Traffic Law Enforcement in Work Zones: Phase II Research (2013)

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.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, Transit Development Corporation, or AOC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. vi ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vii SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 Types and Effectiveness of Enforcement Strategies Used in Work Zones ................................ 5 Alternatives to Enforcement ....................................................................................................... 7 Public Information Efforts to Support Work Zone Enforcement ............................................... 9 Review of Development and Administration Considerations of a Work Zone Enforcement Program ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Knowledge Gaps Pertaining to Work Zone Traffic Enforcement ............................................ 13 CHAPTER 2 EFFECT OF PASSIVE VERSUS ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS IN WORK ZONES ............................................................................................................................ 15 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 15 Objective ................................................................................................................................... 16 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 16 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 16 Driver Survey ........................................................................................................................ 16 Field Study of Driver Reaction to Work Zone Enforcement ................................................ 21 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Driver Survey Reponses ....................................................................................................... 22 Field Studies of Driver Response to Enforcement Vehicles in Work Zones ........................ 29 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER 3 ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVENESS FOR QUEUE-END PROTECTION ....... 34 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 34 Objective ................................................................................................................................... 34 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 34 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 34 Site Descriptions ................................................................................................................... 36 Data Reduction and Analysis ................................................................................................ 41 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 47 Effect of Enforcement Presence on Speeds .......................................................................... 47 Effect of Enforcement Presence on Deceleration Rates ....................................................... 50 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 4 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL CRASH COST REDUCTIONS DUE TO ENFORCEMENT USE IN WORK ZONES ................................................................................ 58 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 58 Computation of Crash Costs ..................................................................................................... 59 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 59 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 59 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 62

iii Discussion of Results ................................................................................................................ 67 CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 68 Effects of Active and Passive Enforcement Use in Work Zones .............................................. 68 Enforcement Effectiveness for Queue-End Protection in Work Zones .................................... 69 Assessment of Potential Crash Cost Reductions Due to Enforcement Use in Work Zones ..... 70 CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...................................................................................75 APPENDIX B: CRASH COST FUNCTIONS ..............................................................................80

iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Enforcement Vehicle at I-5 Study Site near Williams, CA. ......................................... 37 Figure 2. Traffic Queuing at the I-35W Site near Hillsboro, TX. ............................................... 38 Figure 3. Vehicles Approaching I-390 Site in Rochester, NY Prior to the Onset of Queuing. ... 39 Figure 4. Traffic Queuing at the I-490 Study Site in Rochester, NY. ......................................... 40 Figure 5. Traffic Conditions at the I-86 Study Site in Painted Post, NY. .................................... 41 Figure 6. Speeds Approaching the Queue when Enforcement was Present at the I-5 Site. ......... 42 Figure 7. Speeds Approaching the Queue when Enforcement was Present at the I-35 Site. ....... 43 Figure 8. Speeds Approaching the Queue when Enforcement was Present at the I-390 Site. ..... 44 Figure 9. Speeds Approaching the Queue when Enforcement was not Present at the I-390 Site. ....................................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 10. Speeds Approaching the Queue when Enforcement was Present at the I-490 Site. ... 45 Figure 11. Speeds Approaching the Queue when Enforcement was not Present at the I-490 Site. ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 12. Speeds Approaching the Queue when Enforcement was not Present at the I-86 Site. ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 13. Average Speeds of Vehicles Approaching the Queue With and Without Enforcement Present. .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 14. Normalized Reductions in Speed as Vehicles Approach the Queue With and Without Enforcement Present. .................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 15. Distribution of Deceleration Rates by Site when Enforcement was Present.............. 53 Figure 16. Distribution of Deceleration Rates by Site when Enforcement was not Present. ...... 54 Figure 17. Distribution of Deceleration Rates With and Without Enforcement Presence. ......... 54 Figure 18. Effect of Enforcement Presence on Severe Decelerations Upstream of the Traffic Queue ............................................................................................................................................ 56 Figure 19. Total Crash Cost Functions for Freeway Facilities: Work Zone Active with Temporary Lane Closures. ............................................................................................................ 63 Figure 20. Estimation of AADTs Needed to Offset Enforcement Costs in Daytime Freeway Work Zones when Work Activity is Occurring and a Temporary Lane Closure is Present. ........ 66

v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Types and Effectiveness of Work Zone Enforcement Efforts ......................................... 6 Table 2. Summary of Alternatives to Enforcement to Reduce Speed ........................................... 8 Table 3. Summary of MOU/Operating Agreement Contents for Work Zone Enforcement ....... 11 Table 4. Survey Participant Demographics ................................................................................. 20 Table 5. Summary of Field Study Data ........................................................................................ 21 Table 6. Questions About Work Zone Speed Limit Perceptions ................................................. 23 Table 7. Questions About Enforcement in Work Zones Perceptions .......................................... 24 Table 8. Response Variable Differences by Enforcement Region Type ..................................... 26 Table 9. Variables Explaining Responses to Question “If You Drive Into a Work Zone With a Reduced Speed Limit, What Do You Typically Do?” .................................................................. 27 Table 10. Variables Explaining Responses to Question “Do You Slow Down More If Enforcement Lights Are Flashing or Lights Are Not Flashing?” ................................................. 28 Table 11. Variables Explaining Responses to Question “Does a Police Vehicle In a Work Zone Affect Your Attention and Awareness?” ...................................................................................... 29 Table 12. Average Speeds With and Without Enforcement Present: Active Enforcement Regions ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 13. Average Speeds With and Without Enforcement Present: Passive Enforcement Regions ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 14. Standard Deviation of Speeds With and Without Enforcement Present: Active Enforcement Regions .................................................................................................................... 31 Table 15. Standard Deviation of Speeds With and Without Enforcement Present: Passive Enforcement Regions .................................................................................................................... 31 Table 16. Driver Compliance to Speed Limits With and Without Enforcement Present: Active Enforcement Regions .................................................................................................................... 32 Table 17. Driver Compliance to Speed Limits With and Without Enforcement Present: Passive Enforcement Regions .................................................................................................................... 32 Table 18. Comparison of Average Speeds of Vehicles Approaching the Queue, With and Without Enforcement Present ....................................................................................................... 48 Table 19. Comparison of Standard Deviations of Speeds With and Without Enforcement Present ....................................................................................................................................................... 51 Table 20. Average Deceleration Rates of Vehicles Approaching a Traffic Queue With and Without Enforcement Present. ...................................................................................................... 52 Table 21. Distance from Queue at Which Maximum Deceleration Occurs ................................ 55 Table 22. Freeway Work Zone Crash Modification Factors (48). ............................................... 61 Table 23. Work Zone Crash Costs Required to Offset Costs of Providing Enforcement ........... 65 Table 24. Comparison of Enforcement Benefits and Costs at Freeway Work Zones .................. 65

vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research results documented in this report were developed based on research performed under National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 3-80 by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) of the Texas A&M University System, under the fiscal administration of the Texas A&M Research Foundation. The Mr. James E. Bryden, Cambridge Systematics, Incorporated (CSI) and Transtec served as subcontractors for this research. Gerald L. Ullman, senior research engineer with TTI, was the principal investigator. The other authors of this report were Marcus A. Brewer, assistant research engineer with TTI; James E. Bryden, highway safety consultant; Michael Cockran and C.W. Hubbs, law enforcement experts with Transtec Consulting; and Andre Chandra and Krista Jeannotte, senior research scientist with CSI. The work was performed under the general supervision of Dr. Ullman. The researchers wish to express their gratitude to the members of the project panel for their guidance and patience during the performance of this research: • Arthur Gruhn, Connecticut Department of Transportation (chair) (deceased); • Rebecca Brewster, American Transportation Research Institute; • James Halvorsen, New York State Police; • Larry Holestine, Data Nexus, Incorporated; • James D. McGee, Nebraska Department of Roads; • Richard Raub, Raub Associates; • Mitsuru Saito, Brigham Young University; • Donald Williams, West Virginia Department of Transportation; • Jacqueline Ghezzi, California Department of Transportation (deceased); • Ken Opiela, FHWA; and • Frank Lisle, Transportation Research Board. In addition to the project panel members, the authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of numerous state departments of transportation (DOT) personnel who participated in telephone surveys and on-site interviews regarding their work zone enforcement practices. Finally, this research could not have been completed without the special assistance of several members of the New York State DOT, New York State Police, California DOT, California Highway Patrol, New Jersey DOT, New Jersey State Police, North Carolina DOT, North Carolina State Highway Patrol, Kansas DOT, Kansas Highway Patrol, Tennessee DOT, and Tennessee Department of Safety who coordinated access to, and provided support at, work zone projects for the various field studies and driver surveys performed during the course of this research.