No. 1334 

Planning, Admillistratiol1, and EllvirOlunent 

Maintenance of 

Pavements, Lane 

Markings, and 

Roadsides 

" TRANSI'ORTA1'IOfl' RESEARCH RECORD /334 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Lane Marking 

TED R. MILLER 

Pavement markings 5a \'C lives and reduct congestion. A benefitcost anaJ)'SIS of cdgdmes. centerhnes. and lane hnes is presented. 

1ne analysis considers mark.ing applied with fasl-drying paint or 

thcrmoplasllc. the most frequently used marking materials in the 

Unile(! Slaies. A literature review and telephone survey suggested 

strlpmg with fast-dryi ng paint com $O.03Sf1inear-fI in rural areas 

and SO.01I1inear·fl in urban areas. Thermoplastic lines cost more 

than painted on~ . but they can have lower life-cycle costs; in 

areas ..... here snowplowing is unnecessary. they htwc longer live •. 

Published lite rature suggests that existing longitudinal pavement 

markings reduce crashes by 21 percent and t:dgelines on rural 

two-lane highways reduce crashes by 8 percent. Applymg these 

percenlages to published aggregate crash OOSIS by roadway type 

yields tbe safety benefiTS. The anal%is assumes markmgslmprovc 

traffic [low from 6:00 a.m. to ' :00 p.m. on arterials. freeways. 

and Interstate highways, increasing average speeds by 2 mph . On 

average. each dollar currently spent on pavt:mem smping yields 

$60 in benefits. The benefit<051 ratio nses with !Taffic volume. 

The wban ratio is twice the rural ratio. The sensiti\'ity analYSIS 

snows the bencfit<05t ralios arc robust. Where striping reduces 

congestion. the travel time savings alone yield II positive benefit· 

cost ratio for striping. Most highways already have a full com· 

plement of lint'S; rural two·lane highways, however. sometimes 

lack edgelines. Edgelines on these road~ will yield benefits CJ;' 

ceeding their costs if an average of one noninlersecllon crash 

occurs annually every 15.5 mi of roadway. 

Driving down a dark road on a misty night is ncve r pleasant. 

The only comfo rt comes from centcrllnes and edgelines. These 

pavement ma rking, along with hille lines, arc important driving aids. The driver's manual advises watching Ihe edgeline 

when blinded by oncoming headlights. Lane lines organize 

vehicles into efficient lanes on multilane roads. Centcrlines 

help oncoming vehicles to avoid collisions. Evcn m daylight. 

pavement ma rkings make it possible for v~hiclcs to travel 

more safely and quickly. They reduce congestion and raise 

roadway capacity. 

This paper probes the costs and benefits of roadway pa\'e· 

ment markings. It restricts itself to cdgelines, centerlines. and 

lane hnes, the 10ngJtudinailines that run parallel 10 traffic. It 

shows that e xisting markings o n different classes of roads have 

benefit-cost ratios ranging from 21to 103. Most roads already 

ha"~ a full complement of lines. Some rural two-lane high. 

ways. however, lack edgelines; a few eve n lack ccnterlines. 

Edgelines would be cost-effective on a mile of rural two-lane 

highway if o ne crash a year occurred o utside the ro,ldway 

every 15.5 mi. 

MARKING MEDIA 

Longitudinal pavcment ma rkmgs typically are applied using 

a hquid marking medium or binder thai is VISible dunng the 

The Urban Institute. 2100 M Street N.W .. Washmgton. D.C. 20037. 

day. The medium binds glass beads that make Ihe lines visible 

when headlights shine on them at ntght. The pnnClple underlying night visibility is retrordlccti\'it)' . Rctroreflection means 

light reflecls off the binder·coated backs of the beads and is 

returned \0 its source. Because the beads arc almost perfectly 

round . the retroreflected light is conce ntrated in a small angle 

of return. making the marking conspicuou~. 

EXisting binders include fa st.drying high-solvent paint. 121 -

tCJ; paint. thermoplastic. epoxy, and polye ster. Some mark· 

ings are also applied using preformed tape. This paper computes bcncfit--<:ost ratios for the marking media thaI hiStorically 

captured the largest market shares: high-solvent paint and 

thermoplastic. Other medillo especially lalex paine have gained 

markct share recently. 

FasT.drying high-solvent paml has dominated the U.S. market for many years. It is ineJ;pcnsive to buy and apply. Because 

il dries quickly, a trailing vehicle moving at 10 to 15 mph can 

prevcnt traffic from tracking the neWl y applied paint. Highsolvent paint has two drawbacks: a short life. often as little 

as 6 to 12 months. and environmentally damaging emissions 

during application. The newer latex paints are waterborne 

rather than solvent·borne. Thus, they avoid emission problems. Most latex formulations dry more slowly than high. 

solvent paint: typically, application proceeds at 5 mph. 

Thermoplastic has captured roughly an eigh th of Ihe U.S. 

striping market. Although costly to buy and apply. it has a 

long life-4 to 7 years. ThcrmoplaSlic lines arc much thicker 

thall painted li nes. which makes them more vulnerable to 

snowplow damage. Contractors apply most thermoplastic in 

m~t stales. 

BENEFIT -COST EQUATION 

The benefit-cost ratio (SCR) computed in this paper equals 

the monetized benefits from pavement marking divided by 

the marking costs. Let B eq ual the be nefits expected per year 

from pavemcnt marking a nd C equal the annualized marking 

costs. Then the benefit-cost ratio is 

BeR = BIC (1 ) 

TIle benefits include increased safety and reduced travel time. 

UNIT COSTS OF MARKING 

Pavement markings rare ly require maintenance between ap· 

plications. Their useful life ranges frum 6 months to 1 years 

de pendlllg on the marking medium. traffic volume. location 

(lane lines and centerlines require more frequent replacement 

----------------------------------________________________ ~r~ 
... 

Miller 

than cdgelines), and mowplowing (plowing bare road causes 

rapid deterioration). The annualized application costs are 

C = M + P + E + ADMiN (2) 

where 

M = annualized materials costs, including binder, 

beads, and fuel; 

P = annualized personnel costs, including wages, 

fringe benefits, and per diem when striping crews 

are away from home overnight; 

E = annualized costs of equipment and storage facilities: and 

ADMIN = annualized conlract letting, monitoring, and 

other administr:uive costs. 

The annualized costs include multiple applications for which 

the useful life is less than a year. The annualization multipliers 

used were capital recovery factors computed using the formula 

by Winfrey (1), The analysis used a discount rate (present 

value faclor) of 4 percent. That rate is recommended for U!Oe 

in analyzing highway safety COUOIermeasures with li~'es less 

than 5 years (2). The sensitivity analysis examined the benefitcost ratio at a 10 percent discount rale. 

Data on marking costs were drawn from a litera lUre review 

and a telephone survey. Table 1 summarizes the cost estimates 

per application. The top panel in the table shows published 

estimates; the bOllom panel shows the estimates from the 

telephone survey. Typically. the installed cost of high-SOlvent 

paint. in 1991 dollars, is SO.035/linear-ft of 4-;n, stripe in rural 

areas and SO.07Ilinear-ft in urban areas. 

TABLE 1 PAVEMENT MARKING COSTS 

Source 

Henry et AI. (14); 

14 atates 

Aurand et al. (11); 9 

atate., 6 manufacturers 

HUghee et al. (15); state 

survey 

Attaway et al. (16); N.C. 

Mendola (17); N.J. 

DePaulo (18); Ohio 

SASHTO (19); 14 state. 

Calilornia 

Colorado 

Florida 

!lUnoh 

Loa Angeles, Calif. 

Maine 

Md./Va. contractor 

Montana contractor 

North Carolina 

Phoenix, Ariz. 

Texas 

Year 

1988 

1988 

1983 

1988 

1988 

1988 

1991 

1990 

1991 

1991 

1991 

1991 

1991 

1991 

1991 

1991 

1991 

1991 

)9 

Thermoplastic costs vary widely. ranging from SO.15 to $0.40/ 

linear-ft. The average is $O.32/linear-ft. Reasons that the telephone survey suggested for the wide variation include 

• Thennoplastic lines range from 60 to 120 mils in thickness 

(with corresponding differences in materials cost and useful 

life). 

• The war-related surge in oil prices at least temporarily 

raised materials costs. 

• Contractor availability varies-prices are higher where 

contractors are scarce. 

• Thennoplastic is produced primarily in southern and 

western factories, and shipping it elsewhere is costly. 

• Thermoplastic costs are sensitive to propane costs. which 

vary regionally (propane is u!Oed to heat and agitate the thermoplastic). 

Rural-Urban Variation 

Most published costs are state averages. They mask substantial variability. Costs are low in suburban and rural areas 

where daylong striping will not disrupt traffic significantly, 

Urban striping costs often are higher. Reasons that the tele· 

phone survey suggested for higher urban costs are 

• The striping day is short to avoid delaying rush-hour traffic, 

• Striping roads with daylong congestion requires extra staff 

and equipment to control traffic. 

• More time and care are required because the longitudinal 

pavement markings must mesh with many crosswalks, stop 

lines, and other special markings. 

Higb vae Paint 

Avg Range 

(SIft) 

.035 .02-.055 

.035 

.035 

.035 

.035 

.035 

.0' .0' 

.02 

.0' 

_035 

.02-.07 

.03-.045 

_035-.04 

.02-.05 

.10contr 

.0SScontr 

.08contr 

.04-.045 

.03 .09contr 

. 07 . 08 5contr 

.035rur, .07urb 

Thermoplastic 

Avg Range 

(SIft) 

.35 

.17 

.2' .2' 

.40 

.37 

.2. 

.32 

.35 

.2' 

.35 

.17-.60 

.28-.40 

.15-.28 

.12-.40 

_25-.35 

.30-.50 

.22-.45 

Non: All items in!lated to December 1990 dollars using the 

Consuaer Price Index_ 
Comparing costs between striping media requires caution. 

The costs for high-solvent paint in Table I assume lines will 

retrace existing lines. Sueh restriping generally is done by state 

forces. Striping after repaving or chip sealing requires premarking to establish line locations. This costs perhaps $0.005 

to SO.Olllinear-ft. The paving contract generally includes premarking and striping. Because striping usua lly is sulx:ontracted, contract costs include two tiers of administrative expenses and profits. Unlike painting contracts, thermoplastic 

contracts are often first-tier contracts. 

The contract paint and thermoplastic costs in Table I exclude the costs of contract letting and monitoring. The Texas 

Department of Transportation (DOT) estimated these costs 

at 5 percent of the contract price. The North Caroline DOT, 

which inspects more extensively than most, estimated the costs 

at 7 percent. 

Values Used 

The analysis used the following marking costs and material 

lives: 

• SO.035f1inear-ft rural and $O.07/linear-ft urban for highsolvent paint, with restriping every 6 months on Interstates. 

other freeways, and major urban arterials, and every 12 months 

on other roads. At a 4 percent discount rate. the annualized 

costs per mile are S381 for rural Intentates, $192 for ot her 

rural roads. :$762 for urban freeways and major arterials. and 

$385 for other urban roads. For striping and premarking by 

contraclOrs every seventh year. SO.09/1inear-ft, implying an 

annualized premarking premium of $49/mi rural and $I8Imi 

urban. including the premarking cost. for example, the annualized cost per mile on most rural roads total $241. These 

costs assume all lines are solid, single stripes. The sensitivity 

analysis examines an alternative assumption. 

• SO.26Jlinear-ft rural and $O.33I!inear-ft urban for thermoplastic. with restriping every 5 years. Where climate is 

appropriate for thermoplastic, state materials choices suggest 

its life-cycle costs are competitive with high-solvent paint if 

average daily traffic (ADT) exceeds roughly 2.500. The annualized COSts per mile are $308 rural and $391 urban. 

TRANSPORTA TlON RESEARCH RECORD /334 

Miles Striped 

The miles striped by roadway type and land use were computed using data on number of lanes by roadway mileage from 

FHWA"s 1988 highway statistics (3). Undivided highways require one edge or lane line per lane and a centerline. For 

example. a four-lane highway requires two edge lines. two lane 

lines. and a centerline: a six-lane highway requires IWO more 

lane lines. Each side of a divided highway requires one edge 

or lane line per lane and an additional edgeline. Line mileage 

was computed using the follO\\'ing assumptions: 

• Divided Interstate highways with more than four lanes 

have an average of seven lanes in urban areas and six lanes 

in rural areas. 

• Other divided urban freeways with four or more lanes 

average five lanes. Divided major arterials average 4.5 lanes. 

• Other divided roads with four or more lanes average four 

lanes. 

• Undivided roads with more than two lanes average four 

lanes. 

The first column of data of Table 2 shows the line miles by 

roadway functional class (excluding local streets, which are 

rarely wide or heavily traveled enough to stripe) and ruralurban land use. Rural roads, primarily major collectors, account fo r more than 75 percent of the line miles. 

BENEFITS OF MARKING 

The benefits of marking. B in Equation 1, are the present 

value of the sum of the annual benefits. The benefits for a 

I-mi road segment are 

B = A • R • CS + V' T( lISo - liS) (3) 

where 

A 

R 

CS 

V 

" 

" 

crashes per year on road segment, 

fractIonal reduction in crashes expected due to marking. 

cost savings per crash prevented , 

annual traffic volume on road segment, 

TABLE 2 LINE MILES AND CRASH COSTS BY ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS AND 

LAND USE. EXCLUDING LOCAL STREETS 

Road Type 

Line 

Jil:l>An 

Miles Costs Line Miles 

~ Costs 

Interstate 84,520 $l2,230 201,525 $10,489 

other freeway 51,187 6,602 0 0 

Major arterial 238,852 58,260 303,499 23,102 

Minor arterial 270,822 41,963 460,750 23,094 

Major collector 245,512 17,136 1,321,942 30,330 

Minor collector 0 0 886,192 14,642 

Total 890,893 $136,191 3,173,908 $101,657 

Hon: costs in millions of December 1990 dollars. 

• 
T ::= valu~ of I \·chlcle·he of travel lime. 

So a\e rage speed on road segment before markmg. and 

S ::= aver:1ge speed on road segment after marking. 

Cost Savings of Crash Pnvfntion 

Safely benefits-th~ crash cost savings-were adapted from 

data from .\1iller et al. (4). They mclude medical. emergency 

services. workplace. legal. property damage. tra~'eI delay. and 

administrallve costs. as well as lost wages and household production. and pain. suffering. and lost quality of life. The benefit values wer~ d~nved using the method dictated by FHWA 

(5) and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

(6) foe valuing if~-saving benefits. 

The analysis by roadway functional class (e.g .. rural Interstate. urban anerialJ uses total crash COStS by road t~pc and 

land use from Miller et al. (.1). Total crash costs equal A, 

• CS. The second data column in Table 2 summaTlzes the 

costs. The cost savings equal these costs limes R. 

To analyze striping benefits fo r rural two·lane roads in more 

detail. the nonfatal injury benefits were tailored to the injury 

distribution for related crashes. These include crashes with 

first harmful ~ve nt s outside the roadway and head·on crashes. 

The mjury distribution was computed using 1984 National 

Accident Sampling System data . 

The related crashes are costly. The average benefit per 

related crash prevented. including fatal crashes and propen ydamage·only crashes, is 595,000 (in December 1990 dollars). 

The be nefits are 53.079,000 per fata l crash prevented and 

5154.000 per injury crash prevented. By comparison. Miller 

et al. (4) find that the average benefits of crash prevemion 

ar~ 148.000 fo r a police-reported crash and 519.000 fo r a 

police-reported injury crash. 

The safety benefits given by Mi ller et al. (./) are fo r a 4 

percent discount rate. For the sensitivity analysis. benefits at 

to percent were taken from unpublished tables supponing 

Miller et aL 

Table 3 compares the costs pe r injury by police-reported 

severity at 4 percent and 10 percent discount rates. The nonfatal injury costs with a to percent discount rate are higher. 

an apparent anomaly. This occurs for two reasons. First. the 

value placed on the sum of lifetime earnings and quality of 

life is computed independent of the discount rate by Miller 

et aL (4) [using the method prescribed by OMB (6)J. The 

" sumcq uals 52.5 million (in December 1990 dollars). Although 

earni ngs losses are less at a higher discount rate. because the 

sum is a constan!. the value placed on lost quality of life rises 

by an offsetting amou nt. Second. to value the lost quality of 

life resulting from nonfatal injury. Miner et al. (4) apply the 

discount rate to compute a value per life year for lost quality 

of life. At a 4 percent discount rate. the loss per year equals 

the total loss divided by 20.8: at to percent. it equals the total 

divided by to.2. Because nonfatal injuries affect quality of 

life predominantly in the year of the inj ury, the much higher 

value fo r a year of lost quality of life yields a higher averag~ 

inj ury cost. even though costs in fut ure years have a lower 

present value at the higher discoutll rate. 

Perttntage Reduction in Crashes Altributable to 

Pan!ment Markings 

A iteratu ~ review of the percentage of crashes prevented by 

longitudinal pavement markings revealed several studies that 

used treatment and control groups. It also revealed some 

studies without well-matched controls and values from some 

studies without proper bibliographic references. Table 4 sum· 

marius all the percentages. Most studies supplemented ex· 

isting ccnterlines with edge tines. 

Average effectiveness was computed fo r all the studies and 

fo r seve ral subsets. The subsets included 

• Studies of edgelines only. 

• Studies of edgelines excludi ng the highest and lowest ef· 

fectiveness estimates. and 

• Studies that were examined and judged sound. 

The averages ranged from 20 to 21 percent. Th~ average 

fo r sound studies examined was 2 t percent. This paper assumes that roads already are marked . meaning the present 

crash levels are 21 percent lower than the levels withom mark· 

ings. Expressed in terms of current crash rates. the percentage 

reduction in crashes due to striping is 100 • . 211(1 - 0.21) 

= 26.5 percent. 

The best U.S. effectiveness study is that by Bali et al. (7). 

who examine rural two-lane roads. This to-state study in· 

eludes more than 500 sites. Each si te had either a significant 

and adequately maintained. nonexperimental change in delineatio n 2 or 3 years before the study or an undelineatcd. 

TABLE J COSTS OF AN INJ URY BY POLICE· REPORTED SEVERITY AND 

DISCOUNT RATE 

PolIce-Reported severity 

K - Fatal Injury 

A - Incapacitating Injury 

B - Evident Injury 

C - Possible Injury 

o - Property Damage Only 

CQst by piscount Rate 

$2,392,742 

169,506 

33,227 

17,029 

1,734 

$2,360,330 

190,069 

43,770 

27 ,7 57 

1, 73 4 

&xmCE : Miller et al. (4) and unpublished supporting 

materials, inflated to December 1990 dollars. 
" TRANS PORTA TlON RESEARCH RECORD OJ" 

TABLE ~ REDUCfION IN CRASHES D UE TO LO~G LINES 

Edge l ines 

united States 

Nationwide (7) 

Kanaas (21) 

Kansas (22) 

Ohio (23) 

Illinois (22) 

Idaho (22) 

Utah (22,2.4) 

Arizona (22) 

Michigan (22) 

England (25) 

East Sussex 

South Yorkshire 

Cornwall 

Northamptonshire 

Hertfordshire 

France (26) 

Lorraine 

Germany (20) 

Hesse 

Lower Saxony 

Centerlines 

United states (7) 

Bavaria (20) 

matched contro l sile. Data were obtained on crash experience 

for 2 to 3 years at each site (at leaSI 2 years before and 2 

years aher delineation fo r the sites with delineation added). 

The study finds that adding edgelincs and centerline!> reduces 

crashes by 36 pt!rcenl. Adding edgchncs to a centerline yields 

an 8 percent reduction. These perce ntage~ were used in the 

more detailed analysis of marking rural two-lane roads. 

Usmg the percentage reduction in crashes to compute safety 

benefits should yield conservative estimates. Several published studies suggest the percentage of injuries and fat alities 

reduced is greater than the percentage of crashes reduced. 

The benefit-cost ratios by roadway type mclude travel time 

saved because edgelines and centerlines let traffic go faster 

on busy roads. The analYSis assumes 

• Travel time was saved during the peak period of 6:00 

a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eighty percen! of vehicle miles of travel 

(VMT) oceu r dunng this period (S.Table 5·5). Weekend and 

weekday travel generate roughly the same percentage of travel 

miles per day (8. Table 5-9). Furthe rmo re . trips arc hea\'y in 

all hours from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m .. rangIng from 5.4 to 6.3 

percent of all trips in each peak hour before 4:00 p.m. and 

after 6:00 p.m. and 8.1 percent between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. 

(S.Table 5·5). 

Reduction (I) 

• 16.5 

14.5 

1. 

21 

16 3. 

60 

3 

18 

30 

26 

12 

22 

27 

20 

25 

2' 

10 

• Pavement markings raised speeds. th us saving travel time. 

on ly on Interstate highways. other freeways. and arterials. 

• The average 56·mph speed on these roads (3) would fall 

to 54 mph duri ng the peak travel period if the roads were 

lacking lane lines. edgelines, and eenterlines. 

The analysis uses travel time values of 60 percent of the 

w(lge rate fo r the driver and 45 percent fo r passengers. These 

v(llues are recommended by Miller (9). who critically reviews 

the IiteralUre. They also are used in FHWA·s Highway Economics Requirements System model. The average vehicle has 

0.7 pasSC'ngers (S.TabJe 8·1). Time of day and day of week 

do not unduly affect occupancy (S.Figure S·6). so it is rea· 

sonable to use Ihis occupancy for pellk·hour mps. 

The value of tra llel time saved per vehicle is 60 pe rcent 

+ 45 percent· 0.7 = 91.5 percent of (he wage rale . The 

average nonsupervisory wage in 1990 was S9.66/hr (/0). Thu~. 

a vehicle hour o(travel time (Tin Equation 3) is worth S8.84. 

Table 5 shows the annual VMT b} ro"dwa~ cl(lS~ (Ii In 

Eq uation 3). 

BENEflT·COST RATIOS BY ROAI>WAY 

TYPE AND LAND USE 

Applym8 Equation 3 to the data given abo\'c eld5 henefu · 

cost ratios by roadway type and land use. Table 5 shows the 

benefi t·cost ratios for high·solvent paint (as well as \lMT). 
L 

Mil/t, 

TABLE 5 ANNUAL VMf (IN \l1LUON'S) AND BENEFTT-cosr RA no FOIl LO;o.;Gll1JDL'IAL 

PAVE~ENT MARKINGS BY ROADWAY fUNcnONAL CLASS /\ND LAND USE. 

EXCLUDING LOCAL STREETS 

Roadway Class = 

VMT 

Interstate 258,662 

Other treeway 116,965 

Major arterial 319,286 

Minor arterial 231,786 

Ma jor collector 99,245 

Minor collector 0 

Total 1,025,944 

SOURCI (VMT): FHWA (3) 

Nationally. pavement striping has a benefiH:ost ratio of 60. 

On average, each dollar spent on longitudinal pavement 

markings yields S60 in increased safe ty and reduced congeslion benefits. The benefit-cost ratio is highest on an erial roads. 

The urban ratio is more than twice the rural ratio. Annual 

benefits ave rage S19,22611ine-mi. 

The sensitivity analysis showed that the benefit-cost ratios 

were robust. The ratios by land use we re not greatly affected 

by choice of marking medium. changed assumptions. or introduction of additional co~t considerations. Tablt: 6 summarizes the ratios. 

Varying the paint cost aUects the benefit-cost ralios. but it 

does not change their order of magnitude. Assuming a uniform rcstriping frequency of9 months lowers the rural benefitcost T,lIio but raises the urban ratio. Wear and tear. especially 

in the winter, probably rcducc§ nighttime marking eUectl\'eness to 9 months except on lightly tra\'cled minor rural col· 

lectors. Because the dfectiveness studies involved annual restriping. the errectiveness estimates already should incorporate 

this temporal decl ine. Assuming that they do not would reduce Iht' bt'llefit-cost ratio by 15 percent. 

Typically. high-solvent paint releases 69 Ib of volatile organic wmpounds (VOCs) per mile of solid -I--in. stripe: (11). 

VOCs oxidize. creating ozone that can cause respiratory distress for sensitive people. They also arc suspected carcinogens. Krupnick and Kurland (/2) suggest valuing the shontcrm health effects of VQCs at S6201ton (inflated to December 

1990 dollars). Each restriping, the COSt is S2l1mi of solid stripe. 

This value is primarily for the nonheastern United States. but 

it is suspected to be a reasonable national average (personal 

communication, 1991). TIle "alue does not consider the longterm cancer risk or any effect on plants and animals. 

The envIronmental (.'Osts suggest latex paint \\ould be more 

cost·effective than high-SOlvent paint if its applied cost were 

another SO.OO4Ilincar-rt ($1.3O/gal). The bener durability of 

some latex paints might Justify an even greater cost. These 

conclUSIOns apply only to latex paints .... 'i th fast drying times. 

In d imat.::. where thennopiastic markings are practical. their 

long Ilk makes theIr hfc-cycle COSt competitive with painted 

markings. TIley are especially competitive on high-volume 

urban roads. For ellSC of comparison. the ratios for thermoplastIC we re computed a. if it c()uld be used nationwide, 

I!.IwIJ. All 

OCR VMT OCR BCR 

74.1 181,284 46 .3 58.3 

63.4 0 63.4 

102.0 160,253 105.2 102.9 

125.8 151,783 68.9 97.1 

52.2 18 3,507 28.6 34.2 

46, 985 20.6 20 . 6 

90.6 123,812 40.1 60.0 

The benefit-cost ra tios presented so far assumed all longitudi nal pavement markings are single, solid lines. In reality_ 

cente rlines often are doubled . then dashed in passing zones. 

Tht' industry rule of thumb is that a centerline on a two-lane 

road takes 1.3 times as much paint as a solid line. Conversely, 

lane lines are dashed. Typical lane lines are IO-fl stripes separated by 30-ft gaps in rural areas and 9-ft stripes .... ilb 12-ft 

gaps elsewhere. Appl)'lI1g these ratios to the est imated line 

miles marked yields paint miles. Costing with paint IIlIks 

raises the benefit-cosl ratio slightly. Table 6 shows Ihe revised 

ratios both excluding and including environmental damage. 

The benefi t-cost ratIo of 59 With environmental damage and 

paint miles may be more accurate than the ratio for 60 fo r 

the base case. Considering these additional costs raises the 

urban bcncfit-(.'Ost ratio but lowers the rural ratio. 

Another possible model refinement would assume that longitudinal pavemenl markings prevent unreponed crashes as 

effectively as they prevent reported crashes. Applying thc 

underreporting estimates from Miller et al. (4) yields substantially higher benefits, It raises the benefit-cost ratio fo r 

all roads to 76. 

Omitting the travel time savings affects the benefit-cost 

ratios on ly fo r congested roads. On these roads. ~'ings in 

travel ti mt' alone would justify longi tudi nal pavement markmgs. On major rural roads, the benefit-cost ratios fo r these 

markings range from 6.4 10 10.2 if only reduced congestion 

IS conSIdered. On major urb.ln roads, Ihey range from 8.0 to 

18.3. Where pavement markmgs WIll ease congestion. they 

almost surely will be cost-be neficial. 

Ignoring the extra cost of contract pavement marDngs at 

repaving would raise the benefit-cost ratio_ Using a 10 percent 

discount ralC would affect the benefit-cost rano minimallY. 

EDGEUNES ON RURAL TWO-LANE ROADS 

The lowest benefit-cost ratios for longitudinal pavement 

markings arc for edgelines on rural two-lane highw a~·s. ThIs 

sectIon exammes the be nefit-cost ratio fo r these lines in more 

detail. It again use~ E4uations 1 through 3. The analysis IS 

by average daily traffic volume. It ignores any tra\'el time 

savings. 
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1334 

TABLE 6 BENEFn·COST RATIOS BY RURAL.URBAN LAND USE. SHOWING EFFECTS OF 

ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTIONS AND MARKING MEDIA 

Using Hi gh-Solvent Paint (Base Case) 

Using a Paint Coat That Is $.005 

Higher 

Lo .... er 

uniform 9-Month striping cycle 

Effective only for 9 Months Except on 

Minor Rural Collectors 

Costing VOC Damage To Environment 

Using Thermoplastic 

$.26/ft rural 

$.22/ft rural 

Adjusting Paint Use for Unpainted 

Parts of Lane Lines and 

Double/Skip Parts of Centerlines 

Costing VOC Damage and Adjusting 

Paint Use 

Including Crashes Not Reported to 

Police 

Omitting Travel Time savings 

Ignoring Higher Cost At Repaving 

Applying a 10\ Discount Rate 

Rural 

40.1 

36.2 

45.0 

33.4 

31.6 

36.7 

32.9 

3&.& 

41.6 

38.1 

51. 2 

38.1 

49.7 

38.8 

Urban 

90.6 

82.6 

100.5 

96.3 

80 . 1 

85.7 

130.0 

130.0 

99.3 

94.0 

114.5 

81.9 

93.5 

93.5 

collbined 

60.0 

54.4 

67.1 

54.6 

50 . 7 

55.6 

58.9 

66.4 

63.6 

5&.9 

76.0 

54.9 

69.1 

59.9 

Bali et al. (7) find edgelines prevent 0.72 crashes per million 

VMT on rural two-lane roads. Multiplying this value times 

the ratio of fatal crash rates per million VMT on rural fede ralaid secondary roads in 1988 and 1978 [from FHWA (13)J 

suggests 0.48 crashes would be prevented today. This estimate 

is conserY3tive. because nonfatal injury rates probably fell 

less than fatality rates (13). The low q uality of the nonfatal 

injury data precludes their use in adjusting to present crash 

rates. 

Edgeli nes are justified on a ru ral two·lane highway with .064 

or more crashes per mile per year. Interpreting this number 

conservative ly. edgelines are justified if an average of one 

nonintersection crash occurs annually every 15.5 mi. Bali I:t 

al. (7) recommend against edgelines. however. if lane widths 

are less than II fl. 

Figure I shows the benefit·cost ratios. Even at 500 ADT, 

edgelines on rural two-lane roads yield S17 in safety benefits 

fo r e\'erv dollar invested. 

Bali ~t al. (7) fi nd that edgelines reduce crashes by 7.9 

percent on rural two-lane roads with lane widths of 11 fI or 

more. Using that estimate. the number of crashes per year 

needed to justify striping (A) can be computed as 

A = C(CS 'R) 

= ::! edgelines • S2401mil(S95.074Icrash •. 079) 

= .064 (4) 

.. 

' 00 ~ .. 200 17 

• 

'.000 "VI ',~"VI 2.000 01:1 ,_500 £~ 

:<IGURE I 8endit--<:ost ratio by ADT for edgelines on rural 

tWG-lalK' roads. 

tt 
\ti/lu 

CONCLUSION 

Existing longitudinal p<lvcment markmgs YIeld benefits far 

greater than theIr costs. They increase safe ty and reduce 

congestion. Much of the safety benefit is achieved during 

pcnods of poor vISIbIlity. "f1I at suggests checkmg roadway 

retroreflectlvlly regularly and restnping promptly when n:-

IToreflectivity drops below recommended levels. 

EdgeJines may not be used ohen enough on rural two-lane 

roads in soml.: sta tl.: ~" The number of nomnlerseClion crashes 

needed to justify edgelines is quite small. Rural collectors 

have far higher crash emits per million VMT than other roads 

(..j'). Wider use of edgelines on these roads may be a COSteffective way to cut the crash toll. 

ACKNOWLEDGl\'lENTS 

The American Glass Bead Manufacturers Association funded 

this study. Study liaison Da~ e Mastro of Potters Industries 

proVided many helpful insights. Thanks to the many government agencies and AAS HTO affi hates that provided data on 

striping costs and useful lives. 

REFERENCr..5 

L R. Wmrn::y. e conomic Anllly.ru for lIigh .... lI)'s. International 

Textbook Company, New York, N.Y .. 1968. 

2. T. R . Mille r. B. E. Whiting. B. C. Kragh . and C. ugeer. Sen· 

sitivity of ~ Highway Sarety Resource Allocation Modcl to Var· 

iatlons in Benefit C\Jmputa tion Parameters. In Tra1uporralion 

Research Record //24. TRB. Nallonal Research Council. Wash· 

Ington. D.C .. 1987. pp. 58-65. 3. FHWA. HighWllySIDtU/ia 1988. RepCITi FHWA-Pl-89-OO3. U.S. 

Governmenl Printing Offi~. Washington. D.C .. 1989. 

~ T . R. Miller. 1. G. Viner. S. R05Sman. N. Pindu •. W. Gellert. 

J. Douglass. A. Dilhngham. and G . Blomquist. The Cruu of 

HighwlI), Cra.rhe.r. Rcport FHWA-RD-9I-055. The Urban Jru;ti· 

tUIC. Washinglon. D.C., lune 1991. 

5. MOlOr Vehicle Accidenl COSI$. Technical Advisory 17570.1. 

FHWA. U.S. Department or Transportation. J une 1988. 

6 U.S. Offi~ of ~n gc mcnt and Budget. RegulafOry Prosram of 

Ihe Uniled SIIIIe!. U.S. Govcrnmenl PnntingOffice. Washington. 

D .c.. 1989. 

7. S. Ba[i. R. POll!. 1. A. Fee. 1. I Taylor. and 1. Glennon. CostEffec(l\"ent.rs and SlIfny of Allermmn.' Roud .. ·ay DrlinellliOtI 

Trl'lIlml'IfIs)or RfJral Two·Lane Hlgh ... a.~J Report FHWA·RD78-50. Nallon~1 TechlllcalJnrormallon ServIce. Sprmg£ield . V .... 

AprJ[ 1978. 

II. D. K1mgcr and R. Kuzmya),;. Personlll Tral'el in Ihe U.S.: 1')83-

1984 Nalionwidt Pe~ol!(ll TralZspoffalio" Surl'ty. National Tcch· 

nical Informanon ServIce. Springfield. Va .. 1986. 

9. T. R MIlle r. Til e Value of Time and Ihe Benefil$ of Time· Sa'·lIIg. 

The Url)an hIS IlIUIC . Washington . D.C., and TranSIt New Zcaland. Welltngton. 1989. 

10. EconomIC Repoff of Ihe Pus/denl. TrallSmilled 10 tht ConfTeS! 

Feb",afY J99I . U.S. (JQvernment Printing Office. Washington . 

D.C. 1991 

11. G. A. Aurand. M. B Turner. C. 1. Athey. and R. M. Neuhcht. 

Reduction of VoIlIIIlt Organic CompOl/nd EmUslolU from the 

ApplicallOn of Traffic Markings. Midwcst Research Institute Report EPA-450/3-88-007. Office of Air Quality Planning and S13ndank. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park. 

N.c.. Aug. 1988. 

[2. A . 1. Krupntc~ and 1. Kurland. An Analysis of Se/ecttd fleallh 

Bl'llt fifJ from Rtducflom in PhotochemiclIl OxidanI!J In tht ' ·of/h· 

toSlt Tn Uniled SIIIIt!. Final Report to En .. ironmcntal Protection 

Agency ResourCC$ ror the FUlure . Washington. D.C.. Sepl. HISS. 

13. Fallll llnd Injury Acc/dent Rilla on Public Roads in Ihe liNltd 

SUlItJ. RepoTl FHWA-SA·90-29. FHWA. U.S. Department of 

Transportation. June 1990. 

14. 1. 1. Henry, C. A. Antle. and 1. L. c.,rroll. ServICe Life (JTld Cos/ 

of Pavement Marking Matuiats. Unpublished Final Rcpon to 

NCHRi'. "11." Pennsylvania TransportatJon Institute, Unh-ersity 

Park. March 1990. 

15. w. E. Hughes. H. W. McGee. S. Hussain. and 1. Keegel. Field 

E..alulIlion of EdgeliM Widlhs. Report FHWA-RD.a9- 111. Nallooal Tcchruca.1 Information Semce. Spnngfield. Va .. Dec. 1989. 

16. R. W. Alt awa~ aou P. O . Adcleke-Shciduo. Pa~ ~nI .\flUking 

MlllcruW Program. Repon FHWAlNCJ89-005. Unh'erslry 01 Nonh 

Carolina Instuute ror Transponation Research and Educallon. 

Research Tria ngle Par),;. Jan. 1990. 

17. A. A. Mendola. ComparQ/ive Stlldy of the Performance (ITld COSt 

Effectiveness of Lllrsl' Glass Bell/is und NJ DOT SlIIndlUd GlllSJ 

Bl'lIds in Epoxy Traffic Paint. New Jersey Department of Transportauon. Trenton. Sept. 199(). 

18. D. C. De Paulo. Ohio Tests Larger Glass Striping Bead$. Snte, 

Roads . April 1990. pp. 42 -·0. 

]9. SASHTO PUvtnlt nl Mllrking Informatron . Southeastern Assacialion of State Highway$ and Transportation Officials. July 1991. 

20. F. Bitzl ct al. W;rkSllmktit von Leiteinrichtungtn. Der Beratater 

fur Schadcnvcrhutung. Huk-Verband, Cologne, West Gennany. 

1%1. 

21. A. 1. Basile. Effect of Pavement Markings on Traffic Ac:adents 

in Kansas In HRB Sul/I'lln 308. HRB. Nauonal Resean:h Coun· 

cil. Washmglon. D.C .. 1962. pp. 80-86. 

22. P. R. MaC}'. N. D. Nedas. and G . P. Balca r. R(JQd MllrkmgJ Ill" 

lin Alcohol Counter ~a.rure in Trllffic Safl'ty_· A Field Tt$I of 

Standard allii Wide Edgeli,,~. Final Repon 10 FHWA . PO!1cn 

Industries. Inc .. Hasbrouck . N.J .. 1une 1980. 

23. J V. MUSIck . Effect of Pa\'cmcnt Edge Markings on Two-Lane 

Rural Statc Highways in Ohio. In HRB Bulle/in 266. HRB. Na· 

tional Research Council. Washington. D.C .• 1960. pp. 1-7. 

. 1. Jackson. Reflecloriscd Road Ma rkings: Their Contnl)uuoo to 

T ra ffic Safety. Proc .. Symp<mum on VtSuaJ AsptctS of R(JQd 

Markings. Pans. France. May 19113. 

25 . The Road SoftlY Btnefiu of Edgelining. Road Marking Industry 

Group. UniICu Kingdom. May 1981. 

26. 1. Jackson and J. Fournier. The LormiM Edgelimng Srudy . 

POllcrs-Ballotini. Ltd .• South Yorkshire. England. Marcb 1983. 

Publiclltion af thl$ pllptr sponsQred by Ccmmillu on C(JQ/IIlg;. S,gning. lind Marking Mllitriais.