Citation

Rys MJ, Russell ER. J. Transp. Eng. 1995; 121(2): 176-181.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1995, American Society of Civil Engineers)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Kansas State University conducted research for the Kansas Department of Transportation to evaluate their retroreflective sheeting policy. This paper presents a recommended methodology for conducting a life-cycle cost analysis using Kansas cost figures and bid prices for two sheeting types as an example. A 50-state survey uncovered only four states that had ever done an economic analysis of sign sheeting. All were old studies and none used life-cycle cost-analysis techniques. Three types of signs were analyzed. For a new overhead guide sign, signs with high-performance sheeting had an equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC) of $206.27/sign/year versus $243.40/sign/year for signs with engineering grade sheeting. For overlaying an existing guide sign, the EUAC is $152.2/sign/year for signs with high-performance sheeting versus $178.8/sign/year for signs with engineering grade sheeting. For a ground mounted sign, the EUAC is $4.79/sign/year for signs with high-performance sheeting versus $6.95/sign/year for signs with engineering grade sheeting. It was concluded that Kansas policy of using signs with highperformance sheeting was cost-effective. These conclusions are not necessarily valid in other states, and only two materials were used in the example because valid cost figures were available on only two materials; however, the methodology could be used by all states with appropriate data. An analysis of life-cycle cost results made available by several states would result in a significant contribution to nationwide results on all materials used in the United States under actual conditions.

Language: en