1. Federal Highway Administration, USDOT Work Zone Mobility and Safety
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
proposed changes to
23 CFR 630 Subpart J
General Information for IPT Presenters
We can take comments from the audience and hear and document what they have to say.
But we cannot debate any of the issues that are presented herein, and nor can we get into discussions on any of the issues they raise.
At the end of the update, please check to see if anybody has any comments or feedback that they would like to provide.

2. Agenda Why update this regulation? Background Current schedule
Overview of Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM)
Overview of Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)

3. Why Update this Regulation?
Section 1051 of ISTEA required the Secretary of Transportation to develop and implement a highway safety program
FHWA, through non-regulatory action, established the National Highway Work Zone Safety Program (NHWSP)
The NHWZSP language indicated that the FHWA would review current work zone problems and update the regulation to better reflect the current needs for improved safety and to minimize disruptions to traffic during the construction of highway projects

4. Background Agency Focus FHWA Strategic Goals FHWA Vital Few
Safety
Mobility and Productivity
Environment
National Security
Organizational Excellence
FHWA Vital Few
Safety
Environmental Streamlining
Congestion
Work Zones
Congestion reduction
Congestion reduction leads to safer work zones

5. Background Construction Spending is Increasing
160,000 miles of National Highway System and 300,000 miles of arterials reaching “middle age”
Over the life of TEA-21, highway construction funding increased nearly 40%
We are experiencing and can expect MORE WORK ZONES
Annual Infrastructure Expenditure includes:
Expenditures for designing, constructing, maintaining, and operating our infrastructure
We estimate that 20.9% of the National Highway System is under construction at any time during the peak summer roadwork season, leading to 6,472 work zones

6. Background Traffic is Growing
We’re traveling more miles without increasing highway capacity significantly
: Vehicle Travel up 80%, Lane Miles up 2.4%

7. Background Congestion is Growing
“Extremely” or “Severely” congested highway miles more than doubled from 1982 to 1997

8. Background WZ Fatalities Have Increased
Average 778 fatalities per year, with a high of 1079 in 2001
Approximately 40,000 people were injured in work zones crashes in 2001
1997 to 2001
fatalities
- 220,000 injuries
- 300 worker deaths

9. Background Working Conditions Are Changing
More work is done under traffic
In 2000, 54% of highway capital outlay was spent on system preservation
Contractors are experiencing
Reduced work hours / interrupted shifts
Increased night work
Compressed schedules
These conditions contribute to concerns about worker safety, reduced productivity, and compromised quality
system preservation - resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction

10. Background Work Zones Contribute to Congestion
Work zones on freeways cause 24% of non-recurring congestion
Over 480 million vehicle hours of delay per year
Capacity loss of over 3 billion vehicles per year

11. “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied” Percentage of Responses
Background
Customer Satisfaction
79%
Visual Appeal
60%
77%
Bridge Conditions
58%
77%
Travel Amenities
55%
74%
“Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied”
Percentage of Responses
Safety
58%
Maintenance
65%
Response Time
53%
59%
Pavement Conditions
48%
59%
Work Zones
Data not collected in 1995
47%
Traffic Flow
47%
1995
2000
Source: Moving Ahead:  The American Public Speaks on Roadways and Transportation in Communities (which can be found on the FHWA web page at

12. Background Major Trends More construction spending
Growing traffic volumes
More work is done under traffic
Increasing congestion
Compressed contractor schedules
Public dissatisfaction and frustration with work zones

13. Background Considering Policy and Regulation Change
Look at the entire project development process for work zone safety and mobility
Objective is to think differently (with customer in mind) about how we plan, design and build projects
Get input for proposing changes to 23 CFR 630 Subpart J
AASHTO, AGC, ATSSA, ARTBA, AMPO, NACE, local governments, contractors, labor organizations, public, etc.
Develop proposed language based on the comments

14. Overview of ANPRM
Issued ANPRM on Feb 6, 2002 to initiate dialogue with the transportation community
Evaluated ANPRM comments, conducted outreach, and developed proposed rule language from June ’02 to March ’03
Published NPRM on May 7, 2003
Comment period is 120 days – ends Sept 4, 2003
Currently conducting outreach to inform the public about the NPRM
Final Rule expected in late 2004

15. Overview of ANPRM Identified major considerations that affect:
Policy
Planning
Design
Traffic control and operations
Public information
Performance reporting with respect to work zones
Over-arching theme
reduce need for recurrent roadwork, duration of work zones, and disruption due to work zones
Issues posed as questions to elicit comments, guidance, and suggestions

16. ANPRM Respondent Profile
Private Individuals/Consultants - 6%
Unclassified - 5%
Other Public Agencies - 6%
Trade Associations & Special Interest Groups - 16%
DOT’s - 65%
Equipment/Technology Providers - 2%
Total Respondents 84

17. ANPRM – Areas Receiving Strong Support
Need a National policy on work zone safety and mobility
Preference for broad policy supported by “guidance”
Provide flexibility in implementation of regulations
Explicitly address both safety and mobility
Imply stratification of regulations – but let States use their own criteria
Institutionalize work zone considerations
Road user impacts of work zones are important and essential for decision making during project development and design
- When we say “strong support”, by and large, there was conclusive support for the issue under consideration, and a majority of the respondents reacted positively to that consideration at hand.

18. ANPRM – Areas Receiving Strong Support (continued)
Analysis of alternative project options and design strategies to minimize work zone impacts
TCPs should be expanded to address sustained traffic operations and management
Need to communicate better with the public – need communications plans for projects
Need comprehensive work zone traffic mitigation planning and implementation plans
Consider programmatic initiatives in addition to project specific actions
Flexibility in development and procurement of work zone impact mitigation strategies
- When we say “strong support”, by and large, there was conclusive support for the issue under consideration, and a majority of the respondents reacted positively to that consideration at hand.
-We won’t be able to provide specifics on the comments during these presentations. If someone wants to know more detail, the comments are available to all in the docket. The docket can be accessed online.

19. Overview of Proposed Rule
Beginning of rehabilitation/
reconstruction of the NHS
- Work zone safety issues emerging
- Required Traffic Control Plans - TCPs
Current Regulation
Reflected it’s time
Broad purpose
But narrow provisions
Focusing on TCPs for projects
Work zone operations on two-lane/two-way highways
Focus of Update
Reflects changing times
Make regulation broader
Cover more issues pertaining to work zone safety and “mobility”
Consider customer-focused project development
Comprehensive consideration of “work zone impacts”
To serve needs of all users during construction and maintenance projects
More traffic, more congestion, greater safety issues, and more work zones – a lot more!
Notes on the Current Regulation
- Has broad purpose, but narrowly focused language
- Purpose as stated in the reg:
“The purpose of this subpart is to provide guidance and establish procedures to assure that adequate consideration is given to motorist, pedestrians, and construction workers on all Federal-aid construction projects.”
- Requirements in the reg:
- Development of Traffic Control Plans (TCPs)
- Operation of two-lane two-way roadways
This therefore:
- Led us to look at the entire project development process for work zone mobility and safety
- Objective is to think differently (with customer in mind) about how we plan, design and build projects

20. Overview of Proposed Rule Focus Areas
Key concept
Address Work Zone Impacts
Have a policy driven focus
Analyze safety and mobility impacts
Address impacts on road users, workers and other affected parties
Have a plan for safety and mobility

21. Overview of Proposed Rule Focus Areas
Broad, address wide range of issues, and provide flexibility in implementation and adaptation
Flexibility in implementation of regulations based on States’ respective performance objectives, needs, and operating environments
Set the stage for performance-oriented regulations rather than method-oriented regulations
Regulation provisions to be broad; will be supplemented with detailed implementation guidelines when the rule goes into effect
Retain the emphasis on safety but expand provisions to address mobility issues also
Facilitate institutionalization of work zone considerations
By requiring States to develop a work zone safety and mobility policy
Flexibility in FHWA’s review of States’ practices and procedures

22. Overview of Proposed Rule Focus Areas
Expand work zone mitigation measures to include “operations management” and “public information and outreach” strategies, in addition to TCPs
Require comprehensive mobility analysis and understanding of work zone impacts of projects
To choose project options and work zone design alternatives that minimize the work zone impacts
Develop strategies to mitigate and manage the impacts
Document the strategies under the umbrella of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP)
Consider using contractors to develop TMPs
Encourage collection and analysis of work zone mobility performance data

23. Overview of Proposed Rule Proposed Changes
Policy Level Requirements (new)
Work Zone Mobility and Safety Policy (new)
States shall develop and implement policies and procedures that support the systematic consideration of work zone impacts across all project development stages; and address the safety and mobility needs of all road users, construction workers, and other affected parties on all Federal-aid highway projects
The content of such policies and their implications for different projects will vary based on the expected severity of work zone impacts due to projects
States encouraged to use a team of personnel from appropriate departments and representing the different project development stages to develop and implement these policies and procedures

24. Overview of Proposed Rule Proposed Changes
Policy Level Requirements (new)
Training
Existing requirement, with changes that encourage documentation and periodic updates
Process Review and Evaluation
Existing requirement with changes that allow the states more flexibility.
Encouraged to perform a periodic process review and evaluation - or review randomly selected projects to check for mobility and safety performance and procedures
Work Zone Performance Data
Current provisions require analysis of crashes and crash data
Changes encourage States to collect and analyze mobility data in addition to safety data

25. Proposed Regulation (continued)
Project Impact Analysis and Management Procedures (new)
Work Zone Impacts Analysis (new)
Mobility impacts analysis required, but scaleable according to agency policy and expected severity of project impacts
Shall analyze work zone impacts of alternative project options and work zone design strategies, and develop appropriate measures to alleviate these impacts
The scope and level of detail of this impacts analysis will vary based on the State’s policies, and their understanding of the anticipated severity of work zone impacts
Encouraged to start analysis early in project development and, depending upon the anticipated severity of work zone impacts, continue the analysis through project design, and traffic control and operations planning
Resultant project options and work zone design strategies and the mitigation measures shall be appropriately documented.

26. Proposed Regulation (continued)
Project Impact Analysis and Management Procedures (new)
Transportation Management Plan (TMP) (new)
New requirement, with TCP rolled into it
Based on the states policy and requirements, and the recommendations of the impacts analysis TMPs shall be developed for the project. The complexity of the TMP will be based on the degree of the project impacts on mobility and safety
TCP – basically same requirement as before
Transportation Operations Plan (TOP) – shall be developed if recommended by impacts analysis
Public Information and Outreach Plan (PIOP) – shall be developed if recommended by impacts analysis

27. Proposed Regulation (continued)
Project Impact Analysis and Management Procedures (continued)
TCP Pay Items
Existing requirement, with changes that cover traffic control performance criteria.
Responsible Persons for Project Administration and Delivery
Existing requirement, with changes that require a responsible person from the contractor in addition to a responsible person from the agency

28. Accepted formats include: document, pdf, text
NPRM – How to Comment?
Submit comments electronically in the docket at
under docket no. FHWA
Accepted formats include: document, pdf, text
Please check to see if anybody has any comments or feedback that they would like to provide.
We cannot debate any of the issues that were presented, nor can we get into discussions on any of the issues they raise.