3.4 | | Nighttime | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.979 | 2.1 | | Nighttime,Wet road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.032 | -3.2 | | All | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.871 | 12.9 | | All | A,B,C | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.081 | -8.1 | | Run off road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.006 | -0.6 | | Sideswipe | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.863 | 13.7 | | Wet road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.087 | -8.7 | | Dry weather | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.04 | -4 | | Nighttime | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.907 | 9.3 | | Nighttime,Wet road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.887 | 11.3 | | All | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.893 | 10.7 | | All | K,A,B,C | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.87 | 13 | | Run off road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.015 | -1.5 | | Sideswipe | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.87 | 13 | | Wet road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.89 | 11 | | Dry weather | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.874 | 12.6 | | Nighttime | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 1.17 | -17 | | Nighttime,Wet road | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.949 | 5.1 | | All | All | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
| 0.907 | 9.3 | | All | A,B,C | Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways | |
