Part 3 - Markings: Frequently Asked Questions
Aesthetic Surface Treatments
-
Q: Does the MUTCD allow intersection murals or widespread application of artwork to the street?
A: Aesthetic surface treatments and intersection murals are not considered traffic control devices and, therefore, are not governed by the MUTCD, except where those treatments interact with and adversely impact official traffic control devices. Where aesthetic surface treatments do interact with official traffic control devices, the provisions set forth in Section 3H.03 apply.
As stated in the Notice of Final Rule adopting the 11th Edition of the MUTCD as published in the Federal Register, jurisdictions ultimately have the responsibility to ensure the safety of road users where aesthetic surface treatments interact and might have the potential to interfere with, detract from, or obscure official traffic control devices. These treatments might also encourage road users to interact directly with the artwork or give reason not to vacate the street safely, in an expedient or predictable manner. If an agency decides to pursue artistic surface applications on the pavement, the safe mobility and accessible navigation of all road users – including those with disabilities – should be a deciding factor. Additional information can be found in the Final Rule.
Q: What colors does the MUTCD allow for aesthetic surface treatments, such as colors applied within crosswalk markings?
A: Colors used for aesthetic surface treatments shall be outside the chromaticity coordinates that define the ranges of acceptable colors for traffic control devices. The chromaticity coordinates that define the ranges of acceptable colors for traffic control devices can be found in the Appendix to Subpart F of 23 CFR 655. In addition, MUTCD Color Specifications can be found here. This applies to any locations where aesthetic surface treatments are applied within the roadway.
-
Q: Does the MUTCD allow for white-colored aesthetic surface treatments to be used within a crosswalk?
A: The MUTCD does not prohibit aesthetic surface treatments that comply with the Standard in Section 3H.03 Paragraph 7, which states, “[c]olors used for aesthetic surface treatments shall be outside the chromaticity coordinates that define the ranges of acceptable colors for traffic control devices.” The chromaticity coordinates that define the ranges of acceptable colors for traffic control devices can be found in the Appendix to Subpart F of 23 CFR 655. The MUTCD does not prohibit aesthetic surface treatments that adhere to the aforementioned Standard and use colors that are outside the chromaticity coordinates specified in 23 CFR 655. Engineering judgment should be used when selecting colors for aesthetic surface treatments as to avoid the use of colors that could degrade the contrast of markings used to delineate an area or that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application. This applies to any locations where aesthetic surface treatments are applied within the roadway.
-
Q: I've heard about a crosswalk design that simulates 3-dimensional (3-D) objects in the roadway. Does such a concept comply with the MUTCD?
A: As a result 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 "3-D" markings until one such experiment showed unintended—and potentially dangerous—effects. A significant percentage of drivers swerved upon seeing the markings, perhaps perceiving them to be real raised objects on the roadway. While this type of driver reaction did decrease over time, the experiment showed that at least more than one in ten drivers might make an evasive or erratic maneuver upon experiencing this or similar installations for the first time. The results suggest that a "3-D" marking design can result in unsafe behavior by drivers. If the design is effective at portraying a 3-dimensional object and drivers believe there are real raised objects on the roadway, it is a reasonable expectation that drivers will take evasive action, such as braking abruptly, in fear of colliding with the perceived obstruction. This type of driver reaction is, in fact, what the experiment showed. The potential for a significant percentage of drivers to react unpredictably is too great a risk to consider further field experimentation.
Jurisdictions ultimately have the responsibility to ensure the safety of road users where these treatments interact and might have the potential to interfere with, detract from, or obscure official traffic control devices.
