Traffic Enforcement Strategies for Work Zones (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.

N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 746 Traffic Enforcement Strategies for Work Zones Gerald L. Ullman Marcus A. Brewer Texas a&M TransporTaTion insTiTuTe The Texas a&M universiTy sysTeM College Station, TX James E. Bryden Delmar, NY Michael O. Corkran C.W. Hubbs TransTec consulTing, DBe Sacramento, CA and Andre K. Chandra Krista L. Jeannotte caMBriDge sysTeMaTics, inc. Chevy Chase, MD Subscriber Categories Construction  •  Maintenance and Preservation  •  Operations and Traffic TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2013 www.TRB.org  Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 746 Project 03-80 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-25904-0 Library of Congress Control Number 2013935958 © 2013 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 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, or Transit Development Corporation 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. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

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

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The guidelines presented in this document were developed based on research performed under 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. Mr. James E. Bryden; Cambridge Systemat- ics, Inc. (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 Corkran and C.W. Hubbs, law enforcement experts with Transtec Consulting; and Andre Chandra and Krista Jean- notte, senior research scientists 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. In addition to the project panel members, the authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of numerous state DOT personnel who participated in a sur- vey of state practices. Finally, this research could not have been completed without the special assistance of several members of the New York State DOT, California DOT, New Jersey DOT, North Carolina DOT, Kansas DOT, and Tennessee DOT who coordinated access to work zone projects for the various field stud- ies and driver surveys performed during the course of this research. Similarly, the assistance of members of the New York State Police, the California Highway Patrol, New Jersey State Police, North Carolina Highway Patrol, Kansas Highway Patrol, and Tennessee Highway Patrol is also gratefully acknowledged. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 746 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs B. Ray Derr, Senior Program Officer Andrea Harrell, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Maria Sabin Crawford, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 03-80 PANEL Field of Traffic—Area of Operations and Control Arthur Gruhn, Connecticut DOT, Newington (deceased) Jacqueline Yuke Ghezzi, California DOT, Sacramento (deceased) Rebecca M. Brewster, American Transportation Research Institute, Marietta, GA James Halvorsen, New York State Police, Albany (retired) Larry Holestine, Data Nexus, Elizabeth, CO (retired) James D. McGee, Nebraska DOR, Lincoln Richard A. “Dick” Raub, Raub Associates, Portland, OR Mitsuru Saito, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT Donald L. “Donny” Williams, West Virginia DOT, Morgantown Kenneth S. Opiela, FHWA Liaison Frank N. Lisle, TRB Liaison

F O R E W O R D By B. Ray Derr Staff Officer Transportation Research Board This report presents guidance for the safe and effective deployment of traffic enforcement strategies in work zones on high-speed highways (those with speed limits of 45 mph or greater). The planning, design, and operation of traffic enforcement strategies are discussed, as well as administrative issues that should be addressed. The report will be useful to traffic and construction engineers engaged in these types of projects. The safety of motorists and workers in construction and maintenance work zones is a key concern of state transportation agencies. Traffic law enforcement by uniformed officers or other means can be effective in reducing undesirable driver behavior that contributes to crashes, but little objective guidance exists on selecting projects where enforcement would be most beneficial or on developing a traffic enforcement strategy for a work zone. Public awareness techniques are sometimes used to improve compliance with traffic laws (e.g., variable message signs showing the number of tickets issued, “Get the Picture. Listen to the Signs.”), and guidance, based on existing information, is needed on the effectiveness of these techniques. Although improved compliance with traffic laws would be beneficial in all work zones, traffic enforcement tends to be used more in work zones on high-speed roads because the risks are greater. In addition to enforcing traffic laws, enforcement officers often carry out other duties in work zones (e.g., handling traffic and investigating crashes). This project did not consider those types of activity. In NCHRP Project 03-80, the Texas A&M Transportation Institute and their research team surveyed the literature and practice and identified technologies that can supplement or supplant law enforcement personnel. They then conducted structured group interviews to gain additional insights into the benefits and concerns associated with law enforcement in work zones. Knowledge gaps pertaining to work zone traffic enforcement were identi- fied and, insofar as resources allowed, addressed through the collection and analysis of field data. They then prepared the guidebook so that practitioners can apply the knowledge gained during the course of the research. The contractor’s final report providing background information for the project is available on the TRB website as NCHRP Web-Only Document 194.

C O N T E N T S 1  Summary 4 Chapter 1  Introduction 6 Chapter 2   Traffic Enforcement Strategies  for Various Work Zone Situations 6 Basic Enforcement Philosophies 6 Overt Versus Covert Enforcement Strategies 6 Cooperative Versus Dedicated Enforcement Efforts 6 Active Enforcement Versus Presence-Only (i.e., Traffic Calming) Strategies 7 Work Zone Enforcement Techniques 7 Stationary Deployment Techniques 9 Circulating (or Mobile) Enforcement Techniques 10 Automated and Semi-Automated Speed Enforcement Techniques 10 Deciding When Enforcement Is Needed 10 Considering the Characteristics of the Work Zone Hazard 12 Considering the Safety Benefits of Enforcement Versus Enforcement Costs 14 Work Zone Enforcement Deployment Procedures 14 Officer Arrival Procedures 14 Officer Deployment Within the Work Zone 16 Officer Departure Procedures 22 Chapter 3   Enforcement Considerations  in Work Zone Planning and Design 22 Introduction 22 Establishing Realistic Design Speeds and Speed Limits 23 Considering the Need, Extent, and Type of Police Enforcement to Be Used in the Work Zone 23 Work Zone Design Features Related to Enforcement 23 Limiting the Length of Shoulder Closures 23 Considering the Need for Enforcement Pullout Areas 25 Speed Management Alternatives and Supplements to Enforcement 26 Public Awareness for Work Zone Safety and Enforcement 27 Motorist Notification for Work Zone Safety and Enforcement 29 Chapter 4   Administrative Considerations  of Work Zone Enforcement 29 Introduction 29 Establishing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Work Zone Enforcement Support 30 Funding Approaches for Work Zone Enforcement 32 Payment Methods for Work Zone Enforcement

33 Other Work Zone Enforcement Administrative Considerations 33 Management of Officer Overtime 33 Officer Work Zone Safety Training 34  References