4. Summary and Conclusions
The results of the 2004 Work Zone Self Assessment provided significant insight into the current practices across the country, including those areas where most agencies can make the greatest improvement. Also, this latest Self Assessment helped determine where the agencies have made the most progress since the 2003 assessment. To summarize, the Self Assessment serves these important purposes:
- It helps raise the level of awareness of practices and strategies used in mitigating work zone congestion and crashes.
- It facilitates communication and sharing of best practices among transportation professionals.
- It serves as a working tool to identify areas of congestion and safety management strategies that need more investigation and performance evaluation.
- It provides an opportunity to benchmark progress.
- It provides information to FHWA helpful in program performance measurement.
The highest overall average ratings were assigned to the following sections: Communications and Education (10.4), Project Construction and Operation (8.4) and Project Design (7.8). Lower average ratings were assigned to Project Planning and Programming (6.4), Leadership and Policy (6.7), and Program Evaluation (4.9).
Strengths
Table 14 lists the sections and topic areas for which a high percentage of agencies assigned high ratings. The highest rated items support existing knowledge on the state of the practice for work zone operations. The following conclusions can be drawn from these results:
- Four out of five items from Section 5 (Communications and Education) are among those with the highest mean ratings. Included are initiatives such as work zone educational efforts, training, and public information techniques. Also a large portion of agencies sponsor work zone outreach efforts such as National Work Zone Awareness Week.
- Among the most highly rated items in Section 4 (Project Construction and Operation) is inclusion of road user costs in establishing incentives or disincentives to minimize road user delay. However, processes for determining user costs are not known, and variation in processes among responding agencies may exist. Public Information Plan use was also a highly rated item, along with use of uniformed law enforcement personnel for work zone operations.
- Nearly 90% of agencies use of a process in the design stage for assessing whether positive separation is warranted. Constructability reviews are also performed by a large number of agencies to identify work zone strategies.
Many strategies are developed at the design phase of a project. Some strategies, at least in concept, can be initiated as early as possible in the project development process to ensure adequate time and to provide opportunity for strategy enhancements and refinements.
| 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? | 12.0 | 94% |
| 4.5.4 | Communications and Education | Does the agency provide/require training of contractor staff on the proper layout, and use of traffic control devices? | 11.7 | 100% |
| 4.5.3 | Communications and Education | Does the agency assume a proactive role in work zone educational efforts? | 10.9 | 94% |
| 4.5.2 | Communications and Education | Does the agency sponsor National Work Zone Awareness week? | 10.9 | 87% |
| 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 | 88% |
| 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)? | 10.3 | 79% |
| 4.5.1 | Communications 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? | 10.2 | 87% |
| 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.)? | 10.0 | 83% |
| 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? | 9.5 | 88% |
| 4.1.9 | Leadership and Policy | Has the agency developed policies to support the use of innovative contracting strategies to reduce contract performance periods? | 9.4 | 83% |
Opportunities for Improvement
Similar to the 2003 assessment results, the 2004 Program Evaluation section represents an area with the greatest potential for improvement. Table 15 presents the lowest rated items from the 2004 responses. The following conclusions can be drawn:
- While the average rating increased by more than 10%, only one-fifth of the respondents (21%) have reached the implementation stage for the use of ITS to collect and disseminate information on work zone conditions. The mean rating for evaluation of ITS technologies increased but remained below 7. It is important to note that ITS systems may be specifically designed for a work zone application or used permanently to monitor areas affected by work zones.
- Only a small percentage of agencies (27%) evaluate traffic management practices and work zone performance.
- The mean rating for data collection on work zone congestion and delay increased, but only 10% of agencies reported collecting data for this purpose.
| 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% |
| 4.4.9 | Construction and Operation | 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? | 3.9 | 21% |
| 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% |
| 4.2.1 | Planning and Programming | 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? | 5.5 | 44% |
| 4.4.4 | Construction and Operation | 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? | 5.6 | 40% |
The 2004 WZ SA results indicated an increased awareness of work zone practices and strategies in some areas, while other areas showed the need for future improvements. In 2004, some field visits were performed by FHWA and information gained will be valuable in further understanding the results of the SA. In some instances, responses from the 2004 WZ SA may reflect an enhanced baseline and a greater understanding of the self-assessment process.
previous
