Back
 JTTs  Vol.6 No.5 , October 2016
Cost and Benefit Evaluation of Graffiti Countermeasures on the Nevada Highways
Abstract: Nevada is one of the major states that are currently suffering from graffiti problem. It was estimated that graffiti costs Southern Nevada around $30 million per year. The major highway structures that were suffering from graffiti were bridges, sound walls, retaining walls and traffic signs. Removing graffiti from these infrastructures was a big challenge to the maintenance division of Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). Thus, the department was looking for cost effective proactive countermeasures to prevent graffiti on highway infrastructure. This study first identified a spectrum of proactive countermeasures, and then evaluated them by conducting a cost-benefit analysis. Pedestrian fencing and chain link fence were found to be cost effective countermeasures for preventing graffiti on bridges and sound walls. However, for relative long sound walls, the chain link becomes less cost effective. Rat guard was found to be cost effective for road signs; however, it was more useful for traffic signs that are located in the area where the taggers cannot find the way to bypass the rat guard. Coating and landscaping were found to be cost effective for small structures. The security camera countermeasure was not cost effective at the locations where the reduction in graffiti was small. The software for spectrometers was relatively high cost and might hinder the cost effectiveness of this countermeasure. To reduce the cost of the software, developing the software internally could be adopted. And finally, the electronic database was recommended since it was not difficult to develop and maintain.
Cite this paper: Teng, H. , Puli, A. , Kutela, B. , Ni, Y. and Hu, B. (2016) Cost and Benefit Evaluation of Graffiti Countermeasures on the Nevada Highways. Journal of Transportation Technologies, 6, 360-377. doi: 10.4236/jtts.2016.65031.
References

[1]   Graffiti Control Program (2000) What Is Graffiti? The City of San Diego Website:
https://www.sandiego.gov/police/services/prevention/tips/graffiti

[2]   Wylie, S. (1999) Graffiti Vandalism: The Current Situation in Christchurch and Potential Countermeasures. Report Submitted to Christchurch City Council.

[3]   Callinon, R. (2002) Dealing with Graffiti in New South Wales. Briefing Paper Submitted to Parliament of New South Wales.

[4]   Eck, R.W. and Martinelli, D.R. (1998) Assessment and Mitigation Measures for Graffiti on Highway Structures. Transportation Research Record, 1642, 35-42.

[5]   Claire-King, B. (2003) Fates Worse Than Death: The Role Playing Game. Vajra Enterprises, 344-345.

[6]   (2008) GraffitiHotline. Anti-Graffiti Coatings.
http://www.graffitihotline.co.uk/graffiticoatings.htm

[7]   Spiegelman, S. (1983) Striking Back at Graffiti. Essays of an Information Scientist, 6, 247-252.

[8]   (2008) State of California.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/15/local/me-63714

[9]   Bentley, W. (1997) Graffiti Control by Enforcement and Design. The First National Conference on Graffiti Control, Western Australia, 4 September 1996, 31-39.

[10]   Panneerselvam, R. (2012) Engineering Economics. Thirteenth Edition, PHI Learning Private Limited, New Delhi.

[11]   Teng, H. (2009) Evaluation of Graffiti Countermeasures on Highways. Final Report, Submitted to Nevada Department of Transportation.

[12]   (2008) Lowe’s Website.
http://www.lowes.com/c/Fencing-gates-Building-supplies

 
 
Top