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.
Examples of FHWA and DOT Tools for Assessing Smart Work Zone Technologies During the Planning Phase F-3Â Â Source: Arizona DOT n.d.b. Figure F-2. Scoring sheet for smart work zone technologies for Arizona DOT.
Table F-1. Critical project characteristics for smart work zone systems for Colorado DOT (Colorado DOT and Ulteig Engineers 2020). Critical Project Characteristics Smart Work Zone Systems Frequent planned lane closures are expected, which will create queues that cause high speed differentials between queued and approaching traffic. X X X O X O Emergency shoulders will be closed through the work zone, and frequent stalls and fender- benders are expected to occur that will cause queues because they cannot be moved to the shoulder. X X X X Travel times and delays through the work zone will be highly variable, and real-time information can improve pre-trip and real-time route choice, departure time, and, possibly, mode choice decisions. X O O O O Roadway access for emergency response vehicles will be significantly constrained by the project, increasing response and clearance times. X Travel Tim e Inform ation Q ueue W arning Variable Speed D ynam ic Late C onstruction Vehicle Ingress N otification Surveillance Speed and Volum e M onitoring O ver H eight D etection Tem porary R am p M etering Lim its M erge Incident D etection/ Project
Critical Project Characteristics Smart Work Zone Systems A long-term lane closure will create a v/c condition that is very close to 1.0, and improved flow rates through the lane closure could reduce the likelihood that a queue would form, or reduce its duration significantly when a queue did form. O O O X O X The potential exists for queue spillback from the work zone into upstream interchanges or intersections (and resulting increase in cross- street congestion and rear-end crashes) due to an unequal utilization of all lanes, such that the encouragement of the use of all lanes for queue storage would reduce the probability of spillback conditions. O O X O O Work activities will frequently occur for which lower speed limits would be beneficial to have on a temporary basis (i.e., during temporary lane closures on freeway mainline, for temporary full road closures, during periods of construction vehicle/equipment access into and out of the work space from the travel lanes, etc.). O X O X Travel Tim e Inform ation Q ueue W arning Variable Speed D ynam ic Late C onstruction Vehicle Ingress N otification Surveillance Speed and Volum e M onitoring O ver H eight D etection Tem porary R am p M etering Lim its M erge Incident D etection/ Project
Critical Project Characteristics Smart Work Zone Systems Traffic speeds through the project vary widely due to oversaturated conditions during the peak period, and the timing and extent of congested travel will vary significantly day to day. X X X A reduced speed (and thus speed limit) is believed to be necessary because of work zone hazards that are not readily apparent to motorists and so will not likely result in lower speeds driven. O X X The project plans limit ability of enforcement to operate (no shoulders, barrier on both sides, long stretches between interchanges). X X Construction access to and from the workspace occurs directly from the travel lanes. O X A high number of construction vehicle deliveries/haul needing access to and from the workspace will be required during the project. X X Travel Tim e Inform ation Q ueue W arning Variable Speed D ynam ic Late C onstruction Vehicle Ingress N otification Surveillance Speed and Volum e M onitoring O ver H eight D etection Tem porary R am p M etering Lim its M erge Incident D etection/ Project
Critical Project Characteristics Smart Work Zone Systems The location and design of the access points could create confusion for motorists (i.e., access to the workspace looks like an exit ramp and is near an existing actual exit ramp). O O X Little or no acceleration lane is available for construction vehicles entering the travel lanes from the workspace. O O X Capacity reductions in the work zone now create an oversaturated condition due to merging ramp vehicles. O O X Construction activities temporary reduce overheight vehicle clearance (i.e., work inside tunnels, or shoring and falsework that are required for bridge construction). X Temporary ramp geometrics have constrained acceleration lane lengths. O O X Work activities have temporarily disabled one or more permanent ramp meters within the limits of an operational ramp metering system. X Travel Tim e Inform ation Q ueue W arning Variable Speed D ynam ic Late C onstruction Vehicle Ingress N otification Surveillance Speed and Volum e M onitoring O ver H eight D etection Tem porary R am p M etering Lim its M erge Incident D etection/ Project
Critical Project Characteristics Smart Work Zone Systems Travel Tim e Inform ation Q ueue W arning Variable Speed D ynam ic Late C onstruction Vehicle Ingress N otification Surveillance Speed and Volum e M onitoring O ver H eight D etection Tem porary R am p M etering Project documents include traffic mobility performance requirements (i.e., maximum allowable delays) that must be monitored to ensure and quantify compliance and subsequent incentives or penalties to be issued [performance specifications of mobility impacts (delay or queues)]. X X O X O X O O The agency chooses the project for work zone performance assessment purposes (i.e., part of its federally mandated process review). X X X X X X X X X X: Project characteristics can be addressed with the application of this SWZ System. O: Project characteristics could be improved with a modified application of this SWZ System or if real-time actions were taken by an operator. Lim its M erge Incident D etection/ Project
Examples of FHWA and DOT Tools for Assessing Smart Work Zone Technologies During the Planning Phase F-9Â Â Source: Massachusetts DOT 2016b. Figure F-3. Scoring sheet (1 of 2) for smart work zone technologies for Massachusetts DOT.
F-10 Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies for Improving Work Zone Safety Source: Massachusetts DOT 2016b. Figure F-4. Scoring sheet (2 of 2) for smart work zone technologies for Massachusetts DOT.
Examples of FHWA and DOT Tools for Assessing Smart Work Zone Technologies During the Planning Phase F-11Â Â Source: New Hampshire DOT 2016. Figure F-5. Scoring sheet for smart work zone technologies for New Hampshire DOT.
F-12 Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies for Improving Work Zone Safety Table F-2. Evaluation sheet for Real Time Work Zone Travel System (RTWZTS) for New Jersey DOT (New Jersey DOT 2013). No. Condition Scoring Criteria Score 1 Will there be a long-term loss of traveled lane continuously for three or more months due to the proposed work zone? (See Note 1) Yes - 10 No - 0 2 Will there be a temporary loss of traveled lane continuously for three or more months due to the proposed work zone? (See Note 2) 10 points for 6 hours of the day 9 points for 5 hours of the day, etc. 3 Does the section of the highway with proposed work zones consist of parallel local and express lanes? Yes - 10 No - 0 4 Are there viable alternate routes available to motorist to avoid the work zone? Freeway - 10, U.S. Route - 7, State Route - 5, Local Road - 3, No - 0 5 Does the one-way AADT or ADT exceed 60,000 in the direction of the proposed work zone? (See Note 3) Yes, each 10,000 above 60,000 scores one point 6 Does the traffic volume per lane exceed 1,500 vehicles per hour during any time of the day? (See Note 4) Yes, one point for each 100 over 1,500 7 Will the traffic volume exceed 1,500 vehicles per hour per lane in the remaining number of lanes if the answer to question No.1 is affirmative? (See Note 5) Yes, one point for each 100 over 1,500 8 Is the highway section with the proposed work zone a known location of congestion per CMS? Makes Top 10 - 10 Makes Top 20 - 9 Makes Top 30 - 8, etc 9 Is the section of the work zone in close proximity to major traffic generators? (See Note 6) 0 - 5 based on severity, 10 if seasonal 10 Is the work zone proposing temporary bridge, contra flow lanes, or cattle chute? 0 - 5 based on complexity Total Score Notes 1. This includes the conditions where a traveled lane is lost permanently as a result of the proposed work zone on a continuous basis for an extended period of time (loss of highway lane continuously for 3 months). 2. This includes the condition where the loss of highway lane is temporary and limited to peak periods of the day only for an extended period of time (loss of highway lane only during certain hours of the day for an extended period of time). 3. If AADT is not available, determine the average daily traffic (ADT) based on the nearest section of the highway where 24-hour volume was recorded. The information must be based on an average of at least 3 regular weekdays during the months when schools are in session. If the information is not available, use 10.
Examples of FHWA and DOT Tools for Assessing Smart Work Zone Technologies During the Planning Phase F-13Â Â 4. Divide the highest volume of any peak hour during the day (6 a.mâ8 a.m.) by the number of highway lanes in the section of the work zone if per-lane volume information is not available. 5. If the proposed work zone will reduce the number of lanes, divide the highway volumes through the work zone by the number of remaining available lanes. 6. If the roadway section is in close proximity to major traffic generators such as malls, offices, and the like. For recreational or seasonal traffic generators, use 10. If the total score is less than 35, a RTWZTS should not be deployed. Scores between 35 and 45 should be reviewed by the executive manager of mobility and systems engineering. Scores above 45 should have a RTWZTS system deployed as part of the contract.
F-14 Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies for Improving Work Zone Safety Source: Texas DOT 2018. Figure F-6. Scoring sheet for temporary queue detection system for Texas DOT.
Examples of FHWA and DOT Tools for Assessing Smart Work Zone Technologies During the Planning Phase F-15Â Â Source: Texas DOT 2018. Figure F-7. Scoring sheet for temporary speed monitoring system for Texas DOT.
F-16 Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies for Improving Work Zone Safety Source: Texas DOT 2018. Figure F-8. Scoring sheet for temporary construction equipment alert system for Texas DOT.
Examples of FHWA and DOT Tools for Assessing Smart Work Zone Technologies During the Planning Phase F-17Â Â Source: Texas DOT 2018. Figure F-9. Scoring sheet for temporary travel time system for Texas DOT.
F-18 Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies for Improving Work Zone Safety Source: Texas DOT 2018. Figure F-10. Scoring sheet for temporary incident-detection system for Texas DOT.
Examples of FHWA and DOT Tools for Assessing Smart Work Zone Technologies During the Planning Phase F-19Â Â Source: Texas DOT 2018. Figure F-11. Scoring sheet for temporary overheight vehicle warning system for Texas DOT.
F-20 Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies for Improving Work Zone Safety Table F-3. Summary scoring sheet for smart work zone technologies for Texas DOT. Source: Texas DOT 2018.
G-1Â Â A P P E N D I X G Survey Results for DOT Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies by Climate Region
Table G-1. Survey results for average frequency of use of smart work zone technologies by climate region. Region Statistic (1 = most frequently used technology, 2 = second most frequently used technology, etc.) All Average 1.49 2.16 3.38 2.17 3.06 2.92 3.67 3.56 2.25 All Standard Deviation 0.93 1.13 1.19 0.94 1.39 1.16 1.15 1.67 1.50 All Number of Responses 37 31 13 12 17 12 3 9 4 Central Average 1.43 1.29 1.86 2.57 5.00 3.00 3.86 3.00 - Central Standard Deviation 0.79 0.76 0.69 2.64 1.83 2.24 2.12 1.15 - Central Number of Responses 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 East North Central Average 2.75 1.75 2.00 - 3.00 3.00 - 4.67 4.00 East North Central Standard Deviation 1.26 0.96 0.00 - 1.83 - - 0.58 - East North Central Number of Responses 4 4 2 0 4 1 0 3 1 Northeast Average 1.14 2.33 4.00 2.50 3.50 3.00 - 3.00 2.00 Traveler Inform ation System s Q ueue W arning D ynam ic Lane M erge D ynam ic (Variable) Speed Lim it W ork Zone D ata C ollection Technologies W ork Zone Location Technologies W ork Zone Intrusion A larm N otification of C onstruction Equipm ent Entering/Exiting O ther
