Attachment D - FHWA Memorandum 2013-08-15.pdf

Q

Attachment D

Memorandum

US.Department

of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration

Subject:

¢

To:

INFORMATION: MUTCD - Official Date: AUG 15 2013
Ruling 3(09)-24(1) — Application of
Co Paveme

<a
Jeffrey A. Lindley In Reply Refer To:
Associate Administrator for Operations HOTO-1
Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers

Division Administrators

Purpose: Through this memorandum, the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)
Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO) is issuing an Official Interpretation of
Chapter 3G of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways
(MUTCD) on the approved uses of colored pavement. For recordkeeping purposes, this
Official Ruling has been assigned the following number and title: “3(09)-24(1) —
Application of Colored Pavement.”

Background: The FHWA is concerned that considerable ambiguity continues regarding
how colored pavement can be used, especially between the white transverse lines of a
legally marked crosswalk.

Colored pavements consist of differently colored road paving materials, such as colored
asphalt or concrete, or paint or other marking materials applied to the surface of a road or
island to simulate a colored pavement. Colored pavement is a traffic control device when it
attempts to communicate with any roadway user or when it incorporates retroreflective
properties. Colored pavement can also be a purely aesthetic treatment. When used in this
manner, colored pavement is not a traffic control device provided that it does not attempt to
communicate with the motorist or incorporate elements of retroreflectorization.

Colored Pavement in Crosswalks: In the late 1990s, the marketplace introduced and
promoted aesthetic treatments for urban streetscape environments that included the
opportunity to install a range of colors and a multitude of patterns. The most popular
opportunity to implement these treatments was between the legally marked transverse lines
of crosswalks. This was typically done as part of larger efforts by cities to enhance the
aesthetics of an area that could include decorative luminaires, street furniture, sidewalk art,
etc. These crosswalk treatments were publicized and marketed as a method to increase
conspicuity of the crosswalk that would translate into increased safety and a reduction of
pedestrian deaths. In December 2001, the FHWA issued its first Official Ruling!

' MUTCD Official Ruling 3-152 (I) as Memorandum of Action, December 7, 2001

regarding the use of these aesthetic treatments, which concluded that crosswalk
enhancements of this type had no such discernible effect on safety or crash reduction.

The marketplace looked to capitalize on advancements in pavement retroreflectivity in the
mid-2000s, and further advocated for these aesthetic treatments on public streets as a way
to increase crosswalk visibility. This included the benefits of the increased recognition of
crosswalks both during the day and at night since the materials were designing
retroreflective properties into the aesthetic treatments. In 2004 and in 2005, the FHWA
issued two separate but related Official Rulings”? concluding that incorporating
retroreflectivity into an aesthetic crosswalk treatment renders it an official traffic control
device. Further, these Official Rulings continued to discourage implementation of such
treatments and also concluded that these enhancements still had no increased effect on
safety or contributed to a reduction in pedestrian deaths.

The evolution of crosswalk treatments continued into the form of “crosswalk art” because it
was becoming a common misconception that as long as the white transverse lines were
present—thereby legally marking the crosswalk—then the agency was free to treat the
interior portion of the crosswalk as it desired. In 2011, the FHWA issued an additional
Official Ruling* that crosswalk art—defined as any freeform design to draw attention to the
crosswalk—would degrade the contrast of the white transverse lines against the
composition of the pavement beneath it. In deviating from previous Official Rulings on the
matter that concluded an increased factor of safety and decreased number of pedestrian
deaths were not evident after installation, this 2011 Official Ruling stated that the use of
crosswalk art is actually contrary to the goal of increased safety and most likely could be a
contributing factor to a false sense of security for both motorists and pedestrians.

The FHWA’s position has always been, and continues to be that subdued-colored aesthetic
treatments between the legally marked transverse crosswalk lines are permissible provided
that they are devoid of retroreflective properties and that they do not diminish the
effectiveness of the legally required white transverse pavement markings used to establish
the crosswalk. Examples of acceptable treatments include brick lattice patterns, paving
bricks, paving stones, setts, cobbles, or other resources designed to simulate such paving.
Acceptable colors for these materials would be red, rust, brown, burgundy, clay, tan or
similar earth tone equivalents. All elements of pattern and color for these treatments are to
be uniform, consistent, repetitive, and expected so as not to be a source of distraction. No
element of the aesthetic interior treatment is to be random or unsystematic. No element of
the aesthetic interior treatment can implement pictographs, symbols, multiple color
arrangements, etc., or can otherwise attempt to communicate with any roadway user.

Patterns or colors that degrade the contrast of the white transverse pavement markings
establishing the crosswalk are to be avoided. Attempts to intensify this contrast by
increasing or thickening the width of the transverse pavement markings have been
observed in the field. These attempts to increase contrast are perceived to be efforts to
circumvent the contrast prerequisite so that an intentional noncompliant alternative of an
aesthetic interior pattern or color can be used. Further techniques to install an empty buffer

? MUTCD Official Ruling 3-169 (I) — Section 3B.19 Retroreflective Colored Pavement, September 1, 2004
> MUTCD Official Ruling 3-178 (1) — Retroreflective Colored Pavement — Additional Clarification, April 27, 2005
* MUTCD Official Ruling 3(09)-8 (I) — Colored Pavement Treatments in Crosswalks, May 3, 2011.

space between an aesthetic treatment and the interior edge of the white transverse
crosswalk markings have also been observed in the field. This strategy is also perceived to
be an attempt to circumvent FHWA’s prior position on contrast. However, an empty buffer
space between a subdued-colored, uniform-patterned aesthetic treatment can be
implemented to enhance contrast between the aesthetic treatment and the white transverse
pavement markings. When used properly, buffer spaces can be an effective tool to
disseminate a necessary contrast in order to visually enhance an otherwise difficult to
discern white transverse crosswalk marking, provided that the aesthetic treatment conforms
to the conditions in the preceding paragraph.

Colored Pavement in Medians: Several agencies nationwide have used aesthetic colored
pavement in medians that separate opposite directions of travel. These treatments are
typically simulated red brick patterns or pavers. This is allowable if the median is closed to
traffic. Where the center portion of the roadway functions to facilitate turns or operates as
a two-way left turn lane, aesthetic treatments cannot be used in that center area in
accordance with Paragraph 3 of Section 3G.01 in the MUTCD. Further, provisions
elsewhere in Part 3 of the MUTCD require or recommend the turning functions of turn
lanes or two-way left turn lanes to be marked with pavement word markings or arrows
where applicable. The use of aesthetic colored patterns or pavers in these lanes simulates a
supplemental background to standard turn markings and is an attempt to enhance
conspicuity of the median thereby serving as communication with the motorist. This
practice to use aesthetic treatments is disallowed since the median is open to traffic.

Colored Pavement for Islands: Where an island is designated as a traffic-control device,
curbs, pavement edges, pavement markings, channelizing devices, or other devices are
used. Islands are most commonly used to separate traffic movements or to provide
pedestrian refuge. Regardless of whether the island is raised or flush with the roadway
surface, islands are a potential for providing aesthetic qualities. Islands that separate
movements of traffic and choose to incorporate colored pavement into interior sections or
to the top surface of their design are to comply with Item A or B of Paragraph 3 of Section
3G.01. This would be applicable when the island is used to address a need to facilitate
traffic that would otherwise have difficulty navigating the roadway if the island was absent.

Islands that are intentionally aesthetic in nature only are to be designed similar to those
aesthetic treatments for crosswalks as described above. The most common applications of
these purely aesthetic treatments are pedestrian refuge islands and textured raised buffers
between a bikeway and a motorized vehicular lane.

Colored Pavement for Bicycle Lanes: Green colored pavement is approved for use in
bicycle lanes only to enhance the conspicuity of where bicyclists are required to operate,
and areas of the bicycle lane where bicyclists and other roadway traffic might have
potentially conflicting weaving or crossing movements. Approval to use green colored
pavement shall be in accordance with Paragraph 17 of Section 1A.10 in the 2009 MUTCD.

The FHWA issued an Interim Approval (IA-14) for the use and application of green
colored pavement on April 15, 2011. The information provided in the IA-14 memorandum
remains in effect.

4

The use of green colored pavement in a bicycle facility other than a legally marked bicycle
lane is either not approved or is experimental. FHWA’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Web site
(http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design guidance/mute
d_bike.cfm) can be helpful in determining what is or is not approved and what is
experimental. Agencies that desire to use bicycle facilities that are experimental are
required to submit their request for approval in accordance with paragraphs 3, 4 and 8
through 10 of Section 1A.10 in the MUTCD.

The FHWA is aware that agencies might be using green colored pavement to supplement,
fill in or outline parking stalls for electric vehicle charging stations in order to express the
agency’s commitment to environmentally friendly initiatives. Use of green colored
pavement for this purpose is not allowed. Although the applicability of the MUTCD may
be limited in certain 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 among similar facilities.

Colored Pavement on Freeways and Expressways: The FHWA is aware of agencies
nationwide using colored pavement on higher speed facilities as a method to visually
differentiate the shoulder or special-use lanes from the general-purpose lanes, to demarcate
the exit gore area, or to differentiate a ramp terminal from the mainline facility. The
FHWA maintains the position that contrasting techniques on high-speed facilities have no
other intention than to communicate with the motorist, regardless of whether elements of
retroreflectivity are implemented for the colored pavement.

Additionally, the 2011 edition of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
discusses various methods of contrasting the shoulder with the adjacent pavement traveled
way. The policy states that with regard to bituminous pavements, “the use of edge lines as
described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices... reduces the need for
shoulder contrast.” Edge lines separating shoulders from the traveled way on Interstate
routes have been required by the MUTCD since 1971, supplanting the practice of using
contrasting material for shoulders when an edge line was optional. Therefore, there should
be little need for such a contrast that cannot be accommodated by the allowable pavement
colors prescribed by the MUTCD.

If a need to provide contrast on a high-speed facility has been determined, then that
contrast can be accomplished by a number of alternatives. Asphalt mixtures can be tinted
to provide a shade of grey. White colored pavement can also be implemented. Paragraph 3
of Section 3G.01 in the MUTCD allows the use of white colored pavement for exit gore
areas and right-hand shoulders. In the event that the main traveled way is concrete, an
asphalt top layer could be applied to the shoulder to provide contrast.

Colored Pavement for Public Transit Systems: The use of red colored pavement for
public transit systems such as streetcar and/or bus-only lanes is currently experimental.
The use of colored pavement in these settings requires approval from the FHWA’s Office
of Transportation Operations. Agencies that desire to experiment with colored pavement
should only do so where an engineering study can determine that increased travel speeds
will be expected by the public transit vehicle, reduced overall service time through the
corridor will be expected by the public transit vehicle, and the implementation of the

colored pavement to a converted general purpose lane in the traveled way will not
adversely affect the traffic flow in the remaining general purpose lanes.

Blue Colored Pavement: Blue is not a colored pavement and is not to be used as such in
accordance with Paragraph 3 of Section 3G.01. Blue as it applies to a pavement marking is
exclusively reserved for the background color in the international symbol of accessibility
parking symbol (see Figure 3B-22) and for the supplemental pavement marking lines that
define legal parking spaces reserved for use only by persons with disabilities as provided in
Paragraph 5 of Section 3A.05.

Applying blue colored pavement to entire stalls or entire areas of parking reserved for
persons with disabilities is to be avoided. Although the applicability of the MUTCD may
be limited in certain settings involving parking stalls, agencies are encouraged to adhere to
the MUTCD with respect to blue colored pavement in parking facilities for the purpose of
maintaining uniformity among similar facilities.

Purple Colored Pavement: Purple is not approved for use as a colored pavement in any
application, including toll facility environments. Purple as a pavement marking color is
permitted in accordance with Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Section 3E.01 of the MUTCD.

Chromaticity Coordinates: The acceptable ranges of chromaticity coordinates that define
the standard colors for pavement markings are found in the Appendix to Subpart F of 23
CFR _655—Alternate Method of Determining the Color of Retroreflective Sign Materials
and Pavement Marking Materials.

Acceptable ranges for the chromaticity coordinates defining the color green for use as a
pavement marking are provided in the [A-14 memo dated April 15, 2011.

Conclusion: Chapter 3G of the 2009 MUTCD contains provisions regarding the use of
colored pavements. If colored pavement is used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic or
otherwise attempts to communicate with the roadway user, the colored pavement
constitutes a traffic control device. Agencies cannot intentionally exclude elements of
retroreflectivity as part of a systematic process to classify the color pavement as a purely
aesthetic treatment in order to circumvent the provisions of Chapter 3G.

Paragraph 3 of Section 3G.01 in the MUTCD limits the use of colored pavement used as a
traffic control device to the colors yellow and white. Interim Approval IA-14 permits the
use of green colored pavement for marked bicycle lanes. All other colors for use on
highway pavement in the right-of-way are either disallowed or are experimental as
described above, unless the colored pavement is a purely aesthetic treatment and makes no
discernible attempt to communicate with a roadway user.

ce:
Associate Administrators
Chief Counsel

Chief Financial Officer
Directors of Field Services
Director of Technical Services