Federal Highway Administration, USDOT Work Zone Mobility and Safety

1 1

Federal Highway Administration, USDOT

Work Zone Mobility and Safety

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

proposed changes to

23 CFR 630 Subpart J

2 2

Agenda • Why update this regulation?• Background • Current schedule • Overview of Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making

(ANPRM) • Overview of Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)

3 3

Why Update this Regulation?• Section 1051 of ISTEA required the Secretary of

Transportation to develop and implement a highway safety program

• FHWA, through non-regulatory action, established the National Highway Work Zone Safety Program (NHWSP)

• The NHWZSP language indicated that the FHWA would review current work zone problems and update the regulation to better reflect the current needs for improved safety and to minimize disruptions to traffic during the construction of highway projects

4 4

BackgroundAgency FocusFHWA Strategic Goals

• Safety• Mobility and Productivity• Environment• National Security• Organizational Excellence

• Congestion reduction• Congestion reduction leads to safer work zones

FHWA Vital Few• Safety• Environmental

Streamlining• Congestion

• Work Zones

5 5

BackgroundConstruction Spending is Increasing• 160,000 miles of

National Highway System and 300,000 miles of arterials reaching “middle age”

• Over the life of TEA-21, highway construction funding increased nearly 40%

• We are experiencing and can expect MORE WORK ZONES

• We estimate that 20.9% of the National Highway System is under construction at any time during the peak summer roadwork season, leading to 6,472 work zones

6 6

BackgroundTraffic is Growing

100110120130140150160170180

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

Inde

x 19

80 =

100

VMT (millions) Lane Mile Index

• We’re traveling more miles without increasing highway capacity significantly

• 1980-2000: Vehicle Travel up 80%, Lane Miles up 2.4%

7 7

BackgroundCongestion is Growing

65%

8%

6%

36%

18%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Uncongested

Severe

Extreme

1997

1982

•“Extremely” or “Severely” congested highway miles more than doubled from 1982 to 1997

8 8

BackgroundWZ Fatalities Have Increased

• Average 778 fatalities per year, with a high of 1079 in 2001

• Approximately 40,000 people were injured in work zones crashes in 2001

• 1997 to 2001

- 4000 fatalities

- 220,000 injuries

- 300 worker deaths

0

500

1000

1500

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Wor

k Zon

e Fa

taliti

es00000

10000

2000030000

40000

50000

Wor

k Zon

e In

jurie

s

Fatalities Injuries

9 9

BackgroundWorking Conditions Are Changing• More work is done under traffic

– In 2000, 54% of highway capital outlay was spent on system preservation

• Contractors are experiencing– Reduced work hours / interrupted shifts– Increased night work– Compressed schedules

• These conditions contribute to concerns about worker safety, reduced productivity, and compromised quality

10 10

BackgroundWork Zones Contribute to Congestion• Work zones on freeways cause 24% of non-recurring

congestion- Over 480 million vehicle hours of delay per year- Capacity loss of over 3 billion vehicles per year

Crashes38%

Breakdowns11%

Weather27%

Work Zones24%

11 11

BackgroundCustomer Satisfaction

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

ses

“Sat

isfi

ed”

and

“V

ery

Sat

isfi

ed”

58%58%

53%53%

47%47%

48%48%

55%55%

58%58%

60%60%

59%59%

47%47%

59%59%

65%65%

74%74%

77%77%

77%77%

79%79%

Traffic FlowTraffic Flow

Work ZonesWork Zones

Pavement ConditionsPavement Conditions

MaintenanceMaintenanceResponse TimeResponse Time

SafetySafety

Travel AmenitiesTravel Amenities

Bridge ConditionsBridge Conditions

Visual AppealVisual Appeal

1995 2000

Data not collected in 1995Data not collected in 1995

Source: Source: Moving Ahead:  The American Public Speaks on Roadways and Transportation in Moving Ahead:  The American Public Speaks on Roadways and Transportation in CommunitiesCommunities (which can be found on the FHWA web page at (which can be found on the FHWA web page at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/movingahead.htm)http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/movingahead.htm)

12 12

BackgroundMajor Trends

• More construction spending• Growing traffic volumes• More work is done under traffic• Increasing congestion• Compressed contractor schedules• Public dissatisfaction and frustration with

work zones

13 13

BackgroundConsidering Policy and Regulation Change• Look at the entire project development process

for work zone safety and mobility– Objective is to think differently (with customer in mind)

about how we plan, design and build projects• Get input for proposing changes to 23 CFR 630

Subpart J– AASHTO, AGC, ATSSA, ARTBA, AMPO, NACE, local

governments, contractors, labor organizations, public, etc.

• Develop proposed language based on the comments

14 14

Overview of ANPRM• Issued ANPRM on Feb 6, 2002 to initiate dialogue

with the transportation community• Evaluated ANPRM comments, conducted outreach,

and developed proposed rule language from June ’02 to March ’03

------------------------------------------------------------------------• Published NPRM on May 7, 2003

– Comment period is 120 days – ends Sept 4, 2003• Currently conducting outreach to inform the public

about the NPRM• Final Rule expected in late 2004

15 15

Overview of ANPRM• Identified major considerations that affect:

– Policy– Planning– Design– Traffic control and operations– Public information– Performance reporting with respect to work zones

• Over-arching theme– reduce need for recurrent roadwork, duration of work zones, and

disruption due to work zones

• Issues posed as questions to elicit comments, guidance, and suggestions

16 16

ANPRM Respondent Profile

Trade Associations & Special Interest Groups - 16%

Other Public Agencies - 6%

DOT’s - 65%

Equipment/Technology Providers - 2%

Private Individuals/Consultants - 6% Unclassified - 5%

Total Respondents 84

17 17

• Need a National policy on work zone safety and mobility

– Preference for broad policy supported by “guidance”

– Provide flexibility in implementation of regulations

• Explicitly address both safety and mobility

• Imply stratification of regulations – but let States use their own criteria

• Institutionalize work zone considerations

• Road user impacts of work zones are important and essential for decision making during project development and design

ANPRM – Areas Receiving Strong Support

18 18

ANPRM – Areas Receiving Strong Support (continued)• Analysis of alternative project options and design strategies to minimize work zone impacts

• TCPs should be expanded to address sustained traffic operations and management

• Need to communicate better with the public – need communications plans for projects

• Need comprehensive work zone traffic mitigation planning and implementation plans

– Consider programmatic initiatives in addition to project specific actions

• Flexibility in development and procurement of work zone impact mitigation strategies

19 19

Overview of Proposed Rule• Current Regulation

– Reflected it’s time– Broad purpose– But narrow provisions

• Focusing on TCPs for projects• Work zone operations on two-lane/two-way highways

• Focus of Update– Reflects changing times– Make regulation broader

• Cover more issues pertaining to work zone safety and “mobility”– Consider customer-focused project development

• Comprehensive consideration of “work zone impacts”

To serve needs of all users during construction and maintenance projects

- Beginning of rehabilitation/ reconstruction of the NHS- Work zone safety issues emerging- Required Traffic Control Plans - TCPs

More traffic, more congestion, greater safety issues, and more work zones – a lot more!

20 20

Overview of Proposed RuleFocus Areas

• Key concept– Address Work Zone Impacts

• Have a policy driven focus• Analyze safety and mobility impacts• Address impacts on road users, workers and other

affected parties• Have a plan for safety and mobility

21 21

Overview of Proposed RuleFocus Areas• Broad, address wide range of issues, and provide flexibility in implementation and

adaptation– Flexibility in implementation of regulations based on States’ respective performance

objectives, needs, and operating environments– Set the stage for performance-oriented regulations rather than method-oriented regulations– Regulation provisions to be broad; will be supplemented with detailed implementation

guidelines when the rule goes into effect• Retain the emphasis on safety but expand provisions to address mobility issues also• Facilitate institutionalization of work zone considerations

– By requiring States to develop a work zone safety and mobility policy• Flexibility in FHWA’s review of States’ practices and procedures

22 22

Overview of Proposed RuleFocus Areas• Expand work zone mitigation measures to include “operations management” and

“public information and outreach” strategies, in addition to TCPs• Require comprehensive mobility analysis and understanding of work zone impacts of

projects– To choose project options and work zone design alternatives that minimize the work zone

impacts– Develop strategies to mitigate and manage the impacts– Document the strategies under the umbrella of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP)

• Consider using contractors to develop TMPs• Encourage collection and analysis of work zone mobility performance data

23 23

Overview of Proposed RuleProposed Changes • Policy Level Requirements (new)

– Work Zone Mobility and Safety Policy (new)• States shall develop and implement policies and procedures that support the systematic

consideration of work zone impacts across all project development stages; and address the safety and mobility needs of all road users, construction workers, and other affected parties on all Federal-aid highway projects

• The content of such policies and their implications for different projects will vary based on the expected severity of work zone impacts due to projects

• States encouraged to use a team of personnel from appropriate departments and representing the different project development stages to develop and implement these policies and procedures

24 24

Overview of Proposed RuleProposed Changes• Policy Level Requirements (new)

– Training• Existing requirement, with changes that encourage documentation and periodic updates

– Process Review and Evaluation• Existing requirement with changes that allow the states more flexibility. • Encouraged to perform a periodic process review and evaluation - or review randomly

selected projects to check for mobility and safety performance and procedures– Work Zone Performance Data

• Current provisions require analysis of crashes and crash data• Changes encourage States to collect and analyze mobility data in addition to safety data

25 25

Proposed Regulation (continued)• Project Impact Analysis and Management Procedures (new)

– Work Zone Impacts Analysis (new)• Mobility impacts analysis required, but scaleable according to agency policy and

expected severity of project impacts– Shall analyze work zone impacts of alternative project options and work zone design

strategies, and develop appropriate measures to alleviate these impacts– The scope and level of detail of this impacts analysis will vary based on the State’s policies,

and their understanding of the anticipated severity of work zone impacts– Encouraged to start analysis early in project development and, depending upon the anticipated

severity of work zone impacts, continue the analysis through project design, and traffic control and operations planning

– Resultant project options and work zone design strategies and the mitigation measures shall be appropriately documented.

26 26

Proposed Regulation (continued)• Project Impact Analysis and Management Procedures (new)

– Transportation Management Plan (TMP) (new)• New requirement, with TCP rolled into it• Based on the states policy and requirements, and the recommendations of the

impacts analysis TMPs shall be developed for the project. The complexity of the TMP will be based on the degree of the project impacts on mobility and safety

• TCP – basically same requirement as before • Transportation Operations Plan (TOP) – shall be developed if recommended by

impacts analysis• Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP) – shall be developed if

recommended by impacts analysis

27 27

Proposed Regulation (continued)

• Project Impact Analysis and Management Procedures (continued)– TCP Pay Items

• Existing requirement, with changes that cover traffic control performance criteria.

– Responsible Persons for Project Administration and Delivery• Existing requirement, with changes that require a responsible person

from the contractor in addition to a responsible person from the agency

28 28

NPRM – How to Comment?

Submit comments electronically in the docket at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit

under docket no. FHWA-2001-11130

Accepted formats include: document, pdf, text