Work Zone Data Initiative Activity Update

The Work Zone Data Initiative (WZDI) was created to gather best practices, educate practitioners, and move everyone to more standardized methods of data collection and analysis for work zones. This has included the development of a data dictionary, standard data elements and formats, and much more. The FHWA Work Zone Management Program recently published their quarterly newsletter detailing the progress made in this area. Learn more HERE.

Download the Work Zone Activity Data Needs & Opportunities report HERE.

This report was produced by Jerry Ullman and Melisa Finley of TTI. It looks at the benefits we can expect from more consistent data collection. In particular, local and state agencies, private data consumers, and contractors will all be able to compare projects, work zone impact mitigation strategies, and work zone design to find the safest, most efficient methods in any given situation. The benefits will be significant.

But there are many challenges as well. Currently work zone data collection in inconsistent due both to varying practices from one agency to the next and to a lack of funding. Getting to the point where everyone collects data on all work zones and in the same format will be a formidable undertaking.

And the richness of the data will make it even more complex. Consider the proposed elements for just this one item:

This will not be easy. But the rewards in reduced crashes and improved operational efficiency demand that we move forward. Perhaps we might start with a few “standard” elements such as location, dates, and measures of the temporary reductions in capacity as a way of demonstrating what can be done. Once consumers of this data get a taste, they will demand additional elements. And it will then be much easier to cost justify the effort.

Common Mistakes in Work Zone ITS Lessons Learned During 20 Years in This Field

Today, we would like to discuss common mistakes agencies make when including work zone ITS in a project. But we don’t want to scare anyone away or make this more difficult than it really is. Today, work zone ITS is easy to use, easy to contract, and easy to evaluate. So please dive in and learn your own lessons as you go along.

But with that said, there are a few bits of advice we can offer from our many years deploying these systems.

The first is simple enough. Before you specify a system in a project, identify and clearly state your agency’s goal for that system. Is it end-of-queue crash reduction? Is it diverting traffic onto alternate routes? Is it speed reduction? You and every other decision maker in your agency need to agree on the primary goal, and then communicate that goal to the system supplier through your specifications.

Second, don’t try to do too much with your system. Focus on that primary goal first. If the system supplied can also handle additional responsibilities, then add those that help you meet any secondary goals. For example, a queue detection system can also provide traffic data to meet the Federal Work Zone Safety & Mobility rule. But don’t add features that will just bombard you with data you can’t use. You will have plenty to work with as it is.

Once you have your goal for the project, you can begin designing your system. If the goal is reducing rear-end crashes in slow and stopped traffic, doplar radar is the best sensor to use. It works well at low speeds and is inexpensive. But if your goal is to replace a permanent system that measures speeds, counts and classifications, a side-fire radar such as Wavetronix or RTMS.

Next choose your sensor locations. For most systems you will space them about three-quarters of a mile apart. You may get away with as much as a mile or more in some situations, but more often you will want them between a half-mile and a mile apart. Once they are in place and collecting data, check that data to be sure it is what you need. Locations with a lot of concrete barrier sometimes result in radar echo giving you false results. Locations such as a gore point at the on-ramp from a truck scales will result in below-average speeds as trucks slowly speed up onto the mainline.

Budgets often force you to limit the scope of your system. If it comes down to a choice between cameras or more sensors, please consider maximizing the number of sensors. Better, richer data will result in a more responsive system, and one less susceptible to service interruptions. If you must have cameras, limit their use and the video frame-rate to keep your wireless expenses lower.

Your specifications should include the type and quantity of sensors, message signs, camera trailers and other devices. And consider including a line item for each type of device. In that way, you will have a price if you find you need to increase or decrease the quantity of devices.

Finally, dig into your data. Learn what makes the system work. When an incident happens, look at the data to learn how quickly it affected traffic upstream. And how quickly it clears once the cause has been corrected. This will give you a better sense of the capabilities of these systems and how best to use them on future projects.

Is There an Ideal Sensor Location?

Are there “perfect” sensor locations? For example, when we deploy a queue warning system, are there sensor locations that will get us better data? Could that data inform us of slowing traffic sooner? Or could it be a better indication of traffic conditions than data from another location would be?

For end-of-queue warning systems we submit that the ideal sensor location is just upstream of where queuing is most likely to begin and, therefore where average speeds vary most.

There are locations like that throughout the work zone. Narrowing of lanes, lane shifts, temporary concrete barrier, bridge falsework and other construction activities affect drivers sense of safety. Anything that negatively affects that feeling of comfort will reduce the 85th percentile speed.

Short on-ramps with reduced merge distance have the same affect. However, if traffic always quickly accommodates those merges and returns to the previous 85th percentile speed, then that is not a perfect location. Only when the geometry in combination with traffic volume results in dynamic queuing does that become a good sensor location for queue warning systems.

The power source is our greatest limiting factor today.  Batteries, solar systems, etc. take up space. They must be located where we can reach them easily for maintenance. For this reason, many sensors are located on message signs and arrow boards where they can draw power from them and even share communications devices.

Arrow boards are placed at the taper. Queuing begins there, of course. But we will only catch speed variance due to conflicts at that merge point. We won’t see if that variance continues upstream.

Message signs are placed in advance of the work to warn of slowing downstream. We should always place one sensor at a point that queuing would reach as a result of a worst-case scenario. And a message sign location may be able to serve both purposes. But we normally want the sensors located where queuing begins and we want the message signs located upstream to warn of that slowing – not located together. If sensors and message signs share the same locations they are likely either too close to the work zone or too far from the source of the queuing to warn traffic before they reach the problem area.

We generally space sensors out every half mile to a mile apart with the understanding that we will learn about any queuing quickly. And that is a good approach. After all, we can’t predict all causes of queuing. But couldn’t we adjust those locations a little one way or the other to catch these obvious causes of slowing a little earlier?

It would be helpful to see research into sensor location. But in the meantime, let’s evaluate our work zones and adjust our sensor locations to monitor the more obvious sources of slowing. Our systems will perform better and improve work zone safety even more than they do today.