Work Zone Speed Management (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

119 APPENDIX B Responses to Open-Ended Engineering and Enforcement Survey Questions on Work Zone Speed Management Are there other engineering-related work zone speed management techniques you have deployed on freeways or other multi-lane highways? If so, please briefly describe. • Alberta Transportation: Our work zones are restricted to a maximum 3 kilometers length (a hair under 2 miles) for mobile work zones (patching, crack sealing, etc.). The intention is to limit the amount of time and distance that drivers have to slow down—typically from 110 km/hour (normal speed) to 80 km/hour (within the 3 km work zone area) to 60 km/hour (passing workers). • California DOT (Caltrans): Those above listed as Occasional/Unique Situations are just that, and very rarely used, except when circumstances require. California only reduces speeds in work zones when the geometry requires it; for example, lanes narrow or move laterally, when they otherwise would not. • Connecticut DOT: Adherence to the MUTCD for the signing of work zones. • Idaho Transportation Department: We will occasionally pay for additional law enforcement patrols to keep speeds down. • Illinois DOT: In selected work zones Smart Work Zone (ITS) technology has been deployed. • Indiana DOT: While we don’t use the “Fines Doubled” sign, by state code for most work zones we must use Worksite Added Penalty signs—these signs warn motorists of higher fines for speeding and reckless driving. Similar work (on or about the traveled way not of a mobile nature) being done by or on behalf of other governmental agencies in Indiana must also be accompanied by this signing. • Iowa DOT: Iowa uses extra enforcement on selected projects statewide. We use the Department’s Motor Vehicle Division weigh officers, Iowa State Patrol officers, and also county sheriff or city police officers. A copy of our Policy and Procedure can be provided upon contact. • Michigan DOT: ITS stopped/slowed traffic advisories, work zone enforcement. • Minnesota DOT: A 24/7 construction speed limit may be used when the environment of the WZ necessitates a slower speed primarily for driver safety. Examples include reduced lane width, nearby drop-offs, CPR projects, and 2L2W operations on multilane divided roadways. • Montana DOT: Occasionally use Changeable Message Signs (CMS). • • North Carolina DOT: Work Zone Speed Reductions are used frequently. We typically use a “temporary” speed limit reduction through the use of CMSs or portable speed limit signs. The speed limits are returned to pre-work zone conditions once the condition such as a lane closure is removed. There are specific criteria to be met before this is utilized. Another form of a work zone speed limit reduction is the “long term” reduction. These are used when the conditions are ever present and the stationary speed limit signs are changed to reflect the conditions of the work zone. These also have specific conditions that must be met. Each of these requires a signed ordinance by the State Traffic Engineer. • North Dakota DOT: Signs posted for state law when workers present: “Minimum fee $80.” Oklahoma DOT: For most interstate high ADT urban and rural areas we are use Smart Work Zone. TABLE B1 AGENCY RESPONSES ON OTHER SPEED MANAGEMENT POLICIES (continued on next page)

120 • Pennsylvania DOT: - Our wider edgelines are 6 in. - We use PA State Police assistance for queue protection. - Sequential lights on the approaching taper transitions. - We are deploying ITS devices this year for advance queue protection (prior to the taper transitions). - We are attempting to use Automated Speed Enforcement in work zones. Laws and regulations need revised before this can happen. • Rhode Island DOT: If police/cruisers stationed in “presence” mode (to help control speeds) are considered an engineering-related work zone speed management strategy (RIDOT does), then take note that RIDOT uses this strategy on MOST work zones on freeways, and in SOME work zones on other multi-lane highways. • Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure: We have recently implemented gateway assemblies at the start and end of the work zones. It is to create awareness to the driver that the environment is changing and to create the feeling that the road is narrowing. • South Carolina DOT: We have a squad of highway patrol troopers trained and designated to patrol work zones and high incident corridors. Approximately 80% of their activities take place in work zones. • Texas DOT: - PCMS to display speeds. - Increased number and size of work zone speed limit signs. • Virginia DOT: We have tried drone radar units with mixed results. • Washington State DOT: - State patrol presence for work zone operations. - State patrol emphasis patrols. - Photo enforcement for work zones. We tried four different deployment operations. Information on the program can be found on our webpage, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/ATSC.htm. • West Virginia Division of Highways: Use of an off-duty uniformed police officer with a police vehicle. • Wyoming DOT: We have used Portable Variable Message Signs and flaggers for silica fume pours, which require very low speeds during application and curing. • Oregon DOT: - Currently in use: ▪ Use of law enforcement (on overtime basis) to patrol work zones. ▪ Use of Portable Changeable Message Signs (PCMS) to encourage drivers to reduce speeds or be alert for slowed or stopped traffic. ▪ Limited use of temporary portable transverse rumble strips. ▪ Limited use of lane and/or shoulder width reductions to reduce capacity and traffic speeds in some cases. - New/under development (for applicable projects and scopes of work): ▪ Photo radar enforcement with citations issued through automated process. ▪ Speed radar trailers to provide driver speed feedback and accompanying “SLOW DOWN” messages. ▪ Work Zone ITS—providing real-time driver warnings about slowed or stopped traffic, entering construction vehicles, work zone travel time messages, detour/alternate route information, other work zone conditions, or operation information. TABLE B1 (continued)

121 Are there other enforcement-related work zone speed management strategies you have deployed on freeways or other multi-lane highways? If so, please briefly describe. • Alberta Transportation: During extreme weather events (almost always winter storms) the police will issue a tow-ban, and now allow tow trucks to create work zones to recover vehicles in the ditch—until after conditions are better. • Indiana DOT: Automated enforcement is not allowed by the Indiana State Code at this time. • Iowa DOT: Iowa uses extra enforcement on selected projects statewide. We use the Department’s Motor Vehicle Division weigh officers, Iowa State Patrol officers, and also County Sherriff or city police officers. A copy of our Policy and Procedure can be provided upon contact. • Kansas DOT: No. Some items on the list were used in the far past, but not recently. Also, automated enforcement is not allowed in Kansas at this time. • North Dakota DOT: We have had law enforcement program where officers patrol work zones above their normal work hours. Usually we ask Highway Patrol and they patrol more often in their normal working hours. • Nova Scotia Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal: Police may provide enforcement if requested, based on previous problems with the work site. • Pennsylvania DOT: We are working on Automated Speed Enforcement, but it will require state law and regulation changes. • Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure: Traffic compliance officers in work zones. Also, police in the work zone without identification and giving out tickets. • South Carolina DOT: We have a squad of highway patrol troopers trained and designated to patrol work zones and high incident corridors. Approximately 80% of their activities take place in work zones. • Texas DOT: Wolf pack patrol of work zone. TABLE B2 OTHER ENFORCEMENT-RELATED TECHNIQUES ON FREEWAYS AND MULTI-LANE HIGHWAYS Are there other enforcement-related work zone speed management strategies you have deployed on high- speed, two-lane rural highways? If so, please briefly describe. • Indiana DOT: Note: Additional police patrols are used, although probably not with as much frequency as on freeways. • Iowa DOT: Iowa uses extra enforcement on selected projects statewide. We use the Department’s Motor Vehicle Division weigh officers, Iowa State Patrol officers, and also County Sherriff or city police officers. A copy of our Policy and Procedure can be provided upon contact. • Minnesota DOT: Current research project is underway to study automated speed enforcement’s impact on driver attention. However, Minnesota law does not allow ASE at this time. • Nova Scotia Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal: Police may provide enforcement if requested, based on previous problems with the work site. • Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure: Traffic compliance officers in work zones. Also, police in the work zone without identification and giving out tickets. TABLE B3 OTHER ENFORCEMENT-RELATED TECHNIQUES ON HIGH-SPEED, TWO-LANE RURAL HIGHWAYS

122 Have you established criteria for determining which enforcement techniques to apply to any particular work zone? If so, please describe. • Alaska DOT: Very general criteria. • California DOT (Caltrans): Geometry of the work zone, traffic volumes, scope of work, for construction work zones, and the final recommendation is from the Resident Engineer. For maintenance work zones, it is usually the area superintendent who makes the final decision. • Delaware DOT: Delaware does not have this type of criteria. We are currently revisiting our law enforcement in work zone guidelines and this could potentially be added. • Illinois DOT: Quantitative guidelines have not been established; however, many of the above factors are considered when determining which techniques to utilize. • Iowa DOT: Iowa uses extra enforcement on selected projects statewide. We use the Department’s Motor Vehicle Division weigh officers, Iowa State Patrol officers, and also County Sherriff or city police officers. A copy of our Policy and Procedure can be provided upon contact. • Kansas DOT: No, each field office determines for itself which criteria warrants an enforcement request (using state funds to pay for highway patrol staff overtime) and the KHP sometimes runs work zones during regular hours. • Michigan DOT: We have a Guidance Document on Work Zone Enforcement • Minnesota DOT: No set criteria—decisions on the use of extraordinary enforcement are made by the District Project and Traffic personnel. • Missouri DOT: No, type of enforcement is determined on a job-by-job basis by the contractor, engineer, and law enforcement dependent on the location, work activity, and weather. • Montana DOT: Use of law enforcement only if drivers routinely not following traffic control devices. • North Carolina DOT: Yes, our HAWKS program uses specific criteria to identify work zones for State Highway Patrol activities. Some of this includes: crash history, 85th percentile speeds, adjacent projects, etc. • New York State DOT: No formal criteria but we do prioritize our requests to the police for enforcement. We also have the Work Zone Safety Act of 2005, which requires police presence to the extent practicable where workers are on foot without barrier on high-speed controlled-access freeways. • North Dakota DOT: We have had law enforcement program where officers patrol work zones above their normal work hours. Usually we ask Highway Patrol and they patrol more often in their normal working hours. • Ohio DOT: Our Traffic Engineering Manual (TEM) has sections relating to and plan notes for: Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) for Enforcement (640-19.2, 642-56); LEO for Assistance (640-19.1, 642-55); Work Zone Speed Zones (640-18/1203-2.9/642-24); and Increased Penalties Signs (605-4.3/640-18.3/642- 27). We also have a pilot process developed for our variable speed limit signs (Digital Speed Limit signs, DSL signs) in work zones with proposal notes and plan detail drawings. They are not available on the web now as the pilot has concluded and we are waiting on pending research to be completed. They may change depending on research results. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Roadway/DesignStandards /traffic/TEM/Pages/default.aspx. • Oregon DOT: Overtime enforcement usually focused on freeways and interstate work zones due to higher level of importance for the facility, type of work activity, higher traffic volumes and speeds, proximity of workers to live traffic, frequency of night work. • Pennsylvania DOT: PA State Police assistance. Our focus is on Interstates and freeways projects. Other high-speed, high-volume roadways are approved on a case-by-case basis (and focus on roads with expected queues). • Rhode Island DOT: RIDOT has published a Guidelines for the Use of Traffic Persons (Police) and flag persons in Work Zones Policy, which can be shared upon request. This guidance includes/covers some, but not all, of the criteria noted. • South Carolina DOT: The highway patrol troopers patrol designated work zones. • Virginia DOT: The use of law enforcement is nearly always determined in the planning stages of a project, and is based on traffic volumes, crash history, scope of work and duration, and availability of state police or other law enforcement personnel. • West Virginia Division of Highways: Yes. Four-lane freeways with high ADT volumes, nighttime constructions, type of work activity, speed limit. • Wisconsin DOT: Volumes, work zone configuration, and anticipated speeds. • Wyoming DOT: Wyoming does not have the staff numbers available in the Wyoming Highway Patrol (a part of WYDOT) to make enforcement a standard part of work zones. When available, they have been used for enforcement in unique situations (such as silica fume pours) and have been an added presence for short- term (<1 hour) road closures (such as installing an overhead sign structure). TABLE B4 AGENCY CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES

123 Are there particular challenges or problems that you have experienced in general, or with any specific measures, in achieving speed reductions in work zones? Please describe. • Alabama DOT: We have found that drivers, in general, will not obey reduced speeds through a work zone when there’s no apparent danger. • Alberta Transportation: Our legislation for reduced speed when passing workers, or emergency vehicles with lights flashing, allows drivers to maintain regular speed if there is a full lane between the stopped vehicle and the passerby. Not many drivers understand this, and we’re having a problem with different speed in the work zone as some drivers try to maintain normal speed in the “it's OK” lane, while other drivers slow no matter which lane they're in. • Arizona DOT: Long work zones have particular difficulty in getting drivers to observe reduced speed limits. Many times the problem is just the opposite: artificially lowering speed limits where it's unnecessary/not justified. • California DOT (Caltrans): Conditions vary widely throughout the state. Many decisions are made in the local district. With 12 districts, they are not always consistent. Some confusion in the various districts as to when they should or should not use law enforcement (California Highway Patrol) in work zones. • Connecticut DOT: At this time we are considering the use of temporary rumble strips, especially after Texas’ presentation at SCOTE. Rural roads are very difficult especially due to lack of enforcement areas. • Delaware DOT: Even with double fines (mandated by state law) the fines alone do not appear to be a deterrent to speeding. • District of Columbia DOT: One challenge we face in achieving speed reductions in work zones is payment to police. We have no written agreement with police on their roles and responsibilities in work zones. • Idaho Transportation Department: It is difficult to get people to slow down for long-term speed reductions and for 24-hour speed reductions when there is no work occurring in the off hours. If speed reductions are only supposed to be effective when work is occurring, getting the signage to accurately reflect the work activity is difficult to manage. • Illinois DOT: Road user compliance with work zone speed reduction varies across the state and depending upon the type of roadway and the type of work being performed. • Indiana DOT: My experience is that driver adherence to speed limit reductions vary. So, in a given work zone on a given day, particularly if the speed reduction is substantial (say 20 or 25 mph), some drivers will not adjust their speed at all, most will reduce speed moderately, while some will obey the reduction. This becomes an enforcement and safety issue so we have learned that great temporary drops in speed limits can be problematic whether there is active enforcement or not. • Iowa DOT: Having enough officers available for extra enforcement and also current procedures do not directly reimburse the cost center or local offices, but typically go back to the general fund of the agency. • Michigan DOT: The speed study we have done shows that drivers do not slow down unless workers are working right next to the lane. • Minnesota DOT: As is typical, drivers will not reduce their speeds based on regulatory sign alone; drivers will reduce speeds when the environment justifies a reduced speed or when enforcement is present. • Montana DOT: Contractor not diligent with posting appropriate speed limits. Example, posting 35 mph in work zone on interstate projects with closed lane. Not posting an end of work zone speed limit once past work zone. 35 mph speed limit for extended miles after work zone without any work activity. • North Carolina DOT: Yes, the number one problem is the installation of speed limit signs that reduce the speed limit before the condition is present. This reduces the credibility of the work zone speed limit reduction and little compliance is the result before and during the conditions that warrant the reduction. • New Mexico DOT: Finding police officers devoted to the location. • New York State DOT: Speed limit reductions are generally ineffective without police enforcement of them. • Nova Scotia Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal: Simply posting signs has little effect. Making physical changes to the roadway to slow traffic is most effective. • Ohio DOT: Obtaining compliance on interstates WITHOUT presence of law enforcement officers. Documentation issues with use of regulatory digital speed limit signs (knowing exactly where, when, and what speed was in effect at any given time with great accuracy). • Oregon DOT: Lack of available law enforcement across the state due to budget cuts. Where speed reductions are warranted, without enforcement, compliance with regulatory posted speed is very low (<5%). Where not warranted, application of speed reductions can be less effective in reducing speeds—and can even provide a false sense of security for workers. Politics, emotions, current driving behaviors, and a broad range of stakeholder interests present challenges in successfully creating, applying, and enforcing a uniform, consistent work zone speed reduction policy. • Pennsylvania DOT: We are having issues with gaining the support from the PSP trooper’s union on automated speed enforcement in work zones. We are looking to draft a policy on “how to establish” a consistent policy for setting the appropriate work zone speed limit. • Rhode Island DOT: 1. Administration/Costs of Enforcement 2. Lack of Active/Targeted Speed Enforcement 3. Road Users Failing to Adhere to Posted Limits. • Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure: Long work zones create drivers to increase their speeds through the work zone. General nature Saskatchewan environment of lower volumes and wide open space. • South Carolina DOT: No specific problems with any specific speed reduction measure. TABLE B5 CHALLENGES FACED IN GENERAL OR WITH PARTICULAR MEASURES

124 • Texas DOT: - Active enforcement areas to issue tickets - Enforcement while performing other active duties - Verification of workers present at time of ticket. • Virginia DOT: Speed limit reductions are generally avoided if at all possible. The design of the work zone is based on pre-reduction speeds. A change in our legislature two years ago now requires flashing lights to be added to signs in the work zone and flashing when workers are present and the speed is reduced. Most contractors would rather not see the fines increased for speeding if they have to turn lights on and off throughout the day and perform the necessary documentation of flashing light activation. http://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Business/asset_upload_file411_44579.pdf / • Washington State DOT: Drivers will not reduce speed unless they see or observe the need to do so. Arbitrarily reducing the speed does not do anything other than create a speed differential problem where you might get someone willing to reduce the speed to match the posted speed, but the problem is when you have other drivers that drive at the speed they are comfortable with regardless of if road work is ongoing. • Wisconsin DOT: In general the traveling public does not obey work zone speed limits whether they are advisory or enforceable. • Wyoming DOT: Wyoming is full of long stretches of roads. Our challenge is to make sure we are setting appropriate speed limits and that we are applying them only to active work zones. Good work zone maintenance is as important as enforcement. Credibility is our main goal. TABLE B5 (continued)