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.

29 Introduction Experiences nationally indicate that work zone enforcement can be administered in several different ways, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. The choice as to which approach is most appropriate for a given situation depends on several factors, including: • The amount and type of work zone enforcement typically required by the highway agency, • The amount of staff time and resources the highway and enforcement agencies can devote to managing and admin- istering work zone enforcement efforts, and • The working relationship between the highway and enforce- ment agencies. Generally speaking, the administration of work zone enforcement efforts involves consideration of three basic issues: • Defining roles and responsibilities, lines of authority and communication, and other administrative details between the highway and enforcement agency through the establish- ment of a memorandum of understanding between agencies; • Determining how work zone enforcement needs will be funded; and • Determining how work zone enforcement efforts will be paid. Establishing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Work Zone Enforcement Support In general terms, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is a document describing a bilateral agreement between parties pertaining to a common line of action. An MOU is often established between a highway and an enforce- ment agency as a formal statement of the intent to work together in the provision of enforcement personnel in work zones. The purpose of the MOU is to document specific roles of each agency, the intent to coordinate and cooperate, the lines of authority and communication that will be followed, and other details. In most instances, the MOU is between the state highway and state enforcement agencies; in some cases, though, the highway agency and a local enforcement agency may enter into an MOU. Although the actual development and approval of an MOU can take some time and effort by both agencies, both will ultimately benefit by having this agreement in place. Although the specific wording used between agencies will vary depending on differences in terminology, legal staff who are involved in crafting agreements, etc., a properly-designed MOU for work zone enforcement usually contains details on the following major items: • Estimated amount of funding expected to be available for enforcement accomplished under the agreement—The expectations for all parties of the amount of funding available is provided so that the enforcement agency can better plan for the officer resources to be requested, and the highway agency can assess its upcoming needs for enforce- ment and establish or modify criteria for enforcement use on projects to make best use of the limited resources avail- able. The agreement may also describe how the amount of available funding will be established and communicated to the enforcement agency each year or construction season. • Types of costs allowed to be charged—The officers’ wage rates (regular and overtime), associated benefits, and taxes will usually be covered under the agreement. In addition, the agencies may also agree to other items to include (e.g., fuel, insurance, vehicle usage, enforcement office supervision and staff support, etc.). • Billing information requirements—Details are provided as to which agency is responsible for paying the officers (officers C h a p t e r 4 Administrative Considerations of Work Zone Enforcement

30 can be paid directly by the highway agency or directly by the contractor if all support is done via overtime hours, or by the enforcement agency which is then reimbursed by the highway agency or the contractor). Reports or timesheets that the officer or enforcement agency may need to provide the highway agency or contractor will also be spelled out in this section. • Names and contact information of key responsible persons in each agency—Primary points of contact regarding the overall MOU should be provided as part of the agreement. In addition, highway and enforcement agencies may choose to formalize the agreement on several other topics: • Specific officer responsibilities during each shift—The expec- tations of the officer while on duty at the work zone can be specified as part of the MOU, including a description of the expected method of enforcement (e.g., active enforce- ment, traffic-calming efforts, intersection or driveway traf- fic control, etc.) to be used. This is often referred to as the “Scope of Services.” • Right to terminate agreement—Language describing the rights of the various parties to end enforcement activities under the MOU is sometimes included. Project duration, available staffing, untimely payment or other items that might otherwise describe a breach of contract, may be cri- teria specified to trigger the termination of the agreement. • Minimum notification time to schedule enforcement support— Some agencies define the minimum notification time to schedule enforcement support. The time required will depend on the size of the enforcement agency and amount of work that may necessitate enforcement support, state or local union rules, etc. Examples exist of MOUs with minimum notification times of anywhere between 3 and 14 days, although shorter or longer times could certainly be specified if so desired. Usually, the MOU will also indi- cate that the enforcement agency may accept a request for support scheduled on shorter notice, but is not required to do so. • Minimum notification time to cancel a request—When included, this clause defines the minimum time required for the requested enforcement support to be canceled. Such a clause is generally used when enforcement support is being provided primarily through officer overtime. Nationally, one can find examples of MOUs that specify minimum cancellation times of 24 to 36 hours. Again, though, the actual requirement will depend on local labor union rules and other factors, and may be shorter or longer than this range. Failure to cancel a request in time often involves a payment penalty. Although a 2- to 4-hour minimum charge for failure to cancel in time is common, it will also depend on local labor agreements and union requirements. • Law enforcement agency right of first refusal for providing support—In regions where the enforcement agency is provid- ing regular-time officer support (and possibly supplement- ing with overtime effort) to meet work zone enforcement requests, a clause may be included to ensure that the enforce- ment agency has the first opportunity to provide support. If an officer or officers are not available, the highway agency is then allowed to use other enforcement agencies for assistance. • Payment schedule —This statement defines the reimburse- ment payment period (biweekly, monthly, etc.) and what supporting documentation is needed to be provided to support the reimbursement request. • Required law enforcement participation in pre-construction meetings—When included, this clause specifies that the enforcement agency provides an officer during the project pre-construction meetings to ensure that enforcement concerns for the project are presented and discussed. • Officer training requirements—In some jurisdictions, the MOU may also specify that the officers be trained on pro- viding safe and effective law enforcement in work zones. • Documentation requirements—Highway agency reimburse- ment of work zone enforcement efforts usually requires some level of documentation of enforcement efforts to support payments. Documentation after each shift (as described above) is the simplest way to meet these requirements. Invoicing may occur after each event, or be done on a regular (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly) basis. • Cooperative enforcement support to be provided—A highway agency and enforcement agency may also choose to include language that specifies how much cooperative work zone enforcement will be done as part of the existing enforce- ment agency budget. Funding Approaches for Work Zone Enforcement As specified in federal regulations (1), costs for work zone enforcement are eligible for reimbursement through the Federal-aid program. The regulations allow enforcement ser- vices to be funded on a project-by-project basis as part of the individual construction contracts, or on an overall program- wide basis by setting aside a portion of the overall construction budget of the agency for enforcement activities. Examples of both types of funding arrangements exist across the country. In addition, a few states have enacted legislation that returns a portion of the fines received from work zone enforcement efforts back to fund future work zone enforcement. The pre- ferred funding approach for a particular agency depends on a number of factors, the most significant of which are sum- marized in Table 5.

31 Program-wide work zone enforcement funding can be estab- lished at either the statewide or a district or region level. The amount of funding may be based on a preliminary assess- ment of work zone enforcement needs identified by project engineers and collated across the state or district for a funding cycle. Another approach followed by some agencies is to sim- ply establish the program as a percentage of the anticipated letting budget by the agency for that cycle. This percentage may then be adjusted slightly in subsequent years if the allo- cated funds are found to be excessive or deficient to cover the actual enforcement costs that were actually incurred. One of the primary advantages of establishing program- wide work zone enforcement funding is that it can facilitate coordination and consistency in work zone enforcement appli- cation across projects in the state or district. This approach can also allow agencies to be more responsive to changes in enforce- ment needs that occur over the course of projects, and reallo- cate resources from projects where needs are found to be lower than anticipated to those projects whose needs are found to be greater. In addition, a program-wide funding approach allows for any management and support staff costs associated with administrating the program (reviewing and approving requests for enforcement use, gathering the required documentation for reimbursement, issuing payments, tracking expenses over time, etc.) to be reimbursed as well. Of course, the consequence of this approach is that some of the funding allocated for work zone enforcement does not equate to actual officer time at a project. Because of these characteristics, a program-wide fund- ing approach is more suited to agencies with larger construction and maintenance budgets and thus a larger number of projects with work zone enforcement needs. In contrast to program-wide funding, a project-by-project work zone enforcement funding approach tends to be simpler in nature. Agencies that utilize this method estimate enforce- ment funding needs for individual projects as part of the overall project planning and bid preparation process. Each project engineer then has responsibility for ensuring that the allocated funds from the project budget are used appropri- ately. This approach is simpler to implement, and decisions on when to utilize enforcement can usually be made more quickly. Conversely, this approach is less flexible in terms of accom- modating unexpected additional enforcement needs during a particular project. Also, differences may exist in how enforce- ment is used from one project to the next. Finally, the use of increased fine revenues for work zone enforcement is an attractive funding approach conceptually for agencies, especially since most states already increase fines for traffic violations that occur in their work zones. The extra revenues that are generated can be assigned to fund work zone enforcement without adversely affecting other governmental operations that are based on enforcement revenue. Theoreti- cally, the overall impact of providing work zone enforcement upon the highway construction budget for an agency would be reduced. However, one key disadvantage of this funding approach is that it inherently favors active enforcement efforts over passive, traffic-calming techniques. In addition, this type of funding approach can result in increased public scrutiny over the speed limits set in work zones, since there is a perceived segatnavdasiD segatnavdA dohteM gnidnuF Program-wide enforcement funding - Administrative and support staff costs needed to manage the program can be recouped by the highway agency - Can improve the degree of enforcement consistency across projects regionally or statewide - Increases flexibility to increase enforcement use at a project due to unforeseen circumstances - Management and support staff manpower requirements to administer a program can be substantial - Some of the funding is used for administrative purposes, reducing the number of officer hours that can be funded Project-by-project enforcement funding - Administrative costs are generally lower, resulting in more officer hours on site for a given level of funding - Decisions on when and where to use enforcement can be made more quickly - Enforcement application can be inconsistent from project to project - Can be more difficult to accommodate an increased need for enforcement (beyond that originally budgeted) if unforeseen circumstances arise Revenues generated from citations issued in work zones are used to pay for work zone enforcement - The impact of providing work zone enforcement on the overall highway agency construction budget is reduced - Usually, specific state legislation is required authorizing the use of the work zone citation revenues for this purpose - Use of enforcement for traffic-calming purposes in the work zone is viewed less favorably, since this strategy does not result in citations being issued Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of available work zone enforcement funding approaches.

32 benefit to the agency to establish speed limits that increase the number of speeding citations issued and thus the amount of increased work zone enforcement funding generated. Payment Methods for Work Zone Enforcement Just as multiple methods exist for funding work zone enforcement efforts, different methods of paying for the work zone enforcement activities that occur are also available. Typically, one of three main methods is used: • Work zone enforcement efforts are paid by the highway agency on a program-wide or project-by-project basis to the enforcement agency as reimbursement of officer hours worked, • Work zone enforcement efforts are paid directly by the contractor to either the individual officer or to the enforce- ment agency as part of the construction contract for hours worked, or • The highway agency (or other part of state government) establishes a grant arrangement to go directly to the enforce- ment agency to fund the work zone enforcement efforts. Characteristics of each payment method are summarized in Table 6. Regardless of whether the highway agency or the contractor is reimbursing the enforcement agency, payments are made based on detailed invoices submitted periodically by the enforcement agency for efforts expended. If payment is provided by the contractor, a pay item for enforcement use is typically provided in the contract, although it may be included in other items of work as an overhead expense in some instances. Federal regulations allow contract pay items for enforcement work to be either unit price or lump sum items (1). Unit price items should be utilized when the highway agency can estimate and control the quantity of law enforcement services required on the project. The use of lump sum payment should be limited to situations where the quantity of services is directly affected by the contractor’s choice of project scheduling and chosen manner of staging and performing the work. It is important to make sure that all parties (highway agency field personnel, enforcement officers, and highway contractor personnel) understand who has authority to decide how the officers are to be utilized while at the job site (i.e., for active enforcement or for traffic-calming purposes). In most locations, the highway agency retains the authority to make such decisions, even if the highway con- tractor is providing payment for services. The use of grant arrangements for work zone enforcement transfers much of the administrative effort to manage and document expenses from the highway agency to the enforce- ment agency. The arrangement is viewed positively by most enforcement agencies, as it allows them to better manage its manpower resources and recoup some of its administrative expenses. In some locations, the arrangement allows the enforcement agency to hire additional officers than would otherwise be possible with its existing budget, and thereby reduce the amount of enforcement that is done with over- time hours that come at a cost premium. In a few instances, these additional officers are dedicated exclusively to work zone enforcement efforts, and results in officers who are more trained and experienced in operating in work zones. Overall, this approach may provide an improved level of enforcement and cooperation between enforcement and highway agency personnel than could otherwise be obtained. In a few cases, the grant arrangement has been established with a requirement Payment Method Characteristics Enforcement efforts reimbursed directly by highway agency - Based on detailed invoices submitted by enforcement agency for work performed - Can be done either program-wide or on a project-by- project basis Enforcement efforts reimbursed by highway contractor - Based on detailed invoices submitted by enforcement agency for work performed - Usually a pay item in contract, but can be done as part of overhead expense on other work performed - Pay item can be unit price or lump sum based, depending on whether highway agency or contractor controls amount of enforcement used Grant provided by highway agency or other source directly to enforcement agency for work zone enforcement efforts - Highway agency requests work zone enforcement support, but enforcement agency pays for efforts directly through grant funds - May involve some level of matching support by enforcement agency Table 6. Characteristics of various work zone enforcement payment approaches.

33 that the enforcement agency provide a certain funding match (such as 20 percent) to be dedicated to work zone enforcement. Once the grant is in place, the highway agency submits requests for enforcement support on specific projects as needed, the same way as is done under the other payment methods. Other Work Zone Enforcement Administrative Considerations Management of Officer Overtime Work zone enforcement is often accomplished through the use of officers hired on an overtime basis. This arrangement is attractive to most officers, as it allows them to significantly supplement their normal income received from the enforce- ment agency. Officers must normally volunteer for such duty, and so can adjust their level of participation as they see fit. For the most part, this approach does work well. There are a few locations, however, where the demand for work zone enforcement support is so high that officers can spend much of their non-work time providing supplemental work zone enforcement. Although most enforcement agencies leave it to the indi- vidual officers to monitor their own level of effort and limit their off-duty assignments to a reasonable level, a few enforce- ment agencies track these efforts more closely and may even cap the number of off-duty hours the officer can take on in a given week. Since many off-duty shifts are in support of night work activities, concerns arise over lack of sleep and strained family relationships that can occur if officers take on excessive amounts of off-duty work. Tired officers are also more prone to mistakes on their regular shifts, which is another reason some agencies establish maximums for their officers. Officer Work Zone Safety Training Some highway agencies require officers who are providing work zone enforcement support to receive training about basic work zone traffic control and other facets of work zone safety prior to their deployment in a particular work zone. The pur- pose of such training is to ensure that officers are aware of the reasons for providing law enforcement in work zones, under- stand the basic practices and procedures related to the use of law enforcement officers in work zones, understand the pur- pose and application of the various traffic control devices in use in work zones, and understand that there are acceptable and unacceptable locations for enforcement personnel to be located upstream and within a work zone. It can be beneficial to include both the officers and highway agency field personnel in these training efforts. This approach ensures that all parties are clear as to the role of enforcement in work zones. Joint training can also facilitate discussions between officers and field staff regarding site conditions that can influence enforce- ment strategy selection, and can help foster a good working relationship between both groups. Some enforcement agencies have developed their own training program to meet this need. FHWA has developed law enforcement work zone training. Available products include an instructor’s manual; participant’s guide; pocket guide (see Figure 21); and PowerPoint training modules. These materials can be obtained directly from FHWA (18). In addi- tion, some vendors are offering train-the-trainer courses of the material. These opportunities can be found on the National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse as well (19). Figure 21. FHWA work zone law enforcement pocket guide.