Work Zone Safety and Mobility
Statewide Peer Review Team (SPRT)
Printable Version [PDF 16 KB]
You will need the Adobe Reader to view this PDF.
Contact Information: WorkZoneFeedback@dot.gov
Project
Project Identification: |
CS: |
JN: |
Route: |
![empty cell](/wz/images/empty_cell.gif) |
Location: |
![empty cell](/wz/images/empty_cell.gif) |
Work Description: |
![empty cell](/wz/images/empty_cell.gif) |
PM/TMP: |
Contact: |
Phone: |
Review Date: |
![empty cell](/wz/images/empty_cell.gif) |
SPRT Members: |
![empty cell](/wz/images/empty_cell.gif) |
WZSM Thresholds |
Existing:
|
V/C: |
LOS: |
Travel Time: |
Delay: |
Work Zone:
|
V/C: |
LOS: |
Travel Time: |
Delay: |
Let Date: |
![empty cell](/wz/images/empty_cell.gif) |
Construction Start Date: |
![empty cell](/wz/images/empty_cell.gif) |
Construction End Date: |
![empty cell](/wz/images/empty_cell.gif) |
TMP Review |
TMP Summary:
|
Yes |
No |
Vicinity Map:
|
Yes |
No |
TTCP:
|
Yes |
No |
TOP:
|
Yes |
No |
PIP:
|
Yes |
No |
TMP Package Complete:
|
Yes |
No |
SPRT Recommendation: |
Red: Do Not Proceed, Review SPRT comments; Region Engineer to discuss with COO
|
Yes |
No |
Yellow: Proceed, Review SPRT comments; Office incorporate changes as appropriate
|
Yes |
No |
Green: Proceed, Review SPRT comments
|
Yes |
No |
SPRT Summary Comments: |
![empty cell](/wz/images/empty_cell.gif) |
Traffic/Mobility Analysis
- Traffic data source(s) is appropriate and reasonable.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- Traffic analysis methodology is appropriate and reasonable for the scope/complexity of the job/location and the results are clear and understandable.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- The delay assumptions and calculations are reasonable and the approach is consistent with current policy and practice.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- Please provide any general comments that do not appear to fit under the other questions.
|
Comments:
|
Temporary Traffic Control Plan (TTCP)
- The TTCP concept seems reasonable and logical given the type of work, the system level, the duration of the project, and the traffic volumes.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- Staging and constructability is well thought out and seems reasonable. The review team should note any show stoppers.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- There is evidence of analysis with respect to similar projects and job specific characteristics (shy distance, slopes, attenuation, horizontal/vertical sight distances, etc.); the work zone is designed accordingly.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- There is analysis of the alternatives considered, with an appropriate comparison of benefits and costs.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- There is a work zone crash analysis and comparison to crash statistics for similar project work zones and locations (prior to work zone and during work zone). Note any elements of risk for the public or highway workers that should be addressed.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- There is guidance on the development of an internal work zone traffic control plan (contractor's operation) for contractor ingress and egress.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- There is an appropriate plan to monitor safety and mobility and adjust the work zone/project during construction as needed.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- Please provide any general comments that do not appear to fit under the other questions.
|
Comments:
|
Traffic Operations Plan (TOP)
- The TOP is complete and reasonable. If necessary, it should include provisions for pedestrians, emergency responders, commercial vehicles, transit operations, etc.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- Delay mitigation techniques are evident and are applied appropriately. Please list other techniques that you would recommend the office consider be added to the project at this stage.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- There is adequate discussion of projects packaged or bundled with this project.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- There is adequate discussion and explanation of corridor impacts and/or an explanation of mobility influences beyond the project area including adjacent regions.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
Public Information Plan (PIP)
- The TOP is complete and reasonable. If necessary, it should
include provisions for pedestrians, emergency responders, commercial
vehicles, transit operations, etc.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- The list of affected stakeholders is comprehensive
and it is evident that stakeholders have been or will be engaged.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- Please provide any general comments that do not
appear to fit under the other questions.
|
Comments:
|
General TMP Comments
- There are best practices in the area of mobility analysis,
mitigation techniques, TTCP or TCP development evident in this
TMP that should be shared with others.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- There are recommended areas of focus for further
review by the respective office.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- There are show stoppers or areas of concern that
the team feels should be documented for review by either the
Region Engineer or Chief Operations Officer.
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
Comments:
|
- Please provide any general comments.
|
Comments:
|