2.0 Overview of the Updated Rule

2.1 Outline of the Updated Rule

The updated Rule (the Rule) advocates a systematic approach to managing work zone safety and mobility. It is flexible, taking into account the needs for different project types and classes, and the differences in the operating circumstances and priorities for Departments of Transportation (DOTs) in different parts of the country. The primary components of the Rule fit into three categories: policy, agency-level processes and procedures, and project-level procedures. As shown in Figure 2.1, the Rule encourages continual feedback from one level to the other for the overall improvement of work zone practices, procedures, processes, and policies. The policy the agency develops will guide agency- and project-level processes and procedures. In turn, as the agency sees how certain project-level efforts perform in the field, it can use that information over time to refine its work zone policy and agency-level processes and procedures.

Figure 2.1 Structural Outline of the Updated Rule

In a nut-shell, within these components are the following key provisions, as stated in the updated Rule:

2.1.1 Policy-Level Provisions (Section 630.1006)

Implement an overall policy that facilitates the systematic consideration of work zone safety and mobility.
Work in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to develop and implement the policy.

2.1.2 State/Local Agency-Level Processes and Procedures (Section 630.1008)

Develop and implement processes/procedures for work zone impact assessment and management.
Use work zone safety and mobility information and data to manage impacts on ongoing projects and to conduct performance assessments at the completion of projects to improve State work zone procedures.
Require training for personnel involved in work zone planning, design, implementation, management, and enforcement.
Conduct process reviews to assess wide scale performance of work zones with the goal of improving work zone processes and procedures.

2.1.3 Project-Level Provisions (Sections 630.1010 and 630.1012)

Identify significant projects early in the project development process. Significant projects are those anticipated to cause sustained work zone impacts greater than what is considered tolerable based on State policy and/or engineering judgment.
Develop transportation management plans (TMP) that focus on safety and mobility.
- TMPs for significant projects shall consist of a temporary traffic control (TTC) plan that addresses traffic safety and control through the work zone. The TMPs shall address transportation operations (TO) strategies that will be used to ease work zone impacts. They shall also address public information (PI) strategies to inform those affected by the project of the expected work zone impacts and changing conditions.
- TMPs for all other projects shall consist at least of a TTC plan and may include TO and PI strategies as well.
Include appropriate TMP provisions in the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&Es).
In the PS&Es, include appropriate pay item provisions for implementing the TMP.
Assign "responsible persons" (State and contractor) to monitor the TMP and other safety and mobility aspects of the project.

The above key provisions and the other provisions of the updated Rule are discussed in detail in subsequent chapters of this implementation guide.

2.2 An Overview of Key Differences Between the Former Rule and the Updated Rule

The essential difference between the two rules is that the updated Rule expands the concept of "work zone traffic control" to "work zone transportation management." It consists of requirements and guidance that address mobility as well as safety. It provides for the systematic consideration of work zone impacts of road projects, and the development of appropriate TMPs that help manage those impacts during implementation. The focus of the former Rule was on the development of Traffic Control Plans (TCPs) for road projects, and providing for the safety of motorists and workers. The updated Rule emphasizes the importance of safety but also adds a focus on providing for mobility, and takes into account current issues like transportation operations and public information.

The key differences between the former Rule and the updated Rule are briefly summarized below.

2.2.1 Key Differences in Policy-Level Provisions

Former Rule. The former Rule did not specifically require a work zone policy. It required each State DOT to develop and implement procedures consonant with the requirements of the regulation.
Updated Rule. The updated Rule requires each agency to implement a work zone policy and emphasizes that the policy facilitate the systematic consideration and management of work zone impacts throughout the various stages of project development and construction.

2.2.2 Key Differences in Process-Level Provisions

The structure of the former Rule did not distinctly separate process-level provisions from project-level provisions. The updated Rule has separate process-level and project-level provisions, which help clearly delineate the provisions and facilitate systematic application at both the process and project-levels. Expanding beyond the former focus on individual projects should increase the coordination among projects, and consistency of application across projects, to more broadly assess and address work zone impacts on a system-wide basis. Some of the key differences are:

Work Zone Assessment and Management Procedures.
- Former Rule. The former Rule did not have such a provision.
- Updated Rule. The updated Rule consists of a provision that recommends that agencies develop and implement systematic procedures to assess and manage the work zone impacts of projects.
Work Zone Data.
- Former Rule. The former Rule required construction zone crashes and crash data to be analyzed to continually correct deficiencies which are found to exist on individual projects, and to improve the content of future traffic control plans.
- Updated Rule. The updated Rule requires agencies to use available work zone information and data to manage work zone impacts for specific projects during implementation. It expands work zone data to include mobility/operational data in addition to safety/crash data. It also requires agencies to pursue ongoing improvement of their work zone processes and procedures by analyzing work zone crash and operational data from multiple projects.
Work Zone Training.
- Former Rule. The former Rule had a training requirement that specified that all persons responsible for the development, design, implementation, and inspection of traffic control shall be adequately trained.
- Updated Rule. The updated Rule also has a training provision similar to that of the former Rule, but the scope of the training is expanded to include work zone transportation management in addition to work zone traffic control. It also eliminates the ambiguity that existed in the old language by clearly stating the responsibility of agencies, and also by incorporating a provision to indicate that the training ought to be appropriate to the job-decisions that each individual is required to make.
Process Reviews.
- Former Rule. The former Rule had a requirement for States to conduct an annual process review of selected projects for the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of its procedures. It also required the results of the review to be forwarded to the FHWA Division Administrator for review and approval of the State's annual traffic safety effort.
- Updated Rule. The updated Rule also requires agencies to conduct process reviews, but the requirement has been changed from annual reviews to bi-annual reviews. The Rule states that the ultimate objective of the process reviews is to enhance efforts to address safety and mobility on current and future projects. It does not require that the results of the review be forwarded to the FHWA Division Administrator for approval, but does encourage the DOT to include FHWA in the review.

2.2.3 Key Differences in Project-Level Provisions

The essential difference between the two rules at the project-level is that the updated Rule requires TMPs for projects, while the former Rule requires TCPs. The updated Rule recognizes current and future work zone safety and mobility needs, and expands the notion of "work zone traffic safety and control" to "work zone transportation management." Some of the specific differences are:

Traffic Control Plan (TCP) vs. Transportation Management Plan (TMP).
- Former Rule. The former Rule required the development of TCPs for projects. A TCP is a plan for handling traffic through a specific highway or street work zone or project. It recognized that TCPs may vary in scope from a very detailed TCP designed solely for a project, to a reference to standard plans, a section of the MUTCD, or a standard highway agency manual; and that the degree of detail in the TCP would depend on the project complexity and traffic interference with construction activity.
- Updated Rule. The updated Rule requires TMPs to be developed and implemented for projects based upon the expected work zone impacts.
  - A TMP consists of strategies to manage the work zone impacts of a project. The possible components that constitute a TMP are: the Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan, the Transportation Operations (TO) component, and the Public Information (PI) component.
  - The distinguishing factor in the TMP requirements for different projects is based on whether a project is a significant project or not. Simply stated, a significant project is a project that the agency expects will cause a relatively high level of disruption. The Rule provides a more detailed definition of significant project, and specifically includes certain projects on the Interstate system. Agencies are required to identify future projects that are expected to be significant, so that they may develop appropriate TMPs.
  - TMPs for significant projects consist of all the three TMP components, namely the TTC plan, the TO component, and the PI component. TMPs for projects determined to have less than significant work zone impacts may consist of only a TTC plan; however, agencies are encouraged to consider including TO and PI components, depending on the impacts of the project.
Responsible Person.
- Former Rule. The former Rule required States to designate a qualified person at the project-level who would have primary responsibility and sufficient authority for assuring that the TCP and other safety aspects of the contract are effectively administered.
- Updated Rule. The updated Rule requires the agency and the contractor to both designate a trained person (as specified in the Rule) at the project-level to implement the TMP and other safety and mobility aspects of the project.
Pay Items.
- Former Rule. The former Rule suggested that the PS&Es consist of unit pay items for implementing all aspects of the work zone traffic control, as required in the TCP. It also suggested that lump-sum payment be used only to cover very small projects, projects of short duration, contingency, and general items. It discouraged paying for traffic control as incidental to other items of work.
- Updated Rule. The updated Rule allows for both method-based and performance-based specifications. It provides individual pay items, lump sum payment, or a combination of the two as options for method-based specifications. For performance-based specifications, it provides examples of criteria that may be used.

2.3 Applying the Updated Rule to the Project Delivery Process

The process of applying the updated Rule to the project delivery process starts with policy and process implementation, and progresses through the different stages of project delivery, to include: systems planning; preliminary engineering and investigation; design, PS&E, and contracting; construction; performance assessment; and operations and maintenance.

The following steps may be considered as a framework for applying the provisions of the updated Rule to the project-delivery process:

Establish and implement overall work zone safety and mobility policy.
Develop and implement State/local agency-level processes and procedures.
During systems planning (Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)/Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)), anticipate the potential work zone impacts of projects at a conceptual level.
During preliminary engineering, conduct a preliminary identification of work zone impacts at the individual project-level.
During design, conduct a more detailed design-level assessment of the work zone impacts of individual projects and develop appropriate TMPs.
During construction, implement TMP and monitor and manage work zone impacts.
During and/or after construction, conduct process reviews.
After construction, conduct post-construction performance assessment.

Existing agency program delivery efforts will support implementation of the provisions. For example, alternatives analysis and impact mitigation done as part of the NEPA process support the work zone impacts assessment encouraged by the Rule. The above steps are graphically illustrated in Appendix B – Applying the Rule to the Project Delivery Process. Agencies are encouraged to work in coordination with FHWA, as appropriate, in implementing the provisions.

2.4 Assistance with Implementation of the Updated Rule

FHWA will coordinate with their respective States to implement the provisions of the updated Rule. They will provide guidance on implementing an overall work zone safety and mobility policy, establishing State-level processes and procedures, and in applying the provisions to specific projects.

The FHWA will also provide technical assistance on specific aspects, such as the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) in work zones or developing suitable public information plans for projects.

The following are the specific responsibilities of the FHWA:

Policy-Level. FHWA staff will coordinate with the agency in implementing an overall work zone policy that best suits the needs of the agency
Process-Level. FHWA staff will coordinate with the agency in developing the agency's work zone processes and procedures, implementing them, and in conducting process reviews.
Project-Level. FHWA staff will work with the agency to identify significant projects. They will also work with the agency to review exception requests for the significant projects requirement, as applicable to Interstate System projects. FHWA staff will work with the agency (as requested by the agency) to assist the agency in its efforts to assess and manage work zone impacts of specific projects, and develop and implement suitable TMPs that help manage these impacts.
Rule Implementation and Compliance. FHWA staff will work in partnership with the agency to implement the agency's work zone policies and procedures. The FHWA will review the agency's policies and procedures to assess conformance and compatibility with the requirements of this updated Rule; and also help reassess the agency's implementation of its procedures at appropriate intervals. The FHWA will also work with the agencies to address the incorporation of this Rule into their stewardship agreements.

Further, to supplement this overall Implementation Guidance document, FHWA has developed a suite of companion guidance documents that provide more detail on the following related topics:

Work Zone Impacts Assessment. Guidance on developing procedures to assess work zone impacts of projects.
Work Zone Transportation Management Plans (TMPs). Guidance on developing TMPs for managing work zone impacts of projects.
Work Zone Public Information and Outreach Strategies. Guidance on the development of communications strategies that seek to inform affected audiences about construction projects, the expected work zone impacts, and the changing conditions on projects.

A quick overview of these guidance documents is provided in Appendix C of this implementation guide. Additional resources to support Rule implementation are described in Section 7.0 of this document.

previous | next