EVALUATION of TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES for RURAL October 2000 HIGH-SPEED MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES: SECOND YEAR 6
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-01/1879-2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR RURAL October 2000 HIGH-SPEED MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES: SECOND YEAR 6. Performing Organization Code ACTIVITIES AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Michael D. Fontaine, Paul J. Carlson, and H. Gene Hawkins, Jr. Report 1879-2 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 0-1879 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research: Construction Division September 1999 – August 2000 Research and Technology Transfer Section 14. Sponsoring Agency Code P. O. Box 5080 Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Research Project Title: Investigation and Evaluation of Newly Developed and Innovative Traffic Control Devices for Application at Construction Work Zones to Alert Drivers and/or Workers 16. Abstract This report documents the second year of a two-year project to evaluate the effectiveness of innovative work zone traffic control devices. Researchers evaluated these devices at short-term rural work zones. During the second year of the project, seven devices were tested at eight work zones. The devices evaluated included portable rumble strips, portable variable message signs (VMSs), radar drones, fluorescent yellow- green worker vests, retroreflective vehicle visibility improvements, fluorescent orange signs, and speed display trailers. A radar activated flagger paddle was evaluated, but on a more limited basis. The effectiveness of these devices was assessed based on the vehicle speeds in the work zone, the ease of installation and removal, the impact of the device on vehicle conflicts, and worker comments. Analysis of the data collected revealed that the speed display trailer had the largest impact on speeds. The VMS had a positive benefit in reducing conflicts. The fluorescent orange signs, vehicle visibility improvements, and yellow-green worker vests all acted to improve the conspicuity of the workers. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Work Zone, Traffic Control Device, Radar Drone, No restrictions. This document is available to the Variable Message Sign, Rumble Strip, Speed public through NTIS: Display National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 142 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR RURAL HIGH- SPEED MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES: SECOND YEAR ACTIVITIES AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS by Michael D. Fontaine Assistant Transportation Researcher Texas Transportation Institute Paul J. Carlson, P.E. Assistant Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute and H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Associate Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Report 1879-2 Project Number 0-1879 Research Project Title: Investigation and Evaluation of Newly Developed and Innovative Traffic Control Devices for Application at Construction Work Zones to Alert Drivers and/or Workers Sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation In Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration October 2000 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the opinions, findings, and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or polices of the Federal Highway Administration or the Texas Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation, nor is it intended for construction, bidding, or permit purposes. The engineer in charge of the project was H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., P.E. #61509. NOTICE The United States Government and the state of Texas do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS At the initiation of this project, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) formed a panel of project advisors to provide guidance in the development and conduct of research activities and to review project deliverables. The researchers would like to acknowledge the project director and Project Advisory Panel for their time, efforts, and contributions: Project Director • Danny Brown, Childress District, Texas Department of Transportation Project Advisory Panel • Greg Brinkmeyer, Traffic Operations Division, Texas Department of Transportation • David Casteel, Childress District, Texas Department of Transportation • Terry Keener, Childress District, Texas Department of Transportation The research team would also like to thank the following individuals for their cooperation and assistance during the second year of this project: • David Deger, Wheeler County maintenance supervisor, Texas Department of Transportation • Maurice Farris, Hardeman County maintenance supervisor, Texas Department of Transportation • Ernie Lucero, Childress County maintenance supervisor, Texas Department of Transportation • Ron Sims, regional sales manager, Advance Traffic Markings • Curtis Whitlock, San Angelo District, Texas Department of Transportation • The maintenance crews of the Childress, Hardeman, and Wheeler County maintenance sections The authors would also like to recognize the contributions of several individuals who aided in the data collection and reduction of the information gathered during year two activities: • Marcus Brewer, Texas Transportation Institute • Tim Gates, Texas Transportation Institute • Jonathan Lammert, Texas Transportation Institute • Dan Walker, Texas Transportation Institute Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge the Texas Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration for making this research possible. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................................... 2 RESEARCH SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 3 First Year Activities............................................................................................................................................ 3 Identification and Selection of Devices, Treatments, and Practices ................................................................. 3 Research Methodology...................................................................................................................................... 4 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................................................... 4 First Year Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Second Year Activities........................................................................................................................................ 7 Research Methodology...................................................................................................................................... 7 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................................................... 8 Second Year Findings and Final Recommendations......................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2: DEVICES EVALUATED DURING THE SECOND YEAR............................................................. 11 SELECTION OF DEVICES TO BE EXAMINED............................................................................................ 11 DEVICE DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 11 Portable Rumble Strips .................................................................................................................................... 12 Description...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Installation and Use........................................................................................................................................ 12 Portable Variable Message Sign ...................................................................................................................... 13 Description.....................................................................................................................................................