Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 6
6
· To present the pros and cons of such warranties as markings as part of new pavement construction, road resur-
expressed by knowledgeable parties; and facing, or re-marking of an existing surface.
· To provide examples of pavement marking warranty
specifications now used by several agencies.
STUDY APPROACH
This synthesis study has gathered relevant information through
Scope a review of the domestic and international literature, surveys of
U.S. state DOTs and Canadian provincial transportation agen-
The scope of this study encompasses several topics that will
cies, and interviews with private sector firms involved in man-
inform readers of the development, use, and effects of pave-
ufacturing materials for or applying pavement markings. The
ment marking warranty specifications:
literature review provided an historical perspective on high-
way construction warranties generally and pavement marking
· Current agency use of pavement marking warranty
warranties specifically. It also established background infor-
specifications and their degree of satisfaction to date. mation on the domestic use of warranty specifications as com-
· Impact of state law and departmental policy on agen- pared with Canadian and European experience. The state DOT
cies' evaluations of whether or not to consider using survey was conducted with the assistance of the AASHTO
pavement marking warranty specifications. Highway Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering. The survey
· Assessments of the cost impacts of pavement marking of Canadian provincial agencies was facilitated by the Trans-
warranty specifications; that is, the additional costs to portation Association of Canada. Interviews with materials
the agency of warranty use and the presumed life-cycle manufacturers and U.S. and Canadian pavement marking
benefits in terms of long-term cost reductions to the contractors were conducted by telephone, based on contacts
agency and to road users. suggested by the Topic Panel.
· The types of warranty specifications used by transporta-
tion agencies, and the party (or parties) held responsible The initial round of the survey, which included several
for meeting warranty requirements. electronic mailings, yielded 32 responses: 24 from U.S. state
· The duration of the warranty period, and how that DOTs and 8 from Canadian provincial agencies. At a subse-
length varies with marking material and other factors. quent meeting with the Topic Panel it was agreed that the
· Technical aspects of warranty administration; for exam- number of survey responses was not sufficient to represent an
ple, the types of specifications and data provided to bid- accurate picture of current pavement marking warranty use.
ders, frequency of pavement marking inspection once An additional round of surveys was conducted, first by
the installed markings have been accepted, typical mea- another electronic mailing and then by telephone, using a
sures used to characterize pavement marking perfor- streamlined version of the questionnaire. This latest round
mance, corrective measures specified for the contractor brought the total number of responses to 48, as tallied in
or materials manufacturer to maintain compliance, and Table 1. In addition to response rate, Table 1 gives the num-
effects of external factors (e.g., snow plowing and traf- ber of agencies that provided current examples of their spec-
fic volume) on warranty requirements and responsibili- ifications for pavement marking warranties. Several agencies
ties of the contractor or materials manufacturer. sent more than one specification, because their warranties
· Financial and business aspects of warranty administra- cover multiple pavement marking materials or different per-
tion; for example, payment schedules (particularly for formance periods. These example specifications are compiled
multi-year warranties); bonding arrangements, if any; in Appendix D (a web-only portion of the report).
and whether discussions with the construction industry
have been held before warranty implementation. Survey responses were organized further according to
· The benefits of pavement marking warranty specifica- agency interest and experience in using pavement marking
tions as perceived by agencies that have successfully warranty specifications. The relevant categories are described
implemented them and continue to use them. here, with the breakdown of all responses summarized in
· By contrast, the perceived drawbacks of pavement Figure 1.
marking warranty specifications that have caused
agencies to discontinue their use or dissuaded agen- · Agencies that now use pavement marking warranties.
cies from considering warranties if they have not yet Twenty-three of the 48 responding agencies (48%) now
used them. use pavement marking warranties and are likely to con-
· Examples of pavement marking warranty specifications tinue to do so. One agency reported a history of war-
currently in use by state and provincial transportation ranty use extending more than two decades. Several
agencies. have applied their experience to expanding the scope of
their warranties, and others have already implemented
The study has focused on pavement marking warranty speci- or are considering improvements in their warranty
fications associated with conventional contracting approaches administration. Of the 23 agencies that now use pave-
to construction projects; that is, design-bid-build (DBB). ment marking warranties, 15 sent examples of their
These projects would involve the application of pavement specifications (see Table 1), which provided good cov-
