Utility Work Zone Safety Guidelines and Training: State-of-the-Art Synthesis and State-of-the-Practice Synthesis
3.0 STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE SYNTHESIS
To determine the current state-of-the-practice with regard to utility work zone safety and mobility, two survey instruments were developed and administered via e-mail as a part of this grant. One survey was distributed to the state and local highway agencies and another survey was distributed to the utility companies and the contractors. A copy of these surveys along with the data is included in Appendix III. While the operating practices of each survey group are clearly not identical, there was a substantial overlap of content on both surveys. The surveys asked about information regarding the type of guidelines and standards followed by the agency and if they differ depending on type, location and duration of utility work. They were also asked information about who is responsible for reviewing and approving the traffic control plans, if there is coordination between other agencies, past crash experiences, past tort liability cases and available training programs. Utility companies were also asked about the type of utility work they conduct and state Dots were asked if they provide real-time information to the motorists about the utility work zones.
3.1 Results of the Survey
Survey responses have been received from 24 state Department of Transportations and 27 utility companies. Figure 4 shows a spot map of the states whose DOTs responded to the survey. The responding states are shown with blue dots on the map of the United States (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Spot Map of States Responding to Survey
According to the US Census Bureau, the 2006 population of the United States was 299,398,484. The total population of the states with DOTs that responded to the survey is 176,723,375, which is 59.03 percent of the total population of the United States. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the total road mileage of the United States is 3,955,644 miles as per 2005 estimate. The road mileage of the states with DOTs that responded to the survey is 2,351,293 miles, which is 58.85 percent of the total road length for the entire country. This data shows that over half of the population and road length of the United States was represented by the state DOTs that responded to the survey. Figure 5 contains a spot map of the states that are covered by the utility companies that responded to the survey.
Figure 5. Spot Map of States that Responding Utility Companies Cover
The 2006 population, according to the US Census Bureau, of the states covered by the utility companies that responded to the survey is 262,645,467, which is 87.72 percent of the total population of the country. The total road mileage for 2005, according to the Federal Highway Administration, of the states covered by the utility companies that responded to the survey is 3,275,265, which is 81.97 percent of the total road mileage for the entire country. This data shows that in excess of 80 percent of the population and road mileage of the United States were represented by the utility companies that responded to the survey.
Ninety-three percent of the utility companies and 79 percent of the state DOTs that responded to the survey claimed to have established guidelines or standards for utility work zone traffic control. Only two of the responding DOTs were found to have separate utility work zone traffic control manuals, which essentially echoed the MUTCD language and provided a number of examples of typical utility applications. The majority of both utility companies and the state DOTs simply refer to or echo the language of the MUTCD and their respective state design manuals or provide shorter summary focusing on the aspects which typically apply to utility work.
In addition to the establishment of guidelines, respondents were asked whether their standards had differences based upon work duration, work location, work type, or roadway type. Work location was found to be the most prominent factor, as 78 percent of utility companies and 92 percent of state DOTs reported different standards based upon where the work was being performed. It should be noted that the survey defined work location in a similar manner as defined in the MUTCD, but included overhead work within work location. Work duration was also found to be also a determining factor for utility work zones, which are typically classified as short duration or mobile by the MUTCD. Among the respondents, 59 percent of the contractors and 71 percent of the state DOTs reported that they apply different standards based upon duration and, typically, respondents applied different standards to work lasting less than 15 minutes, less than 1 hour, or more than 8 hours. Roadway type was also an important factor as 74 percent of utility companies and 79 percent of state DOTs had different standards for projects conducted on or near freeways, arterials, and local roads. Due to the specialization of the utility companies, only 33 percent had different standards based upon type of work being performed (i.e., gas, electric, water main, etc.). However, it was found that only 25 percent of the state DOTs had different standards based upon type of work. This is likely due to the fact that the MUTCD classifies type of work based upon the entity conducting the work and/or the jurisdiction in which the work is being conducted (utility – overhead and underground, city/municipal work, county work, and contractor work). Consequently, although numerous types of unique utility projects are frequently encountered, state DOTs rarely account for the distinct features associated with each type of project.
In addition to the previous factors, emergency traffic control is often necessary for utility work zones, although the issue is not explicitly addressed in the MUTCD. With the absence of an appropriate section in the MUTCD, over 60 percent of utility companies had specific guidelines for such cases compared to only 25 percent of DOT respondents.
To ascertain the magnitude of the safety problems in utility work zones and their perceptions, respondents were asked whether they had experienced any crashes, injuries, or fatalities over the previous five years. Over 40 percent of the respondents (44 percent of utility companies and 42 percent of DOTs) indicated they did experience such during the past five years. In addition, to those who had experienced a utility work zone-related crash, 25 percent of the utility companies and 40 percent of the DOTs had been involved in subsequent tort liability cases.
Utility companies were also asked whether they had been subject to a review or citation by the local Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Nine (33%) out of 27 companies reported that they have been cited for violations, though none of the reviews/citations were due to nonconformance to the provisions of the MUTCD. The violations were related either to personnel protective requirements or OSHA’s general requirements.
As utility work is often transient or occurs within the context of larger construction projects, the MUTCD recommends that utility work “should be coordinated with appropriate authorities so that road users are not confused or misled by the additional TTC devices.” Survey results showed that 85 percent of utility companies and 79 percent of State DOTs coordinated their utility work zone activities with other involved agencies.
The MUTCD recommends that temporary traffic control (TTC) plans be completed for all utility work and approximately 75 percent of respondents in both groups indicated that their agency or company had developed a site specific traffic control plan, or a set of standard traffic control plans for utility work zone operations. As the utility companies tended to be specialized, 35 percent had only one standard traffic control plan whereas 89 percent of state DOTs had several standard plans due to the wider range of utility projects typically considered. The remaining respondents indicated that project-specific TTC plans were developed prior to the start of each project.
State DOTs were asked which personnel were responsible for reviewing and/or approving temporary traffic control within their utility work zones. The majority of state DOTs placed this responsibility on either a traffic engineer or permits engineer, while 25 percent left it up to the contractor or utility company.
Utility companies were asked who the workers are directed to if they have any questions related to the utility work zone traffic control. Twenty-three (85%) of the companies have a safety manager who is responsible for answering such questions, while 19 (70%) agencies direct their questions to the job supervisor. In addition, 81 percent of utility companies conducted some periodic process reviews and in-field performance reviews. Conversely, only 46 percent of state DOTs who responded to the survey conducted periodic process reviews of their utility work zone programs.
One of the objectives of this utility work zone grant is the development of a training program focused on utility work zone safety and mobility guidelines. Among the utility companies who responded to the survey, 85 percent indicated that they offered a training program focused on utility work zone traffic control for their employees. Similarly, 71 percent of DOTs offered similar programs for their employees, as well as contractors and utility companies. The utility companies typically offered three options: (1) an in-house training program, (2) “Basic Traffic Control for Utility Operations” by the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), or (3) a DOT or Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP)-sponsored training program. Likewise, the DOTs either had their own training program available or utilized ATSSA training courses. In addition to this, 52 percent of utility companies and 54 percent of DOTs required flaggers to be approved through a formal certification process.
3.2 Summary of Current Practices Survey
Among those surveyed 93 percent of utility companies and 79 percent of state DOTs reported to have established guidelines for utility work zone traffic control. However, these statistics are somewhat inflated because the majority of survey respondents simply refer to the MUTCD and local design standards as their guidelines. The survey results helped to reveal a number of other issues faced by practicing professionals:
- Over 40 percent of utility companies and state DOTs had experienced a utility work zone-related crash, injury, or fatality in the past 5 years and approximately one-third of these agencies were subsequently faced tort liability cases.
- 33 percent of the utility companies were subject to OSHA reviews, but none were the result of non-conformance to the provisions of the MUTCD.
- Less than half of the responding state DOTs conduct periodic process reviews of their utility work zone programs; however, 81 percent of utility companies conducted periodic field and process reviews.
- Traffic control plans were typically approved by either a traffic or permits engineer, but 25 percent of state DOTs placed this responsibility directly on the contractor or utility company.
- States generally did not differentiate their standards based on the type of utility work being conducted, though clear differences may exist (e.g., overhead vs. at grade and underground work).
- More than half of the respondents in both groups acknowledged the differences in work duration, work location, and roadway type as being important for utility work zone traffic control. However, a substantial number of the utility companies and state DOTs utilized the same standards for all projects.
- Training programs were available to a vast majority of both state DOTs and utility companies, but some agencies did not use such programs. These training programs generally echo the statements and guidelines included in the MUTCD.
- Only slightly more than half of the respondents in both groups required traffic control personnel and flaggers to be certified.
