Maintaining Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity: Impacts on State and Local Agencies

6. Performing Organization Code
FHWA HRDS-05

This report analyzes the impacts that might be expected from the adoption of proposed minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels for traffic signs to improve night visibility. The report evaluates the broad spectrum of concerns expressed by State and local agency staff at four workshops held during the summer of 2002. These include administrative, fiscal, implementation, and tort liability concerns.

The report includes a summary of previous studies, including those of several State agencies, to determine the impacts of the proposed new minimum maintained levels for traffic sign retroreflectivity. The various sign cost elements are identified and changes attributable to the new minimum levels of retroreflectivity are isolated. The cost of sign face materials is seen as the major source of increased costs. The cost impact is determined to be a function of the condition of existing signs, State and local agency practices on the use of sign materials, and current procedures for sign management.

The report provides estimates of the National impact of the proposed minimum levels generated by the models previously developed using updated inputs for sign material costs and road mileage. It was assumed that the distribution of non-compliant signs has remained the same. Estimates of the costs for upgrading street name and overhead guide signs were also generated to cover the full spectrum of signs covered by the proposed minimum levels. National sign replacement costs incurred as a result of proposed minimum maintained retroreflectivity levels are estimated to be $37.5 million. Using a 7-year implementation period for regulatory, warning, and guide signs and a 10-year implementation period for street name and overhead guide signs, the annual impacts are estimated to be $4.5 million for years 1 through 7 and $2.1 million for years 8 through 10. The estimates are based upon the added cost of higher performance sign materials, with the majority of sign replacements conducted as part of normal sign maintenance cycles. The labor, equipment, and mileage costs for sign replacement were excluded under the assumption that the proposed implementation period was long enough to allow replacement of non-compliant signs under reasonable maintenance cycles.

The report concludes that there will be increases in the costs to agencies resulting from the need to use more expensive sign face materials to increase retroreflective performance, but there should be no impacts on the costs of other sign elements. Agencies may experience a reduction in service life costs because of the longer service life of the improved sign face materials.