Published Mar 1, 2017
Majid Khalilikhah Kevin Heaslip


A critical deficiency in any one or a combination of three transportation system characteristics: the driver, roadway, or vehicle can contribute to an elevated crash risk for the motoring public. Traffic signs often convey critical information to drivers. However, traffic signs are only effective when clearly visible and legible. Traffic sign vandalism that is exclusively the results of humans causes both sign legibility and visibility to deteriorate. Transportation agencies spend a significant amount of money to repair or replace vandalized signs. This study was conducted to identify which traffic signs are more vulnerable to vandalism. To do this, a mobile-based vehicle collected data of over 97000 traffic signs managed by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDoT), US. The vandalized signs were identified by a trained operator through inspection of daytime digital images taken of each individual sign. Location data obtained from online sources combined with the traffic sign data were imported into ArcGIS to acquire localized conditions for each individual sign. According to the chi-square test results, the association between vandalism and traffic sign attributes and localized conditions, including background color, size, mount height, exposure, land cover, and road type was evident. After employing the random forests model, the most important factors in making signs vulnerable to vandalism were identified.


Download data is not yet available.



transportation infrastructure, traffic sign vandalism, mobile-based data collection, mobile LiDAR, digital imaging, geographic information system, random forests

Balali, V.; Golparvar-Fard, M. 2015. Segmentation and recognition of roadway assets from car-mounted camera video streams using a scalable non-parametric image parsing method, Automation in Construction 49(A): 27–39. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.09.007

Baratian-Ghorghi, F.; Zhou, H.; Jalayer, M.; Pour-Rouholamin, M. 2015. Prediction of potential wrong-way entries at exit ramps of signalized partial cloverleaf interchanges, Traffic Injury Prevention 16(6): 599–604. http://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2014.981651

Boggs, W.; Heaslip, K.; Louisell, C. 2013. Analysis of sign damage and failure: Utah case study, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2337: 83–89. http://doi.org/10.3141/2337-11

Borowsky, A.; Shinar, D.; Parmet, Y. 2008. Sign location, sign recognition, and driver expectancies, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 11(6): 459–465. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2008.06.003

Breiman, L.; Cutler, A. 2007. Random Forests. Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley. Available from Internet: https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm

Bullough, J. D.; Skinner, N. P.; O’Rourke, C. P. 2010. Legibility of urban highway traffic signs using new retroreflective materials, Transport 25(3): 229–236. http://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2010.28

Chadda, H. S.; Carter, E. C. 1983. Sign vandalism: time for action-now, ITE Journal 53(8): 16–19.

DoT. 2012. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Department of Transportation (DoT), Federal Highway Administration, US. Available from Internet: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

Ellis, R.; Houten, R.; Kim, J.-L. 2007. In-roadway “yield to pedestrians” signs: placement distance and motorist yielding, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2002: 84–89. http://doi.org/10.3141/2002-11

Ellison, J. W. 1996. “Stop and think”: a campaign against traffic vandalism, in Compendium of Technical Papers for the 66th ITE Annual Meeting, 15–18 September 1996, Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, 259–260.

Evans, T.; Heaslip, K.; Boggs, W.; Hurwitz, D.; Gardiner, K. 2012. Assessment of sign retroreflectivity compliance for development of a management plan, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2272: 103–112. http://doi.org/10.3141/2272-12

Harris, G. 1992. Engineering Study for Reducing Sign Vandalism. Final Report. Highway Research Advisory Board Project HR-246. Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, Iowa, US. Available from Internet: http://publications.iowa.gov/13439

James, G.; Witten, D.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. 2013. An In-troduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R. Springer. 426 p. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7

Khalilikhah, M.; Heaslip, K. 2016a. Important environmental factors contributing to the temporary obstruction of the sign messages, in TRB 95th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, 10–14 January 2016, Washington, DC, US, 1–13.

Khalilikhah, M.; Heaslip, K. 2016b. GIS-based study of the impacts of air pollutants on traffic sign deterioration, in TRB 95th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, 10–14 January 2016, Washington, DC, US, 1–15.

Khalilikhah, M.; Heaslip, K.; Hancock, K. 2016. Traffic sign vandalism and demographics of local population: a case study in Utah, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition) 3(3): 192–202. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2015.11.001

Khalilikhah, M.; Heaslip, K.; Louisell, C. 2015a. Analysis of the effects of coarse particulate matter (PM10) on traffic sign retroreflectivity, in TRB 94th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, 11–15 January 2015, Washington, DC, US, 1–16.

Khalilikhah, M.; Heaslip, K.; Song, Z. 2015b. Can daytime digital imaging be used for traffic sign retroreflectivity compliance?, Measurement 75: 147–160. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.07.049

Ma, J.; Smith, B. L.; Fontaine, M. D. 2016. Comparison of in-vehicle auditory public traffic information with roadside dynamic message signs, Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 20(3): 244–254. http://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2015.1062729

Moeur, R. C. 2014. Manual of Traffic Signs. Available from Internet: http://www.trafficsign.us

Moisen, G. G. 2008. Classification and regression trees, in S. E. Jørgensen, B. D. Fath (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Ecology, 582–588. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00149-X

MRLC. 2011. National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 2011). Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium. Available from Internet: http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php

Mueller, G. 1995. Sign Vandalism Detection. Report No SPR-UAF-92-22F. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, US. 21 p. Available from Internet: http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/research/assets/pdf/ine_trc_94_16.pdf

Oshiro, T. M.; Perez, P. S.; Baranauskas, J. A. 2012. How many trees in a random forest?, Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition 7376: 154–168. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31537-4_13

Perkins, D. D; Barton, M. J. 1997. Traffic Signing Handbook. Chapter 15. Vandalism Control. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, DC, US, 227–236.

Picha, D. 1997. Texas sign vandals still leaving mark, Texas Transportation Researcher 33(2): 6–7.

R Development Core Team. 2014. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Available from Internet: http://www.r-project.org

Ré, J. M.; Carlson, P. J. 2012. Practices to Manage Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity. TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 431. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, US. 44 p. Available from Internet: http://doi.org/10.17226/14663

Rebollo, J. J.; Balakrishnan, H. 2014. Characterization and prediction of air traffic delays, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 44: 231–241. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.04.007

Smith, D.; Simodynes, T. 2000. Sign vandalism – an estimate of the national cost, in Mid-Continent Transportation Symposium 2000, 15–16 May 2000, Ames, Iowa, US, 245–248. Available from Internet: http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/midcon/smith.pdf

Stanić, B.; Vujin, D. 2005. New aesthetics of the city – design of cyclists traffic signs, Transport 20(6): 257–264.

Strawderman, L.; Rahman, M. M.; Huang, Y.; Nandi, A. 2015. Driver behavior and accident frequency in school zones: assessing the impact of sign saturation, Accident Analysis & Prevention 82: 118–125. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.05.026

Utah AGRC. 2015. Most Popular Datasets. Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC). Available from Internet: https://gis.utah.gov/data

VDoT. 2011. Virginia Standard Highway Signs. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT). 208 p. Available from Internet: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/ted/final_mutcd/standard_highway_signs_book.pdf

Ye, F.; Carlson, P. J.; Brimley, B. K. 2014. Applying the sign luminance computation model to study the effects of other vehicles on sign luminance, Transport 29(2): 115–124. http://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2014.927396