Work Zone Mobility and
Safety Self Assessment
National Executive Summary Report
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Operations
June 2003
Table Of Contents
1. Background and Methodology
In 2001 the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Office of Transportation Operations prepared a report entitled Meeting the Customer's Needs for Mobility and Safety During Construction and Maintenance Operations: Work Zone Traffic Management State of the Practice.[1] This report summarized the results of baseline self evaluations conducted by field offices to: 1) assess their past work zone activities, 2) establish a baseline of their current state of the practice, and 3) provide input for their future work zone quality improvement efforts. The results of the baseline provided critical feedback, guidance and focus to assist FHWA in establishing work zone program goals and objectives and in providing tools, training, and best practice guidance to FHWA field offices, and their state partners, to assist them in fulfilling their goals of reducing congestion and crashes due to work zones.
In the fall of 2002 the FHWA, taking lessons learned from this previous self assessment, developed an updated version of the Work Zone Baseline self evaluation form to establish a new work zone baseline. This new Work Zone Mobility and Safety Self Assessment survey contained 46 questions divided into the following six sections:
- Leadership and Policy
- Project Planning and Programming
- Project Design
- Project Construction and Operations
- Communications and Education
- Program Evaluation.
Each FHWA Division Office was asked to complete the new survey with assistance from the appropriate state transportation agency staff. The completion of the survey was envisioned to be a group exercise. In many cases, several meetings between state transportation agency and Division Office staff were conducted to arrive at a response that best reflected state transportation agency policies, practices and procedures.
The Self Assessment survey asked respondents to rate the extent to which a particular policy, process, product, or practice has been adopted into an agency's way of doing business. The adoption process consisted of five progressive levels based on the quality improvement process model used by industry: 1) initiation, 2) development, 3) execution, 4) assessment, and 5) integration.
Respondents were asked to rate each of the 46 questions using a 0 to 15 scale following the guidance contained in Table 1.
| Adoption Phase | Scoring Range | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Initiation | (0-3) | Agency has acknowledged a need for this item and supports further development of the requirements of this item |
| Development | (4-6) | Agency has developed a plan or approach to address requirements of this item |
| Execution | (7-9) | Agency has executed an approach to meet requirements of this item. |
| Assessment | (10-12) | Agency has assessed the performance of this item |
| Integration | (13-15) | Agency has integrated the requirements of this item into agency culture and practices |
Four work types were defined reflecting the magnitude of impact a work zone may have on travelers. Some items in the self assessment survey were limited to particular work types (i.e., work type I, II, III or IV) since it was unlikely they would apply to all work types. The larger and more complex a project, the higher the level of attention and resources an agency invests in mitigating work zone congestion and crashes. These work zone impact levels were intended to be an assistance tool and may not encompass all possible combinations or degree of work zone categories. Agencies were permitted to use their own classification system provided it consisted of four similar categories. Work Type I represents the most complex and costly projects that an agency may undertake. These projects impact the traveling public at the metropolitan, regional, intrastate, and possibly at the interstate level. Work Type II projects are less complex projects but impact the traveling public predominately at the metropolitan, and regional level. Work Type III impact the traveling public at the metropolitan or regional level and have a moderate level of public interest. Work Type IV impact the traveling public to a small degree.
2. Summary of Results
2.1 Overall Results
Completed surveys were received from all 52 Division offices. Table 2 shows the overall mean and median ratings for all 52 surveys for each of the 6 sections. Figure 1 presents the mean scores for all 46 items. The data from Table 2 and Figure 1 show that the highest average ratings were assigned to Section 5 (Communication and Education), and Section 4 (Project Construction and Operation). The lowest average rating was assigned to Section 6 (Program Evaluation).
| Section | Number of Questions | Mean Rating | Median Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 1 - Leadership and Policy | 10 | 6.3 | 6.0 |
| Section 2 - Project Planning and Programming | 6 | 6.2 | 7.0 |
| Section 3 - Project Design | 12 | 7.5 | 8.0 |
| Section 4 - Project Construction and Operation | 11 | 8.3 | 9.0 |
| Section 5 - Communication and Education | 3 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| Section 6 - Program Evaluation | 4 | 4.6 | 3.0 |
Figure 1: Mean Scores for All Questions
A weighting scheme was developed to reflect the importance of each section on the overall score. This scheme assigned the following weights to each section:
- Leadership and Policy - 10%
- Project Planning and Programming - 15%
- Project Design - 25%
- Project Construction and Operation - 25%
- Communication and Education - 15%
- Evaluation - 10%.
Using these weights for each section the average total weighted score for all agencies was 7.47. The average unweighted score was 7.2. Ratings for a given question varied greatly from agency to agency. For most questions, the scores were widely distributed, ranging between zero to 15, and did not concentrate around a narrow band of scores.
As shown in Figure 2, when examining the variation of rating by the proportion of state that is urban, the results suggest a definite trend. States with a higher proportion of population classified as urban generally assigned higher ratings to each section. It is speculated that states with a higher proportion of population that is urban may be experiencing a higher level of congestion that will be exacerbated by the establishment of work zones. Therefore, these states may have adopted a wider range of strategies to mitigate work zone congestion and delay than states with a lower proportion of population that is urban.
Figure 2: Mean Rating by Percent of State Population That Is Urban
2.2. Section by Section Results
2.2.1 Leadership and Policy
Figure 3 and Table 3 summarize the average scores for the questions in the Leadership and Policy section. Also shown in this table is the proportion of agencies assigning a rating of "7" or greater to a particular item. This threshold is important because it signifies that an agency has executed (i.e., put into practice) an approach to meet the requirements of an item.
Leadership support should drive overall policy making in an agency. The direction provided by this support fosters an environment that is conducive to developing an effective work zone program. Consideration of work zone mobility and safety impacts should be part of project planning, design, and construction and maintenance activities. Agency management should facilitate and encourage a multidisciplinary approach to traffic management throughout all phases in the life of a project. Senior managers should be personally, visibly, and proactively involved in efforts to minimize work zone delay and enhance the safety of the motorist and workers in work zones. Transportation Management Plans document mitigation strategies and may incorporate a Traffic Control Plan for managing traffic through a specific work zone site.
Figure 3: Leadership and Policy
| Item | Question | % Agencies Assigning a Rating of 7 or Greater |
|---|---|---|
| 4.1.1 | Has the agency developed a process to determine whether a project is impact type I, II, or III? | 47% |
| 4.1.2 | Has the agency established strategic goals specifically to reduce congestion and delay in work zones? | 37% |
| 4.1.3 | Has the agency established strategic goals specifically to reduce crashes in work zones? | 43% |
| 4.1.4 | Has the agency established measures (e.g., vehicle throughput, queue length, etc.) to track work zone congestion and delay? | 22% |
| 4.1.5 | Has the agency established measures (e.g., crash rates, etc.) to track work zone crashes? | 59% |
| 4.1.6 | Has the agency established a policy for the development of Transportation Management Plans to reduce congestion and crashes due to work zones? | 47% |
| 4.1.7 | Has the agency established work zone performance guidance that addresses: maximum queue lengths, number of open lanes, maximum traveler delay, etc.? | 59% |
| 4.1.8 | Has the agency established criteria to support the use of project execution strategies (e.g. night work and full closure) to reduce public exposure to work zones, and reduce the duration of work zones? | 65% |
| 4.1.9 | Has the agency developed policies to support the use of innovative contracting strategies to reduce contract performance periods? | 71% |
| 4.1.10 | Has the agency established Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between utility suppliers that promote the proactive coordination of long range transportation plans with long range utility plans to reduce project delays and minimize the number of work zones on the highway? | 27% |
Observations
An agency's policies and goals communicate what is considered important by management and set the stage for how work is carried out. The scores for most of the items in this section are relatively low, particularly for work zone congestion and delay considerations. Any gains made in establishing policies, strategic goals, and measures can provide valuable leadership and result in greater implementation of beneficial practices throughout project development and execution.
2.2.2 Project Planning and Programming
Figure 4 and Table 4 summarize the average scores for the questions in the Project Planning and Programming section. While transportation planning and implementation processes differ significantly from state to state they all focus on developing increased capacity and efficiency in the transportation system. They do this with the development of long-range transportation plans (LRTP), transportation improvement program plans (TIP), unified planning work programs (UPWP), and in some cases congestion management system (CMS) plans. Although the role of the planner in the development of project specific criteria has not been universally defined, it is clear that the complexity of our transportation systems and the impact of congestion on our nation will necessitate their input during the project development process.
Figure 4: Project Planning and Programming
| Item | Question | % Agencies Assigning a Rating of 7 or Greater |
|---|---|---|
| 4.2.1 | Does the agency's planning process actively use analytical traffic modeling programs to determine the impact of future type I & II road construction and maintenance activities on network performance? | 43% |
| 4.2.2 | Does the agency's planning process include developing alternative network options (e.g., frontage roads, increased capacity on parallel arterials, beltways, strategically placed connectors, etc.) to maintain projected traffic volumes due to future road construction and maintenance activities? | 51% |
| 4.2.3 | Does the agency's planning process manage the transportation improvement program to eliminate future network congestion due to poorly prioritized and uncoordinated execution of projects? | 57% |
| 4.2.4 | Does the agency's transportation planning process include a planning cost estimate review for work types I, II, & III that accounts for traffic management costs, (e.g., incident management, public information campaigns, positive separation elements, unformed law enforcement, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), etc)? | 51% |
| 4.2.5 | Does the agency's transportation planning process include active involvement from the planners during the project design stage to assist in the development of congestion mitigation strategies for type I & II projects? | 53% |
| 4.2.6 | Does the agency's transportation planning process engage the planners as part of a multidisciplinary/multiagency-team in the development of Transportation Management Plans involving major corridor improvements? | 55% |
Observations
Average scores for this section indicate that some key work zone-related planning activities are not widely implemented. While the questions do not encompass all planning activities that affect future road projects, they cover some significant methods for planning for and mitigating work zone congestion. The relatively low scores suggest this is an area where major gains could be possible. Overall, the results suggest that work zone and congestion measures could be given greater consideration during the planning process.
2.2.3 Project Design
Figure 5 and Table 5 summarize the average scores for the Project Design items. Project designers, working in concert with other functional experts, should consider maintenance of traffic during construction early in the design process. Designers should examine the use of different project execution strategies that can accelerate construction time and minimize the exposure of travelers to work zones. In addition, designers should actively lead the preparation of Transportation Management Plans, including Traffic Control Plans, which will mitigate the impact of work zone activities.
Figure 5: Project Design
| Item | Question | % Agencies Assigning a Rating of 7 or Greater |
|---|---|---|
| 4.3.1 | During project design does the agency have a process to estimate and use road user costs to evaluate and select, based on road user costs, project strategies, (e.g., full closure, night work traffic management alternatives, detours, etc.) for work type I & II projects? | 55% |
| 4.3.2 | During the project design does the agency develop a Transportation Management Plan that addresses all operational impacts specifically focused on project congestion for work type I & II projects? | 75% |
| 4.3.3 | During project design, does the agency use multidisciplinary teams consisting of agency staff to develop Transportation Management Plans for type I & II projects? | 78% |
| 4.3.4 | During project design, does the agency perform constructability reviews that include project strategies that are intended to reduce congestion and traveler delays during construction and maintenance activities for type I & II projects? | 88% |
| 4.3.5 | During project design, does the agency use independent contractors or contractor associations to provide construction process input to expedite project contract time for type I & II projects? | 37% |
| 4.3.6 | During project design, does the agency use time and performance based scheduling techniques such as Critical Path Method or parametric models to determine contract performance times for work type I & II projects? | 71% |
| 4.3.7 | During project design, does the agency have a process to evaluate the appropriate use of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies to minimize congestion in and around work zones for type I, II, & III projects? | 37% |
| 4.3.8 | During project design, does the agency have a process to consider the use of life cycle costing in selecting materials that reduce the frequency and duration of work zones for type I, II & III projects? | 73% |
| 4.3.9 | Does the agency have a process to assess projects for the use of positive separation devices for type I & II projects? | 86% |
| 4.3.10 | During project design, does the agency anticipate and design projects to mitigate future congestion impacts due to repair and maintenance activities for type I, II & III projects? | 69% |
| 4.3.11 | In developing the Traffic Control Plan for a project, does the agency use contractor involvement in the development of the Traffic Control Plan for type I & II projects? | 33% |
| 4.3.12 | In developing the Traffic Control Plan for a project, does the agency use computer modeling to assess Traffic Control Plan impacts on traffic flow characteristics, e.g., speed, delay, capacity, etc. for type I & II projects? | 31% |
Observations
The responses to the Project Design items showed great variability, with the highest scores being for consideration of the use of positive separation and the use of constructability reviews, and relatively low scores received for contractor involvement and the use of technology (modeling, consideration of ITS). The low scores may reflect the complexity of these issues, such as bidding laws (for contractor involvement) and budget constraints and lack of benefits data (for ITS). Some agencies did rate highly in contractor involvement and use of technology. Sharing of best practices by those agencies that have been successful in addressing these complexities may increase implementation.
2.2.4 Project Construction and Operation
Figure 6 and Table 6 summarize the average scores for the questions in the Project Construction and Operation section. A roadway construction or maintenance site can be a very complex orchestration of activities impacting the public in many ways. It has been estimated that approximately 13% of the NHS has a work zone on it during the peak summer work season, totaling 20,876 miles, and that approximately 24% of all non-recurring congestion on freeways is due to work zones. A recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute revealed that from a sampling of four states an average of 26% of the NHS was under contract, based on 2001 data. There are many pieces to the project delivery process and everyone has a critical role, but what the public mostly sees and experiences is the construction end of the process. By focusing on letting strategies, quality based contractor selections, time sensitive bidding, efficient operations, traffic management, aggressive contract management, and good public information the public's perception of transportation construction projects would be improved.
Figure 6: Project Construction and Operation
| Item | Question | % Agencies Assigning a Rating of 7 or Greater |
|---|---|---|
| 4.4.1 | Is the letting schedule altered or optimized to reflect the available resources and capabilities of the construction industry? | 67% |
| 4.4.2 | Is the letting schedule altered or optimized to minimize disruptions to major traffic corridors? | 80% |
| 4.4.3 | In bidding type I &II projects, does the agency include road user costs in establishing incentives or disincentives to minimize road user delay due to work zones (e.g., I/D, A+B, Lane Rental, etc.)? | 80% |
| 4.4.4 | In bidding type I, II, & III contracts, does the agency use performance-based selection to eliminate contractors who consistently demonstrate their inability to complete a quality job within the contract time? | 37% |
| 4.4.5 | In bidding type I & II project contracts, does the agency use incident management services (e.g., wrecker, push vehicles, service patrols, etc)? | 69% |
| 4.4.6 | In bidding contracts, does the agency use flexible starting provisions after the Notice to Proceed is issued? | 73% |
| 4.4.7 | During project types I, II, & III does the agency use uniformed law enforcement? | 94% |
| 4.4.8 | During type I, II, & III project construction does the agency use a public information plan that provides for specific and timely project information to the traveling public through a variety of outreach techniques, (e.g., agency website, newsletters, public meetings, radio, and other media outlets)? | 98% |
| 4.4.9 | During type I, II, & III projects, does the agency use intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies to collect and disseminate information to motorists and agency personnel on work zone conditions? | 65% |
| 4.4.10 | Does the agency provide/require training of contractor staff on the proper layout, and use of traffic control devices? | 73% |
| 4.4.11 | Does the agency provide training to uniformed law enforcement personnel on work zone devices and layouts? | 22% |
Observations
Project Construction and Operation items were almost all rated higher than 7, indicating that, on average, agencies have put into practice most of the items in this section and likely improvements would focus more on assessment and integration. The two exceptions are the use of performance-based selection of contractors and agency training of law enforcement personnel. While results indicate that many agencies are using road user costs to set incentives/disincentives, they do not appear to be using contractor past performance in meeting I/D as a consideration in the bidding process. This is one of several areas in the Self Assessment where results indicate that use of performance measures/evaulation may be lagging, and that increased use might provide feedback to improve processes. The score for training of law enforcement personnel may not be indicative of overall training since they may be trained by another agency.
2.2.5 Communication and Education
Figure 7 and Table 7 summarize the average scores for the items in the Communication and Education section. To reduce the anxiety and frustration of the public, it is important to sustain effective communications and outreach with the public regarding road construction and maintenance activity, and the potential impacts of the activities. This also increases the public's awareness of such activities and their impacts on their lives. The lack of information is often cited as a key cause of frustration to the traveling public. Therefore, it is important to identify the key issues that need to be considered from a public outreach and information perspective.
Figure 7: Communication and Education
| Item | Question | % Agencies Assigning a Rating of 7 or Greater |
|---|---|---|
| 4.5.1 | Does the agency maintain and update a work zone website providing timely and relevant traveler impact information for project types I, II & III that allows travelers to effectively make travel plans? | 76% |
| 4.5.2 | Does the agency sponsor National Work Zone Awareness week? | 88% |
| 4.5.3 | Does the agency assume a proactive role in work zone educational efforts? | 90% |
Observations
All the Communication and Education items were among the highest rated, with agencies in the assessment stage or the late stages of execution, on average. With the increasing use and reach of the Internet, agency use of work zone/road project websites is important. While many agencies are using websites, the areas for gain are probably to be found in providing more timely, relevant, accurate traveler impact information such as times of lane closures and estimates of any expected delay.
2.2.6 Program Evaluation
Figure 8 and Table 8 summarize the average scores for the questions on Program Evaluation. Evaluation is a necessary tool for analyzing failures and identifying successes in work zone operations. Work zone performance monitoring and reporting at a nationwide level has potential to increase the knowledge base on work zones and help agencies better plan, design and implement road construction and maintenance projects.
Figure 8: Program Evaluation
| Item | Question | % Agencies Assigning a Rating of 7 or Greater |
|---|---|---|
| 4.6.1 | Does the agency collect data to track work zone congestion and delay in accord with agency established work zone congestion and delay measures? (See Section 1, item 4.1.4) | 10% |
| 4.6.2 | Does the agency collect data to track work zone safety performance in accord with agency work zone crash measures? (See Section 1, item 4.1.5) | 47% |
| 4.6.3 | Does the agency conduct customer surveys to evaluate work zone traffic management practices and polices on a statewide/area-wide basis? | 27% |
| 4.6.4 | Does agency develop strategies to improve work zone performance based on work zone performance data and customer surveys? | 35% |
Observations
Most of the Program Evaluation items were among the lowest rated. The only item receiving a slightly higher rating was the collection and tracking of safety data. As with some other areas of the Self Assessment, congestion and delay considerations are not implemented to the same degree as safety considerations. The low scores may indicate that direct performance measurement (data collection, traveler surveys) and evaluation activities are done on a limited basis. This can hinder the ability to see if changes made in other work zone practices are effective.
3. Assessment of Results
The results of this Self Assessment provide insights into a number of strengths as well as opportunities for improvement. This latest Self Assessment establishes a new work zone baseline to identify the gaps and successes that transportation agencies have had since the 2001 assessment. This Self Assessment will serve three important roles:
- It will help raise the level of awareness of practices and strategies used in mitigating work zone congestion and crashes
- It will facilitate communication and sharing of best practices among transportation professionals
- It will serve as a working tool to identify areas of congestion and safety management strategies that need more investigation and performance evaluation.
This new Work Zone Mobility and Safety Self Assessment survey contained 46 questions divided into the following six sections:
- Leadership and Policy
- Project Planning and Programming
- Project Design
- Project Construction and Operations
- Communications and Education
- Program Evaluation.
Higher average ratings were assigned to the following sections: Communication and Education (10.0), Project Construction and Operation (8.3) and Project Design (7.5). Lower average ratings were assigned to Project Planning and Programming (6.2), Leadership and Policy (6.3), and Program Evaluation (4.6).
Strengths
Table 9 presents a list of the top 10 rated items. All of these items have an average rating of greater than 9.0. The following conclusions can be drawn from this table:
- The top 10 rated items are contained in Section 4 (Project Construction and Operation) - 4 items, Section 3 (Project Design) - 3 items; and Section 5 (Communication and Education) - 3 items.
- All three items from Section 5 (Communication and Education) are among the top 10 rated items. These include: assuming a proactive role in work zone educational efforts; sponsoring Work Zone Awareness Week; and, maintaining and updating a website providing relevant and timely information to travelers.
- Among the most highly rated items among Section 4 (Project Construction and Operation) are: use of uniformed law enforcement for project types I & II; use of a public information plan during project types I, II, & III; inclusion of road user costs in establishing incentives or disincentives to minimize road user delay; and, providing/requiring training of contractor staff on the proper layout and use of traffic control devices.
- Among the highly rated items in Section 3 (Project Design) are the following: application of a process to assess projects for use of positive separation devices; performing constructability reviews; and use of multidisciplinary teams to develop Transportation Management Plans for work type I & II projects. The ratings in the Project Design area showed great variability, with three items being among the 10 most highly rated and three items being among the 10 lowest rated.
| Item | Section | Question | Mean Rating | % Agencies Assigning a Rating of 7 or Greater |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.4.7 | Construction and Operation | During project types I, II, & III does the agency use uniformed law enforcement? | 11.5 | 94% |
| 4.4.8 | Construction and Operation | During type I, II, & III project construction does the agency use a public information plan that provides for specific and timely project information to the traveling public through a variety of outreach techniques, (e.g., agency website, newsletters, public meetings, radio, and other media outlets)? | 11.4 | 98% |
| 4.3.9 | Project Design | Does the agency have a process to assess projects for the use of positive separation devices for type I & II projects? | 10.7 | 86% |
| 4.5.3 | Communication and Education | Does the agency assume a proactive role in work zone educational efforts? | 10.5 | 90% |
| 4.5.2 | Communication and Education | Does the agency sponsor National Work Zone Awareness week? | 10.3 | 88% |
| 4.3.4 | Project Design | During project design, does the agency perform constructability reviews that include project strategies that are intended to reduce congestion and traveler delays during construction and maintenance activities for type I & II projects? | 9.6 | 88% |
| 4.4.3 | Construction and Operation | In bidding type I &II projects, does the agency include road user costs in establishing incentives or disincentives to minimize road user delay due to work zones (e.g., I/D, A+B, Lane Rental, etc.)? | 9.5 | 80% |
| 4.4.10 | Construction and Operation | Does the agency provide/require training of contractor staff on the proper layout, and use of traffic control devices? | 9.5 | 73% |
| 4.5.1 | Communication and Education | Does the agency maintain and update a work zone website providing timely and relevant traveler impact information for project types I, II & III that allows travelers to effectively make travel plans? | 9.2 | 76% |
| 4.3.3 | Project Design | During project design, does the agency use multidisciplinary teams consisting of agency staff to develop Transportation Management Plans for type I & II projects? | 9.0 | 78% |
Opportunities for Improvement
Table 10 presents a list of the 10 lowest rated items. The mean ratings for these 10 items range from a low of 2.8 to a high of 5.4. The following conclusions can be drawn from this table:
- The bottom 10 rated items are contained in Section 3 (Project Design) - 4 items; Section 6 (Program Evaluation) - 3 items; Section 1 (Leadership and Policy) - 2 items; and Section 4 (Project Construction and Operation) - 1 item.
- Three out of four items from Section 6 (Program Evaluation) are among the 10 lowest rated items. These include: collection of data to track work zone congestion and delay in accord with established measures; use of customer surveys to evaluate work zone practices and polices; and, development of strategies to improve work zone performance based on feedback data. These results may indicate that program evaluation and direct performance measurement by agencies are done on a limited basis.
- Among the items rated low from the Project Design session are included the following: contractor involvement in the development of Traffic Control Plans for type I & II projects; use of computer modeling to assess Traffic Control Plan impacts; evaluation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies during the design phase; and use of independent contractors to provide construction process input to expedite contract time for type I & II projects. The degree of implementation of the various items asked about in the Project Design varied greatly. Some very among the most highly rated, while the three mentioned here received among the lowest ratings.
| Item | Section | Question | Mean Rating | % Agencies Assigning a Rating of 7 or Greater |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.6.1 | Program Evaluation | Does the agency collect data to track work zone congestion and delay in accord with agency established work zone congestion and delay measures? (See Section 1, item 4.1.4) | 2.8 | 10% |
| 4.4.11 | Construction and Operation | Does the agency provide training to uniformed law enforcement personnel on work zone devices and layouts? | 3.7 | 22% |
| 4.1.4 | Leadership and Policy | Has the agency established measures (e.g., vehicle throughput, queue length, etc.) to track work zone congestion and delay? | 3.9 | 22% |
| 4.1.10 | Leadership and Policy | Has the agency established Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between utility suppliers that promote the proactive coordination of long range transportation plans with long range utility plans to reduce project delays and minimize the number of work zones on the highway? | 4.1 | 27% |
| 4.6.3 | Program Evaluation | Does the agency conduct customer surveys to evaluate work zone traffic management practices and polices on a statewide/area-wide basis? | 4.4 | 27% |
| 4.3.11 | Project Design | In developing the Traffic Control Plan for a project, does the agency use contractor involvement in the development of the Traffic Control Plan for type I & II projects? | 4.9 | 33% |
| 4.6.4 | Program Evaluation | Does agency develop strategies to improve work zone performance based on work zone performance data and customer surveys? | 5.0 | 35% |
| 4.3.12 | Project Design | In developing the Traffic Control Plan for a project, does the agency use computer modeling to assess Traffic Control Plan impacts on traffic flow characteristics, e.g., speed, delay, capacity, etc. for type I & II projects? | 5.0 | 31% |
| 4.3.7 | Project Design | During project design, does the agency have a process to evaluate the appropriate use of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies to minimize congestion in and around work zones for type I, II, & III projects? | 5.1 | 37% |
| 4.3.5 | Project Design | During project design, does the agency use independent contractors or contractor associations to provide construction process input to expedite project contract time for type I & II projects? | 5.4 | 37% |
- Two items from Section 1 (Leadership and Policy) are among the 10 lowest rated items: establishment of measures to track work zone congestion and delay; and establishment of Memoranda of Understanding between utility suppliers that promote coordination of utility and transportation plans.
- A small proportion of agencies (22%) provide training to uniformed law enforcement personnel on work zone congestion and delay. This does not necessarily indicate that 78% of such personnel are not trained on work zone devices and layouts as some may receive training from another source.
Footnotes
[1] Federal Highway Administration Office of Transportation Operations. Meeting the Customer's Needs for Mobility and Safety During Construction and Maintenance Operations: Work Zone Traffic Management State of the Practice. Evaluation Report. September 28, 2001.
