Back to Work Zone Safety web site

U.S. Department of Transportation

Work Zone Safety and Mobility NPRM

Messages and Talking Points

• Work zones adversely impact transportation safety and mobility
  • More Work Zones. With most of our highways at or near the end of their service life, system preservation (resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction) is a key responsibility of transportation agencies throughout the nation -- this implies more work zones
    
    
  • Growing Traffic Volumes and Congestion. At the same time, traffic volumes continue to grow, with very little addition to road capacity -- work zones further exacerbate this situation
    
    
  • Work Zone Safety Continues to be a Concern. Work zone crashes continue to grow - resulting in fatalities and injuries to motorists and workers
    
    
  • More Work Done Under Traffic. Current operating environments require work to be done under moving traffic placing extra pressure on contractors to accelerate their schedules - we need to ensure safety while preserving mobility and also need to be aware of the quality of work implications of such operating circumstances.
    
    
  • Customers Are Dissatisfied with Work Zones. Cited as second major reason for customer dissatisfaction; top three suggested improvements for transportation and highways relate to work zones (Better paving material; reduce work time; work done during off-peak/non-rush hours)
    
    
  • We Are Not Meeting Our Customers' Needs for Safety and Mobility During Work Zones.
    
    
• FHWA considering policy and regulation change
  
  
  • FHWA is pursuing several efforts to improve work zone Safety and reduce work zone Delay, one of which is to update its regulation on "Traffic Safety in Highway and Street Work Zones" in 23 CFR 630 Subpart J
    
    
  • Proposed changes will facilitate comprehensive consideration of the broader safety and mobility impacts of work zones across project development stages - bring about a culture change in how we plan, design and build projects to account for our customers' needs.
    
    
  • Current Regulation
    
    
    • Reflected its time - beginning stages of rehabilitation and reconstruction activity; emerging work zone safety issues; required TCPs.
      
      
    • Has broad purpose - to serve needs of all users during construction and maintenance projects
      
      
    • But narrow provisions - that focus on TCPs for projects, and the specific work zone operations on 2-lane/2-way highways
      
      
    • Does not address "mobility" explicitly
      
      
    • Key Focus of Proposed Changes
      
      
    • Reflect changing times - more traffic, more congestion, greater safety issues, and more work zones
      
      
    • Make regulation broader -- cover more issues pertaining to work zone "safety" and "mobility"
      
      
    • Facilitate customer-focused project development -- comprehensive consideration of "work zone impacts"
      
      
• Legislative background and current schedule
  
  
  • ISTEA asked FHWA to establish a Work Zone Safety Program
    
    
  • Done per Federal Register Notice in 1995 (60 FR 54562)
    
    
  • Part of that notice specified that 23 CFR 630 Subpart J would be updated
    
    
    • FHWA would review current work zone problems and update Subpart J to better reflect current needs
      
      
  • Issued ANPRM on Feb 6, 2002 to initiate dialogue with the transportation community; evaluated ANPRM comments and conducted outreach
    
    
  • Published NPRM on (Insert Date); comment period ends on (insert date)
    
    
  • Currently conducting outreach to inform and educate the public about the NPRM
    
    
  • If warranted, develop and issue Final Rule in 2004
    
    
• 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
    
    
  • ANPRM respondents -- total 84
    
    
    • DOTs - 65%
    • Trade Associations and Special Interest Groups - 16%
    • Other Public Agencies - 6%
    • Private Individuals/Consultants - 6%
    • Unclassified - 5%
    • Equipment/Technology Providers - 2%
      
      
  • ANPRM Comments may be viewed in the docket at http://dmses.dot.gov under docket no. FHWA-2001-11130
    
    
  • ANPRM areas receiving strong support
    
    
    • 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
    • Common National definition for "work zone" is desirable
    • Road user impacts of work zones are important and essential for decision making during project development and design
    • 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
      
      
  • ANPRM areas with mixed responses
    
    
    • Consideration of work zone impacts in the statewide and metropolitan planning processes
    • Flexibility in TCP development responsibility
    • Certification of TCP developers
    • Conduct of mobility and safety audits
    • Security considerations in and around work zones
    • Data reporting on work zone characteristics
    • Data reporting on work zone mobility and safety performance
      
      
• NPRM - Proposed changes to regulation
  
  
  • Approach to proposed revisions
    
    
    • Broad, address wide range of issues
    • Set the stage for performance-oriented regulations rather than method-oriented regulations
      
      
  • Title
    
    
    • Current title - "Traffic Safety in Highway and Street Work Zones"
    • Change title to "Work Zone Safety and Mobility"
      
      
  • Overall Structure
    
    
    • Current structure - mixes "general policy/process level provisions" with "individual project level requirements"
    • Change structure to include separate "Policy Level" and "Project Level" requirements, but establish a clear connection between the two
      
      
  • Key concept: Work Zone Impacts
    
    
    • Safety and mobility impacts
    • Impacts on road users, workers and other affected parties
    • Impacts may vary based on several factors (i.e., duration of the work, traffic volume, availability of alternate routes, capacity reduction, user cost impacts, etc.)
    • Work zone area of influence - looking beyond the immediate area of the work zone and considering the impacts at the corridor and network level
      
      
  • Policy Level Requirements (new)
    
    
    • Work Zone Mobility and Safety Policy (new) -- States to develop and adopt a policy that supports consideration of mobility and safety impacts of work zones
      
      
    • Training -- existing requirement, with changes that encourage documentation and periodic updates
      
      
    • Process Review and Evaluation -- existing requirement with changes that address "FHWA stewardship" role in review and approval of state policy and practices
      
      
    • Work Zone Performance Data (new) -- current provisions require analysis of crashes and crash data; changes encourage States to collect and analyze mobility data in addition to safety data
      
      
  • Project Impact Mitigation Requirements (new)
    
    
    • Work Zone Impacts Analysis (new) -- impacts analysis required, but the degree of analysis is scaleable according to agency policy and expected severity of impacts due to specific project characteristics. For example, an emergency road repair situation may require a quick visual assessment of the needed work and a basic Traffic Control Plan to safely handle traffic for the short duration of the repair. While the reconstruction of a heavily traveled highway may need a very detailed analysis of the impacts to all road users, adjacent businesses, including corridor and network impacts, that leads to a Transportation Operations Plan, and a Public Information and Outreach Plan.
      
      
    • Transportation Management Plan (TMP) (new)
      
      
      • TMPs mandatory for all projects, but content (i.e., TCP, TOP and PIOP) are determined according to work zone impacts of individual projects
        
        
      • TCP - "shall" still be required; removed reference to work zone operations on 2-lane / 2-way highways
        
        
      • 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
        
        
    • Pay Items -- existing requirement, with changes that allow both method based and performance based specifications for the procurement of traffic control devices
      
      
    • Responsible Persons for Project Administration and Delivery -- existing requirement, with changes that require a responsible person from the contractor side in addition to the responsible person from the agency to be responsible for the TMP and other safety and mobility aspects of the work