Pavement Marking

Pavement Marking

Pavement Marking

In a report developed by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), it was recommended that the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) establish plans to “better manage” initiatives and efforts related to Connected Automated Vehicles (CAVs). GAO officials state within the report, which was released in November 2017, that their reasoning behind the research efforts are based on the potential promise of CAVs to provide transformative safety and mobility benefits, but these benefits also will come with a set of safety and infrastructure challenges for policymakers.


While it also was noted that other components such as urban versus rural settings and local ownership of roadways will play a hand in infrastructure adaptations, many experts in automation and infrastructure back up the report’s claims, and assert that consistent and proper maintenance of the current roadway system is of the upmost importance for conventional and AV motorists — especially when it comes to pavement markings.


ATSSA has a dedicated group of members on its Pavement Marking Committee (member login required), who are working to assert the proper maintenance of pavement marking and advance technologies being developed to help increase safety benefits and accommodation of CAVs. The committee has developed a list of policies and continues to work toward advancing the collaboration between the roadway safety industry and automakers as America progresses toward an automated future.

Resources

Pam

AASHTO issues updates to MASH guidance

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) issued an update to its guidance for the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) on Tuesday.

ATSSA Director of Innovation and Technical Services Eric Perry said the information addresses three additions to the Frequently Asked Questions section for MASH.

1. It clarified the truck type needed for a TL-4 test on barriers

2. It gave some guidance on selecting the Critical Impact point between 5-25 degrees for channelizer tests 90 &91.

3. It clarified that a test that is over the 2.5 mph speed tolerance on the upper end (as an example at 65 mph) is acceptable for barrier tests.

The questions and answers have been compiled since May 2018 to help with implementation of the 2016 edition of the MASH.

Print
5809 Rate this article:
5.0
Please login or register to post comments.

Altai.Integration.AzureB2CDNNModule

Text/HTML