Header image

• Home
• Site Map
• Download PDF Reader
• Print
• Download this document

Guidelines on Improving Work Zone Safety Through Public Information and Traveler Information

This document summarizes available guidance on public information and traveler (or motorist) information. Agencies are encouraged to consider these two types of traffic control measures as required by Subpart K and as part of an overall transportation management plan (TMP) that must be developed and implemented for all significant projects as required by 23 CFR 630 Subpart J. The document describes effective strategies and techniques that can be used to implement these control measures and offers recommended practices.

This document is organized into the following sections:

Background

The national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) contains standards and guidance on the design and application of signs, channelizing devices, and other traffic control devices required to guide travelers effectively in and through work zones. Although the MUTCD requirements help ensure that work zones are designed and operated in a safe manner, some work zones present unique safety challenges that require additional vigilance and efforts by agencies. Therefore, federal regulations (23 CFR 630 Subpart K) encourage state highway agencies to give appropriate consideration to the use of other traffic control measures that can help reduce work zone crashes and improve worker and traveler safety.
Public information and traveler (or motorist) information are two types of traffic control measures that agencies are encouraged to consider as required by Subpart K. Although the two measures are similar, a distinction has been made for purposes of this document. Traveler information strategies focus on disseminating time-dependent information, whereas public information strategies strive to improve public awareness and preparedness in accommodating work zones in general or a specific high-profile work zone in particular.
Agencies are required to consider public information and traveler information needs as part of an overall transportation management plan (TMP) that must be developed and implemented for all significant projects (as required by 23 CFR 630 Subpart J). Guidance has been developed on the use of public information and outreach strategies in work zones (See resources at the end of this document.). The provision of public information and traveler information helps improve work zone safety and mobility by:
 • reducing vehicle exposure in work zones by encouraging travelers to use alternative routes and
travel modes;
 • reducing traffic congestion (which leads to a reduction of rear-end and sideswipe crashes) in work zones by diverting motorists to alternate routes, to times when traffic demands are lower, or to alternative travel modes; and
 • increasing driver awareness and expectations of overall delays (e.g., 10 Min Delay Ahead) or hazardous conditions in work zones (e.g., Uneven Pavement), which reduces driver frustration and road rage-type aggression and may also lead to safer driving behaviors.

Program-Level and Project-Level Public Information

Public information consists of both program-level strategies and project-level strategies. Program-level public information strategies raise general awareness regarding motorist and worker safety issues in a region and encourage increased vigilance at all times while driving through work zones. The National Work Zone Awareness Week that occurs each year is an example of a general program-level public in- formation initiative. Many state agencies have also developed their own campaigns, such as the Slow for the Cone Zone program in California. Disseminating information about recently passed work zone safety laws in a state is yet another example (See Table 1, below.).
The purpose of project-level public information is to raise awareness of the special safety and mobility challenges that will be faced in a specific work zone as well as to provide suggestions on how to cope with those challenges. Project-level strategies can target a variety of audiences (e.g., commuters, freight operators, business owners, local residents, emergency response agencies, the media, etc.) and provide a wide range of information (e.g., general locations and schedule of construction, available alternative routes in the corridor, transit routes and schedules in the corridor, project hot lines to call for problems or complaints, etc.). As Table 1 illustrates, a variety of mechanisms are commonly used to disseminate work zone-related public information. The decision about which mechanism(s) to use for a given program or specific project depends on the target audience(s), message(s) to be communicated, available budget, existing agency resources and expertise with these strategies, and other factors.

Table 1. Methods for Disseminating Program-Level and Project-Level Public Information

Traveler Information

The intent of providing traveler information is to increase traveler awareness and use of time-dependent information about work zone conditions to affect motorists’ choices regarding which route to take, departure time, and mode of transportation as well as to improve driver awareness and behavior. Although this information is often available in real-time, motorists should not be encouraged to access the information while driving to avoid being distracted. Instead, access to real-time information should be encouraged during pre-trip planning whenever possible. Methods of disseminating traveler information include:
 • dynamic message signs (DMSs) and portable changeable message signs (PCMSs);
 • highway advisory radio stations;
 • news media outlets;  
 • 511 traveler information recordings;
 • real-time access to alerts and travel times via project websites;
 • e-mail alerts;
 • text messages, and  
 • social media sites (Facebook©, TwitterTM).


Examples of the types of time-dependent information that can be provided via these methods include:
 • advance notice of when and where lanes will be temporarily closed;
 • advance notice of major changes and traffic switches that will alter
the travel path through the work zone;
 • advance notice of changes to transit service;
 • current travel times, delays, and speeds through the work zone or on alternate routes;
 • location and length of queues that have developed;
 • current lane closure locations (and lane that is closed);
 • current ramp or intersection closures;
 • current incident locations (and lanes that are blocked); and
 • warnings when and where construction vehicles are entering or exiting the travel lanes.

Although there are many ways to get real-time information to the public, the key to influencing the public effectively is to ensure that the information is credible. Credible real-time information must be accurate, relevant, timely and desired by the traveler.
Table 2 below summarizes the benefits and implementation factors to consider in each of the traveler information dissemination strategies listed above.


Table 2. Methods for Disseminating Traveler Information

As with the public information strategies, the choice of which method(s) to employ for traveler information depends heavily on the target audience(s), information to be conveyed, existing infrastructure, past experiences and expertise with any of the methods, agency preferences, and project and site characteristics.

Additional PCMS Safety Considerations

PCMSs are commonly used in work zones to convey real-time information to drivers, as well as to call additional attention to hazards identified by static warning signs. A PCMS draws the attention of the motorist; however, this effect can be diminished if the device is overused. The PCMS cannot replace any of the static signing detailed in the MUTCD, and should not be used if standard traffic control devices adequately provide the information the motorist needs to travel safely. In the extreme, the misuse of PCMSs can actually degrade work zone safety.

For PCMS messages to be valuable to drivers, five message design factors must be properly addressed for each sign used. These are summarized in Table 3 below.

Table 3. PCMS Message Design Factors

One of the most common mistakes made by agencies and highway contractors is to present too much infor- mation on PCMSs. As indicated in the MUTCD, no more than two phases should be displayed on a PCMS. Three-or-more phase messages take too long to read, which causes drivers to slow down and can lead to rear-end crashes and/or vehicle intrusions into the work zone as vehicles swerve to avoid slower-moving traffic. If more information must be presented than can fit onto a two-phase PCMS message, additional PCMSs must be used. Multiple PCMSs must be spaced at least 800 feet apart, and should not be placed where they compete with static signs or other features that demand immediate driver attention.

When PCMS are used to improve work zone safety, it is important that the signs themselves not be a hazard. Whenever possible, PCMS should be installed behind guardrail or concrete barrier, making sure that the barrier or guardrail does not block the view of the sign message. If guardrail or barrier protection is not appro- priate, the sign should be delineated with channelizing devices to maximize visibility of the trailer at night. If the PCMS is not being used, it should be moved out of the roadway clear zone.

Examples of Good Practice

Texas Department of Transportation PCMS Guidance

One way that agencies can help ensure that PCMS messages are appropriately designed and displayed in work zones is to incorporate basic PCMS message guidance into work zone traffic control standards. As an example, the Texas Department of Transportation developed a field guide to basic PCMS operation and typical messages. This guidance was ultimately incorporated into that agency’s traffic control plan standard sheets Barricade and Construction Standard BC(6)-07. The incorporation of the guidelines into the agency’s standard drawings ensures that it becomes a part of the contract documents that are readily available to field personnel who typically make decisions about what messages to put on the signs and how those messages should be formatted. (See the Texas DOT examples below.)

Minnesota Department of Transportation Traveler Information System for Work Zone Access/Egress Locations

The Minnesota Department of Transportation established guidelines on the use of work zone intelligent transportation systems (ITS) on projects under its jurisdiction. One of the more innovative applications outlined is the use of real-time warnings of construction vehicles entering and exiting the work space. By providing advance information of these locations to motorists, it is hoped that the frequency of collisions between the public and construction vehicles is reduced. In addition, the system is designed to reduce the potential of motorists blindly following a construction vehicle turning into a work space. Examples of how the technology is deployed and used are provided in the figures that follow. (See the Minnesota DOT examples below.) To be effective, these systems must be highly reliable and accurate to develop credibility with the motoring public over time. Training and monitoring of truck drivers on the proper activation and use of the system should occur on a regular basis throughout the project.

Arizona Department of Transportation Use of Social Media

Recognizing the growth in social media and networking, the Arizona Department of Transportation used Facebook© and TwitterTM as mechanisms for disseminating information to the public on various projects, including the reconstruction of US 93. (See the Arizona DOT example below.)

Missouri Department of Transportation Use of Social Media

The Missouri Department of Transportation developed a public information campaign for the Route 141 Improvement Project that used many new technologies and social media outlets as a means of providing current information about the project to the public. The newer technologies included:  • a project-specific website;  • a project-specific Facebook© page; and  • a blog that included an opportunity for the public to comment on the project. (See the Missouri DOT examples below.)

How Can I Locate More Information Regarding This Topic?

Mallett, W.J., J. Torrence, and J. Seplow. Work Zone Public Information and Outreach Strategies. Report No. FHWA-HOP-05-067. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. November 2005.
Accessible at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/info_and_outreach/public_outreach_guide.pdf

Barricade and Construction Portable Changeable Message Sign Standard. BC(6)-07. Traffic Operations, Texas Department of Transportation. September 2007.
Accessible at ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/standard/traffic/bc07.pdf

Minnesota IWZ Toolbox: Guideline for Intelligent Work Zone System Selection. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minneapolis, MN. 2008.
Accessible at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/workzone/iwz/MN-IWZToolbox.pdf

Arizona Department of Transportation Facebook page.
Accessible at http://www.facebook.com/AZDOT

US 93 Project Team Twitter page. Arizona Department of Transportation.
Accessible at http://twitter.com/#!/us93corridor

Route 141 Improvement Project. Missouri Department of Transportation.
Accessible at http://www.modot.mo.gov/stlouis/major_projects/rte141improvementproject.htm

Post a Comment, Missouri DOT in St. Louis. Missouri Department of Transportation.
Accessible at http://www.modot-stl.blogspot.com/

Slow for the Cone Zone. California Department of Transportation.
Accessible at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/conezone/

Developed By:
The Roadway Safety Consortium
202‐628‐5465
www.workzonesafety.org

Laborers’ International Union of North America
Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of North America
LIUNA Training and Education Fund
American Road and Transportation Builders Association
National Asphalt Pavement Association
International Union of Operating Engineers
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Texas Transportation Institute
FOF Communications

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

This material is based upon work supported by the Federal Highway Administration under Grant Agreement No. DTFH61‐06‐G‐00007.

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. This publication does not constitute a national standard, specification or regulation.

VALID HTML

VALID CSS

508 WAI

The Roadway Safety Consortium