2. Summary of Results
Completed 2004 surveys were received from all 52 FHWA Division Offices. Most individual survey scores increased from 2003 to 2004. The average score increased for 42 of 52 agencies (81%), decreased for 4 of 52 agencies (8%), and remained the same for 6 of 52 agencies (11%). Table 2 shows the changes in average score by agency from 2003 to 2004.
| Score Change | Agencies | Percent of Agencies |
|---|---|---|
| Increased by 10% or more | 12 | 23% |
| Increased 6% to 10% | 9 | 17% |
| Increased 1% to 5% | 21 | 40% |
| No Change | 6 | 12% |
| Decreased | 4 | 8% |
| Total | 52 | 100% |
Table 3 shows the overall mean and median ratings from all 52 Division Offices for each of the 6 sections. Figure 1 compares the 2003 and 2004 mean ratings for all 46 items. The data from Table 3 and Figure 1 show that the highest average ratings were assigned to Section 5 (Communications 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 | 6.7 | 6.6 |
| Section 2 – Project Planning and Programming | 6 | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| Section 3 – Project Design | 12 | 7.8 | 7.8 |
| Section 4 – Project Construction and Operation | 9 | 8.4 | 8.7 |
| Section 5 – Communications and Education | 5 | 10.4 | 10.6 |
| Section 6 – Program Evaluation | 4 | 4.9 | 4.4 |
Figure 1. 2003 and 2004 Mean Ratings by Question
Table 4 compares the individual section scores for 2003 and 2004. Section 5 (Communications and Education) had the highest average rating increase (7%). The lowest average rating increase (3%) was observed in Section 2 (Project Planning and Programming).
| Section | Weight | 2003 | 2004 | %Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 1 – Leadership and Policy | 10% | 6.3 | 6.7 | 6% |
| Section 2 – Project Planning and Programming | 15% | 6.2 | 6.4 | 3% |
| Section 3 – Project Design | 25% | 7.5 | 7.8 | 4% |
| Section 4 – Project Construction and Operation | 25% | 8.1 | 8.4 | 4% |
| Section 5 – Communications and Education | 15% | 9.7 | 10.4 | 7% |
| Section 6 – Program Evaluation | 10% | 4.7 | 4.9 | 4% |
| Overall Mean Score | 100% | 7.1 | 7.4 | 4% |
The 2004 average scores for each question were also analyzed and compared with the 2003 baseline. In summary:
- The vast majority of scores increased – the average score for 40 of 46 questions increased.
- Few scores remained the same – the average score for 3 of 46 questions remained the same.
- Some limited number of questions decreased – the average score for 3 of 46 questions decreased. These questions in Section 3 relate to the use of constructability reviews and the use of Transportation Management Plans (a fairly new technique that is not widespread). A number of reasons may account for the decrease. A different group of representatives may have filled out the survey in 2004, panel representatives may have gathered additional information that resulted in re-establishing the 2003 baseline, or a decline in the use of a particular practice may have occurred. Additional research is needed to establish the reason for a particular decrease.
Table 5 shows that the average score for eight of the questions increased by 10% or more, the average score for 15 of the questions increased between 6% and 10%, and the average score for 17 of the questions increased between 1% and 5%.
| Average Score Change | Number of Questions | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Increased by 10% or more | 8 | 17% |
| Increased 6% to 10% | 15 | 32% |
| Increased 1% to 5% | 17 | 37% |
| No Change | 3 | 7% |
| Decreased | 3 | 7% |
| Total | 46 | 100% |
Table 6 highlights the changes in mean score for each question from 2003 to 2004. The results are organized in the table from highest percentage increase to lowest percentage increase. The significant increases in the mean scores relate to many areas or activity FHWA been very active in over the past several years namely:
- Intelligent Transportation Systems in work zones
- Work zone educational and outreach efforts
- The Making Work Zones Work Better Workshops
- Public information campaigns
- Strategic goal setting for reducing congestion and crashes in work zones
- Congestion and delay measures
- Work zone impacts analysis (modeling tools, etc.).
Some mean scores increased only slightly including such areas as the use of Transportation Management Plans and tracking work zone safety performance through crash information. Several questions experienced no change in mean score. Mean scores for four of the questions decreased slightly (by less than 5%).
| Item | Question | 2003 Mean | 2004 Mean | Change | Percent Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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? | 5.1 | 6.1 | 1.0 | 20% |
| 4.1.2 | Has the agency established strategic goals specifically to reduce congestion and delay in work zones? | 5.5 | 6.3 | 0.8 | 15% |
| 4.1.4 | Has the agency established measures (e.g., vehicle throughput, queue length, etc…) to track work zone congestion and delay? | 3.9 | 4.4 | 0.5 | 13% |
| 4.5.5 | 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? | 7.2 | 8.1 | 0.9 | 13% |
| 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? | 5.0 | 5.6 | 0.6 | 12% |
| 4.1.3 | Has the agency established strategic goals specifically to reduce crashes in work zones? | 6.1 | 6.8 | 0.7 | 11% |
| 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? | 9.2 | 10.2 | 1.0 | 11% |
| 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) | 2.8 | 3.1 | 0.3 | 11% |
| 4.1.7 | Has the agency established work zone performance guidance that addresses: maximum queue lengths, number of open lanes, maximum traveler delay, etc.? | 6.9 | 7.5 | 0.6 | 9% |
| 4.4.8 | Does the agency provide/require training of contractor staff on the proper layout, and use of traffic control devices? | 9.5 | 10.3 | 0.8 | 8% |
| 4.1.9 | Has the agency developed policies to support the use of innovative contracting strategies to reduce contract performance periods? | 8.7 | 9.4 | 0.7 | 8% |
| 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? | 7.6 | 8.2 | 0.6 | 8% |
| 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? | 6.5 | 7.0 | 0.5 | 8% |
| 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? | 5.4 | 5.8 | 0.4 | 7% |
| 4.1.1 | Has the agency developed a process to determine whether a project is impact type I, II, or III? | 5.7 | 6.1 | 0.4 | 7% |
| 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? | 4.9 | 5.2 | 0.3 | 6% |
| 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? | 8.2 | 8.7 | 0.5 | 6% |
| 4.6.4 | Does the agency develop strategies to improve work zone performance based on work zone performance data and customer surveys? | 5.0 | 5.3 | 0.3 | 6% |
| 4.5.2 | Does the agency sponsor National Work Zone Awareness week? | 10.3 | 10.9 | 0.6 | 6% |
| 4.4.9 | Does the agency provide training to uniformed law enforcement personnel on work zone devices and layouts? | 3.7 | 3.9 | 0.2 | 5% |
| 4.1.5 | Has the agency established measures (e.g., crash rates, etc…) to track work zone crashes? | 7.5 | 7.9 | 0.4 | 5% |
| 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.)? | 9.5 | 10.0 | 0.5 | 5% |
| 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? | 7.9 | 8.3 | 0.4 | 5% |
| 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)? | 6.3 | 6.6 | 0.3 | 5% |
| 4.6.3 | Does the agency conduct customer surveys to evaluate work zone traffic management practices and polices on a statewide/area-wide basis? | 4.4 | 4.6 | 0.2 | 5% |
| 4.4.7 | During project types I, II, & III does the agency use uniformed law enforcement? | 11.5 | 12.0 | 0.5 | 4% |
| 4.5.3 | Does the agency assume a proactive role in work zone educational efforts? | 10.5 | 10.9 | 0.4 | 4% |
| 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)? | 8.0 | 8.3 | 0.3 | 4% |
| 4.4.6 | In bidding contracts, does the agency use flexible starting provisions after the Notice to Proceed is issued? | 8.3 | 8.6 | 0.3 | 4% |
| 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? | 5.8 | 6.0 | 0.2 | 3% |
| 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? | 6.2 | 6.4 | 0.2 | 3% |
| 4.5.4 | 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 | 11.7 | 0.3 | 3% |
| 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? | 8.2 | 8.4 | 0.2 | 2% |
| 4.3.8 | During project design, does the agency have a process to consider the use life cycle costing in selecting materials that reduce the frequency and duration of work zones for type I, II & III projects? | 8.3 | 8.5 | 0.2 | 2% |
| 4.4.2 | Is the letting schedule altered or optimized to minimize disruptions to major traffic corridors? | 8.7 | 8.9 | 0.2 | 2% |
| 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? | 5.4 | 5.5 | 0.1 | 2% |
| 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? | 5.5 | 5.6 | 0.1 | 2% |
| 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? | 5.9 | 6.0 | 0.1 | 2% |
| 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) | 6.3 | 6.4 | 0.1 | 2% |
| 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? | 6.9 | 7.0 | 0.1 | 1% |
| 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? | 4.1 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 0% |
| 4.3.9 | Does the agency have a process to assess projects for the use of positive separation devices for type I & II projects? | 10.7 | 10.7 | 0.0 | 0% |
| 4.4.1 | Is the letting schedule altered or optimized to reflect the available resources and capabilities of the construction industry? | 7.9 | 7.9 | 0.0 | 0% |
| 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? | 9.6 | 9.5 | -0.1 | -1% |
| 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? | 9.0 | 8.9 | -0.1 | -1% |
| 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? | 8.4 | 8.3 | -0.1 | -1% |
The changes in some areas from 2003 to 2004 may reflect agency improvements in practices and procedures used to deliver roadway improvement projects. In other areas, changes may reflect an enhanced baseline over the 2003 WZ SA. Overall, the 2004 WZ SA highlights a continued interest in establishing a baseline and monitoring the effects of improvements in practices and procedures that can reduce congestion and crashes in work zones.
previous | next
