Targeted Work Zone Engagement Framework Guidance Document

Chapter 2. The Targeted Work Zone Engagement Framework

Figure 1 (see p. 4) illustrates the Framework developed to assist agencies in better targeting their efforts towards mitigating work zone safety and mobility impacts. The Framework is structured around, and encourages the utilization of, a traditional problem-solving approach whereby an agency:

• Develops a thorough understanding (what, where, when, why, etc.) of the work zone safety and mobility impacts it is experiencing.
• Establishes and prioritizes its goals for mitigating those impacts.
• Identifies strategies that are appropriate for helping to meet those goals.
• Assesses which strategy or strategies would be the most appropriate to implement.
• Determines what the agency needs to do to implement the strategy or strategies, and develops a plan to accomplish the implementation.
• Establishes how the agency will evaluate whether its efforts have been beneficial.
• Determines how lessons learned will be fed back into agency business processes to further improve future mitigation efforts.

Each of these bullet items corresponds to a "step" within this problem-solving approach. Some agencies will already have an understanding of their work zone impacts, have identified improvement goals, have established priorities of the goals for reducing those impacts, and may even know what strategies would best help them accomplish their goals. Engaging these agencies with resources that provide guidance on how to implement strategies and evaluate the effectiveness of those implementation efforts would likely have the greatest potential benefit. For agencies that do not yet have a strong grasp as to the types, amounts, and causes of work zone impacts, engaging them earlier in the Framework with resources on how to obtain a thorough understanding of work zone impacts is a more fitting approach. Once the appropriate step in the process is determined, the Framework provides a roadmap of resources to help guide agency efforts through the problem-solving approach to improve work zone impact mitigation.

The Framework is structured around four main emphasis areas, with improvement goals and corresponding mitigation strategies that could be employed to help realize those goals (for additional information on emphasis areas, goals, and strategies see chapter 3). Resources are then cataloged according to the mitigation strategies they touch upon, and the step(s) in this Framework for which they have potentially useful information to agencies. Presently, the Framework is structured heavily around the transportation management planning process established by FHWA several years ago. However, the Framework does have the flexibility to add new emphasis areas, goals, and mitigation strategies as needed to accommodate advances in technology, business processes, etc.

The following sections describe the intent of each Framework step and provide examples of how each Framework step might be utilized in a targeted engagement effort with an agency.

Problem Identification

To effectively assist and engage a State agency in better managing work zone safety and mobility impacts, it is important for that agency to be fully aware of its specific work zone challenges and problem areas. Some State agencies have identified their work zone challenges or emphasis areas through their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) or similar directives. In some cases, the identified problems and challenges are specific enough to establish goals and potential mitigation strategies to help the agency achieve those goals. For these agencies, they are ready to move to the next step of the Framework (see step 2). For others, their goals and emphasis areas may still be so generic that a clear direction on emphasis areas and possible mitigation strategies to consider does not yet exist. Engaging with these agencies therefore begins with the first emphasis area: "lack of quantitative and/or qualitative evaluation of current work zone policies or practices."

The Framework encourages a focused, data-driven approach to help define what work zone impact challenges currently exist and how pervasive they are throughout the organization (or parts thereof). For example, a data-driven approach encourages the analysis of a State's crash database and any available mobility performance measure statistics to identify overrepresented attributes. Similarly, gathering and assessing the results of FHWA Division Office reviews, State process reviews or other State-FHWA interactions might also be used to better identify impacts, improvement goals, and subsequent priority emphasis areas from a process or procedural perspective.

As shown in table 1, Emphasis Area 1 is divided into five mitigation strategies under one common goal: "Identify agency-specific safety, mobility, customer satisfaction, and productivity impacts of pre-, during-, and post- work activities."

Table 1. Emphasis Area #1 – Mitigation strategies for consideration.

Goal Setting	Mitigation Strategy (i.e., "Improved utilization of...")
Identify agency-specific safety, mobility, customer satisfaction, and productivity impacts of pre-, during-, and post- work activities	Work zone planning and traffic analysis tools and models Crash data collection and performance measure reporting Congestion data collection and performance measure reporting Process reviews Work zone safety audits

The first three strategies are quantitative approaches to understanding work zone safety and mobility issues, whereas the latter two are more qualitative in nature. However, all five strategies focus on ways that an agency can develop a more complete understanding of the work zone safety and mobility impacts it is generating. Therefore, the intent of the resources identified under Step 1 is to broaden and deepen current agency approaches to assessing work zone impacts and to emphasize outcome-based measurements. Presently, many agencies have a very limited understanding as to the level of safety or mobility impacts occurring within their jurisdictional boundaries. Some agencies tend to overemphasize field inspections to determine compliance with work zone traffic control standards, and assessments of safety impacts often end with current work zone fatality counts that are insufficient for developing a more complete understanding of what types of issues and conditions in work zones are contributing to safety problems. As a result, many agency highway safety plans (HSPs) do not address work zone crashes at all, or if they do, the mitigation strategies selected often tend to be high level and generic. Likewise, most agencies do not know the magnitude of mobility impacts being created in most work zones, or even how many work zones occur where mobility impacts are significant.

Example. One of the common ways in which agencies strive to identify problems or challenges in minimizing and mitigating work zone safety and mobility impacts is by conducting biennial process reviews. Some agencies focus primarily on the results of field inspections to do this, which can identify the types of standards and device requirements that are not being fully implemented in the field. However, limiting process reviews just to the results of these inspections often does not provide the agency with enough information to understand the extent and characteristics of work zone safety and mobility impacts occurring across the organization. The recently published Guidance for Conducting Effective Work Zone Process Reviews offers additional techniques that an agency could use to assess its work zone program such as interviews or surveys of its staff or development and monitoring of mobility-based performance measures (e.g., summaries of additional delays, hours of queuing, percent of its work zones not meeting its stated safety and mobility performance thresholds, etc.).

Another example related to conducting process reviews might be a more robust analysis of State work zone crash data by an agency. Often, only fatal crashes in work zones are examined as part of an agency's assessment of safety impacts, which offers limited insights into when, where, and how work zones are impacting safety. Better insights into work zone safety challenges can often be gleaned through analysis of all types of work zone crashes, incorporating exposure data from a sample of projects, calculating odd ratios of various zone crash types between work zone and non-work zone conditions, or other techniques that are discussed in the Work Zone Safety Data Collection and Analysis Guide. For instance, an agency may choose to plot its work zone crashes onto a statewide map. Work zone crash "hot spots" are then examined in more detail to see if patterns or trends emerge. The agency may find that certain work zones experience more rear-end collisions than others and opt to dig further into these crashes to understand why they occur. They may find that certain work zones experience rear-end collisions during times when temporary lane closures are implemented, suggesting that queues may be contributing to safety issues. They may also find that other work zones are experiencing rear-end collisions during times when construction materials are being brought in or out of the work space, suggesting that work space access design and operations may be creating a safety issue.

Goal Setting

Step 2 of the Framework involves selecting appropriate goals for improving work zone safety and mobility mitigation and management efforts by an agency. At this point in the Framework, the emphasis is on assisting agencies who have developed a good understanding of their work zone safety and mobility problems and challenges (step 1) to focus their attention on a specific improvement goal or set of goals that are expected to mitigate or better manage those problems and challenges. Just as was the case in step 1, some agencies will already have identified goals they plan to pursue to better mitigate and manage work zone safety and mobility impacts. Providing assistance to those agencies would thus begin with one of the latter steps in this Framework. Table 2 summarizes common goals organized under Emphasis Areas 2, 3, and 4 of the Framework (note – Emphasis Area 1 was covered under step 1).

Table 2. Common goals associated with each emphasis area in the framework.

Emphasis Area	Possible Goals
2. Work zone design, driver safety, and worker safety	Improve work zone design/travel path delineation Better alert driver of travel path deviations Improve driver compliance to work zone devices, regulations Decrease work zone encroachment incidents Improve work zone access and egress safety and mobility Reduce conflict points within the work space Enhance temporary traffic control effectiveness at rural, low-volume work zones Improve worker situational awareness
3. Transportation management planning and congestion mitigation	Restrict traffic flow through the work zone Reduce trips through the work zone Reduce delay through the work zone Mitigate/manage congestion and rear-end crashes Accommodate pedestrians, including Americans with Disabilities Act  requirements Mitigate urban conflict points
4. Road user public outreach	Improve public relationships

The main theme of Step 2 is the establishment of goals that are SMART:

• Specific.
• Measurable.
• Attainable.
• Relevant.
• Time-bound.

Depending on the agency, short-term goals, long-term goals, or both may be established. Agencies may select from among the 14 common goals which comprise Emphasis Areas 2 through 4 of the Framework. The goal(s) selected help point to a set of mitigation strategies that could help an agency meet its goal(s). Agencies may also choose to combine these common goals or develop goals that are similar to but worded differently from those shown in table 2. In such instances, a review of the list of mitigation strategies among these generic goals can assist agencies in targeting their efforts. However, it is important to keep in mind that goals that are not based on an understanding of when, where, or how work zone safety and mobility issues are occurring are more difficult to target with mitigation strategies. In turn, it is then more difficult to target engagement and assistance efforts that will yield measurable improvements in the stated goals.

Some agencies have established goals as part of their outputs of biennial work zone process reviews and/or efforts to develop and implement strategic and State-level highway safety plans (SHSPs and HSPs). In some cases, those goals may be sufficient for moving onto the next level of the Framework. In other cases, the goals may still be too generic to provide useful direction to the agency. For example, some agencies may have a goal to reduce work zone fatalities by a certain amount by a target date. In many instances, the amount of work zone fatality data is too limited by itself to be useful in identifying and implementing possible mitigation strategies that would be expected to affect this metric.

Example. Continuing on the examples discussed in step 1, an agency may decide to focus efforts on reducing work zone rear-end collisions. Staff analyses suggest that traffic queuing and congestion as well as the design of work zones and work zone access areas are significant issues. Using Table 2, an agency may be encouraged to establish a goal to "improve work zone access and egress safety and mobility" under Emphasis Area 2 in addition to one or more of the goals under Emphasis Area 3. Certainly, the goal to "mitigate/manage congestion and rear-end crashes" under area 3 would be a key goal, but the agency might also choose to include "reduce trips through the work zone" and "reduce delay through the work zone" as additional goals that would contribute to congestion mitigation.

It is also possible that an agency may establish goals related to improving work zone problem identification. This implies that at least some of the engagement effort would remain in step 1. For example, an agency's process review may bring to light the fact that it does not know how many work zones are not meeting the stated policy regarding maximum acceptable work zone delay. The goal may be to determine how to properly gauge the agency's level of compliance with its own threshold, and so a useful engagement effort would focus on resources associated with the "congestion data collection and performance measure reporting" strategy in step 1.

Strategy Awareness

This step in the Framework exists to aid agencies in understanding the range of possible mitigation strategies available to help achieve their stated safety and mobility improvement goals. For agencies that desire to improve work zone safety and mobility in their jurisdictions, a tendency often exists to rush directly to selecting and implementing whatever strategy happens to be the popular "flavor of the month" nationally or regionally, even if a more objective assessment of agency needs and goals would suggest other options. The inclusion of this step in the Framework reminds agencies to consider the broad range of possible mitigation strategies that may be relevant to their identified needs and selected goals for work zone safety and mobility improvement.

Possible mitigation strategies have been identified for each of the goals described in step 2 of the Framework. These are summarized in table 3 through table 5, corresponding to Emphasis Areas 2 through 4 (the strategies related to step 1, problem identification, were described in the section entitled "Problem Identification" on p. 5). The resources listed for this step of the Framework provide a basic overview of the strategy or strategies of interest. Many of the resources describe such things as site or project conditions under which the strategies are most appropriate to use; relative costs; expertise required to design, implement, and operate; and examples of other agency experiences with their application.

Table 3. Emphasis Area #2 – Mitigation Strategies for consideration by goal.

Goal Setting	Mitigation Strategy (i.e., "Improved utilization of...")
Improve Work Zone Design/Travel Path Delineation	Work zone design guidelines (e.g., Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, etc.) Channelizing devices Temporary pavement markings Flaggers and uniformed traffic control officers Large Static signs/ marked detours Portable changeable message signs Arrow panels Shadow vehicle Enhanced flagger or automated flagger assistance devices Temporary traffic signals Work area lighting High-visibility apparel for workers
Better alert driver of travel path deviations	Temporary rumble strips Warning lights Intrusion alarms Intelligent transportation system (ITS) technology
Improve driver compliance to work zone devices, regulations	Law enforcement presence Automated enforcement Increased penalties for violations
Decrease work zone encroachment incidents	Temporary traffic barriers Moveable barrier systems Reduced speed limit
Improve work zone access and egress safety and mobility	ITS technology Large static signs
Reduce conflict points within the work space	Internal traffic control plan
Enhance temporary traffic control effectiveness at rural, low-volume work zones	Flagging on low-volume roadways Temporary traffic control on low volume roadways
Improve worker situational awareness	Backing alarms Worker training

Table 4. Emphasis Area #3 – Mitigation strategies for consideration by goal.

Goal Setting	Mitigation Strategy (i.e., "Improved utilization of...")
Restrict Travel Through the Work Zone (WZ)	Road closures Ramp metering/closures Lane shifts/closures Median crossover Rolling roadblock Overweight and overheight truck restrictions
Reduce Trips through WZ	Diversions/detours Transit/ride-sharing service improvements/incentives
Reduce Delay of Trips through WZ	Night/weekend work Construction phasing Project coordination (stakeholders/other projects) Accelerated construction techniques Accelerated contracting methods
Mitigate and Manage Congestion/ Reduce Rear-End Crash Potential	Real-time traveler information system Queue detection and warning system Portable changeable message signs Variable speed limit system Dynamic lane merge system Incident management
Accommodate Pedestrians and Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements	Temporary traffic barriers Channelizing devices Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant wheelchair ramps and sidewalks Audible information devices Covered sidewalks/walkways to protect pedestrians
Urban Conflict Point Mitigation	Static signs/marked detours Parking restrictions Turn restrictions Modified signal timing/ coordination

Table 5. Emphasis Area #4 – Mitigation strategies for consideration by goal.

Goal Setting	Mitigation Strategy (i.e., "Improved utilization of...")
Establish Public Relations	Public relations, education, and outreach Traveler information

Example. Referring back to the previous steps in the Framework, suppose an agency identified rear-end collisions as a key problem area and selected goals to "improve work zone access and egress safety and mobility" under Emphasis Area 2 as well as to "mitigate/manage congestion and rear-end crashes," "reduce trips through the work zone," and "reduce delay through the work zone" under Emphasis Area 3. In step 3 of the Framework, the targeted engagement effort would focus on raising agency awareness of the possible mitigation strategies that could be implemented as a way to reduce work zone rear-end crashes. Using the above tables, the list of possible mitigation strategies associated with each of the selected goals includes the following:

• ITS technology deployment at work space access points.
• Large static signs to improve driver awareness of those access points.
• Real-time traveler information system to warn of delays, encourage diversion.
• Queue detection and warning system to warn of slow or stopped traffic.
• Portable changeable message signs providing static messages to warn of possible slowdowns ahead.
• Variable speed limit system to encourage slower speeds through the work zone.
• Dynamic lane merge system to reduce aggressive driving and queue lengths.
• Incident management to reduce duration of queues caused by crashes and stalls.
• Diversions/detours to reduce duration and lengths of queues.
• Transit/ride-sharing service improvements/incentives to encourage diversion to other modes.
• Night/weekend work to minimize queues and delays due to lane closures.
• Construction phasing to reduce duration and lengths of queues and delays.
• Project coordination to maximize availability of other routes for diversion.
• Accelerated construction techniques to reduce frequency of queues and delays.
• Accelerated contracting methods to reduce frequency of queues and delays.

A range of resources are available to help raise agency awareness of these strategies. Some resources describe a single strategy, whereas others may cover several. Resources that cover multiple strategies of potential interest are often good items to examine initially. For instance, an agency could review the list of available resources that provide general information on the above strategies and find that NCHRP Report 500: Volume 17, A Guide for Reducing Work Zone Collisions provides information about seven of them. Similarly, the FHWA report Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones also includes general information about five of the strategies listed. Selecting a few additional resources for the strategies not covered in these two documents would provide an agency with focused information that would help it prepare for the next step in the Framework, strategy selection.

Strategy Selection

The fourth step in the Framework is where agencies determine which of the available strategies they want to focus their implementation efforts on. Resources available for this step highlight information that could be used by agencies to help differentiate between strategies when making selection decisions. This could include various operational considerations, limitations, costs, and experiences of other agencies that have used the strategies. Some resources may cover both awareness-type information of the previous Framework step as well as information useful for making strategy selections. Note that not all of the resources have all of the listed types of information, so agencies may need to review multiple resources during this step of the Framework to obtain enough information upon which to base their decisions. It is also likely that agency-specific considerations will play a role in this step, such as what strategies (if any) that relate to those being considered are already implemented by an agency, which strategies require staff or consultant training to implement, etc.

Example. As with the previous strategy awareness step in the Framework, a few key resources provide information that agencies could find helpful when deciding whether to pursue implementation the various mitigation strategies listed. These include NCHRP Report 500: Volume 17, A Guide for Reducing Work Zone Collisions, the FHWA reports Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones and Work Zone Intelligent Transportation Systems Implementation Guide, and a guidance document developed under the FHWA work zone safety grant program entitled Guidelines on Payment for Temporary Traffic Control. Other possible resources that an agency contemplating the above mitigation strategy list might find useful include other work zone safety grant guidance documents entitled Nighttime Lighting Guidelines for Work Zones, Guidelines on the Use of Positive Protection in Temporary Traffic Control Zones, and an NCHRP report providing Guidance for Cost Estimation and Management for Highway Projects during Planning, Program, and Preconstruction.

Strategy Implementation

Strategy implementation is the fifth step in the Framework. As the name implies, agencies that have decided which strategy or strategies to adopt or incorporate into a project or way of doing projects would come to this step looking for information on how best to accomplish that implementation. Resources that will be of possible use to agencies at this step cover such items as strategy implementation standards, example deployment plans and procedures, staff training requirements, and lessons learned by other agencies that have implemented the strategy.

Example. Several of the resources listed above also contain information that can aid agencies in adopting and implementing their selected mitigation strategies. In addition, resources such as the Construction Peer Network or the Work Zone ITS Peer Exchange programs in place within FHWA provide a means of getting staff from agencies who have implemented certain strategies together with staff of an agency that may want to implement the strategies so that they can ask questions, share lessons learned, etc.

Strategy Evaluation

Evaluation of the success of the implemented strategies in meeting the agency's goals is the focus of step 6 in the Framework. Although evaluation is almost always highlighted as a key activity in any problem-solving framework, it is something that is usually not planned for or performed. Depending on the strategy, an agency may desire to assess the level of adoption of the strategy across all or part of the organization or to assess the level of impact that the strategy has had upon the intended goal. In the latter case, it may be difficult to isolate the effect of a single strategy if several strategies have been implemented together that are all related to the same or similar agency improvement goals.

Example. As part of an agency's goals to reduce delays through its work zones, the decision might be made to incorporate a policy to require consideration of accelerated contracting methods for all projects exceeding a certain threshold. The agency may then choose to evaluate the extent to which this policy is being met by performing an audit on all or a sample of the projects meeting that threshold since the policy was enacted. This audit might be performed explicitly for that particular strategy, or might be incorporated into the agency's upcoming biennial process review. If adoption of the policy is less than expected, the agency might then choose to send out a short survey to its project development staff in the field to assess whether there are issues with the way the policy is written or other agency requirements that are hampering adoption of the policy in some way.

Evaluation Result Utilization

The last step of the Framework, evaluation result utilization, does not have specific resources associated with it in the Framework. However, it is included to emphasize the importance of taking the knowledge gained in step 6 and incorporating it back into the business processes for the agency as well as updating the agency's continuous improvement goals regarding work zone safety and mobility impact mitigation. The methods by which this is accomplished will be highly specific to the organizational structure and culture of the agency.

Example. In the example described in step 6, the agency may find that the thresholds used in the accelerated contracting methods policy are too high or too low to be effectively applied. The agency may decide to adjust the threshold for consideration and modify the language to further guide decisions about accelerated contracting method use for projects meeting the revised threshold.