<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=PHNlYXJjaD48cGFyYW1zPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJkYXRlaW4iIHZhbHVlPSJhbGwiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9InN1YmplY3Rsb2dpYyIgdmFsdWU9Im9yIiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJ0ZXJtc2xvZ2ljIiB2YWx1ZT0ib3IiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9ImxvY2F0aW9uIiB2YWx1ZT0iMCIgLz48L3BhcmFtcz48ZmlsdGVycz48ZmlsdGVyIGZpZWxkPSJpbmRleHRlcm1zIiB2YWx1ZT0iJnF1b3Q7VHJhZmZpYyBtYXJraW5nIHRhcGVzJnF1b3Q7IiBvcmlnaW5hbF92YWx1ZT0iJnF1b3Q7VHJhZmZpYyBtYXJraW5nIHRhcGVzJnF1b3Q7IiAvPjwvZmlsdGVycz48cmFuZ2VzIC8+PHNvcnRzPjxzb3J0IGZpZWxkPSJwdWJsaXNoZWQiIG9yZGVyPSJkZXNjIiAvPjwvc29ydHM+PHBlcnNpc3RzPjxwZXJzaXN0IG5hbWU9InJhbmdldHlwZSIgdmFsdWU9InB1Ymxpc2hlZGRhdGUiIC8+PC9wZXJzaXN0cz48L3NlYXJjaD4=" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF 1995 FIELD EVALUATION OF DURABLE PAVEMENT MARKING MATERIALS (OREGON DECK)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/537166</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report summarizes the results of data collected as part of the 1995 to 1997 field and laboratory evaluations of durable pavement marking materials for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP).  The field evaluation data are presented in this report and represent a twenty-four month period for materials placed in Oregon during July 1995.  The materials submitted for testing and evaluation are classified as thermoplastic, preformed thermoplastic, and nonremovable tape. The testing procedures used for the field evaluations were developed by a task force established by the Standing Committee of the NTPEP.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/537166</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM - SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF 1995 FIELD AND LABORATORY EVALUATIONS OF PAVEMENT MARKING MATERIALS. VOLUME II: LABORATORY EVALUATIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/472152</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Different states were selected to perform tests on pavement marking materials for the 1995 National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP).  Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was chosen as the lead state and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) was chosen as the support state representing the cold/wet climate in the northwestern (NW) part of the United States.  Other states were chosen for their cold/dry (NE), hot/wet (SE) and hot/dry (SW) climates. ODOT was to evaluate the pavement marking materials through field trials and WSDOT was to perform the laboratory evaluations on the same materials.  These evaluations were divided into four categories as follows: solvent borne traffic paint, water borne traffic paint, thermoplastic material and traffic striping tape. This document describes the lab tests and their results.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/472152</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION PRODUCT EVALUATION PROGRAM - SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF 1995 FIELD AND LABORATORY EVALUATIONS OF PAVEMENT MARKING MATERIALS. VOLUME I: FIELD EVALUATIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/472154</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report summarizes the results of data collected as part of the 1995 field and laboratory evaluations of pavement marking materials for the NTPEP.  The field evaluation data is presented in this report and represents a twelve-month period for materials placed in Oregon during July 1995.  The materials submitted for testing and evaluation are classified as paint; durable materials such as thermoplastic, preformed thermoplastic, nonremovable tape; and removable tape.  The six-month evaluation of removable tapes is located in the appendix.  The testing procedures used for the field evaluations were developed by a task force established by the Standing Committee of the NTPEP.  Field test decks on both Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete surfaces were evaluated.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 1998 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/472154</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FEASIBILITY DEMONSTRATION OF A LATERAL POSITION INDICATION SYSTEM BASED ON MAGNETIC PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/574184</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper reports the results of a feasibility demonstration of a lateral position indication system for vehicles based on permanently magnetized pavement marking tape, carried out at the MnROAD test facility.  The magnetic tape offers a durable, economically attractive alternative to burying individual magnetic markers within the road bed.  Magnetic tape was installed next to both edge lines on approximately 2 km of the 4 km circumference closed loop test road at the MnROAD pavement test facility.  The tape used for the installation consisted of a 102 mm width brown-black magnetic tape, edge laminated next to a contrasting 25 mm width of white reflective pavement marking material.  A magnetic field sensor assembly containing three magnetoresistive elements oriented in orthogonal directions and a one dimensional CCD array of optical sensors were mounted on a test vehicle.  An algorithm was developed and implemented in real time to convert the magnetic field measurements as the vehicle traveled along the tape into an estimate of lateral position.  Accuracy was determined by comparison with optical measurements.  Reliable estimates of position were obtained for lateral displacements up to about one meter.  A high concentration of buried ferromagnetic objects producing magnetic "noise" made the Mn/ROAD site particularly challenging for a magnetic detection system.  Performance on ordinary roads that are typically "cleaner" magnetically should be as good or better.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/574184</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EVALUATION OF STAMARK BRAND BISYMMETRIC 1.75 GRADE PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/572935</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this project was to evaluate the performance of Stamark Brand Bisymmetric 1.75 Grade pavement marking tape (Series 320) on a large-scale installation on Interstate 24 in McCracken County.  The evaluation consisted of periodic inspection of the tape to determine its durability, appearance, and reflectivity.  The tape has demonstrated good performance after two years in service.  No durability problems were noted. While the appearance of the tape was not as bright as a typical traffic paint, it was adequate.  The tape has maintained a high level of reflectivity.  The performance of the material would potentially warrant additional use as longitudinal marking on moderate volume roadways.  However, the cost of the tape must be considered in determining its use.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/572935</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION-ZONE PAVEMENT MARKING MATERIALS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/572910</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objectives of this study were to evaluate available foil-back and removable tapes as well as one new construction-zone raised pavement marker and to recommend materials that should be included on approved lists for use by the Kentucky Department of Highways.  Tapes were placed on transverse test sections and the reflectivity, durability, and appearance were observed.  Tapes to be included on the approved lists for foil-back and removable tapes were recommended.  Tapes manufactured by 3M, Flex-O-Lite, and Swarolite were included on the list of acceptable foil-back tapes.  Recommended removable tapes were the 3M and Cataphote removable tapes.  The Astro Optics construction-zone marker was added to the approved list for construction-zone raised pavement markers.  Data were presented for various permanent tapes to aid in the selection of this material.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/572910</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EVALUATION OF PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR IMPROVED VISIBILITY DURING WET NIGHT CONDITIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/460850</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study evaluated the night visibility of waffle tape and paint with large beads, particularly during wet night conditions.  Data were collected at two sites along a primary arterial.  The evaluation included an examination of (1) the application of the markings, (2) the visibility of the markings using retroreflectometer measurements and subjective assessments, and (3) the cost effectiveness of the markings. The study revealed:  (1) compared to paint with standard beads, the waffle tape and paint with large beads were slightly more retroreflective during light rain at night and recovered quicker after flooding out; (2) the marginal improvement in visibility during periods of light rain do not offset the operational problems of applying paint with large beads; and (3) the benefits of waffle tape during light rain do not appear to justify its use solely for wet night visibility.  Because of the above findings, snowplowable raised pavement markers, which are very visible in wet night conditions, appear to be more cost effective.  The study recommends that (1)the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) continue to use and maintain snowplowable raised pavement markers for visibility during wet night conditions, (2) VDOT continue to monitor FHWA's study on all weather pavement markings, and (3) the Suffolk District consider testing nonsnowplowable raised pavement markers to assess their use as a low-cost alternative to improve visibility during wet night conditions where snowplowing occurs infrequently.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/460850</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF SNOW REMOVAL ACTIVITIES ON PAVEMENT MARKINGS IN VIRGINIA. FINAL REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/454609</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Snow removal activities resulted in substantial damage to pavement markings in Virginia over the last 2 years.  Typically, the estimates of the extent of pavement marking damage are based on the observations of the staff of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).  For example, it was estimated that about half of the pavement markings statewide were damaged during the 1993-94 winter and that replacement costs were $8 million.  The objective of this study was to obtain accurate data on the pavement marking damage caused exclusively by carbide-tipped blades.  Data were collected at 22 study sites on interstate highways and principal arterials because of the prevalence of a variety of pavement markings and the designation of these roads as high-priority routes for snow removal.  Three types of pavement markings - latex paint, thermoplastic, and waffle tape - were assessed for damage.  For the study sites, damage caused by snow plows during the 1994-95 winter were estimated to be between $100,100 and $137,700 for waffle tape and $400 to $600 for paint, for a total of $100,500 to $138,300.  The estimated retroreflectivity loss of 10 to 15% for both markings represented the majority of the costs.  About $25,000 of the damage to waffle tape was for markings that were plowed from the roadway.  There was no evidence that thermoplastic markings incurred much damage.  This is probably because there were few or no instances where ice bonded to the pavement markings.  It is believed that thermoplastic marking damage is greatest when this bonding occurs.  Moreover, there is less confidence in the before data for thermoplastic markings.  Based on data gathered at the study sites, the estimated statewide cost of damage caused by snow plows was between $1.58 and $2.26 million for waffle tape and between $1.06 and $1.59 million for paint, for a total of between $2.64 and $3.85 million.  It should be noted, however, that the 1994-95 winter was relatively mild compared to a typical winter in Virginia.  The study recommends that VDOT (1) take measures to protect its investment in pavement markings from snow plow damage, (2) comprehensively assess pavement marking damage caused by other maintenance activities, and (3) designate the inlaid method as the primary installation method for waffle tape.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/454609</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PERFORMANCE OF TRAFFIC MARKINGS IN COLD REGIONS. FINAL REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/454600</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study evaluated the performance of traffic marking materials used in Alaska and other northwestern states, including Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.  Primarily, this study included reviews of existing reports, past studies, and information databases; a field survey that subjectively rated existing traffic markings in Alaska's central region; field measurements of the retroreflectivity of traffic markings made by using a reflectometer in Alaska's central region; and a subjective opinion survey about the performance of traffic markings.  This report summarizes the findings from this study. The main results summarized in this report include impacts of pavement marking patterns on a driver's behavior, minimum reflectivity requirements, a general evaluation of traffic marking materials, reflectivity performance, subjective survey evaluation, and final conclusions.  The traffic marking types evaluated in this study included traffic paint, thermoplastics, preformed tapes, and Methyl Methacrylate.  These traffic marking materials have all been applied in Alaska.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/454600</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>VISIBILITY OF NEW PAVEMENT MARKINGS AT NIGHT UNDER LOW-BEAM ILLUMINATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/452625</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Three independent field studies investigating the nighttime detection distances of yellow and white-painted and taped pavement markings of varying widths under low-beam illumination were undertaken.  Different centerline and edge line configurations, typically used on highways, were tested.  The objective of Study 1 was to obtain exploratory pavement marking visibility field data for detecting the begin and end of a continuous pavement marking line as a function of line width, material, color, and lateral position of the line.  Study 2 was conducted to determine the visibility distance of the onset of a left or a right curve (244-m radius) along a tangent section marked with a continuous white taped edge line placed at approximately 1.83 m to the right of the car, as a function of line width.  Study 3 was conducted to determine the detection distances for the begin and end of yellow taped pavement marking configurations having different widths, placed on the left side of the vehicle representing a typical centerline on a two-lane rural highway.  The results of Study 1 indicate no statistically significant differences (alpha = 0.05) for the average begin or end detection distances using a line width between 0.1 and 0.2 m.  The results for Study 2 indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the average detection distance (alpha = 0.05) between a 0.1- and a 0.2-m-wide right edge line for a left curve.  The results of Study 3 indicate that the double solid line configuration provides statistically significant (alpha = 0.05) longer average detection distances when compared with the other configurations for all three widths (0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 m).  Overall in Study 3, the end detection distances were significantly (alpha = 0.05) longer than the begin detection distances.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 1995 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/452625</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ROADWAY DELINEATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/422636</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This handbook was developed to assist design, traffic, and maintenance engineering personnel in making determinations about roadway delineation systems, including the appropriate system for a given situation, when a system has reached the end of its useful life, and how to maintain a quality delineation system. It may also be valuable to consulting engineers, educators, and students.  A companion videotape, "Testing and Field Inspection of Roadway Delineation", was produced to assist engineers with field inspection of the quality of delineation projects.  This videotape is available separately as publication number FHWA-SA-93-002.  This handbook supplements the policies and standards provided in the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" by offering implementation guidelines for the standards.  The contents cover current and newly developed devices, materials, and installation equipment, presenting each item's expected performance based on actual experience or field and laboratory tests.  The handbook draws on the experiences of Federal, State, county, and city agencies and summarizes future directions and developments as reported in recent research and by industry's technical representatives.  Individual chapters cover the characteristics of retroreflection and quality assurance, driver visibility needs, traffic paints, preformed tapes, raised pavement markers and other marking materials, post-mounted delineators and other delineation devices, and administrative and management issues and practices.  The appendices provide detailed technical information, including cost analysis techniques; sources of materials and equipment; and a list of standards, specifications, and test methods related to delineation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 1995 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/422636</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PAVEMENT MARKING COST EFFECTIVENESS. FINAL REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/421285</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report describes research performed by the South Dakota Department of Transportation on the cost-effectiveness of its present pavement marking material, alkyd, and several alternatives.  Epoxy, water-based paint and tape were also monitored and evaluated in this study.  Test sections were installed in both rural and urban areas.  Reflectivity was monitored with the use of a retroreflectometer.  Pavement markings used were compared to one another by monitoring their performance and comparing their cost per foot (0.305 m), with consideration being given to the amount of time the marking's retroreflectivity remained above some minimum level.  It was found that although alkyd is cheaper than other pavement markings, it does not provide year-round traffic delineation, and is therefore not effective.  Water based paint, while being only slightly more costly than alkyd, performed nearly as well as epoxy, making it the most cost effective marking for the rural environment.  In the urban test sections, none of the markings lasted much longer than two or three months.  The epoxy placed in Sioux Falls was installed in October, 1991.  Because of the lateness of the installation and temperatures lower than manufacturer's recommendations, the epoxy did not perform as well as it normally would have.  Water based paint was not used in the urban test sections, but is it recommended that water base be tried in an urban setting.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 1995 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/421285</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CORRELATION OF THE NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY OF PAVEMENT MARKING TAPES WITH PHOTOMETRIC MEASUREMENT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/384522</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A primary visual guide for a motor vehicle driver is the use of pavement markings on the centerline and edge line of the roadway.  The nighttime visibility performance of these markings is predicted by a surrogate method of laboratory or field photometric measurement.  There are currently several photometric systems in use that vary widely in geometric and precision capabilities.  With the advent of modern pavement markings with a variety of retroreflective optical systems and surface characteristics, common retroreflective measurements in the laboratory and field have generally been found to lack correlation with the markings visibility performance of drivers. The nighttime visibility of new, dry centerline pavement markings as viewed from a stationary automobile and semitruck are compared with laboratory and field photometric measurements. The visibility results are compared with the photometric methods.  The common test geometries used in the industry today are found to have poor correlation with driver visual perception at most distances.  A laboratory test method has been developed with the hope of better characterizing actual pavement marking retroreflective performance.  This test method measures products at the same photometric geometries at which a driver actually observes pavement markings.  Excellent agreement between driver visual observation and this test method was obtained at multiple distances.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/384522</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A SUMMARY OF NEW YORK'S RESEARCH ON PAVEMENT MARKING MATERIALS. FINAL REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/369386</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report summarizes New York's research on pavement marking materials from 1978 through 1989.  Two-component epoxy, thermoplastic, preformed tape, polyester, and epoflex pavement markings were evaluated under this project.  All the markings provided service life from 2 1/2 to 4 years, except for epoflex markings which exhibited premature adhesion failure.  The five Research Reports summarized here are available to interested readers on request.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 1993 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/369386</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PREFORMED, PATTERNED STRIPING MATERIAL. FINAL REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/363441</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In 1989, two pavement striping tape materials were placed on two new asphalt pavements.  A two-year performance evaluation of the materials has been completed by the Oregon State Highway Division's (OSHD's) Materials and Research Section.  On the first project a 3M Stamark Pliant Polymer Pavement Marking Tape - Series 5730, was placed on an Oregon dense-graded Class "B" asphalt concrete pavement.  Only the skip line was marked with the pavement marking tape.  Paint was used to mark the fog line and crosswalk.  This area has a high volume of cross traffic, much of which is truck traffic.  Over the two year period, the material proved to be durable in that it provided a full service skip line, whereas the painted lines had to be repainted several times. The marking tape material reflectance was below the OSHD standards.  On the second project, 3M Stamark Pliant Polymer Marking Tape - Series A350 (white) and Series 351 (yellow) were placed on an Oregon open-graded Class "F" asphalt concrete pavement.  This area is in a snow zone with a significant amount of studded tire usage during the winter months.  Over the two-year period, the marking tape did well in retaining its reflectance, but had bonding problems. Some of the material came up after the first snowfall and had to be replaced.  The recommendations of this study are: The Series 5730 pavement marking tape is not recommended for use on Oregon's highways.  The Series A350 pavement marking tape is not recommended for open-graded pavements on Oregon's highways unless the durability problems can be resolved. The Series A350 pavement marking tape should be examined on a dense-graded pavement.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/363441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>