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.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 354 Safe and Effective Temporary Traffic Control for Mobile Operations on Two-Lane Roadways LuAnn Theiss Gerald L. Ullman Texas A&M Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, TX Jon Jackels SRF Consulting Group Minneapolis, MN Conduct of Research Report for NCHRP Project 03-132 Submitted November 2022 © 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniquesâthe National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 693JJ31950003. 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, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA 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 Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. The Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. 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 was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 8,000 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 individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.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 CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 354 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Sid Mohan, Associate Program Manager, Implementation and Technology Transfer, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Trey Joseph Wadsworth, Senior Program Officer Mazen Alsharif, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 03-132 PANEL Field of TrafficâArea of Operations and Control Gevin J. McDaniel, HNTB Corporation, Tallahassee, FL (Chair) Ahmed F. Al-Kaisy, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT Raymond L. Brushart, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH Eric Jackson, Tennessee Department of Transportation, Nashville, TN Cynthia Landez, KCI Technologies, Inc, San Antoni, TX Scott Neidert, Delaware Department of Transportation, Smyrna, DE Shawn A. Smith, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME Jim Wingerter, Montana Department of Transportation, Great Falls, MT Jawad N. Paracha, FHWA Liaison ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 03-132 by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, a member of The Texas A&M University System. LuAnn Theiss was the principal investigator. Key TTI researchers on the project included: Gerald L. Ullman, Melisa D. Finley, and Geza Pesti. SRF Consulting served as subcontractor on this research, with Jon Jackels and Erik Minge providing valuable insights. 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. The extra effort of panel members Jim Wingerter of Montana Department of Transportation and Raymond Brushart of Ohio Department of Transportation was essential to project success, as they coordinated the focus groups in their respective states. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of numerous state department of transportation personnel, construction and maintenance contractors, and temporary traffic control providers who participated in the focus groups. In addition, special thanks go to Rebecca Wells and Cliff Dawson of the Texas Department of Transportation and Brad Lechtenberg, Bob Vasek, and Ethan Peterson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation who provided access for researchers to collect passing maneuver data at mobile operations, which was essential for a successful evaluation.
iv CONTENTS Page List of Figures .................................................................................................................................v List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii Summary .........................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................4 Chapter 2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................5 National Guidance on TTC Used for Mobile Operations ......................................................... 5 State Guidance on Mobile Operations ...................................................................................... 8 Chapter 3. Focus Group Discussions .........................................................................................22 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 22 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 22 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Summary of Focus Group Findings ........................................................................................ 26 Chapter 4. Analysis of Potential Solutions ................................................................................27 Step 1: Problem Investigation and Identification .................................................................... 27 Step 2: Problem Organization and Mapping ........................................................................... 27 Step 3: Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 28 Step 4: Select Solutions .......................................................................................................... 29 Step 5: Check Solutions .......................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 5. Evaluations ................................................................................................................32 Field Data for Modeling Inputs ............................................................................................... 32 Mobile Operation Passing Analysis Using Microsimulation.................................................. 46 Conclusions and Recommendations ...........................................................................................51 References .....................................................................................................................................53 Appendix A. State-Specific Typical Applications and Typical Application Drawings ..........61 Appendix B. Mitigation Strategies Considered for Phase II Evaluations ............................131 Switch TTC Strategies to Control Passing ............................................................................ 131 Use a Mobile AFAD to Control Passing .............................................................................. 132 Enhance Sign Conspicuity .................................................................................................... 133 Better Manage Side-Road Traffic ......................................................................................... 134 Enhance Worker and/or Vehicle Conspicuity ....................................................................... 134 Use Law Enforcement........................................................................................................... 135 Limit Distance of AWS to Operation ................................................................................... 135 Improve Convoy Management ............................................................................................. 136 Provide Better Information about Passing ............................................................................ 136 Use Speed Management Tools .............................................................................................. 138 Provide Tactile Warnings ..................................................................................................... 139 Provide Auditory Warnings .................................................................................................. 139 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 140
v LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. MUTCD TA 17 Mobile Operation on a Two-Lane Road (1). ........................................ 5 Figure 2. MUTCD TA 10 Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Road Using Flaggers (1). ...................... 6 Figure 3. MUTCD TA 13 Temporary Road Closure (1). ............................................................... 7 Figure 4. Louisiana DOTD Mobile Operations Decision Guide (8). ........................................... 10 Figure 5. Forward-Facing Signs to Warn Oncoming Vehicles about Wet Paint (14). ................. 13 Figure 6. Virginia DOT DO NOT PASS Sign Details (15). ......................................................... 15 Figure 7. California DOT DO NOT PASS Sign Details (19). ...................................................... 16 Figure 8. New York State DOT DO NOT PASS Sign (5)............................................................ 16 Figure 9. Texas DOT DO NOT PASS Sign Details (20). ............................................................ 17 Figure 10. Decision-Making Factors Considered by Participants when Selecting TTC for Mobile Work Operations on Two-Lane Roadways. ................................................. 24 Figure 11. Challenges Identified by Participants for Mobile Work Operations on Two-Lane Roadways. ............................................................................................................. 25 Figure 12. Potential Solutions Identified by Participants for Improving Mobile Work Operations on Two-Lane Roadways. ............................................................................ 26 Figure 13. Root Cause Analysis Steps. ......................................................................................... 27 Figure 14. Leading Vehicle Camera View. .................................................................................. 32 Figure 15. Trailing Vehicle Camera Mounting at Minnesota DOT Sites. .................................... 34 Figure 16. Trailing Vehicle Camera View. ................................................................................... 34 Figure 17. Rumble Strip Installation Convoy. .............................................................................. 36 Figure 18. Herbicide Spray Convoy. ............................................................................................ 37 Figure 19. Speed Profile of Trailing Vehicle during Rumble Strip Installation at Site 3. ............ 40 Figure 20. Speed Profile of Trailing Vehicle during Herbicide Spraying at Site 4. ..................... 40 Figure 21. Speed Profile of Trailing Vehicle during Striping at Site 13. ..................................... 41 Figure 22. Convoy Length during Rumble Strip Installation at Site 3. ........................................ 42 Figure 23. Convoy Length during Herbicide Spraying Operation at Site 4. ................................ 42 Figure 24. Convoy Length during Striping at Site 13. .................................................................. 43 Figure 25. Example of a Driver Passing Convoy in No Passing Zone. ........................................ 44 Figure 26. Example of a Passing Conflict during Striping Operations. ........................................ 45 Figure 27. Undesirable Passing Maneuver Analysis Results. ....................................................... 46 Figure 28. Frequency Distribution of Wait Times for 100 vph without Passing Restrictions. ............................................................................................................... 47 Figure 29. Frequency Distribution of Wait Times for 250 vph without Passing Restrictions. ............................................................................................................... 48 Figure 30. Frequency Distribution of Wait Time for 100 vph with a Passing Restriction. .......... 49 Figure 31. Frequency Distribution of Wait Time for 250 vph with a Passing Restriction. .......... 49 Figure A-1. Arizona DOT SA-19A for Striping (22). .............................................................. ....63 Figure A-2. California DOT Standard Plan T17 (23). .............................................................. ....64 Figure A-3. Colorado DOT Case No. 35 for Striping (24). ...................................................... ....65 Figure A-4. Connecticut DOT TC Plan 24 (25). ...................................................................... ....66 Figure A-5. Delaware DOT TA 17A for Striping (26). ............................................................ ....67 Figure A-6. Delaware DOT TA 17B for Striping (26). ............................................................ ....68 Figure A-7. Florida DOT Standard Index 607 for Mobile Operations (27). ............................ ....69
vi Figure A-8. Georgia DOT TA for Moving Operations (28). ........................................................ 70 Figure A-9. Georgia DOT TA for Striping (28). .......................................................................... 71 Figure A-10. Illinois DOT WZ-22 for Moving Operations (7). ................................................... 72 Figure A-11. Illinois DOT WZ-23 for Striping (7)....................................................................... 72 Figure A-12. Illinois DOT WZ-24 for Intermittent/Moving Operations (7). ............................... 73 Figure A-13. Indiana DOT TA for Mobile Operations (29). ........................................................ 74 Figure A-14. Indiana DOT TA for Mobile Operations Using Flaggers (29). ............................... 75 Figure A-15. Iowa DOT TC-231 for Slow-Moving Vehicle Using Flaggers (30). ...................... 76 Figure A-16. Iowa DOT TC-232 for Shoulder Rumble Strip Installation (31). ........................... 77 Figure A-17. Iowa DOT TC-233 for Striping (32). ...................................................................... 78 Figure A-18. Iowa DOT TC-234 for Strip Sealing (33). .............................................................. 79 Figure A-19. Iowa DOT TC-235 for Edge Rut Repair (34). ........................................................ 80 Figure A-20. Kansas DOT TA for Striping (35). .......................................................................... 81 Figure A-21. Kansas DOT TA for Slow-Moving Lane Closure Using Flaggers (35). ................ 82 Figure A-22. Kentucky Department of Highways TA for Edge Line Striping (36). .................... 83 Figure A-23. Kentucky Department of Highways TA for Centerline Striping (16). .................... 84 Figure A-24. Kentucky Department of Highways TA for Durable Edge Line Striping (37). ......................................................................................................................................... 85 Figure A-25. Kentucky Department of Highways TA for Durable Centerline Striping (17). ......................................................................................................................................... 86 Figure A-26. Louisiana DOTD TA for Continuously Fast Moving OperationsâPage 14 (8). ........................................................................................................................................... 87 Figure A-27. Louisiana DOTD TA for Intermittently Moving Operations and Low Traffic VolumeâPage 15 (8). ............................................................................................................ 88 Figure A-28. Louisiana DOTD TA for Intermittently Moving Operations and High Traffic VolumeâPage 16 (8). ................................................................................................ 89 Figure A-29. Louisiana DOTD TA for Intermittently Moving Operations and Sight ObstructionsâPage 17 (8). ..................................................................................................... 90 Figure A-30. Louisiana DOTD TA for Continuously Fast Moving Striping Operationsâ Page 36 (8). ............................................................................................................................. 91 Figure A-31. Louisiana DOTD TTC-18 for Moving Operations (38). ......................................... 92 Figure A-32. Maine DOT TA for Mobile Work (39). .................................................................. 93 Figure A-33. Maine DOT TA for Slow-Moving Mobile Operation with Flaggers (39). ............. 94 Figure A-34. Michigan DOT MD-M25 for Moving Lane Closure (40). ...................................... 95 Figure A-35. Minnesota DOT Layout 12 for Random Work Areas (41). .................................... 96 Figure A-36. Minnesota DOT Layout 13 for Moving Work Areas (41). ..................................... 97 Figure A-37. Minnesota DOT Layout 17 for Moving Work Spaces (41). ................................... 98 Figure A-38. Minnesota DOT Layout 76 for Striping Operations (41). ....................................... 99 Figure A-39. Minnesota DOT Layout 77 for Striping Operations with Passing on Shoulder (41). ....................................................................................................................... 100 Figure A-40. Mississippi DOT TCP for Edge Line Striping (42). ............................................. 101 Figure A-41. Mississippi DOT TCP for Center Line Striping (42). ........................................... 102 Figure A-42. Missouri DOT TA-10d for Moving Operations during Construction Work (43). ....................................................................................................................................... 103 Figure A-43. Missouri DOT TA-17 for Mobile Operations during Construction Work (44). ....................................................................................................................................... 104
vii Figure A-44. Missouri DOT TA-17a for Striping Operations during Construction Work (45). ....................................................................................................................................... 105 Figure A-45. Missouri DOT TA-17 for Mobile Operations during Maintenance Work (13). ....................................................................................................................................... 106 Figure A-46. Missouri DOT TA-17a for Mobile Operations without Edgelines during Maintenance Work (46). ....................................................................................................... 107 Figure A-47. Missouri DOT TA-17b for Striping during Maintenance Work (47). .................. 108 Figure A-48. New York State DOT TA-17 for Mobile Operations (5). ..................................... 109 Figure A-49. North Carolina DOT Standard Drawing 1101.02 for Construction Striping/RPM Operations (48). ............................................................................................. 110 Figure A-50. North Carolina DOT TA for Maintenance Spraying Operations ADT >5000 (4). ......................................................................................................................................... 111 Figure A-51. North Carolina DOT TA for Maintenance Spraying Operations ADT <5000 (4). ......................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure A-52. North Dakota DOT Figure 6 for Mobile Operation with Frequent Stops (49). ....................................................................................................................................... 113 Figure A-53. Oregon DOT Diagram 110 for Mobile Operations (50). ...................................... 114 Figure A-54. Oregon DOT Diagram 120 for Striping Operations (50). ..................................... 115 Figure A-55. Pennsylvania DOT PATA 302 for Mobile Operations (10). ................................ 116 Figure A-56. Pennsylvania DOT PATA 302A for Mobile Operations (10). .............................. 116 Figure A-57. Pennsylvania DOT PATA 302B for Mobile Operations (10). .............................. 117 Figure A-58. Pennsylvania DOT PATA 302C for Mobile Operations (10). .............................. 117 Figure A-59. Texas DOT TA-17 for Mobile Operations (51). ................................................... 118 Figure A-60. Texas DOT TCP (3-1)-13 for Mobile Operations (52). ........................................ 119 Figure A-61. Texas DOT TCP (3-3)-14 for RPM Work (53). .................................................... 120 Figure A-62. Texas DOT TCP (3-5)-18 for Spraying (54). ........................................................ 121 Figure A-63. Vermont DOT T-24 for Striping (55). .................................................................. 122 Figure A-64. Virginia DOT TTC-14.2 for Mobile/Moving Operations (56). ............................ 123 Figure A-65. Virginia DOT TTC-24.2 for Non-Stationary Operations Using Flaggers (56). ....................................................................................................................................... 124 Figure A-66. Washington State DOT TCP 27 for Very Short Duration Operations (57). ......... 125 Figure A-67. Washington State DOT TCP 32 for Mobile Operations (57). ............................... 126 Figure A-69. Wyoming DOT Mobile Operation TA (58). ......................................................... 128 Figure A-70. Wyoming DOT Chip Sealing and Patching Operations Advance Signing (58). ....................................................................................................................................... 129 Figure A-71. Wyoming DOT Chip Sealing and Patching Operations No Passing Zone Signing (58). ......................................................................................................................... 130 Figure B-1. Missouri DOT Mobile AFAD (59).......................................................................... 132 Figure B-2. Minnesota DOT Moving AFAD (61). ..................................................................... 133 Figure B-3. TMCMS Messages (67). ......................................................................................... 136 Figure B-4. WORK CONVOY Signs in Texas MUTCD (51). .................................................. 137 Figure B-5. Speed Displays Evaluated by TTI (67). .................................................................. 138
viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Mobile Operation Definitions Based on Speed or Work Advancement. .......................... 9 Table 2. Mobile Operations Prohibiting Workers on Foot. .......................................................... 10 Table 3. Use of Optional TMCMS/PMCS in Mobile Operations. ............................................... 12 Table 4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Flagging Strategy A. ................................................ 18 Table 5. Advantages and Disadvantages of Flagging Strategy B. ................................................ 19 Table 6. Potential Countermeasures for Driver Behaviors during Mobile Operations. ................ 30 Table 7. Summary of Mobile Operation Data Collection Sites. ................................................... 33 Table 8. Example of Telemetry Data Extracted from Video Files. .............................................. 35 Table 9. Rumble Strip Installation Data Collection Summary. .................................................... 36 Table 10. Rumble Strip Installation Passing Data Summary. ....................................................... 37 Table 11. Herbicide Spraying Data Collection Summary. ........................................................... 38 Table 12. Herbicide Spraying Passing Data Summary. ................................................................ 38 Table 13. Striping Operation Data Collection Summary. ............................................................. 39 Table 14. Striping Operation Passing Data Summary. ................................................................. 39 Table 15. Differences in PSD Elements for Roadway Design vs. Mobile Operations. ................ 43 Table 16. Undesirable Passing Maneuver Analysis Data. ............................................................ 45 Table A-1. Existing State-Specific Typical Applications for Mobile Operations. ....................... 61 Table B-1. Summary of Candidate Strategies for Phase II. ........................................................ 140
