TxDOT has used drone radar in both rural and urban work zones, mostly in mobile operations. It was perceived to be somewhat effective as a speed control measure.
Problem: It targets only road users with radar detecting equipment in their vehicles. There are no established TxDOT policy/guidelines on the use of drone radar.
Comments: It seems to be a helpful tool, especially in mobile and/or short-duration work areas where speed is high and truck volumes constitute a large portion of the ADT. Radar Speed Monitor Trailers are more commonly used and give more information to a wider range of drivers.
Electrical and mechanical safety intrusion alarms have been used in work zones. These were perceived to be somewhat effective.
Problem: When false alarms occur often, workers begin to disregard the alarms.
Written report: There was an evaluation of the IRD Sonoblaster sent to TxDOT’s Research and Technology Implementation Office on 11/20/2003 listing it as an acceptable device. There are no established TxDOT policy/guidelines on the use of safety intrusion alarms in work zones.
The CB Wizard Alert System has been used in rural high-speed stationary long-term work zones. It was perceived to be somewhat effective.
Problem: Alerts do not reach all road users. There has been a report on the use of CB Wizard. See TTI Project 02137. There are no established TxDOT policy/guidelines on the use of CB Wizard in work zones.
TxDOT has not used automated flaggers in work zones, but the TxDOT Wichita Falls District conducted field trials. There are no established TxDOT policy/guidelines on the use of automated flaggers in work zones.
Comments: The Texas Transportation Institute has prepared two related reports for TxDOT (Report 3926-1 and 3926-2) covering the feasibility of, and guidelines for the use of portable traffic signals to replace flaggers in work zones. These devices are different from automated flaggers, but are somewhat similar in appearance and function to the automated flagging devices.