Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies for Improving Work Zone Safety (2022)

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.

Summary of Findings 105   • DOTs have generally not experienced issues with cellular connectivity, possibly because smart work zone technologies are often implemented in populated areas with sufficient cellular coverage. State DOT Data Management Practices for Smart Work Zone Technologies • The use of work zone data collection technologies appears to be growing, as they are employed by 33% of DOTs and planned for future implementation by an additional 37% of DOTs. However, only 31% of DOTs automatically collect data for work zone performance measures and store the data in a central location. • Approximately two-thirds of DOTs use crowdsourcing data to some degree to collect infor- mation for smart work zone technologies. Several DOTs (e.g., the Wisconsin DOT) have data-sharing agreements with crowdsourcing data providers such as Waze. DOTs sometimes use probe data in locations where sensors are not available. • DOTs are developing methods and tools to integrate smart work zone data from multiple vendors and government agencies. For example, the Massachusetts DOT is forming a working group of interested DOTs with a goal of developing specifications and standards for smart work zone technologies and uniform data capture and dissemination that will be more appli- cable nationally. • Several DOTs either provide or are working toward generating WZDx feeds. For example, the Iowa DOT publishes a WZDx feed every 15 minutes comprised mostly of information from its 511 system. The Colorado DOT received a FHWA demonstration grant to generate a WZDx feed using real-time information collected by an ATMA. Performance of Smart Work Zone Technologies • In the survey, traveler information systems, queue warning, and dynamic lane merge received the highest DOT performance ratings for smart work zone technologies, while notification of construction equipment entering or exiting and work zone intrusion alarms were rated the lowest for performance by DOTs. There is a great deal of variability in the DOT performance ratings for smart work zone technologies, suggesting a wide range of DOT experiences. • In the survey, only 12% of DOTs indicated that they have completed evaluation or eco- nomic studies for smart work zone technologies. • DOTs most commonly use performance measures collected for smart work zone technolo- gies to identify and mitigate project-level concerns, evaluate the performance of smart work zone technologies, and improve work zone policy and procedures. Crash statistics and queue length are the most frequently employed performance measures for assessing safety and operational impacts of smart work zone technologies, respectively. • DOTs collect and use data from smart work zones to calculate and track performance measures to varying degrees. DOTs sometimes generate dashboards for work zone projects based on the performance measures that are collected (e.g., the Iowa DOT), while in some instances performance measures are tracked for state routes or high-priority projects regard- less of whether they include smart work zones. Some DOTs are not yet ready to set and use performance measures for smart work zone technologies. • Because of the short-term nature of most work zones, DOTs often face challenges in assessing safety performance and demonstrating the benefits of smart work zone technologies. • In general, research studies have shown the use of smart work zone technologies to be benefi- cial in improving safety based on surrogate measures such as reduced speeds and deceleration rates and increased time-to-collision and merging distances. Research on estimating the direct

106 Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies for Improving Work Zone Safety correlations between smart work zone technologies and crash reductions are found to a lesser extent in existing literature, with QWSs shown to reduce crashes by 15% to 53%. • Experimental studies of work zone intrusion alarm systems have shown mixed results, and limitations of some of these systems have been documented. • A limited number of economic studies have shown benefit-cost ratios for smart work zone technologies ranging from 2.1 to 10. State DOT Considerations for Future Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies • There is considerable DOT interest in using smart arrow boards and other devices to mark the beginning and end of the work zone in order to provide real-time information regarding work zone locations and generate data for possible future operational and safety analyses. These work zone location technologies have already been implemented by almost one-quarter of DOTs, and approximately half of DOTs plan to implement such technologies in the future. • DOTs would like to explore the use of other smart work zone technologies in the future, including license plate readers, temporary overheight detection, pull-off detection, downstream speed notification, excessive speed warning, electronic workers-present speed limit, connected temporary traffic signals, and applications for CAVs and CVs. • Various technologies for possible future use in smart work zones have been developed and evaluated, such as smartphone-based alert systems, connected vehicle applications, proximity alert systems for construction and workers, and automatic devices for cone placement and removal in work zones. Suggestions for Future Research This synthesis has identified some gaps in existing knowledge and future research needs to enhance practices for smart work zone technologies in the United States. Suggestions for future research include the following: • Performance evaluations and economic analysis studies to demonstrate the safety benefits of smart work zone technologies. • The development of a handbook on field implementation to help increase awareness, build contractor and DOT expertise, and improve consistency. • Research to advance implementation of supplemental warning systems for drivers, such as smartphone-based alert systems. • Development of additional technologies for marking work zone locations, such as simple plug-and-play devices that can be attached to existing equipment. • Creation of a guidance document for the development and use of performance measures for smart work zone technologies. • The implementation of a national clearinghouse similar to the CMF Clearinghouse (FHWA 2021a) or National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse (ARTBA 2021) that includes data on smart work zone deployments to facilitate the sharing of knowledge among DOTs.

107   AASHTO. AASHTO Work Zone Performance Measures Survey, American Association of State Highway Trans- portation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C., n.d., 11 pp. Adu-Gyamfi, Y., C. Sun, P. Edara, and F. Azadi. Smart Work Zone Activity App (SWiZAPP). InTrans Project 19-535, Smart Work Zone Deployment Initiative, Ames, Iowa, 2019. Alabama DOT. Construction Information Memorandum, No. 2 [Section 742—Portable Changeable Message Signs (PCMSs)]. Alabama Department of Transportation, Montgomery, Ala., 2019. Alabama DOT. Standard and Special Drawings for Highway Construction. Alabama Department of Transporta- tion, Montgomery, Ala., 2021 [Online]. Available: https://alletting.dot.state.al.us/Docs/Standard_Drawings/ StdSpecialDrawingsEnglish2021.htm [accessed March 16, 2021]. American Road and Transportation Builders Association. Use of Smart Work Zone Technology to Improve Work Space Access Point Safety. American Road and Transportation Builders Association, Washington, D.C., 2019. American Road and Transportation Builders Association. National Work Zone Safety Information Clearing- house, 2021 [Online]. Available: https://www.workzonesafety.org/about/ [accessed June 19, 2021]. American Traffic Safety Services Association. Work Zone Safety Performance Measures Guidance Booklet. American Traffic Safety Services Association, Fredericksburg, Va., n.d. American Traffic Safety Services Association. Guidance for the Use of Dynamic Lane Merging Strategies. American Traffic Safety Services Association, Fredericksburg, Va., 2012. Amin-Naseri, M., P. Chakraborty, A. Sharma, S. Gilbert, and M. Hong. Evaluating the Reliability, Coverage, and Added Value of Crowdsourced Traffic Incident Reports from Waze. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2672, No. 43, 2018, pp. 34–43. Anderson, S., J. Cunningham IV, J. Liang, and E. Fitzsimmons. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Dynamic Speed Feed Back Signs in Work Zones on High-Speed Kansas Roadways. In 100th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2021. Arizona DOT. Two Guns and Meteor Crater Bridge. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Ariz., n.d.a [Online]. Available: https://azdot.gov/projects/northcentral-district-projects/two-guns-meteor-crater- bridge [accessed March 26, 2021]. Arizona DOT. Smart Work Zones (SWZ). Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Ariz., n.d.b [Online]. Available: https://azdot.gov/business/transportation-systems-management-and-operations/operational- traffic-safety/smart-work [accessed March 26, 2021]. Arizona DOT. Section 710: Smart Work Zone Systems. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Ariz., 2020. Arizona DOT. ADOT 511. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Ariz., 2021a [Online]. Available: https://az511.gov/ [accessed March 26, 2021]. Arizona DOT. ADOT Testing Smart Work Zone Along I-40 to Make Work Zones Safer for Everyone. Govdelivery, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Ariz., 2021b [Online]. Available: https://content.govdelivery. com/accounts/AZDOT/bulletins/2bf4b48 [accessed March 26, 2021]. Athey Creek Consultants. Real-Time Integration of Arrow Board Messages into Traveler Information Systems: Final Concept of Operations and Requirements. ENTERPRISE Pooled Fund Program, Lansing, Mich., 2018. Bai, Y., and Y. Li. Determining the Drivers’ Acceptance of EFTCD in Highway Work Zones. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2011, pp. 762–768. Bai, Y., Y. Yang, and Y. Li. Determining the Effective Location of a Portable Changeable Message Sign on Reducing the Risk of Truck-Related Crashes in Work Zones. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 83, 2015, pp. 197–202. Banaeiyan, N. A., A. U. Zaman, and M. I. Hayee. Visual Warning System for Worker Safety on Roadside Workzones, Report No. MN/RC 2016-27. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minn., 2016. References

108 Use of Smart Work Zone Technologies for Improving Work Zone Safety Bham, G. H., and M. C. Leu. A Driving Simulator Study to Analyze the Effects of Portable Changeable Message Signs on Mean Speeds of Drivers. Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, Vol. 10, Nos. 1–2, 2018, pp. 45–71. Bledsoe, J., D. Raghunathan, and J. Ullman. Kansas Demonstration Project: The Use of Smart Work Zone Technology During Construction of the I-35/Homestead Lane Interchange in Johnson County. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2014. Boudreau, N. Successful Work Zone ITS Systems. Presentation slides, ATSSA’s 51st Annual Convention and Traffic Expo, Virtual Event, 2021a. Boudreau, N. Work Zone Technology Innovations. FHWA webinar slides, 2021b. Boudreau, N., A. Siu, and M. Sutton. Route 1 Chelsea Viaduct/Tobin Bridge. Peer Exchange on The Work Zone Data Initiative—Smarter Work Zones and Work Zone Data Management, 2020. Bourne, J. S., C. Eng, G. L. Ullman, D. Gomez, B. Zimmerman, T. A. Scriba, R. D. Lipps, D. L. Markow, K. C. Matthews, D. L. Holstein, and R. Stargell. Best Practices in Work Zone Assessment, Data Collection, and Per- formance Evaluation. NCHRP Scan 08-04, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2010. Brookes, C. Driveway Assistance Devices or DADs. Presentation slides, 2016 National Conference on Work Zone Management and Safety, Springfield, Va., 2016. Brook-Jones, C. Embark and ADOT to Improve AV Highway Work Zone Safety. Autonomous Vehicle Inter- national, 2021 [Online]. Available: https://www.autonomousvehicleinternational.com/news/safety/embark- and-adot-to-improve-av-highway-work-zone-safety.html [accessed March 26, 2021]. Brown, H., C. Sun, and T. Cope. Evaluation of Mobile Work Zone Alarm Systems. Report No. cmr-15-011, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, Mo., 2015. Brown, H., C. Sun, S. Zhang, and Z. Qing. Evaluation of Automated Flagger Assistance Devices. Report No. cmr- 18-004, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, Mo., 2018. Burkett, G., V. Her, and S. A. Velinsky. Development of New Kinds of Mobile Safety Barriers. Report No. CA09-0920, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, Calif., 2009. California DOT. Early Warning Overheight Vehicle Detection Systems for Falsework in Work Zones: Survey of Practice. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, Calif., 2019. California DOT. Standard Plans and Standard Specifications. California Department of Transportation, Sacra- mento, Calif., 2020. California DOT. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. California Department of Transporta- tion, Sacramento, Calif., 2021. Chandler, B., N. Kehoe, C. O’Donnell, T. Luttrell, and E. Perry. Work Zone Safety Data Collection and Analysis Guide. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2013. Chang, G., and K.P. Kang. Development of an Integrated Algorithm for Variable Speed Limit Control and Dynamic Merge Control. Report No. MD-08-SP508B4F, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore, Md., 2008. Chen, X., Y. Qi, and L. Yu. Application of Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) Technology for Work Zone Collision Prevention. In 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010. Cheng, Y., S. Parker, and S. Dong. Best Practices for Managing Work Zone Data. InTrans Project 15-535, Smart Work Zone Deployment Initiative, Ames, Iowa, 2017. Chitturi, M., W. Bremer, and D. Noyce. Development of a Low-Cost Work Zone Queue Warning System. Part of InTrans Project 19-535, Smart Work Zone Deployment Initiative, Ames, Iowa, 2020. Cho, Y. K. A Low-Cost Mobile Proximity Warning System in Highway Work Zone. NCHRP Idea Project 187, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2017. Cho, Y. K., X. Yang, J. Park, and E. Marks. Active Work Zone Safety Using Emerging Technologies. Georgia DOT Research Project 11-10, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Ga., 2017. Choe, S., F. Leite, D. Seedah, and C. Caldas. Evaluation of Sensing Technology for the Prevention of Backover Accidents in Construction Work Zones. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 19, 2014, pp. 1–19. Colorado DOT. I-25 South Gap Project Deploys Smart Work Zone Technology. Fact Sheet, Colorado Depart- ment of Transportation, Denver, Colo., n.d. Colorado DOT. CDOT–Autonomous Truck Mounted Attenuator Deployment Application Update. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, Colo., 2020. Colorado DOT. Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) Autonomous Truck Mounted Attenuator (ATMA) Task Force Application for ATMA #2 Deployment in Southwest Colorado. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, Colo., 2021a. Colorado DOT. Standard Special Provisions. 2021b [Online]. Available: https://www.codot.gov/business/ designsupport/cdot-construction-specifications/2019-construction-specifications/rev-ssp [accessed April 21, 2021].