[Federal Register: May 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 88)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24384-24404]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07my03-23]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 630
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2001-11130]
RIN 2125-AE29
Work Zone Safety and Mobility
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to amend its regulation that governs traffic
safety in highway and street work zones. The FHWA recognizes that
increasing road construction activity on our highways can lead to an
increase in congestion and crashes, as well as loss in productivity and
public frustration with work zones. These proposed changes are intended
to facilitate consideration of the broader safety and mobility impacts
of work zones in a more coordinated and comprehensive manner across
project development stages.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dmses.dot.gov/submit.
All comments should include the docket number
that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received
will be available for examination and copying at the above address from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page
that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able
to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Scott Battles, Office of
Transportation Operations, HOTO-1, (202) 366-4372; or Mr. Raymond
Cuprill, Office of the
[[Page 24385]]
Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are
from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document
Management System (DMS) at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable
formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions
6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code for Information
Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and
WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each day,
365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and
guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by using a
computer, modem and suitable communications software from the
Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202)
512-1661. Internet users may also reach the Office of the Federal
Register's Home page at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.archives.gov and the Government
Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
Overview of the Proposal
The principal mission of the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) is to provide the American people with a transportation system
that is safe, effective, and secure. Transportation is vital to our
Nation's economy, national security, and quality of life. We depend on
transportation for access to jobs, to enable us to conduct our
business, to supply us with services and goods, and to facilitate our
leisure and recreational activities. When we take appropriate action to
address our mobility needs, we can also improve the safety of our
system and enhance our natural and human environment. We also find that
there is a decrease in safety and a degradation in environment when we
do not address critical mobility issues on our highway system. To help
attain the mission of the USDOT, the FHWA has identified strategic
goals in the areas of safety, mobility and productivity, environment,
National security, and organizational excellence. Under the ``mobility
and productivity'' area, the FHWA has identified ``congestion
reduction'' as one of the vital few strategies. One way to reduce
congestion is to improve the performance of our Nation's ``work
zones.''
The FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR part 630 subpart J, ``Traffic
Safety in Highway and Street Work Zones.'' Work zones cause safety and
mobility impacts on the traveling public, businesses, workers, and
transportation agencies, resulting in an overall loss in productivity
and growing frustration. These work zone impacts are exacerbated by
growing congestion in many locations. The FHWA recognizes the trends of
increased road construction, growing traffic, increased crashes, and
public frustration with work zones. These trends call for a more broad-
based understanding and examination of the safety and mobility impacts
of work zones on road users, other affected parties, and workers.
Better addressing work zone safety and mobility requires consideration
of work zone issues starting early in project development and
continuing through project completion.
The current regulation has a broadly stated purpose of providing
guidance and establishing procedures to ensure that adequate
consideration is given to motorists, pedestrians, and construction
workers on all Federal-aid construction projects. However, the content
of the current regulation is focused primarily on the development of
traffic control plans (TCPs), the operation of work zones on two-lane,
two-way roadways, and other provisions that address project
responsibility, pay items, training and process review and evaluation.
These provisions in the current regulation primarily address the issue
of traffic control through the work zone itself. At the time this
regulation was written, the TCP was an important concept that was and
still is essential for work zone safety. Today's environment includes
new challenges due to growing congestion, increasing reconstruction and
public frustration with work zones. TCPs for work zones are still
essential, but they are no longer a sufficient approach for managing
work zone impacts that may extend to an area much bigger than the
actual work area. The proposed changes to 23 CFR part 630 subpart J are
intended to facilitate consideration of the broader safety and mobility
impacts of work zones in a coordinated and comprehensive manner across
project development stages. The following is a summary of key proposed
changes:
[sbull] Title change of 23 CFR part 630 subpart J to ``Work Zone
Safety and Mobility.''
[sbull] State transportation departments (hereinafter referred to
as ``States'') to develop and adopt work zone safety and mobility
policies. These policies will support the systematic consideration of
the safety and mobility impacts of work zones during project
development; and address the safety and mobility needs of all road
users (i.e., motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with
disabilities), workers, and other affected parties (i.e., public
facilities such as parks, recreational facilities, fire stations,
police stations, and hospitals; and private parties such as businesses
and residences) on Federal-aid highway projects.
[sbull] States to conduct work zone impacts analysis during project
development to better understand individual project characteristics and
the associated work zone impacts. This will facilitate better
decisionmaking on alternative project options and in the development of
appropriate work zone impact mitigation measures.
[sbull] States to develop Transportation Management Plans (TMPs)
for projects as determined by the State's policy and the results of the
work zone impacts analysis. A Transportation Management Plan (TMP)
documents the mitigation strategies identified during this analysis.
The TMP facilitates a more comprehensive approach to manage the safety
and mobility impacts of work zones, by including a Transportation
Operations Plan (TOP) and a Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP)
in addition to the current requirement for a Traffic Control Plan
(TCP).
[sbull] Provisions that allow States to be more creative and
performance oriented in their procurement processes by allowing
flexibility to choose either method-based or performance-based
specifications for their contracts.
Statement of the Problem
Work zones are a necessary part of meeting the need to maintain and
upgrade our aging highway infrastructure. As much of the Nation's
transportation infrastructure approaches the end of its service life,
preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance become an increasing part
of our transportation improvement program.\1\ The Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107)
enacted in June 1998, provides for a 40 percent increase in
transportation funding over the total provided in the Intermodal
Surface
[[Page 24386]]
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), (Pub. L. 102-240; 105
Stat. 1914; Dec. 18, 1991).\2\ Much of this funding is being spent on
performing capital improvements and maintaining existing roads, since
comparatively few new roads are being built.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FHWA report, ``Meeting the Customer's Needs for Mobility and
Safety During Construction and Maintenance Operations,'' September
1998. This report is available electronically at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res_wzs_links.htm
or may be
obtained by writing the FHWA Office of Safety at, 400 7th Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
\2\ Statement of Vincent F. Schimmoller, Deputy Executive
Director, FHWA, USDOT, Before The House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Hearing on
Work Zone Safety, July 24, 2001. An electronic copy of this
statement may be obtained at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2001/release100.html
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, traffic volumes continue to grow and create more
congestion. As vehicle travel continues to increase significantly
faster than miles of roadway, we have a growing congestion problem that
is exacerbated by work zones. From 1980 to 1999, the U.S. experienced a
76 percent increase in total vehicle-miles traveled, while total lane
miles of public roads increased only by 1 percent.\3\ Congestion
affects normal vehicular movement including that of cars, trucks, and
buses, and is frustrating and costly to both individuals and
businesses. Studies indicate that over the years, ``extremely'' or
``severely'' congested highway miles more than doubled from 1982 to
1997, while uncongested miles dropped by almost half. The Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI) estimated that the cost of congestion
was approximately $78 billion in 1999. The combination of heavier
traffic volumes passing through a road network with more work zones
increases the operational and safety impacts of those work zones on the
road network. Recent analysis shows that of this congestion, work zones
on freeways cause an estimated 24 percent of nonrecurring delay,
resulting in lost capacity of 60 million vehicles per day (VPD) in the
summer, and that of 64 million VPD in the winter.\4\ According to FHWA
estimates, about 12.8 percent of the National Highway System is under
construction at any time during the summer roadwork season, leading to
3,110 work zones.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions & Performance (C&P) Report to Congress,'' FHWA, 1999. A
copy of this report may be obtained electronically at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/1999cpr/
.
\4\ ``Temporary Losses of Capacity Study,'' FHWA, November 5,
2001. A copy of this report may be obtained by writing the FHWA
Office of Highway Operations, at 400 7th Street, SW., HOP,
Washington, DC 20590.
\5\ Interim results from an FHWA study entitled, ``Snapshot of
Peak Summer Work Zone Activity.'' This study is currently underway
and is expected to be completed in June 2003. Copies of the final
report may be obtained electronically at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workzone.htm
or by writing the FHWA Office
of Highway Operations, at 400 7th Street, SW., HOP, Washington, DC
20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work zones continue to have adverse impacts on traveler and worker
safety. Work zone fatalities reached a high of 1,079 in 2001,\6\ while
over 40,000 people were injured in work zone related crashes in the
same year.\7\ From 1997 to 2001, over 4,000 people were killed in work
zone crashes, with over 220,000 injured; and about 300 workers died in
road construction activities during the same time frame, as indicated
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The statistics on work zone crashes for the year 2002 were
not officialy available at the time this NPRM was drafted.
\7\ Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) maintained by the
NHTSA. More information is available electronically at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
.
\8\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Census of Fatal Occupational
injuries is available electronically at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, highway professionals have devised and implemented
several strategies and innovative practices for minimizing the
disruption caused by work zones, while ensuring successful project
delivery. For example, more work is done during night time to minimize
the impacts of work zones on the traveling public by avoiding work
during the more heavily traveled daytime hours. However, the current
and expected level of investment activity in highway infrastructure (a
significant portion of which is for maintenance and reconstruction of
existing roadways) implies that increasingly, work will be done under
traffic. In 1997, 47.6 percent of highway capital outlay was spent on
system preservation (resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction).
In addition to increased road construction, growing traffic, and
increases in crashes, public frustration with work zones indicates that
more effort is required to meet the needs and expectations of the
American public. The results of a recent FHWA nationwide survey,
reported in ``Moving Ahead: The American Public Speaks on Roadways and
Transportation in Communities,'' \9\ illustrate the American public's
frustration with work zones. Work zones were cited as second only to
poor traffic flow in causing traveler dissatisfaction. The top three
improvements indicated by the public as a ``great help'' to improve
roadways and transportation are related to roadway repairs and work
zones. They are: (a) More durable paving materials (67 percent); (b)
repairs made during non-rush hours (66 percent); and (c) reducing
repair time (52 percent). The use of better traffic signs showing
expected roadwork, and better guide signs for re-routing traffic to
avoid roadwork, were also cited as being of ``great help,'' by 40
percent and 35 percent of the respondents, respectively. Many travelers
indicated a preference to have the road closed completely for moderate
durations in exchange for long-lasting repairs. About 67 percent of
respondents expressed support for one-week long road closures, and 37
percent expressed support for one-month long road closures; while 16
percent of respondents expressed support for a three-month closing, and
10 percent or fewer would support longer closings (six months to a
year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The results of the survey are available in ``Moving Ahead:
The American Public Speaks on Roadways and Transportation in
Communities,'' FHWA Publication No. FHWA-OP-01-017, 2000. A copy of
this publication is available electronically on the FHWA Web page
at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/movingahead.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the contracting industry is under pressure to expedite
construction and minimize disruption by reducing their work hours,
compressing their schedules and shifts, and increasing night work. They
have expressed concerns that these pressures affect worker safety,
reduce productivity, and may compromise quality. Therefore, a balance
must be achieved between construction needs and the safety and mobility
needs of the traveling public.
While safety and mobility are two distinct challenges posed by the
circumstances faced on highways, it is important to realize that both
these elements are closely tied to one another. Studies and data
analyses over time indicate that as congestion builds, crash rates
increase; and as crashes increase, more congestion occurs. Therefore,
it is important to develop comprehensive mitigation measures that
alleviate the impacts of work zones and ultimately improve
transportation safety and mobility.
Legislative and Regulatory History
Section 1051 of ISTEA required the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary) to develop and implement a highway work zone safety program
to improve work zone safety at highway construction sites by enhancing
the quality and effectiveness of traffic control devices, safety
appurtenances, traffic control plans, and bidding practices for traffic
control devices and services. The FHWA implemented this provision of
ISTEA through non-regulatory action, by publishing a notice in the
Federal Register on October 24, 1995 (60 FR 54562). (Hereinafter
referred to as ``the notice.'')
The purpose of this notice was to establish the National Highway
Work Zone Safety Program (NHWZSP) to
[[Page 24387]]
enhance safety at highway construction, maintenance and utility sites.
In this notice, the FHWA indicated that having appropriate National and
State standards and guidelines would contribute to improved work zone
safety. To attain these National and State standards and guidelines,
the FHWA identified the need to update its regulation on work zone
safety, 23 CFR part 630, subpart J.
The notice indicated that the FHWA would review current work zone
problems and update the regulation to better reflect current needs
including reinforcement of guidance on bidding practices, work zone
crash data collection and analysis at both project and program levels,
compliance with traffic control plans, and work zone speed limits.
While the focus of this notice was ``work zone safety,'' it also
identified the need ``to minimize disruptions to traffic during
construction of highway projects.''
Discussion for Considering Policy and Regulation Change
Since establishing the NHWZSP, the FHWA identified work zone safety
and mobility as major concerns to the traveling public, businesses and
transportation agencies. Therefore, the FHWA undertook several efforts
to better address the unique safety and mobility challenges posed by
work zones, including research and development, and compilation of best
practices and guidelines. The FHWA is now in the process of updating 23
CFR part 630 subpart J, which governs traffic safety in highway and
street work zones. An examination of the current provisions in 23 CFR
part 630 subpart J indicate that they reflect the needs and issues that
were relevant at the time the regulation was developed, but are no
longer comprehensive enough to address the complex issues of today and
the future.
The current regulation has a broadly stated purpose of providing
guidance and establishing procedures to ensure that adequate
consideration is given to motorists, pedestrians, and workers on all
Federal-aid construction projects. However, the content of the current
regulation is focused primarily on the development of traffic control
plans (TCPs), the operation of work zones on two-lane, two-way
roadways, and other provisions that address project responsibility, pay
items, training and process review and evaluation. These provisions in
the current regulation primarily address the issue of traffic control
through the work zone itself. At the time this regulation was written,
the TCP was an important concept that was and still is essential for
work zone safety. Today's environment however, includes new challenges
due to growing congestion, increasing reconstruction and public
frustration with work zones.
More road work is being done under ever increasing traffic--this
leads to further congestion, delays, and increases in fatalities and
crashes, thereby placing contractors and workers under pressure and
leading to public frustration with work zones. These circumstances and
consequences call for a more broad-based examination of the current
regulations. TCPs for work zones are still important and essential, but
they are no longer a sufficient approach for managing work zone impacts
that may extend to an area much bigger than the actual work area.
Through research conducted over the years, and based on feedback
from State agencies and the public, the FHWA believes that in order to
comprehensively improve work zone safety and mobility, there needs to
be a systematic consideration of the safety and mobility impacts of
work zones across the different project development stages, and the
development of appropriate mitigation measures that help alleviate
these impacts. The proposed amendments to 23 CFR part 630 subpart J are
intended to facilitate consideration of the broader safety and mobility
impacts of work zones in a coordinated and comprehensive manner across
project development stages.
As a first step towards the consideration of amending 23 CFR part
630 subpart J, the FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM), aimed at identifying the key issues that should be considered
if the current regulation were to be updated. The ANPRM entitled ``Work
Zone Safety'' was published in the Federal Register on February 6,
2002, at 67 FR 5532. The ANPRM comment period ended on June 6, 2002.
Pursuant to the end of the ANPRM comment period, we conducted
several outreach sessions with the transportation community to discuss
the issues addressed by the ANPRM and to provide a synopsis of the
comments received on the ANPRM. The following is a list of the outreach
efforts that were undertaken by the FHWA:
[sbull] ANPRM presentation and open forum at the 2002 annual
meeting of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Design Subcommittee, June 13, 2002, Savannah,
Georgia;
[sbull] ANPRM presentation and open forum at the 2002 annual
meeting of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering annual
meeting, June 17, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
[sbull] ANPRM presentation and open forum at the 2002 annual
meeting of the AASHTO Maintenance Subcommittee, July 17, 2002, Mobile,
Alabama;
[sbull] ANPRM presentation and open forum at the 2002 annual
meeting of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction, August 6, 2002,
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware;
[sbull] ANPRM public meeting at Chevy Chase, Maryland, September
19, 2002;
[sbull] ANPRM outreach meeting with North Carolina DOT, September
24, 2002; and
[sbull] ANPRM public meeting at Chevy Chase, Maryland, September
25, 2002.
Given today's issues and the feedback obtained from the ANPRM and
continued outreach with the transportation community, the FHWA believes
that it is in the Nation's best interest to amend the regulation to
recognize the need to comprehensively consider work zone safety and
mobility. Through this NPRM the FHWA seeks to embed full consideration
of the safety and mobility impacts of work zones into the project
development process, and provide for worker safety and efficient
construction. The proposed changes seek to bring about such
consideration in a manner that provides flexibility to States to apply
the regulations to their unique operating environments, their policies
and procedures, and individual project requirements.
Overview of the ANPRM
In the ANPRM, the FHWA identified a broad range of work zone issues
that apply to planning, designing, and implementing Federal-aid highway
projects. The issues posed in the ANPRM correspond to an over-arching
theme that aims to reduce the need for recurrent roadwork, the duration
of work zones, and the disruption caused by work zones. These issues
were posed as questions to elicit comments, guidance, and suggestions.
The ANPRM indicated that in order to adequately meet the safety and
mobility expectations of our customers (road users, workers, and all
other affected properties), changes may be required to the project
development process to fundamentally include consideration of the
safety and mobility impacts of work zones, while providing for worker
safety and efficient construction. Such a customer-oriented approach
necessitates examination of the complete project development cycle.
Therefore, the questions in the ANPRM were grouped into categories that
generally correspond to the major steps in project development. These
categories are:
[[Page 24388]]
[sbull] General (wide-ranging policy and regulatory
considerations);
[sbull] Transportation Planning and Programming;
[sbull] Project Design for Construction and Maintenance;
[sbull] Managing for Mobility and Safety In and Around Work Zones;
[sbull] Public Outreach and Communications; and
[sbull] Analyzing Work Zone Performance.
Commenters were also encouraged to include discussion of any other
issues they considered relevant to this effort.
Discussion of Comments and Responses to ANPRM
The following discussion summarizes the comments received on the
ANPRM and the subsequent outreach efforts conducted by the FHWA. The
FHWA's responses to these comments and the proposed actions are also
provided. The discussion provides a general sense of the issues
addressed in the comments.
The ANPRM and associated documents are available in the docket at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov, under Docket No. 2001-11130. To better understand
the summary of the ANPRM comments, reviewers are encouraged to download
a copy of the ANPRM from the docket.
We received 84 responses to the docket. Of these, 67 provided
responses to the specific questions raised in the ANPRM, while the
remaining 17 provided a set of general comments only.
The general comments provided by the 17 respondents who did not
answer the specific questions in the ANPRM were not directly
attributable to any of the specific issues raised in the ANPRM--
however, their comments were synthesized and summarized to provide a
general understanding of their position on work zone safety and
mobility issues.
The 67 respondents who provided comments on the specific questions
raised in the NPRM provided both direct and indirect responses that
indicated whether or not they were in support of a particular issue. A
direct response constituted a definite ``Yes'' or ``No'' type response
from the respondent, while an indirect response constituted a verbatim
response to the question, which was then analyzed and interpreted as to
what the respondent's position was. In cases where the respondent's
position was not interpretable whether he/she was in support of an
issue, we indicated that the respondent's position was unclear. Also,
not all respondents answered all the questions in the ANPRM, which were
indicated as ``no response'' in the summary of ANPRM comments.
The ANPRM comments analysis shows percentages of responses across
several categories, for example, Yes--60 percent, No--20 percent, No
Response--10 percent, Unclear--10 percent. The purpose of presenting
the ANPRM responses along the lines of percentages is not to assign
statistical significance to the responses, but to present a general
cross-section of the responses and also to present a general idea of
the respondents' position on different issues.
The percentages showing the profile of ANPRM respondents are based
on all the responses (84), while the percentages showing the break-up
of respondents' position on different issues is based on the 67
respondents who provided comments on the specific questions in the
ANPRM.
About 70 percent of the respondents were from the public sector or
represent public sector interests, 18 percent of the respondents were
from the private sector or catered to private sector interests, 6
percent of the respondents represented both public and private sector
interests, while the remaining 6 percent did not indicate their
affiliation.
The break-up of the agency types of the different respondents
present the following statistics. About 65 percent of the respondents
belonged to Departments of Transportation (DOTs) (either State or
local), 2 percent of the respondents represented private sector
equipment/technology providers; 5 percent of the respondents belonged
to other public agencies (Federal and other State agencies); 6 percent
of the respondents were either private individuals or consultants or
contractors; 15 percent of the respondents represented trade
associations and special interest groups, including the American
Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), the American Road
Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) and the Associated General
Contractors (AGC) of America; and 6 percent of the respondents did not
indicate their agency affiliations.
The AASHTO compiled the ANPRM questions into a survey and
distributed it amongst its member agencies. Several State DOTs provided
their responses through AASHTO's survey, while others submitted their
comments individually. AASHTO, as an agency, did not provide specific
comments on the ANPRM, but stated its general position on work zone
safety and mobility based on the responses from its member agencies.
AASHTO indicated general agreement amongst its respondents on the need
to have a National policy to improve safety and mobility in highway
construction and maintenance, and that the policy should be issued in
the form of guidance.
It was also noticeable that a majority of the respondents' primary
job function involved either traffic, engineering, safety or design.
There was very little participation from the planning community,
contractors, and law enforcement personnel.
ANPRM ``General'' Section--Comments Summary
The ``General'' section in the ANPRM addressed wide-ranging policy
and regulatory considerations regarding work zone safety and mobility.
The ANPRM stated that the FHWA was considering a wide range of options,
including revising and expanding the regulations in 23 CFR part 630,
subpart J, and that, alternatively, the FHWA was also considering
policy guidance. This section was therefore primarily aimed at
identifying whether or not the FHWA should advocate a new National
policy on work zone safety and mobility, and whether the policy should
be advocated through regulation or through policy guidance.
When asked if there should be a National policy to promote improved
safety and mobility in work zones, 81 percent of the respondents who
commented on specific questions in the ANPRM, said yes; 16 percent said
no; and about 3 percent did not respond. Of the respondents who said
yes, 76 percent belonged to DOTs, 2 percent were from other public
agencies, 4 percent represented private agencies, 13 percent were from
trade associations, and 6 percent did not indicate their agency
affiliation. When asked if the National policy (if it were to be
developed), should be issued as regulation or in the form of best
practices and guidance, 64 percent of the respondents who commented on
specific questions in the ANPRM said that the policy should be
advocated through guidance and best practices; 18 percent said that the
policy should be advocated through regulation; about 4 percent of the
responses were unclear; while 14 percent did not respond.
Of the respondents who indicated that the policy should be
advocated through guidance and best practices, 90 percent belonged to
DOTs, 2 percent represented other public agencies, 5 percent belonged
to trade associations, and 2 percent did not indicate their agency
affiliation. Further, a few respondents (about 16 percent of
respondents who provided comments on specific ANPRM questions)
indicated that there need not be a new policy. Instead, they suggested
that existing
[[Page 24389]]
regulations and guidelines need to be enforced better. In general,
respondents also acknowledged that mobility considerations should be
incorporated in planning, designing and implementing work zones.
When queried about the adequacy of the current regulations, about
40 percent of respondents who provided comments on specific questions
in the ANPRM indicated that the current regulations are not adequate
for addressing work zone safety and mobility concerns at all stages of
project evolution; while 34 percent indicated that the current
regulations are adequate. The remaining respondents who commented on
specific questions in the ANPRM did not provide information that led to
any conclusive inference as to whether the current regulations are
adequate or not. Of the respondents who indicated that the current
regulations are not adequate, 56 percent belonged to DOTs, 4 percent
represented other public agencies, 7 percent were from private
agencies, 30 percent belonged to trade associations, and 4 percent did
not indicate their agency affiliations. All the respondents who stated
that the current regulations are adequate belonged to DOTs.
In response to the need for stratifying work zone regulations
according to varying levels and durations of risk to road users and
workers, and disruptions to traffic, about 76 percent of respondents
who provided comments on specific ANPRM questions recommended that work
zone regulations should be stratified. Of these, 75 percent belonged to
DOTs, 4 percent were from private agencies, 16 percent represented
trade associations, and 6 percent did not indicate their agency
affiliations. The different stratification factors that were presented
in the ANPRM included: duration, length, lanes affected, Average Daily
Traffic (ADT), road classification, expected capacity reduction,
potential impacts on local network and businesses. Out of these
factors, ADT, road classification and expected impacts /capacity
reduction were often referred to as the most appropriate stratification
factors. However, while it was evident that regulations should be
stratified, several respondents also indicated that it may be
cumbersome to implement such stratification, and it may lead to
confusion in interpretation of regulations.
Currently there are four different definitions of the term ``work
zone'', as stated in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances
(NCUTLO), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
and by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (proposed).
The MUTCD defines a work zone as an area of a highway with
construction, maintenance, or utility work activities, and that it is
typically marked by signs, channelizing devices, barriers, pavement
markings, and/or work vehicles. The MUTCD also states that a work zone
extends from the first warning sign or rotating/strobe lights on a
vehicle to the END ROAD WORK sign or the last temporary traffic control
device.
The NCUTLO adds to this definition by stating that a work zone may
be for short or long durations, and may include stationary or moving
activities. The NCUTLO also provides examples for the different types
of work zones, and indicates that the work zone does not include
private construction, maintenance or utility work outside the highway.
The NHTSA definition for work zone is very similar to that of the
MUTCD, the difference being that NHTSA indicates work zones may or may
not involve workers or equipment on or near the road, and that work
zones may be stationary or moving, and short term or long term in
nature.
The ANSI, in its Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Accidents, American National Standard--ANSI D-16, is proposing a
definition for work zone, which is similar to the NCUTLO definition.
The ANPRM inquired whether there ought to be a common National
definition for the term ``work zone.'' About 84 percent of the
respondents who provided comments on the specific questions in the
ANPRM indicated that there should be a common National definition for
``work zone.'' Of these, 77 percent belonged to DOTs, 2 percent were
from other public agencies, 2 percent belonged to private agencies, 14
percent represented trade associations, and 5 percent did not indicate
their agency affiliations. In response to specific language for a
common national definition, a majority of the respondents suggested
adopting either the MUTCD or the ANSI definition. Several respondents
mentioned that adopting a common National definition for work zone will
enhance and standardize work zone data collection and crash reporting
processes.
ANPRM ``General'' Section--FHWA Response and Proposed Action
The ANPRM comments indicate strong support for the development of a
National policy on work zone safety and mobility and document the need
to amend FHWA's current regulations in 23 CFR part 630 subpart J to
address both safety and mobility issues associated with work zones. The
respondents indicated that the preferred method for FHWA to advocate
the regulation is by establishing a broad policy, supported by detailed
guidelines for implementation. The FHWA therefore proposes to amend its
regulation in 23 CFR part 630 subpart J to include the consideration of
work zone mobility in addition to safety.
The proposed amendments would result in a broad regulation that
addresses a wide range of issues, and provide implementation
flexibility to States in meeting their individual program goals and
needs. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the regulation recognize
the need for stratification, and provide flexibility to States in
applying the provisions of the regulation to different projects, based
upon their respective program goals and their understanding of the
needs and work zone impacts of individual projects.
With regard to the issue of a common National definition for work
zone, the ANPRM comments indicate the need for a common National
definition for work zone. However, the FHWA realizes that the four
different definitions for work zone are essentially similar in content
and implication. Therefore, for the purposes of this regulation, we
propose to incorporate the MUTCD definition for work zone. Further, one
of the reasons the FHWA raised the issue of a common National
definition for the term ``work zone,'' was to gauge public opinion on
whether there is any recognition that the impacts of work zones may not
always be restricted to the work zone itself, and that the impacts may
be felt in the advance area of the work zone, other roadway corridors,
the regional transportation network and on other modes of
transportation. This concept of broader impacts of work zones is
however addressed in the proposed amendments by incorporating it into
the definition of ``work zone impacts,'' rather than incorporating it
in the definition of work zone itself.
The definition and explanation for the phrase ``work zone impacts''
is available in the section-by-section discussion of this NPRM and the
``Definitions and explanation of terms'' section of the proposed
regulation language.
ANPRM ``Transportation Planning and Programming'' Section--Comments
Summary
The purpose of the Transportation Planning and Programming section
was to identify whether the road user safety and mobility impacts of
work zones, and work zone safety requirements are
[[Page 24390]]
considered in Statewide, metropolitan and corridor transportation
planning and programming. Further, it also endeavored to assess the
feasibility of incorporating such considerations in transportation
planning and programming.
When asked if road user impacts of work zones are considered in
transportation planning and programming, about 24 percent of
respondents who provided comments on specific questions in the ANPRM
indicated that user-impacts are not currently considered in
transportation planning; 9 percent did not respond; 18 percent of the
responses were unclear; while 49 percent indicated that user impacts
are indeed considered in transportation planning. Even though 49
percent of the respondents said yes, many interpreted the question as
addressing early project-level planning verses the transportation
planning processes that develop long-range and short-term
transportation plans (LRTP's and TIP's). Therefore, there is a
significant amount of ambiguity in the responses to this question.
When asked if work zone impacts should be considered in
metropolitan, statewide and corridor level transportation planning, on
average, about 30 percent of the respondents who provided comments on
specific questions in the ANPRM said yes to metropolitan and statewide
planning, while 25 percent said no. Of the respondents who indicated
that work zone impacts should be considered in metropolitan planning,
74 percent belonged to DOTs, 4 percent were from private agencies, 13
percent represented trade associations, and 9 percent did not indicate
their agency affiliations. Of the respondents who indicated that work
zone impacts should be considered in statewide planning, 86 percent
belonged to DOTs, 5 percent were from private agencies, 5 percent
represented trade associations, and 5 percent did not indicate their
agency affiliations. On the other hand, a slightly higher number of
respondents who provided comments on specific questions in the ANPRM,
48 percent, indicated that work zone impacts should be considered in
corridor planning, while only 9 percent said no. It is noticeable that
about 40 percent of the respondents who provided comments on specific
questions in the ANPRM did not respond to any of these issues, which
indicates the level of ambiguity in the responses.
There were mixed responses to the adoption of crosscutting policy
level considerations to account for the safety and mobility impacts of
work zones in transportation planning and programming. Examples of such
crosscutting policy-level considerations include the use of more
durable materials, life-cycle costing, complete closure of facilities,
information sharing on utilities, etc. The purpose of adopting policies
on such cross-cutting issues is to facilitate a streamlined approach to
incorporate work zone considerations into transportation planning and
programming, and to serve as decisionmaking tools that help make better
decisions to mitigate the impacts of work zones, while planning,
programming, designing, and implementing projects. Most respondents did
not interpret the question appropriately, leading to several responses
that did not address this issue directly.
ANPRM ``Transportation Planning and Programming'' Section--FHWA
Response and Proposed Action
The provisions in the proposed amendments do not have a direct
effect on the transportation planning processes (i.e., LRTP and TIP)
that consider and develop transportation plans at a regional or
metropolitan level. The responses to the questions in the
transportation planning and programming section were ambiguous, with
several respondents either choosing not to answer the questions or
misinterpreting the questions as addressing early project-level
planning verses the transportation planning processes that develop
long-range and short-term transportation plans (LRTP's and TIP's).
Further, 23 CFR part 630 subpart J falls under the ``Engineering and
Traffic Operations'' area, and does not exercise authority over the
``Planning and Research'' areas.
The proposed changes do not have any implications on the
transportation planning processes that develop LRTP's and TIP's.
However, based on current industry trends and needs and on ongoing
research, the FHWA believes that it is important to consider the
impacts of work zones while developing transportation plans by
accounting for these impacts at the regional, network and corridor
levels, and suitably coordinating projects so as to minimize these
impacts. Certain State DOTs, for instance, the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), consider the impacts of work zones at the
systems planning level by evaluating the feasibility of the
implementation of multiple projects in their respective districts. The
FHWA intends to conduct further research and outreach to better
understand how work zone impacts can be incorporated in the
transportation planning and programming processes, and to further
develop the necessary tools and guidelines that will help States
implement such consideration.
ANPRM ``Project Design for Construction and Maintenance'' Section--
Comments Summary
The purpose of the Project Design for Construction and Maintenance
section in the ANPRM was to identify strategies and practices to make
better decisions on alternative project designs that may lead to
reductions in the need for recurrent road construction and maintenance
work, the duration of work zones and the disruption caused by work
zones. Examples of such considerations include life-cycle cost
analysis, alternative project scheduling and design strategies, such
as, full road closures and night time work, using more durable
materials, coordinating road construction, estimation of user costs/
impacts, risk and reward sharing with contractors, and constructability
reviews for projects.
The ANPRM queried the public on how the FHWA can encourage
considerations in project design and decisionmaking that may lead to
reductions in the need for recurrent road work, the duration of work
zones and the impacts of work zones. Examples of such considerations
include life-cycle cost analysis; alternative project scheduling and
design strategies, such as, full road closures and night time work;
using more durable materials; coordinating road construction;
estimation of user costs/impacts; risk and reward sharing with
contractors; and constructability reviews for projects. The following
is a summary of suggested methods for FHWA to facilitate these
considerations \10\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ We do not indicate percentages for this ANPRM question as
it was primarily a qualitative question that asked for suggestions
on methods to best incorporate considerations in project design to
reduce recurrent road work, the duration of work zones and the
impacts of work zones. What is presented is a summary of the most
popular suggestions and often repeated suggestions from the
respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[sbull] Several respondents suggested that FHWA develop procedures
and practices and provide guidelines for States to be able to
incorporate such considerations. A few respondents referred to the
``Work Zone Best Practices Guide'' as a good starting point.
[sbull] A few respondents (primarily State DOT's and a few trade
associations) suggested that the FHWA provide funding incentives for
States that adopt such practices.
[[Page 24391]]
[sbull] Very few respondents suggested mandatory requirements in
this regard.
[sbull] Some of the respondents suggested regulations on use of
life-cycle costing to make policy-level decisions on choice of highway
material.
When asked if ``user-cost'' could be a useful factor in
decisionmaking for alternative project designs, about 10 percent of the
respondents who provided comments on specific questions in the ANPRM
said no; 10 percent did not respond; 1 percent of the responses were
unclear; while an overwhelming majority of 79 percent said yes. Of the
respondents that said yes, 85 percent belonged to DOTs, 4 percent were
from private agencies, 10 percent represented trade associations, and 2
percent did not indicate their agency affiliations. When asked if
analytical tools should be used for the evaluation of various work zone
design alternatives and their estimated impacts, 1 percent said no; 39
percent did not respond; 18 percent of the responses were unclear;
while 42 percent said yes. Of the respondents that said yes, 79 percent
belonged to DOTs, 3 percent were from private agencies, 14 percent
represented trade associations, and 3 percent did not indicate their
agency affiliations.
When asked whether utility delays have been cited as obstacles to
efficient project delivery, several respondents said yes; while a
smaller number said no. Several suggestions were made on how best to
address utility delays in project design.
ANPRM ``Project Design for Construction and Maintenance'' Section--FHWA
Response and Proposed Action
The ANPRM comments led the FHWA to conclude that the respondents
acknowledge the need to account for work zone impacts of projects and
the associated costs to the public; and to consider alternative
strategies in project design and decisionmaking such as, choice of
longer-lasting materials, complete road-closures, work during night-
time and off-peak hours, innovative contracting techniques, and utility
coordination. It is also clear that the respondents prefer guidance in
this regard rather than regulation, and that very restrictive
regulations may affect innovation and creativity in the development of
work zone impact mitigation strategies. Therefore, the FHWA proposes to
amend the current regulation by introducing a new section on work zone
impacts analysis that will govern decisionmaking on project design
strategies and work zone impacts mitigation alternatives. These
proposed amendments provide flexibility to States in scaling the level
of detail required for the impacts analysis and evaluation of
alternative project options according to the unique characteristics of
each project and their respective program goals.
ANPRM ``Managing for Mobility and Safety In and Around Work Zones''
Section--Comments Summary
Technology is constantly evolving and there are many methods that
can be applied to managing traffic in and around work zones. The
application of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) for purposes,
such as, traffic management, automated enforcement, and traveler
information is a useful method to improve transportation safety and
mobility. The current and future safety and mobility challenges
presented by work zones may require Traffic Control Plans (TCPs) to
include traffic management, enforcement and operations considerations
(such as ITS based traffic control and traveler information, speed
management and enforcement, incident and emergency management, etc.),
security considerations, and other considerations (for example, utility
location and coordination information). The purpose of the managing for
mobility and safety section was therefore to identify the need for
expanding the content of TCPs and to outline improved methods and
strategies to manage, operate, and enforce work zones.
In general, several respondents indicated the need for
comprehensive traffic mitigation planning for work zones across all
stages of project development and delivery that would reduce the safety
and mobility impacts of work zones, by incorporating appropriate
mitigation strategies.
About 70 percent of the respondents who commented on specific
questions in the ANPRM indicated that the scope of TCPs should be
expanded to consider sustained traffic management, operations and
enforcement; about 12 percent said no; 12 percent did not respond;
while 6 percent of the responses were unclear. Of the respondents that
stated that the scope of TCPs should be expanded, 77 percent belonged
to DOTs, 2 percent were from other public agencies, 4 percent were from
private agencies, 15 percent represented trade associations, and 2
percent did not indicate their agency affiliations. Based on the
general preference of the respondents to the ANPRM, and on subsequent
outreach sessions conducted by the FHWA, it is evident that the scope
of TCPs should be expanded to account for sustained traffic management,
operations and enforcement for some projects.
With respect to the deployment of uniformed police officers in work
zones, it was evident from the ANPRM comments that several States have
increasingly been deploying uniformed police officers on roadway
construction projects. Respondents indicated that these practices are
successful in increasing motorist compliance, regulating work zone
travel speeds, and in reducing crashes.
When asked if TCPs should consider the security aspects of the
construction of critical transportation infrastructure, about 30
percent of the respondents who commented on specific questions in the
ANPRM said no; 15 percent did not respond; 9 percent of the responses
were unclear; while 46 percent said yes. Further, when asked if TCPs
should consider the security aspects of work zone activity in the
vicinity of critical transportation or other critical infrastructure,
33 percent of the respondents said no; 13 percent did not respond; 6
percent of the responses were unclear; while 48 percent said yes.
Several respondents commented that TCP's may not be the most
appropriate vehicles for security considerations. Security
considerations, where applicable, need to be addressed to the extent
possible in other comprehensive security planning efforts. Such
security plans should involve work zone considerations. At the same
time, many respondents also indicated that emergency-related traffic
management implications do apply to work zones, e.g., keeping work zone
lanes open during emergency evacuations such as hurricanes, and other
natural or man-made disasters.
When asked if more flexibility should be allowed in the development
of TCPs, 30 percent of the respondents who commented on specific
questions in the ANPRM said no; about 25 percent did not respond; 7
percent of the responses were unclear; while 37 percent said yes. Of
the respondents that said yes, 80 percent belonged to DOTs, 4 percent
were from other public agencies, 8 percent represented trade
associations, and 8 percent did not indicate their agency affiliations.
While a significant percentage of the respondents said ``no''--they
qualified their assertion by stating that flexibility should be allowed
in terms of allowing participation from law enforcement, public, and
contractors in TCP development, but it should ultimately be the project
owner--State DOT or other transportation agency who should develop and
approve TCPs. Further, it may be noted that Sec. 630.1010(a)(4) of the
[[Page 24392]]
current regulation states the following with regards to flexibility in
TCP development: ``Provisions may be made to permit contractors to
develop their own TCP's and use them if the State and FHWA find that
these plans are as good as or better than those provided in the plans,
specifications, and estimates (P.S. & E.).'' The current regulation
also requires a responsible person from the State, at the project
level, to ensure that the TCP and other safety aspects of the contract
are effectively administered. Representatives of the contracting
industry have also indicated that they are reluctant to develop their
own TCPs primarily because of liability concerns, and because there is
an impression that contractors may do this by cost-cutting at the risk
of safety.
When asked if certification should be required for TCP developers,
about 34 percent of the respondents indicated no; 27 percent did not
respond; about 5 percent of the responses were unclear; while 34
percent said yes. All respondents who said no were from DOTs. Of the
respondents that indicated yes, 78 percent belonged to DOTs, 17 percent
represented trade associations, and 4 percent did not indicate their
agency affiliations. Most States currently require TCPs to be signed
and sealed by licensed Professional Engineers (P.E.). A few respondents
recommended that all TCP developers be certified, or have undergone the
Traffic Control Supervisor (TCS) training. Some respondents suggested
the use of ``pre-qualified'' designers and contractors for the
development of TCPs, to avoid the possibility of unsafe or inadequate
TCPs. The regulation currently states that all persons responsible for
the development, design, implementation, and inspection of traffic
control shall be adequately trained.
When asked how TCPs should address considerations that are required
by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Pub. L. 101-336, July 26,
1990, 104 Stat 327, as amended), several respondents reasserted that
TCPs should include ADA considerations \11\ for urban projects with
pedestrian and other urban issues. They recommended several ways for
including ADA considerations in TCPs. Also, several respondents
indicated that TCPs should address ADA considerations only when ADA
considerations are already being met by the job-site (prior to
deployment of the work zone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The U.S. Access Board, the Federal agency charged with
developing accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities
under the ADA and other statutes, is currently completing work on
proposed guidelines for sidewalks, street crossings, and related
pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way that will include
accessibility provisions for work zones that are on or along
pedestrian routes. Draft proposed guidelines for public rights-of-
way accessibility were posted to the Board's Web site at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=www.access-board.gov
in June 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When asked if mobility and safety audits should be required for
work zones, 28 percent of the respondents who commented on specific
questions in the ANPRM said no; about 13 percent did not respond; 3
percent of the responses were unclear; while 55 percent of the
respondents said yes. About 95 percent of the respondents who said no
belonged to DOTs. Of the respondents who said yes, 81 percent belonged
to DOTs, 3 percent were from private agencies, 14 percent represented
trade associations, and 3 percent did not indicate their agency
affiliations. The current regulation mentions the need for training for
personnel responsible for traffic control inspection, but there are no
statements that require work zone safety inspections or mobility/safety
audits. Several States have policies that require work zone traffic
control and safety inspections to be performed by their construction
and safety inspectors.
ANPRM ``Managing for Mobility and Safety In and Around Work Zones''
Section--FHWA Response and Proposed Action
The responses to this section indicate strong support for expanding
TCPs to address sustained traffic management, operations and safety to
help mitigate the impacts of work zones. Sustained transportation
management and operations strategies include transportation systems
management, ITS, traveler information, incident management, procedures
for work zone operations during emergencies, and conduct of mobility
audits. Additional considerations include transportation operational
safety considerations such as enforcement in work zones, speed
monitoring and management, and conduct of safety audits.
The proposed amendments therefore include provisions that
facilitate the consideration of transportation management and
operations components that address sustained management, operations and
safety. These amendments include provisions for flexibility in
decisionmaking on the need for such strategies, and their scope and
level of detail, based upon individual project requirements and work
zone impacts. As suggested by the ANPRM comments, the proposed changes
would provide for flexibility as to who develops the TCP and the
transportation management and operations strategies, with ultimate
responsibility belonging to the State.
The issue of certification for TCP developers and/or other
personnel responsible for design, development and implementation of
work zone safety and mobility requirements was addressed by proposing
to include provisions in the regulation that require training for State
personnel involved in work zone related decision making, with
provisions that allow for flexibility in implementation commensurate
with the State's needs.
Since security aspects of construction related to critical
infrastructure are best addressed in other comprehensive security
planning efforts, the proposed changes do not address this issue. With
regard to ADA considerations for work zones, we propose language that
refers to the appropriate sections of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) that address Federal ADA compliance.
ANPRM ``Public Outreach and Communications'' Section--Comments Summary
To reduce the anxiety and frustration of the public, it is
important to sustain effective communications and outreach with the
public regarding road construction and maintenance activity, and the
potential impacts of these activities. This also increases the public's
awareness of such activities and their impacts on their lives. The lack
of information is often cited as a key cause of frustration for the
traveling public. Therefore, this section of the ANPRM attempted to
identify the key issues that need to be considered from a public
outreach and information perspective.
An overwhelming majority of the respondents were supportive of
reaching out to the public and keeping them informed about planned and
ongoing construction and maintenance activities. When asked if projects
with substantial disruption should include a public communications
plan, 10 percent of the respondents who commented on specific questions
in the ANPRM said no; 9 percent did not respond, while 81 percent
indicated yes. Of the respondents who indicated yes, 81 percent were
from DOTs, 2 percent belonged to private agencies, 13 percent
represented trade associations, and 4 percent did not indicate their
agency affiliation. Several States have recognized the need for
communicating with the public, both on an ongoing basis, and for
specific projects, and have been using various communications
techniques and media sources for getting the word out.
[[Page 24393]]
ANPRM ``Public Outreach and Communications'' Section--FHWA Response and
Proposed Action
There is strong support for public outreach and communications with
regard to work zones, and several transportation agencies are already
undertaking concerted efforts to better inform the public about the
safety and mobility aspects and impacts of work zones. The proposed
changes to the regulation therefore facilitate the consideration of
public information and outreach strategies as part of the work zone
impacts mitigation mechanisms; with flexibility for States in the
choice of the different strategies and their scope and level of detail,
based upon individual project requirements and work zone impacts.
ANPRM ``Work Zone Performance Monitoring and Reporting''--Comments
Summary
Evaluation is a necessary tool for analyzing failures and
identifying successes in work zone operations. Work zone performance
monitoring and reporting at a nationwide level has the potential to
increase the knowledge base on work zones and help better plan, design
and implement road construction and maintenance projects. The purpose
of this section in the ANPRM was to identify the adequacy and
appropriateness of the current data reporting, and the need for
enhanced and increased reporting of data on work zones by States. The
following data issues were addressed: work zone characteristics, work
zone mobility performance, and work zone safety performance.
When asked if States should report information on work zone
characteristics, about 46 percent of the respondents who commented on
specific questions in the ANPRM said no; 12 percent did not respond; 12
percent of the responses were unclear; while 30 percent said yes. Of
the respondents that said no, 91 percent belonged to DOTs. Of the
respondents that said yes, 70 percent belonged to DOTs.
When asked if States should report information on work zone
mobility performance, 40 percent said no; 21 percent did not respond; 1
percent of the responses were unclear; while 37 percent said yes. Of
the respondents who said no, 89 percent belonged to DOTs. Of the
respondents who said yes, 72 percent belonged to DOTs.
When asked if the current work zone safety data collection methods
and efforts are adequate and appropriate, 36 percent said no; 28
percent did not respond; 3 percent of the responses were unclear; while
33 percent of the respondents said yes. Of the respondents who said no,
72 percent belonged to DOTs. Of the respondents who said yes, 95
percent belonged to DOTs. Most of the respondents indicated that the
mobility measures mentioned in the ANPRM were appropriate, and that the
currently used safety measures are appropriate as well. Several
respondents indicated that although reporting information on work zone
characteristics, mobility performance and safety performance would be
useful, they cautioned against requiring unwieldy data collection by
States that are already strapped for cash and personnel. A fair number
of respondents also indicated the need for more standardized crash
reporting policies and procedures.
ANPRM ``Work Zone Performance Monitoring and Reporting'' Section--FHWA
Response and Proposed Action
While establishing the benefits of data collection and reporting on
the safety and mobility performance of work zones, the ANPRM comments
are mixed with respect to regulations that mandate such data collection
and reporting. The current provisions in the regulation require States
to analyze crashes and crash data to correct deficiencies on individual
projects and improve the content of future TCPs. We propose to retain
this provision, with the option to include other safety performance
measures (e.g., speed variance) as appropriate. Since performance
monitoring serves as a basis for process and content improvement in
work zone impacts mitigation, we propose to add a new provision that
encourages States to analyze work zone mobility data. There are no
proposed requirements on the type of analysis or the actual mobility
parameters that should be analyzed.
General Discussion of the Proposal
Summary of ANPRM Resolution and Areas Receiving Strong Support
The following is a summary of the areas that are strongly supported
by respondents to the ANPRM:
[sbull] There is support for a National policy on work zones that
explicitly addresses both safety and mobility. The policy should be
broad and address a wide range of issues. The FHWA should support the
policy by providing appropriate guidance to States. There needs to be
flexibility in the implementation of regulations, thereby enabling
creativity and innovation in work zone impacts mitigation.
[sbull] The policy should stratify work zone regulations and allow
flexibility to States in applying the regulations appropriately to
individual projects, based on the State's program goals and the work
zone impacts of the project.
[sbull] Work zone considerations should be mainstreamed and
institutionalized in State procedures.
[sbull] Comprehensive work zone impacts mitigation plans should be
developed. These plans should consider the work zone safety and
mobility impacts of projects early in project level planning, and
progress through the later stages of project development. Alternative
project options including design, procurement and construction
strategies that minimize these impacts should be developed and
evaluated. We get strong validation that the costs borne by users as a
result of the impacts of work zones could be a useful factor in
decisionmaking for evaluating alternative project designs. Work zone
induced user-costs are derivatives of the safety and mobility impacts
of work zones. Therefore, as part of considering work zone safety and
mobility in project development, there needs to be an analysis of the
impacts of work zones, which will then lead to development and
evaluation of alternative project designs and mitigation strategies.
States should however have the flexibility to scale their work zone
impacts analysis and evaluation of alternative project options and
mitigation strategies, based on the severity of anticipated work zone
impacts due to individual projects.
[sbull] The scope of TCPs should be expanded to address sustained
traffic management and operations considerations. There needs to be
flexibility for States in enlisting participation from law enforcement,
the public and contractors in developing TCPs, but ultimate
responsibility for the project should lie within the State.
The FHWA believes that the increasing pressures for work zone
safety and mobility, growth of reconstruction, and the concern voiced
by road users require reconsideration of how we plan, design and
construct roadway projects to focus on highway and worker safety, as
well as meet the mobility needs of our customers. Therefore, the
purpose of the proposed regulation is to:
[sbull] Reduce the safety and mobility impacts of highway work
zones on road users, workers, businesses, and society, and maximize the
availability of the roadway for efficient traffic movement while
ensuring worker safety and efficient construction.
[sbull] Enhance the way construction projects are currently
conceived,
[[Page 24394]]
planned, designed, and executed to more fully consider work zone
impacts on road users, workers, and other affected parties.
Summary of Proposed Changes
We propose changing the title of 23 CFR part 630 subpart J to
``Work Zone Safety and Mobility'' to more accurately represent the
impacts of work zones on the public. To this end, we propose to update
the ``Purpose'' and ``Policy'' sections of the current regulation to
emphasize the consideration of both the safety and mobility of work
zones. We also propose to amend and relocate some of the language that
is currently in the ``Background'' section to the ``Purpose'' section.
The ``Background'' section of the current regulation contains a
reference to the MUTCD, and its purpose and applicability. We propose
to amend this reference to the MUTCD and include it in a new section
entitled, ``References''.
The current regulation indicates that its purpose is to assure that
adequate consideration is given to all motorists, pedestrians, and
construction workers on all Federal-aid construction projects. We
propose language in this section to indicate that work zones have
impacts on bicyclists, and persons with disabilities, in addition to
motorists, pedestrians and workers. We propose to introduce the term
``road users,'' which encompasses motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists,
and persons with disabilities. We also propose language to indicate
that work zones impact other parties in addition to road users and
workers. We therefore propose to introduce the phrase ``other affected
parties,'' which may include public facilities like parks, recreational
facilities, fire stations, police stations, and hospitals, and private
parties such as businesses and residences.
Further, in the ``Purpose'' section we propose to provide a brief
synopsis of the safety and mobility impacts that work zones have on
road users, workers and other affected parties. We also propose to
indicate that these safety and mobility impacts of work zones are
exacerbated by growing congestion in many locations, and that
addressing these issues requires considerations that start early in
project development and continue through project completion.
The ``Background'' section of the current regulation recognizes the
importance of traffic control for work zone safety, and presents the
MUTCD as a guide that provides basic principles and standards for the
design and application of traffic control devices. We propose to amend
this reference to the MUTCD and include it in a new section entitled,
``References''. We propose to retain the current language that refers
to the MUTCD as a guide for traffic control, but augment it with
language that recognizes that there are considerations in addition to
traffic control that are required to comprehensively address the safety
and mobility impacts of work zones.
We propose to add a new section entitled, ``Definitions/Explanation
of Terms'' to explain the meaning and implications of certain terms
that are key to understanding and interpretation of the proposed
provisions in the regulation. The inclusion of this proposed new
section results in a change in the section numbering scheme.
We propose minor changes to the current section on
``Implementation'' to clearly indicate the responsibilities of States
and those of the FHWA Division Administrators, and to convey that
States and their respective FHWA Divisions are encouraged to work
together to ensure conformance with, and implementation of the
requirements of this proposed regulation.
We propose reorganizing the requirements that are currently under
the ``Contents of the Agency's Procedures'' into a new section
entitled, ``State Transportation Department Policy and Procedures.''
The purpose of this reorganization is to clearly delineate policy level
and project level requirements. The major proposed changes to the
regulation are located in this section. Most of the proposed changes
are developed around the consideration and analysis of the work zone
safety and mobility impacts of projects, and the development of
mitigation measures that are contained within a Transportation
Management Plan (TMP) for projects.
The section on ``State Transportation Department Policy'' consists
of proposed requirements that specify the following: development of a
``Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy'; provision of work zone related
``Training'' to personnel; conduct of ``Process Review and Evaluation';
and collection and analysis of ``Work Zone Performance Data.''
The proposed requirement for the development of a ``Work Zone
Safety and Mobility Policy'' is new. We propose that States develop
their own ``work zone safety and mobility policies'' that will support
the systematic consideration of work zone impacts across all stages of
project development; and address the safety and mobility needs of all
road users, workers, and other affected parties on all Federal aid
highway projects.
The proposed requirements on ``Training'' are part of the current
regulation with proposed changes that encourage documentation of the
training provided, and the provision of periodic training updates to
appropriate personnel.
The ``Process Review and Evaluation'' requirements are in the
current regulation, and we propose to modify the requirements to
provide flexibility to States with regard to the conduct of the
reviews, and the frequency and the type of reviews. We also propose to
encourage States to address these reviews in their respective
stewardship agreements with the FHWA Divisions.
We propose to remove the language on work zone crash data
collection and analysis from the current ``Process Review and
Evaluation'' section, and include it in a new paragraph entitled,
``Work Zone Performance Data.'' In this paragraph we propose changes
that encourage the collection and analysis of work zone mobility
performance data in addition to crash data.
In the project level requirements we propose a section that
outlines systematic ``Project Impact Analysis and Management
Procedures'' to include the following: conduct of ``Work Zone Impacts
Analysis'; development of a ``Transportation Management Plan (TMP)'';
development of provisions for ``Pay Items'' for work zone traffic
control and management; and assignment of ``Responsible Persons'' for
projects.
We propose a new section on Work Zone Impacts Analysis. It proposes
to require an analysis of work zone impacts for projects, and provides
flexibility to States in scaling the level of detail of the analysis
based on the anticipated work zone impacts of individual projects. It
also proposes that if States determine that a project is anticipated to
have minimal sustained work zone impacts, they may exempt the project
from the impacts analysis.
The TMP would be a new requirement and would include updated
requirements on the Traffic Control Plan (TCP). We propose to delete
the current language on TCP requirements for two-lane/two-way
operations on highways as they are available in the MUTCD. In addition
to the TCP, the TMP may consist of a Transportation Operations Plan
(TOP), and a Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP). The proposed
requirements indicate that TMPs are required for all projects, but the
TCP is the only mandatory component of TMPs. The need for the other two
components of the TMP, namely the TOP and the PIOP, is dependent upon
the State's policy
[[Page 24395]]
requirements and the severity of work zone impacts due to the project.
The ``Pay Items'' paragraph is an existing requirement with
proposed changes that would allow both method based and performance
based specifications for procurement. The ``Responsible Persons''
paragraph is an existing requirement with proposed changes that would
require a responsible person for projects from the contractor in
addition to the responsible person from the State.
By incorporating the proposed changes in 23 CFR 630 part subpart J,
the FHWA intends to facilitate creative thinking and innovation by the
States to mainstream work zone safety and mobility considerations in
their policies and procedures, and in their normal project development
process at appropriate levels. We believe that the approach we have
adopted in our proposed changes will allow for flexibility to States in
the application of the regulation according to their unique
circumstances and operating environments, their program goals, and the
needs of individual projects. The FHWA will continue to research best
practices for work zone safety and mobility and share them with States.
This will enable practitioners to modify best practices and incorporate
creative and innovative approaches that best suit their needs.
Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 630.1002 Purpose
Section 630.1002(a). The current regulation states that the purpose
of this subpart is to provide guidance and establish procedures to
assure that adequate consideration is given to motorists, pedestrians,
and workers on all Federal-aid construction projects. We propose to
restate that the purpose of this subpart is to address the safety and
mobility needs of all road users (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists,
and persons with disabilities), workers, and other affected parties on
all Federal-aid projects. These proposed changes are intended to
achieve the following:
[sbull] Convey the notion that adequate consideration should be
given to all road users, rather than just motorists, pedestrians and
workers. Therefore we propose to add the term ``all road users,'' which
is inclusive of ``motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with
disabilities.''
[sbull] Convey the notion that, in addition to road users, work
zones may have safety and mobility impacts on other parties that are
affected by the highway or street project. We therefore propose to
include the phrase ``and other affected parties,'' after ``workers.''
Affected parties may include: public facilities like parks,
recreational facilities, fire stations, police stations, and hospitals;
and private parties such as businesses and residences.
[sbull] Emphasize the importance of work zone safety and mobility,
by restating the purpose statement to specifically indicate that
adequate consideration should be given to the ``safety and mobility''
needs of road users (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons
with disabilities), workers, and other affected parties.
Section 630.1002(b). In this paragraph, we propose to indicate that
work zones cause safety and mobility impacts on road users, workers,
and affected properties. We propose to highlight one of the key issues
that we face today and in the future by stating that work zone impacts
are exacerbated by growing congestion in many locations. We therefore,
propose to assert that addressing the safety and mobility issues of
work zones requires considerations that go beyond the installation of
appropriate traffic control devices, and that these considerations
should start early in project development and continue through project
completion.
Section 630.1004 References
We propose to include a new section entitled, ``References'' which
contains amended language from the ``Background'' section of the
current regulation.
The ``Background'' section of the current regulation recognizes the
importance of traffic control for work zone safety, and presents the
MUTCD as a guide that provides basic principles and standards for the
design, application, installation, and maintenance of various types of
traffic control devices during highway construction projects,
maintenance operations, and utility work. Further, it discusses the
limitations of the MUTCD, the efforts taken by transportation agencies
in developing guidelines for work zone traffic control, and the need
for greater uniformity in work zone traffic control and more attention
to proper implementation of the MUTCD.
We propose to amend this reference to the MUTCD and include it in a
new section entitled, ``References''. We propose to retain the current
language that refers to the MUTCD as a guide for traffic control, but
augment it with language that recognizes that there are considerations
in addition to traffic control that are required to comprehensively
address the safety and mobility impacts of work zones.
We propose to retain the sentence that describes the content and
implications of the MUTCD with regards to provision of guidelines and
standards for traffic control. We identify that the MUTCD does not
address the other actions that should be taken to help comprehensively
mitigate the safety and mobility impacts of work zones. We recognize
the efforts taken by transportation agencies to mitigate the safety and
mobility impacts of work zones, but note that a more coordinated and
comprehensive effort is required to bring about greater consideration
of such work zone safety and mobility impacts.
Section 630.1006 Definitions and Explanation of Terms
This section is a new section which proposes to include definitions
for the terms, ``Work Zone,'' ``Work Zone Impacts,'' ``Transportation
Management Plan (TMP),'' ``Traffic Control Plan (TCP),''
``Transportation Operations Plan (TOP)'', and ``Public Information and
Outreach Plan (PIOP).'' We propose to add these definitions because
they are considered relevant to the proposed changes, and would have
direct implications on the application of the regulation by States.
Section 630.1008 Policy
We propose to change the section number for the ``Policy'' section
from Sec. 630.1006 to Sec. 630.1008. This section states FHWA's
policy on work zone safety and mobility for all Federal-aid highway
projects. We propose to include elements that would address the
``mobility'' needs in addition to those that would address the safety
needs of all road users, workers, and other affected parties. We
propose to amend the last sentence of the paragraph to indicate that
States are encouraged to implement these procedures for non-Federal-aid
projects, maintenance and utility operations as well.
Section 630.1010 Implementation
We propose to change the section number for the ``Implementation''
section from Sec. 630.1008 to Sec. 630.1010. The proposed content of
this section is very similar to that of the current regulation. This
section outlines the role of the FHWA Division Office, and that of the
State in implementing the provisions in the regulation. We propose to
modify the first sentence of this section to convey that in addition to
reviewing the State's implementation of its procedures, the FHWA shall
also be responsible for reviewing the ``conformance'' of the State's
procedures with this regulation. We also propose to
[[Page 24396]]
append the same sentence with language to convey that the
implementation of the regulations is a collaborative process between
the State and the FHWA Division Office, by adding the words, ``as
agreed upon by the FHWA and the State.'' This conveys that the State
and the FHWA Division Office may work together to develop appropriate
procedures and determine the most suitable intervals for the FHWA
Division Administrator to review the State's implementation of its
procedures. We do not propose any modifications to the second sentence
in this section. We propose to modify the last sentence in this section
of the current regulation by deleting the word ``major'' in ``or
revisions'' so as to eliminate ambiguity in interpretation.
Section 630.1012 State Transportation Department Policy and Procedures
We propose to reorganize the section entitled ``Contents of the
agency procedures,'' under a new title, ``State Transportation
Department Policy and Procedures.'' The purpose of this reorganization
is to clearly delineate policy level and project level requirements for
States. We propose to change the section number for this section from
Sec. 630.1010 to Sec. 630.1012. Our proposed changes to this section
are explained in the following paragraphs.
This section consists of two main requirements, which are: Sec.
630.1012(a) State Transportation Department Policy, and Sec.
630.1012(b) Project Impact Analysis and Management Procedures.
In Sec. 630.1012(a) ``State Transportation Department Policy'' we
propose policy level requirements for States to support the
consideration of work zone safety and mobility impacts in the project
development process.
In Sec. 630.1012(a) we propose to add the requirement for a ``Work
Zone Safety and Mobility Policy.'' This would be a new requirement,
where we propose that States shall develop their own ``work zone safety
and mobility policies'' that will support the systematic consideration
of work zone impacts across all stages of project development; and
address the safety and mobility needs of all road users, workers, and
other affected parties on all Federal-aid highway projects. All stages
of project development include early project level planning through
project design, traffic control and operations planning. Such policies
would facilitate easier and more streamlined decision making during
project development by providing a standardized approach, and by
serving as an implementation guide to practitioners who are involved in
planning, designing, and implementing road projects.
In Sec. 630.1012(a)(1)(i) we propose to make these policies
scaleable according to each State's unique requirements, and that the
State may apply its policy to different projects based on the severity
of work zone impacts of the project.
In Sec. 630.1012(a)(1)(ii) we propose to recommend that the State
involve personnel from different departments and representing the
different project development stages in the development of the policy.
The proposed language is general and would allow flexibility in the
role and makeup of the team. Such a team may be responsible for the
analysis and evaluation of the safety and mobility issues related to
work zones, and the development, improvement, and institutionalization
of the resultant project options as well as the work zone design and
impact mitigation strategies for different types of projects. Such a
multidisciplinary team may serve as a standing committee of experts on
work zones, and may help make informed decisions during the appropriate
stages of project development on how best to design and build projects,
and mitigate the impacts of work zones. The State may include other
stakeholders (i.e., other transportation agencies, police, fire,
emergency medical services, and regional transportation management
centers), and industry representatives (i.e., engineers, contractors)
in developing these policies.
The content of the policy would be determined by the State. The
following are examples of topics that may be addressed in these State
policies:
[sbull] Project Classification. A project classification system
would be a process to classify road projects into different types,
based on the severity of work zone impacts. This classification process
would allow the State to apply appropriate policies and practices for
the design, implementation, and management of work zones and their
impacts, that are best suited to specific project types. The different
parameters that affect work zone impacts of projects include, but are
not limited to: Road classification; area type (urban, suburban,
rural); traffic demand and travel characteristics (lanes affected,
Average Daily Traffic, expected capacity reduction, Level of Service);
type of work; complexity of work being performed (duration, length,
intensity); level of traffic interference with construction activity;
and potential impacts on local network and businesses. Project
classification systems may range from a simple scheme to classify
projects into high impact and low impact, to a multi-dimensional matrix
of projects that helps decisionmaking on appropriate work zones
treatments for different types of projects. At this time, there are no
recommended tiers of projects, and States may develop their own
classification system that best suits their needs. It is noteworthy
that a simple and straightforward classification system would ensure
that it is practical and is also easy to adopt and apply.
[sbull] Work Zone Performance Standards. Performance standards
would establish the safety and mobility performance requirements for
work zones for different types of projects, and thereby drive
appropriate planning, design and operational strategies that help
achieve the set requirements. An example of a performance standard for
work zones would be the establishment of a traffic management policy
that outlines performance standards for different types of projects.
Such a traffic management policy may also outline methods that
prescribe limits on lane closures, thresholds on delays and queues due
to work zones, and restrictions on work hours so as to achieve the
mobility performance standards for different types of projects. The
traffic management policy may also include safety performance standards
that outline requirements for crash reduction.
For example, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) has
developed and adopted a policy that sets limitations on the number of
lanes that may be closed for construction activities on freeways and
``freeway look-alikes'' (other highways that are similar to freeways).
Such performance standards for decisionmaking during the early project
planning and preliminary design stages would provide designers and
traffic control and operations planners an understanding of the
limitations that they are working under, thereby resulting in more
comprehensive and complete designs and traffic control and operations
plans, which may not require extensive changes during the final stages
of design, or during the actual construction phase.
[sbull] Development of Recommendations on Project Options, and Work
Zone Design and Impacts Mitigation Alternatives that Suit Different
Project Types. After the establishment of a project classification
system and appropriate performance standards, the State may then
develop recommendations on alternative project planning and design
solutions and strategies that best minimize the work zone impacts for
different project types. The availability of Statewide policies and
procedures on the most suitable
[[Page 24397]]
project options and work zone design and impacts mitigation strategies
for the different types of projects would streamline decisionmaking,
and ultimately make project delivery more efficient and effective, and
work zones less disruptive. Examples of alternative project options and
design strategies would include recommendations on work zone strategies
(e.g., night work, full-closure); design strategies (e.g., traffic
control, choice of materials, use of positive separation); contracting
strategies (e.g., low bid, design-build, A+B bidding, incentive/
disincentive contracting); and mitigation strategies (e.g., use of
intelligent transportation systems, traveler information, real-time
work zone monitoring, management and enforcement).
Section 630.1012(a)(2) ``Training.'' The proposed requirements in
the ``Training'' section are part of the current regulation in Sec.
630.1010(d). We propose to modify the current language in this section
by adding the words ``work zone related transportation management and''
after the word inspection. This would indicate that training related to
work zones is not limited to just subjects that address traffic control
for work zones. The proposed language reads as follows: ``All persons
responsible for the development, design, implementation, operation, and
inspection of work zone related transportation management and traffic
control shall be adequately trained.'' We propose to add another
sentence that encourages documentation of the successful training
received by the appropriate personnel, and the provision of periodic
training updates that reflect changing industry practices. The proposed
amendment would encourage States to keep records of training provided
to personnel, and also to periodically provide training updates that
are reflective of changing industry practices. The State may choose the
most appropriate intervals for providing training updates.
Section 630.1012(a)(3) ``Process Review and Evaluation.'' The
current requirements on ``Process Review and Evaluation'' are stated in
Sec. 630.1010(e) and we propose to relocate the current language to
Sec. 630.1012(a)(3). We propose to add language that would provide
flexibility to States on the frequency and the type of reviews. The
current regulation requires States to annually review randomly selected
projects throughout their jurisdiction for the purpose of assessing the
effectiveness of their procedures. We propose to lessen the burden on
States by changing the word ``shall'' to ``is encouraged'', and by
changing the requirement for ``annual'' reviews to ``periodic''
reviews. With increasing construction activity, and demand for time and
resources of State personnel, the requirement to conduct such reviews
on an annual basis may overburden States, resulting in perfunctory
reviews for the sake of meeting a regulatory requirement. We believe
that it is in the States' best interest to conduct reviews of processes
and projects at appropriate intervals, so that they can continually
improve their processes with regards to work zones and meet the needs
of their customers better.
Further, we also propose to remove the requirement for the review
and approval of the State's review results by the FHWA Division
Administrator. We believe that the process reviews and improvements
would be better achieved by a cooperative agreement and understanding
between the State and the FHWA Division, which may be addressed in the
stewardship agreement. We also propose to encourage States to include
an FHWA representative in the process reviews. An overarching proposal
would be to include both ``safety and mobility'' considerations in the
reviews.
Section 630.1012(a)(4) ``Work Zone Performance Data.'' The current
regulation consists of requirements on analysis of construction zone
accidents and accident data. These requirements are currently presented
under the ``Process Review and Evaluation,'' Sec. 630.1010(e)(2). We
propose to relocate the language on work zone crash data collection and
analysis from the current ``Process Review and Evaluation'' section and
include it under the title, ``Work Zone Performance Data.'' In Sec.
630.1012(a)(4)(i) we propose to retain the crash and crash data
analysis requirements, but change ``construction zone accidents and
accident data'' to ``crashes and crash data.'' We also propose that
States may include other safety performance measures in the analysis.
This would be to reflect the trend of increasingly deploying ITS and
other automated systems for work zones that indirectly help collect
better safety performance data on work zones. Such safety performance
measures would include data on speed variance and video data on work
zone traffic flow that may help identify potential safety improvements.
In Sec. 630.1012(a)(4)(ii) we propose to add language that would
encourage States to collect and analyze work zone mobility performance
data to continually improve work zone practices and policies. Examples
of mobility performance data would include delay, travel time, traffic
volumes, speed, and queue lengths. The purpose of these proposed
changes is to bring to the attention of States that both safety and
mobility performance measurement and analysis is an essential part of
ensuring that we develop and adopt the most effective and efficient
practices for improving work zone safety and mobility, thereby
delivering on the expectations of our customers.
In Sec. 630.1012(b) ``Project Impact Analysis and Management
Procedures'' we propose to require project level procedures that would
analyze the work zone impacts of alternative project options and design
strategies, and would develop mitigation measures that help manage the
work zone impacts. The proposed requirements are: ``Work Zone Impacts
Analysis'', ``Transportation Management Plan (TMP)'', ``Pay Items'',
and ``Responsible Persons.''
Section 630.1012(b)(1) ``Work Zone Impacts Analysis.'' This would
be a new requirement that would require States to analyze the work zone
safety and mobility impacts of alternative project options and work
zone design strategies, and develop appropriate measures to mitigate
the work zone impacts. The purpose of this impacts analysis would be to
understand the type, severity and the extent of the work zone impacts
associated with the different project alternatives, and to incorporate
appropriate mitigation measures and strategies in project design,
traffic control, transportation management and operations, and
construction. We propose to provide flexibility to States in the
performance of these impacts analyses by indicating that the scope and
level of detail of the analysis would vary based on the States'
policies and their understanding of the anticipated severity of work
zone impacts due to the project. For projects with minimal sustained
work zone impacts, the State would be exempt from performing a detailed
project specific impacts analysis.
States would be encouraged to start the impacts analysis early in
project development, and depending on the anticipated severity of work
zone impacts due to the project, continue the analysis through project
design, and traffic control and operations planning. This means that
States would be encouraged to adopt a gradual systematic process for
the impacts analysis by initially identifying the anticipated work zone
impacts of the project during early project level planning, and based
on this identification determine whether a more
[[Page 24398]]
detailed impacts analysis is required during the subsequent stages of
project development. As proposed, States would be required to document
the results of the work zone impacts analysis, the project options, the
work zone design strategies, and mitigation measures identified during
the process.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(1)(i) we propose to encourage States to
establish a team that would include representatives of the project
development stages to discuss, evaluate and document work zone issues,
and take responsibility for the development of the project design and
work zone mitigation strategies. The size and constitution of the
multidisciplinary team and the level of involvement required may vary
according to the anticipated work zone impacts. As proposed, we suggest
that non-State personnel and affected parties may also be included in
this team as appropriate. Such non-State personnel and affected parties
may include other transportation agencies, such as counties, cities,
local municipalities, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs),
transit providers, police and other emergency response agencies, and
representatives of affected businesses and residences.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(1)(ii) we propose language that states that
the impacts analysis would be a systematic process that may require the
use of appropriate analytical tools, depending on the degree of detail
required for the analysis. Such tools would include transportation
modeling and/or simulation software. We also propose that the impacts
analysis consist of three main activities that are explained as
follows:
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(1)(ii)(A) we propose to include a requirement
for States to understand the project, traffic and travel
characteristics, and identify the work zone impacts of the project
(including impacts of multiple projects at the corridor and network
levels, as appropriate).
States may begin by fully understanding the project, traffic and
travel characteristics and needs early on in project planning. Based on
this understanding the work zone impacts and the parties affected by
the work zone can be better identified. States may then develop an
overall project design and impacts mitigation strategy. Based on the
level of understanding gained from the early analysis, States may
decide upon the level of detail that is required for analyzing the work
zone impacts of alternative project options and design strategies, and
developing the most appropriate mitigation measures. Project, travel,
and traffic characteristics may include:
[sbull] Traffic demand and volumes, seasonal and temporal
variations in demand (hourly, daily, weekly), occurrence of special
events, percentages of different vehicular volumes (cars, trucks,
buses), type of travel (commuter or tourist), freight corridor, transit
corridor, business issues, and other such similar characteristics; and
[sbull] State policy requirements on impacts analysis and
mitigation requirements for the specific project type and/or regional
requirements on work zone impacts mitigation and management.
The work zone impacts of the project may include consideration of
the following:
[sbull] Impacts of the project at both the corridor and network
levels to include parallel corridors, alternate routes, the
transportation network, and other modes of transportation, impacts of
other work zones in the vicinity of the project, either at the corridor
level or the network level;
[sbull] Impacts on nearby transportation infrastructure, such as,
key intersections and interchanges, railroad crossings, public transit
junctions, and other junctions in the transportation network;
[sbull] Impacts on evacuation routes in the vicinity of critical
transportation or other infrastructure;
[sbull] Impacts on affected public properties, including parks,
recreational facilities, fire stations, police stations, and hospitals;
and
[sbull] Impacts of the project on affected private properties,
including businesses and residences.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(1)(ii)(B) we propose to add language that
discusses the development and evaluation of alternative project options
including design, procurement, and construction strategies that
minimize the work zone impacts of the project.
This activity would constitute the development of alternative
project options and the evaluation of the respective work zone impacts,
so as to mitigate and manage the impacts to the best extent possible.
The number of alternative project options and design strategies and the
level of detail of the analysis of the work zone impacts would depend
on the State's understanding of the individual project needs and the
anticipated severity of work zone impacts due to the project. Examples
of alternative project options would include design, procurement, and
construction strategies such as:
[sbull] Temporal alternatives for work performance such as season,
month, day of week (weekend vs. weekday), and time of day (night time
vs. day, off-peak vs. peak);
[sbull] Alternative lane closure strategies such as full-closure,
partial closure, cross-overs, multiple lane closure, single lane
closure; and impact of alternative traffic management strategies on
lane-closure decisions;
[sbull] Alternative design solutions that address the durability
and economy of maintenance of the roadway;
[sbull] Alternative design solutions and strategies that impact
decision making on Right of Way (ROW) acquisition;
[sbull] Alternative construction staging plans, and construction
techniques and methodologies (e.g., accelerated construction
techniques) that may have varying types and severity of work zone
impacts; and
[sbull] Alternative contracting methodologies such as low-bid,
design-build, A+B bidding, and incentive/disincentive contracting.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(1)(ii)(C) we propose to add language that
would address the development of transportation management
recommendations that mitigate the work zone impacts of the project for
the chosen project option, including traffic control, transportation
operations and safety, and public information and outreach strategies.
As a final activity in the impacts analysis, this process would
develop appropriate transportation management recommendations that
would mitigate the work zone impacts of the project. Such
transportation management recommendations would include traffic control
requirements, transportation operations and safety requirements, and
public information and outreach requirements. These requirements would
be grouped and documented in the TMP, which is explained in the
following paragraphs.
Traffic control requirements would include recommendations on
strategies to safely and efficiently handle traffic flow through the
actual work zone itself. Examples of traffic control requirements would
include recommendations on lane closure widths, work zone and work area
configuration, tapers, and the choice and positioning of traffic
control and safety devices.
Examples of transportation operations recommendations would include
the following:
[sbull] The deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
technologies for work zone traffic monitoring and management;
[sbull] Provision of real-time traveler information to the public,
including information provision on Web sites;
[[Page 24399]]
[sbull] Application of transportation systems management (TSM) and
corridor management strategies, including mitigation treatments for
alternate routes (for e.g., traffic signal timing adjustment on
affected corridors), and alternate modes (for e.g., public transit
subsidies, incentives and special programs);
[sbull] Coordination of transportation management with existing
regional Transportation Management Centers (TMCs);
[sbull] Conduct of mobility and safety reviews and audits;
[sbull] Speed enforcement and management in work zones using either
police officers or through automated techniques;
[sbull] Incident management plans for work zones; and
[sbull] Policies on work zone traffic management during emergency
situations, for e.g., hurricane evacuations or other natural disasters.
Examples of public information and outreach recommendations may
include the following communications requirements:
[sbull] Provision of project and work zone information prior to the
commencement of the work in order to make the public aware of the
expected work zone impacts and the State's actions to mitigate the
impacts;
[sbull] Provision of recommendations to the public on commuter
alternatives, such as information on alternate routes and alternate
modes;
[sbull] Provision of information on changing conditions on the
project during the course of its implementation (for e.g., changes in
lane closure scenarios, construction staging, construction times,
alternate routing); and
[sbull] Obtaining public input into the development of appropriate
work zone impacts mitigation strategies during the planning and design
phases of the project; the refinement of work zone traffic management
and mitigation strategies during the course of the project
implementation; and public feedback on performance of the work zone and
project after the completion of the project.
Examples of public information and outreach sources that the State
may consider for the public information and outreach plan would include
the following:
[sbull] Dissemination of information through brochures, pamphlets
and media sources including newspapers, television and radio channels,
and Web sites;
[sbull] Public meetings and hearings;
[sbull] Coordination and cooperation with affected public and
private parties;
[sbull] Establishment of telephone hotlines; and
[sbull] Focus groups, surveys, and market research for obtaining
input and feedback from the public.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(2) we propose to establish the requirement for
a Transportation Management Plan (TMP). The TMP would be a new
requirement with the current requirements on the Traffic Control Plan
(TCP) updated and rolled into it. The TMP would document the work zone
mitigation and management strategies recommended by the work zone
impacts analysis.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(2) we propose language to indicate that a TMP
would document the mitigation strategies identified during the work
zone impacts analysis. We propose that a TMP would have three
coordinated components, namely the Traffic Control Plan (TCP), the
Transportation Operations Plan (TOP), and the Public Information and
Outreach Plan (PIOP). We propose to indicate that the content and
degree of detail of the TMP will vary according to the severity of work
zone impacts due to the project. We propose to require that States
shall develop TMPs for projects based on their policy requirements and
the severity of work zone impacts due to the project. We then propose
to outline the requirements for the individual TMP components in Sec.
630.1012(b)(2)(i)--``TCP,'' Sec. 630.1012(b)(2)(ii)--``TOP,'' and
Sec. 630.1012(b)(2)(iii)--``PIOP.'' The proposed content for these
sections are explained in the following paragraphs.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(2)(i) we outline the proposed requirements for
a Traffic Control Plan (TCP). As proposed, the TMP would include a TCP
or provisions that would allow contractors to develop a State approved
TCP prior to the start of work. This means that TCPs would be developed
for all projects. It also means that States may involve contractors in
the development of TCPs based on their understanding of the
construction staging and strategies.
We propose to retain the current language on the definition of
TCPs, and include the consideration of mobility by stating that it is a
plan for safely and efficiently handling traffic through a specific
highway or street work zone or project. We propose that TCPs may range
in scope from a very detailed TCP designed solely for a specific
project, a section of the MUTCD, or reference to approved standard
plans or State transportation department manual. We also propose that
for projects that have minimal work zone impacts, the TCP would be the
only component of the TMP.
The scope of the TCP would be determined by the anticipated
construction staging and scheduling, and the traffic safety and control
requirements identified in the work zone impacts analysis. The plans,
specifications, and estimates (P.S. & E.s) would include either a
State-prepared TCP; or provisions for contractors to develop a TCP,
approved by the State, prior to start of the work. We also propose to
retain the current language that the TCP shall be consistent with the
provisions of the MUTCD.
We propose to delete the current language in the regulation that
addresses TCP requirements for the work zone operations of two-lane,
two-way highways as that language is available in the MUTCD. The reason
why we propose to include the TCP as a component of the TMP is to
present the need for a synergistic, coordinated approach to developing
and implementing traffic control and transportation management
strategies.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(2)(ii) we outline the requirements for a
Transportation Operations Plan (TOP). We propose to include the
development of a TOP as part of the TMP for projects. We propose that
States would include a TOP in the TMP if recommended by the results of
the work zone impacts analysis. A TOP would include considerations that
address the safety and mobility of the transportation system by
adopting strategies for the sustained operations and management of the
work zone impact area. Such strategies would include transportation
systems management; corridor management; and traffic management
operations and safety (i.e., ITS based traffic control and traveler
information, speed management and enforcement, incident and emergency
management, safety reviews and audits). We propose to recommend that
States coordinate the TOP with stakeholders (i.e., other transportation
agencies, police, fire, emergency medical services, and regional
transportation management centers).
We propose to indicate that the scope of the TOP would be
determined by the transportation operations and safety requirements
identified in the work zone impacts analysis. We propose that the TOP
may be included in the P.S. & E.s. This would provide the State
flexibility to contract the TOP as part of the overall contract for the
project, or hire a separate contractor for implementing the TOP. We
also propose that provisions may be made in the P.S.&E.s for
contractors to develop a TOP, approved by the State, prior to the
[[Page 24400]]
start of work. This would provide the State an opportunity to involve
the contractor in the development of the TOP.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(2)(iii) we outline the requirements for a
Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP). We propose to include the
development of PIOPs as part of the TMP for projects. We propose that
States would include a PIOP in the TMP, if recommended by the results
of the work zone impacts analysis. A PIOP would consist of project
level communications that would ensure that affected road users, the
general public, residences and businesses, and the appropriate public
entities are informed about the project, the expected work zone
impacts, and the changing conditions of the project. Through the PIOP
we propose to encourage States to provide adequate (i.e., frequent,
current, and near-real-time where appropriate) information for the
affected parties to make informed travel decisions that help alleviate
the work zone impacts of the project.
We propose to identify that the scope of the PIOP would be
determined by the public information and outreach requirements
identified in the work zone impacts analysis. We propose that the State
may choose to include the PIOP in the P.S.&E.s. This would provide the
State the flexibility to contract the PIOP as part of the overall
contract for the project, or hire a separate contractor for
implementing the PIOP. We also propose that alternatively, States may
choose to include provisions in the P.S.&E.s for contractors to develop
a PIOP, approved by the State, prior to the start of work. This would
provide the State an opportunity to involve the contractor in the
development of the PIOP.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(3) we propose to amend the requirements for
``Pay Items.'' This is an existing requirement, with proposed changes
that would allow both method based and performance based specifications
for procurement, and emphasize the need for unit pay items in the case
of method based procurement for TCPs. It also proposes to allow the
State flexibility in including the other TMP components in the P.S.&E.
package.
In Sec. 630.1012(b)(4) we propose to amend the requirements for
``Responsible Persons.'' This is an existing requirement, with proposed
changes that would require a responsible person at the project level
from the contractor, in addition to the responsible person from the
State.
Compliance Date
We propose that the compliance date be 3 years after the effective
date of the final rule. This would allow States time to implement the
proposed requirements.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this
document in the docket room at the above address. We will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the docket and will consider
later comments to the extent practicable. We may, however, issue a
final rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In
addition to late comments, we will also continue to file, in the
docket, relevant information becoming available after the comment
closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the
docket for new material.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that the proposed rule would not be a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and would not be significant within the meaning of Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated
that the economic impact of this action would be minimal.
These proposed changes are not anticipated to adversely affect, in
a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes
are not likely to interfere with any action taken or planned by another
agency or to materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs.
Based upon the information received in response to this NPRM, the
FHWA intends to carefully consider the costs and benefits associated
with this rulemaking. Accordingly, comments, information, and data are
solicited on the economic impact of the changes described in this
document or any alternative proposal submitted.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of this rule on small
entities. This rule applies to State departments of transportation in
the execution of their highway program with respect to work zones. The
implementation of the proposed provisions in this rule will therefore
not affect the economic viability or sustenance of small entities.
Accordingly, the FHWA certifies that the proposed action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed action does not impose unfunded mandates as defined
by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22,
1995, 109 Stat. 48). The actions proposed in this NPRM would not result
in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995, the FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that
might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the
affects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated
August 4, 1999, and it has been determined that this proposed action
does not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism
implications on States that would limit the policymaking discretion of
the States. Nothing in this document directly preempts any State law or
regulation or affects the States' ability to discharge traditional
State governmental functions.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations.
The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule contains a
requirement for data and information to be collected and maintained in
the support of design, construction, and operational decisions that
affect the safety and
[[Page 24401]]
mobility of the traveling public related to highway and roadway work
zones. In order to streamline the process, the FHWA intends to request
that the OMB approve a single information collection clearance for all
of the data in the proposed regulation.
The FHWA estimates that a total of 83,200 burden hours per year
would be imposed on non-Federal entities to provide the required
information for the proposed regulation requirements. Respondents to
this information collection include State Transportation Departments
from all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The
estimates here only include burdens on the respondents to provide
information that is not usually and customarily collected.
The FHWA is required to submit this proposed collection of
information to OMB for review and approval, and accordingly, seeks
public comments. Comments regarding any aspect of these information
collection requirement, including, but not limited to: (1) Whether the
collection of information is necessary for the performance of the
functions of the FHWA, including whether the information has practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of
the information collected.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that this proposed action
will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes;
will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; and will not preempt tribal law. This rulemaking primarily
applies to urbanized metropolitan areas and National Highway System
(NHS) roadways that are under the jurisdiction of State transportation
departments. The purpose of this proposed action is to mitigate the
safety and mobility impacts of highway construction and maintenance
projects on the transportation system, and would not impose any direct
compliance requirements on Indian tribal governments and will not have
any economic or other impacts on the viability of Indian tribes.
Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use. We have determined that this proposed
action will not be a significant energy action under that order because
any action contemplated will not be a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 and will not be likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, we believe that the implementation of the proposed
provisions by State departments of transportation would reduce the
amount of congested travel on our highways, thereby reducing the fuel
consumption associated with congested travel. Therefore, the FHWA
certifies that a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order
13211 is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 et seq.)
and has determined that this proposed action will not have any effect
on the quality of the environment. Further, we believe that the
implementation of the proposed provisions by State departments of
transportation would reduce the amount of congested travel on our
highways. This reduction in congested travel would reduce automobile
emissions that are induced by congested travel, thereby contributing to
a cleaner environment.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
12630, Governmental Actions and Interface with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this
proposed action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this proposed action will not
cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 630
Government contracts, Grant programs--transportation, Highway
safety, Highways and roads, Project agreement, Traffic regulations.
Issued on April 29, 2003.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to revise
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 630, subpart J as set forth
below:
PART 630--PRECONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106, 109, 115, 315, 320, and 402(a); 23 CFR
1.32; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).
2. Revise subpart J of part 630 to read as follows:
Subpart J--Work Zone Safety and Mobility
Sec.
630.1002 Purpose.
630.1004 References.
630.1006 Definitions and explanation of terms.
630.1008 Policy.
630.1010 Implementation.
630.1012 State transportation department policy and procedures.
630.1014 Compliance date.
Sec. 630.1002 Purpose.
(a) This subpart provides guidance and establishes procedures to
assure that adequate consideration is given to the safety and mobility
of all road users (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with
disabilities \1\), workers,
[[Page 24402]]
and other affected parties on all Federal-aid projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Americans with Disabilities Act (Pub. L. 101-336, 104
Stat. 327 (1990)) requires that people with disabilities not be
discriminated against and provided the same opportunities as non-
disabled people. This applies to issues of access in work zones
(Title II & III, ADA). Since 1991 there have been specific design
standards, Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) that provide minimum requirements for all environments
including temporary work done by utility companies. The existing
ADAAG standards are codified at 28 CFR part 36 as Appendix A.
Compliance with the ADAAG standards or with the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS), (which is codified at Appendix A to
41 CFR part 101-19.6) constitutes compliance with Federal ADA
accessibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Work zones impact the safety and mobility of road users,
workers, businesses, and other affected parties. These safety and
mobility impacts are exacerbated by growing congestion in many
locations. Addressing these issues requires considerations that start
early in project development and continue through project completion.
These considerations go beyond the installation of appropriate traffic
control devices.
Sec. 630.1004 References.
Part 6 of the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) \2\
sets forth basic principles and prescribes standards for the design,
application, installation, and maintenance of the various types of
traffic control devices for highway and street construction,
maintenance operation, and utility work. However, the MUTCD does not
address the other actions that should be taken to help mitigate the
safety and mobility impacts of work zones. Although agencies
responsible for road projects have taken some steps to consider work
zone safety and mobility impacts in project development, a coordinated
and comprehensive effort is required to bring about greater
consideration of such work zone safety and mobility impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MUTCD Millenium Edition (official FHWA publication is in
electronic format only) is available at the URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
A looseleaf binder format of the MUTCD is
published by a partnership of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Traffic
Safety Association (ATSSA), and the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE), and is available for purchase at the URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.aashto.org/bookstore
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 630.1006 Definitions and explanation of terms.
As used in this subpart:
Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP) means project level
communications that ensure that affected road users, the general
public, residences and businesses, and the appropriate public entities
are informed about the project, the expected work zone impacts, and the
changing conditions on the project.
Traffic Control Plan (TCP) means a plan for safely and efficiently
handling traffic through a specific highway or street work zone or
project.
Transportation Management Plan (TMP) means a document which
outlines various transportation management strategies to alleviate work
zone impacts of projects. These strategies address traffic control,
transportation operations and safety, and public information and
outreach, which are aligned in the TMP as three coordinated components:
a traffic control plan (TCP), a traffic operations plan (TOP), and a
public information and outreach plan (PIOP). The content of the TMP
will vary based on the severity of work zone impacts due to a project.
Transportation Operations Plan (TOP) means considerations that
address the safety and mobility of the transportation system by
adopting strategies for the sustained operations and management of the
work zone impact area. The TOP consists of strategies that address
transportation systems management; corridor management; and traffic
management operations and safety (i.e., Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) based traffic control and traveler information, speed
management and enforcement, incident and emergency management, safety
reviews and audits).
Work zone \3\ means an area of a highway with construction,
maintenance, or utility work activities. A work zone is typically
marked by signs, channelizing devices, barriers, pavement markings,
and/or work vehicles. It extends from the first warning sign or
rotating/strobe lights on a vehicle to the END ROAD WORK sign or the
last temporary traffic control device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ MUTCD, Part 6, Temporary Traffic Control Zones, sec. 6C. 02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work zone crash means a traffic crash in which the first harmful
event occurs within the boundaries of a work zone or on an approach to
or exit from a work zone, resulting from an activity, behavior or
control related to the movement of the traffic units through the work
zone. Includes collision and non-collision crashes occurring on
approach to, exiting from or adjacent to work zones that are related to
the work zone.
Work zone impacts means the deviation from normalcy of the
transportation system induced by work zones, resulting in impacts on
the safety and mobility of road users, workers, and other affected
parties. The extent of the work zone impacts may vary based on factors
such as road classification, area type (urban, suburban, and rural),
traffic and travel characteristics, type of work being performed, and
complexity of the project. These impacts may extend beyond the physical
location of the work zone itself, and may be felt on the roadway on
which the work is being performed, as well as other highway corridors,
other modes of transportation, and (or) the regional transportation
network to which the influence of the work zone extends.
Sec. 630.1008 Policy.
It is the policy of the Federal Highway Administration that each
State Transportation Department (hereinafter referred to as ``State'')
shall develop and implement policies and procedures consistent with the
requirements of this regulation that will assure the safety and
mobility needs of all road users, construction workers, and other
affected parties on Federal-aid highway projects. States are encouraged
to implement these policies and procedures for non-Federal-aid highway
projects.
Sec. 630.1010 Implementation.
The FHWA shall review the conformance of the State's policies and
procedures with this regulation, and reassess the State's
implementation of its procedures at appropriate intervals. The FHWA
shall take other appropriate actions to assure that the State's
policies and procedures are being followed and achieve the results
intended. Revisions in established policies and procedures shall be
submitted to the FHWA for information.
Sec. 630.1012 State Transportation Department Policy and Procedures.
The State transportation department policy and procedures shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
(a) State Transportation Department Policy.--(1) Work Zone Safety
and Mobility Policy. Each State 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.
(i) 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.
(ii) States are 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.
[[Page 24403]]
(2) Training. All persons responsible for the development, design,
implementation, operation, and inspection of work zone related
transportation management and traffic control shall be adequately
trained. States are encouraged to keep records of the training
successfully completed by these personnel, and provide periodic
training updates that reflect changing industry practices.
(3) Process review and evaluation. In order to assess the
effectiveness of work zone safety and mobility procedures, States are
encouraged to perform a periodic process review and evaluation, or
review randomly selected projects throughout their jurisdictions.
Appropriate State personnel who are representative of the project
development stages and the different departments within the State are
encouraged to participate in this review. States are encouraged to
include an FHWA representative as a member of the review team, and to
address the reviews in the stewardship agreements between each State
and the FHWA.
(4) Work zone performance data. (i) Work zone crashes and crash
data shall be analyzed and used to correct deficiencies which are found
to exist on individual projects, and to continually improve work zone
practices and policies. Other safety performance factors may be
included in the analysis.
(ii) States are encouraged to collect and analyze work zone
mobility performance data to correct deficiencies, which are found to
exist on individual projects, and to continually improve work zone
practices and policies.
(b) Project impact analysis and management procedures.--(1) Work
Zone Impacts Analysis. The State shall analyze the 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 due to the project. If the State determines that a project
is expected to have minimal sustained work zone impacts, they may
exempt the project from the impacts analysis. The State is encouraged
to start the impacts analysis early in the project development process
and, depending upon the anticipated severity of work zone impacts due
to the project, continue the analysis through project design, and
traffic control and operations planning. The resultant project options
and work zone design strategies and the mitigation measures recommended
by the work zone impacts analysis shall be appropriately documented.
(i) The State is encouraged to establish a team that includes
representatives of the project development stages to discuss, evaluate
and document work zone issues, and take responsibility for the
development of the project design and work zone mitigation strategies.
Non-State personnel, including transit providers, freight movers,
public safety and other affected parties, may be included in this team
as appropriate.
(ii) The work zone impacts analysis is a systematic process that
may require the use of appropriate analytical tools. It consists of the
following activities:
(A) Understanding of the project and traffic and travel
characteristics, and identification of the work zone impacts of the
project (including impacts of multiple projects at the corridor and
network levels, as appropriate).
(B) Development and evaluation of alternative project options
including design, procurement, and construction strategies that
minimize the work zone impacts of the project.
(C) Development of transportation management recommendations that
mitigate the work zone impacts of the project, including traffic
control, transportation operations and safety, and public information
and outreach strategies.
(2) Transportation Management Plan (TMP). A Transportation
Management Plan (TMP) documents the mitigation strategies identified
during the work zone impacts analysis. A TMP has three coordinated
components: Traffic Control Plan (TCP), Transportation Operations Plan
(TOP), and Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP). The content and
degree of detail of the TMP components will depend on the severity of
work zone impacts due to the project. Based upon the State's policy
requirements and the recommendations from the work zone impacts
analysis, the State shall develop a TMP for the project. The
requirements for the TMP components are as follows:
(i) Traffic Control Plan (TCP). (A) The TMP shall include a TCP or
provisions for the development of a State-approved TCP prior to start
of work. A TCP is a plan for safely and efficiently handling traffic
through a specific highway or street work zone or project. These plans
may range in scope from a very detailed TCP designed solely for a
specific project, a reference to a specific section of the MUTCD, or
reference to approved standard plans or State transportation department
manual.
(B) For projects that have minimal work zone impacts, the TCP may
be the only component of the TMP.
(C) The scope of the TCP is determined by the anticipated work
staging and scheduling, and the traffic safety and control requirements
identified in the work zone impacts analysis.
(D) The plans, specifications, and estimates (P.S.&E.s) shall
include either a State-prepared TCP; or provisions for contractors to
develop a TCP, approved by the State, prior to start of the work.
(E) The TCP shall be consistent with the MUTCD provisions for
Temporary Traffic Control Zones and Temporary Traffic Control Plans.
(ii) Transportation Operations Plan (TOP). (A) If recommended by
the results of the work zone impacts analysis, the TMP shall include a
TOP. A TOP includes considerations that address the safety and mobility
of the transportation system by adopting strategies for the sustained
operations and management of the work zone impact area.
(B) The TOP consists of strategies that address transportation
systems management; corridor management; and traffic management
operations and safety (i.e., Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
based traffic control and traveler information, speed management and
enforcement, incident and emergency management, safety reviews and
audits). Development and sustained coordination of the TOP in
partnership with stakeholders (i.e., other transportation agencies,
transit providers, freight movers, utility suppliers, police, fire,
emergency medical services, and regional transportation management
centers) is encouraged.
(C) The scope of the TOP is determined by the transportation
operations and safety requirements identified in the work zone impacts
analysis.
(D) The TOP may be included in the P.S.&E.s. Alternatively,
provisions may be made in the P.S.&E.s for contractors to develop a
TOP, approved by the State, prior to the start of work.
(iii) Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP). (A) If
recommended by the results of the work zone impacts analysis, the TMP
shall include a PIOP. A PIOP consists of project level communications
that ensure that affected road users, the general public, residences
and businesses, and the appropriate public entities are informed about
the project, the expected work zone impacts, and the changing
conditions on the project.
[[Page 24404]]
(B) Through the PIOP, States are encouraged to provide adequate
(i.e., frequent, current, and near-real-time where appropriate)
information for the affected parties to make informed travel decisions
that help alleviate the work zone impacts of the project.
(C) The scope of the PIOP is determined by the public information
and outreach requirements identified in the work zone impacts analysis.
(D) The PIOP may be included in the P.S.&E.s. Alternatively,
provisions may be made in the P.S.&E.s for contractors to develop a
PIOP, approved by the State, prior to the start of work.
(3) Pay Items. (i) The P.S. & E.s shall include pay item provisions
for implementing the TCP. For method-based specifications for
implementing the TCP, the P.S.&E.s shall include unit pay items to
cover the cost of providing, installing, moving, replacing,
maintaining, and cleaning traffic control devices. In the case of
performance specifications, the P.S.&E.s will include pay item
provisions for the targeted performance criteria. Suitable force
account procedures may be used. Lump-sum method of payment may be used
only to cover very small projects, projects of short duration,
contingency, and general items.
(ii) The State may choose to include appropriate pay item
provisions for the other TMP components in the P.S.&E.s.
(4) Responsible Persons. The State and the contractor shall each
designate a qualified person at the project level who will have the
primary responsibility and sufficient authority for assuring that the
TMP and other safety and mobility aspects of the contract are
effectively administered.
Sec. 630.1014 Compliance Date.
State Transportation Departments must comply with all elements of
this policy no later than June 6, 2006.
[FR Doc. 03-11020 Filed 5-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P