Alternative Funding for Work Zone ITS Fact Sheet

Nearly everyone who understands work zone ITS knows it is a cost-effective way of mitigating the traffic impacts of major and sometimes even minor road construction projects. Studies have proven the value of these systems. But DOTs will often tell you they don’t have the funding to pay for it.  The FHWA encourages states to use work zone ITS. They will pay for these systems through conventional construction funding. So, when states say they don’t have the funding they mean they haven’t found a pot of money outside of the money they use for asphalt and concrete.

FHWA wants to address that problem. They have just published the “Alternative Funding for Work Zone ITS Fact Sheet”. In it they document how Illinois uses HSIP funds to pay for Work Zone ITS. Download a copy of the fact sheet HERE.

FHWA says this is a highly underutilized funding mechanism. According to the fact sheet, “While some states use HSIP funds for work zone purposes, many state DOTs do not tap into this resource. Out of the more than 4,000 HSIP projects referenced in the 2016 HSIP National Summary Report, only 13 were work zone-related projects.”

Work Zone ITS Blog addressed the efforts of Matthew Daeda and Illinois DOT on May 12, 2016. We told you that this contracting method offers several advantages:

  1. The state only pays when the system is needed.
  2. They work directly with the vendor and that greatly improves communication.
  3. Staff has direct access to the system data and to make changes.
  4. By bidding for each district local companies are more likely to win, thus reducing response time.

 

This fact sheet is a BIG deal! States are always saying they don’t have the funding. This is one way of getting it. And the Feds aren’t just allowing this. They are encouraging states to use HSIP funds for work zone ITS.

States do need to identify work zone safety as a SHSP Focus Area and provide the data to support that decision. According to the National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse, there were 799 fatalities in US work zones in 2017, up from the previous three-year average of 764. That’s not much when compared to the total roadway fatalities of 37,133.

But work zones are always a safety issue. States can and should include them in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) for a variety of reasons. Work zones force drivers to process more information and react faster than they normally do outside of work zones. That’s why crashes attributable to distracted driving, speeding, aggressive driving, and impaired driving often show up first in work zones. Furthermore, solutions that work in work zones may have applications elsewhere.

In 2017 overall fatalities declined nationally while work zone fatalities increased. Any state with this same disparity should include work zones in the SHSP. Many states have recently increased funding for road construction. They, too, will unfortunately see an associated increase in work zone fatalities. And, again, they to should include work zones in their SHSPs.

This is a wonderful tool. Thank you to Todd Peterson and Jawad Paracha for putting it together. Now we all just need to get his in front of the decision makers in our states!

 

Improving the Effectiveness of Smart Work Zone Technologies, Part 2

illinoisstudyIn our last post we discussed a brilliant new paper published in November by the Illinois Center for Transportation Studies. Today let’s look at their conclusions regarding work zone travel time systems. The writers point out that, “Two critical components for the success of a smart work zone deployment are the quality of the traffic data collected by sensor networks and the algorithms used for data processing.” We examined sensor types last time. Today we look at algorithms.

They conclude that, “The travel time estimation is consistently poor for all algorithms and sensor networks investigated in this study. The main reason is that the instantaneous travel time calculation is a poor estimator of the true travel time in a dynamic traffic environment. In addition, the use of Bluetooth sensors can only provide the travel time of vehicles that just exited the work zone. Consequently, the travel time estimation even using Bluetooth sensors is not likely to improve the accuracy of the travel time estimates when the traffic conditions are quickly changing.”

This makes perfect sense. In a work zone you are more likely to see frequent and dynamic queuing. And that is the kryptonite for every algorithm superman. It’s too bad, because we would all like to see accurate travel time estimates, especially for work zones with significant impacts. But, ironically, it is those impacts that make estimation so difficult.

They also discussed the potential use of more advanced algorithms. This is a subject for which I have only a very limited understanding. So I am not able to examine the relative advantages and disadvantages of popular methods. But for work zones, they really aren’t practical anyway. Unless it is a very long term project, one lasting several years, the work required ahead of time to test and adjust the algorithms is expensive and still won’t make much of a difference in the travel time accuracy.

As an industry, we have worked for years to make our systems faster and easier to set up. This, to my mind, would be moving backwards. Instead, let’s work to make our travel time estimates more useful to travelers. Perhaps it makes more sense to talk about delay times. Drivers seem to expect predicted travel times to match their experience perfectly. But when it comes to delay times, they are more likely to be relieved when the delay they encounter is slightly less than predicted.