Office of Transportation Operations

Room 3408

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Toll-Free Help Line: (866) 367-7487

www.fhwa.dot.gov/workzones

FHWA-HOP-05-065
Notice

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to 

serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically 

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure 

continuous quality improvement.
Work Zone Impacts Assessment: 

An Approach to Assess and Manage Work Zone 

Safety and Mobility Impacts of Road Projects

August 2006

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Operations

WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

i

List of Acronyms

AAA – American Automobile Association

AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADT – Average Daily Traffic

AGC – Associated General Contractors of America

ARTBA – American Road and Transportation Builders Association

ATSSA – American Traffic Safety Services Association

CBD – Commercial Business District

CCTV – Closed-Circuit Television

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CMS - Changeable Message Sign

DMS - Dynamic Message Sign

DOT – Department of Transportation

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

FHWA – Federal Highway Administration

FR – Federal Register

HAR – Highway Advisory Radio

HCM – Highway Capacity Manual

HOV – High-Occupancy Vehicle

HPMS – Highway Performance Monitoring System

HSIS – Highway Safety Information System

IDAS – ITS Deployment Analysis System

ITS – Intelligent Transportation System(s)

LOS – Level of Service

LRTP – Long-Range Transportation Plan

MOT – Maintenance of Traffic

MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization

MUTCD – Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NHI – National Highway Institute

NHS – National Highway System

PI – Public Information

PS&Es – Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

ROW – Right of Way

SAFETEA-LU – Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:

A Legacy for Users

STIP – Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

STP – Surface Transportation Program

TCP – Traffic Control Plan

TIP – Transportation Improvement Program

TMA – Transportation Management Area

TMC – Transportation Management Center

TMP – Transportation Management Plan

TO – Transportation Operations

TTC – Temporary Traffic Control

WWB – Woodrow Wilson Bridge

WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

ii

Executive Summary

In September 2004, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published updates to the work zone 

regulations at 23 CFR 630 Subpart J. The updated Rule is referred to as the Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility Rule (Rule) and applies to all State and local governments that receive Federal-aid highway 

funding. Transportation agencies are required to comply with the provisions of the Rule by October 

12, 2007. The changes made to the regulations broaden the former Rule to better address the work 

zone issues of today and the future.

Growing congestion on many roads, and an increasing need to perform rehabilitation and 

reconstruction work on existing roads already carrying traffic, are some of the issues that have 

led to additional, more complex challenges to maintaining work zone safety and mobility. To help 

address these issues, the Rule provides a decision-making framework that facilitates comprehensive 

consideration of the broader safety and mobility impacts of work zones across project development 

stages, and the adoption of additional strategies that help manage these impacts during project 

implementation. At the heart of the Rule is a requirement for agencies to develop an agency-level 

work zone safety and mobility policy. The policy is intended to support systematic consideration and 

management of work zone impacts across all stages of project development. Based on the policy, 

agencies will develop standard processes and procedures to support implementation of the policy. 

These processes and procedures shall include the use of work zone safety and operational data, work 

zone training, and work zone process reviews. Agencies are also encouraged to develop procedures 

for work zone impacts assessment. The third primary element of the Rule calls for the development 

of project-level procedures to address the work zone impacts of individual projects. These projectlevel procedures include identifying projects that an agency expects will cause a relatively high 

level of disruption (referred to in the Rule as significant projects) and developing and implementing 

transportation management plans (TMPs) for all projects.

To help transportation agencies understand and implement the provisions of the Rule, FHWA has 

developed four guidance documents. This Guide is designed to help transportation agencies 

develop and/or update their own policies, processes, and procedures for assessing and managing 

the work zone impacts of their road projects throughout the different program delivery stages. 

An overall Rule Implementation Guide provides a general overview of the Rule and overarching 

guidance for implementing the provisions of the Rule. Two additional technical guidance documents 

cover other specific aspects of the Rule: TMPs for work zones, and work zone public information and 

outreach strategies. All four of the guides include guidelines and sample approaches, examples from 

transportation agencies using practices that relate to the Rule, and sources for more information. 

The examples help illustrate that many transportation agencies already use some policies and 

practices that the Rule either encourages or requires, and that there is more than one way to achieve 

compliance with the Rule. While what these agencies are doing may not yet be fully compliant 

with the Rule, their current practices still serve as good examples of how to work toward Rule 

implementation. While the guides cover aspects of the Rule, they also contain information that can 

be useful to agencies in all of their efforts to improve safety and mobility in and around work zones 

and thereby support effective operations and management of our transportation system.

State and local transportation agencies and FHWA are partners in trying to bring about improved 

work zone safety and mobility. Consistent with that partnership, the Rule advocates a partnership 

between agencies and FHWA in Rule implementation and compliance. Staff from the respective 

FHWA Division Offices, Resource Center, and Headquarters will work with their agency counterparts 

to support implementation and compliance efforts. This guidance document is one key element of 

that support.
iii

Contents of this Guide

Work zone impacts assessment is the process of understanding and managing the safety and mobility 

impacts of a road construction, maintenance, or rehabilitation project. Assessing work zone impacts 

is important for developing effective work zone TMPs that provide for safety, mobility, and quality in 

maintaining, rehabilitating, and rebuilding our highways.

Over the years, State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and local transportation agencies (hereafter 

collectively referred to as agencies) have used many successful approaches, innovative strategies, and 

tools to mitigate work zone impacts. However, in light of the work zone needs of today and the future, 

and the principles advocated by the Rule, practitioners generally recognize the need for a systematic 

process to assess and manage work zone impacts. This Guide presents a general approach for work 

zone impacts assessment. It is not the only way, and is not intended to advocate a “one-size-fits-all” 

approach. Throughout the Guide there is a recognition that different projects have different needs, and 

that the same level of work zone impacts assessment is not appropriate for every project. For some 

projects (e.g., less complex projects) a high-level qualitative assessment may be sufficient, while for 

others a detailed quantitative analysis (e.g., modeling /simulation) may be needed. 

The intended audience for this Guide is transportation agency staff, including technical staff (planners, 

designers, construction/traffic engineers, highway/safety engineers, etc.); management and executivelevel staff responsible for setting policy and program direction; field staff responsible for building 

projects and managing work zones; and staff responsible for assessing performance in these areas. 

Appropriate non-agency staff that partner with or are contracted by the agency, such as FHWA staff with 

oversight responsibilities, contractors, highway workers, and consultants also may find this Guide useful.

Incorporating work zone impacts assessment in program delivery does not entail an entirely new 

process. Many agencies already perform key work zone impacts assessment activities. This Guide 

re-emphasizes them and incorporates additional concepts and principles advocated by the Rule (e.g., 

transportation operations, public information, performance assessment). Agencies can use the Guide 

to review and update existing policies, processes, and procedures, or for creating entirely new ones. 

The assessment process described in this Guide mirrors the typical program delivery process of 

transportation agencies. The assessment process is summarized as follows:

• Adopting a Policy that facilitates systematic work zone impacts assessment and 

management, and implementing policy provisions for decision-making during program 

delivery.

• Conducting a first-cut assessment during Systems Planning to conceptually identify work 

zone management strategies, address project coordination, and estimate costs.

• Conducting early project-level assessments and investigations during Preliminary 

Engineering to further identify construction approaches, management strategies, costs, and 

other coordination issues. 

• Performing more detailed assessments throughout the various Design iterations to finalize 

the construction approach and management strategies, and develop the final design, TMP, 

and plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&Es).

• Implementing the TMP during Construction, monitoring actual work zone impacts in the 

field, and managing the impacts by making adjustments (as needed) to the TMP. 

• Conducting Performance Assessment to develop recommendations for improving work zone 

policies, processes, and procedures.

• Incorporating work zone impacts assessment and management in Maintenance and 

Operations.
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

iv

This Guide is structured as follows:

• Section 1 provides a brief introduction to work zone impacts assessment, explains its 

importance, identifies the target audience, and explains how it relates to the Rule.

• Section 2 outlines the overall structure of the assessment process described in this 

Guide, and explains how it fits into program delivery. It also discusses key issues 

related to work zone impacts.

• Section 3 discusses the development and implementation of a work zone policy, and 

provides examples of potential policy provisions for use in decision-making during 

program delivery.

• Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively, discuss principles and a process that can be used 

for work zone impacts assessment during systems planning, preliminary engineering, 

design, and construction. The introductory portions of each of these sections contain 

a process overview, and present the potential participants, inputs, and outputs. The 

key elements in each of these sections are the respective process flow diagrams and 

accompanying process explanations that provide a step-by-step approach that can be 

used for work zone impacts assessment.

• Section 8 discusses work zone performance assessment and how it aids in the process 

of understanding and managing the safety and mobility impacts of work zones. 

The section includes suggestions for possible work zone performance assessment 

categories and measures.

• Section 9 discusses work zone impacts assessment for maintenance and operations 

(M&O) along four key themes: improving agency procedures to minimize the direct 

impacts of M&O activities; planning and coordinating M&O such that overall systemwide impacts are minimized; addressing impacts of M&O on other construction 

projects and vice-versa; and incorporating features in construction projects that would 

facilitate future M&O with minimum disruption.

• The Guide has three appendices. Appendix A presents a real-world example of how 

the work zone impacts assessment process described in this Guide can be applied to 

a project. Appendix B provides an overview of different traffic analysis tools that may 

be used for analysis of work zone impacts. Appendix C presents a list of the resources 

referenced in this Guide. 

WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

v

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms .....................................................................................................................i

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................ii

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 What is Work Zone Impacts Assessment? .......................................................................1-1

1.2 Why Assess Work Zone Impacts? .....................................................................................1-1

1.3 Purpose of This Document................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Target Audience .................................................................................................................1-3

1.5 How to Use This Guide......................................................................................................1-3

1.6 Work Zone Impacts Assessment and the Work Zone Rule.............................................1-4

1.7 Overview of Guidance Material for the Rule ...................................................................1-6

2.0 Overview of the Work Zone Impacts Assessment Process................................................... 2-1

2.1 Overall Structure............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Incorporating Work Zone Impacts Assessment in Program Delivery .......................... 2-2

2.3 Work Zone Impacts Considerations ................................................................................ 2-7

3.0 Addressing Work Zone Impacts at the Policy-Level .............................................................. 3-1

3.1 What Happens at the Policy-Level? ................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Why Consider Work Zone Impacts Issues at the Policy-Level?..................................... 3-1

3.3 Developing and Implementing a Work Zone Policy ...................................................... 3-2

3.3.1 Key Components of a Work Zone Policy ............................................................. 3-2

3.3.2 Who Develops and Implements the Policy?........................................................ 3-4

3.3.3 Policy Development and Implementation Process ............................................. 3-6

3.4 Potential Policy Provisions for Application During Program Delivery.......................... 3-7

3.4.1 Classification of Projects Based on Expected Work Zone Impacts.................... 3-7

3.4.2 Work Zone Performance Standards/Requirements .......................................... 3-11

3.4.3 Policy Guidance and Agency Processes and Procedures..................................3-12

4.0 Work Zone Impacts Assessment During Systems Planning ................................................. 4-1

4.1 What is Systems Planning?.............................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Key Activities Performed During Systems Planning........................................... 4-1

4.2 Why Assess Work Zone Impacts During Systems Planning?........................................ 4-2

4.2.1 Importance of Work Zone Impacts Assessment in Systems Planning .............. 4-2

4.3 When in Systems Planning Can Work Zone Impacts be Assessed?............................. 4-4

4.4 Who are the Participants? ................................................................................................ 4-5

4.5 Assessment Process ......................................................................................................... 4-7

5.0 Work Zone Impacts Assessment During Preliminary Engineering....................................... 5-1

5.1 What Happens During Preliminary Engineering? .......................................................... 5-1

5.2 Objectives of Work Zone Impacts Assessment During Preliminary Engineering ....... 5-2

5.3 Who are the Participants? ................................................................................................ 5-4

5.4 Assessment Process ......................................................................................................... 5-5
vi

6.0 Work Zone Impacts Assessment During Design.................................................................... 6-1

6.1 What Happens During Design?........................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Objectives of Work Zone Impacts Assessment During Design..................................... 6-2

6.3 Who are the Participants? ................................................................................................ 6-4

6.4 Assessing Work Zone Impacts During Design ............................................................... 6-5

7.0 Work Zone Impacts Assessment During Construction...........................................................7-1

7.1 What Happens During Construction?...............................................................................7-1

7.2 Objectives of Work Zone Impacts Assessment During Construction............................7-2

7.3 Who are the Participants? .................................................................................................7-4

7.4 Managing Work Zone Impacts During Construction ......................................................7-5

8.0 Performance Assessment......................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 What is Performance Assessment? ................................................................................. 8-1

8.2 Objectives of Work Zone Performance Assessment...................................................... 8-1

8.3 Who are the Participants? ................................................................................................ 8-3

8.4 Conducting Work Zone Performance Assessment ........................................................ 8-4

9.0 Work Zone Impacts Assessment in Maintenance and Operations....................................... 9-1

9.1 Overview of Maintenance and Operations (M&O)......................................................... 9-1

9.2 Objectives of Assessing Work Zone Impacts in M&O ................................................... 9-2

9.3 Who Performs the Assessment?...................................................................................... 9-4

9.4 Assessment Framework ................................................................................................... 9-4

9.4.1 Improving Agency Procedures so that the Direct Safety and Mobility

Impacts of M&O Activities are Minimized and Better Managed........................ 9-5

9.4.2 Planning and Coordinating M&O to Minimize Overall System-Wide

Impacts ................................................................................................................... 9-9

9.4.3 Implementing and Managing M&O Activities with Minimal Impacts

on Other Construction Projects and Vice-Versa ................................................ 9-12

9.4.4 Incorporating Features in Construction Projects to Facilitate Future

M&O with Minimum Disruption......................................................................... 9-13

Appendix A – Example Work Zone Impacts Assessment:

 Virginia Department of Transportation I-495/U.S. Route 1

 Interchange Reconstruction Project ........................................ Appendix A-1

Appendix B – Impacts Analysis Tools .............................................................Appendix B-1

Appendix C – Resources Referenced in This Document ...............................Appendix C-1
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

vii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Key Provisions in the Rule that Pertain to 

Work Zone Impacts Assessment..........................................................................1-5

Table 2.1 Policy-Level........................................................................................................... 2-4

Table 2.2 Systems Planning................................................................................................. 2-5

Table 2.3 Project Development (Preliminary Engineering and Design)........................... 2-6

Table 2.4 Construction/Implementation ............................................................................. 2-6

Table 2.5 Performance Assessment.................................................................................... 2-6

Table 2.6 Maintenance and Operations.............................................................................. 2-7

Table 2.7 Work Zone Impacts Considerations.................................................................... 2-9

Table 3.1 Policy Development and Implementation Participants ..................................... 3-5

Table 3.2 FHWA Work Zone Self Assessment-Project Classification Scheme................. 3-9

Table 4.1 Systems Planning Assessment Participants ...................................................... 4-6

Table 4.2 Process Notes ....................................................................................................... 4-8

Table 5.1 Preliminary Engineering Assessment Participants............................................ 5-4

Table 5.2 Process Notes ....................................................................................................... 5-6

Table 6.1 Design-Level Work Zone Impacts Assessment Participants............................. 6-4

Table 6.2 Process Notes ....................................................................................................... 6-6

Table 7.1 Construction Work Zone Impacts Assessment Participants ............................. 7-4

Table 7.2 Process Notes ....................................................................................................... 7-6

Table 7.3 Sample Performance Aspects to Monitor and Measure ..................................7-12

Table 8.1 Performance Assessment Participants ............................................................... 8-3

Table 8.2 Process Notes ....................................................................................................... 8-6

Table 8.3 Project Information Categories and Examples 

for Performance Assessment .............................................................................. 8-7

Table 8.4 Example Work Zone Performance Assessment Measures............................... 8-9

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Typical Program Delivery Process ...................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2.2 Overall Work Zone Impacts Assessment Flow Diagram................................... 2-3

Figure 3.1 Policy Development and Implementation Process............................................ 3-6

Figure 4.1 Incorporating Work Zone Impacts Assessment in Systems Planning............. 4-5

Figure 4.2 Systems Planning — Work Zone Impacts Assessment Process........................ 4-7

Figure 5.1 Preliminary Engineering — Work Zone Impacts Assessment Process ............. 5-5

Figure 6.1 Design — Work Zone Impacts Assessment Process .......................................... 6-5

Figure 7.1 Construction — Work Zone Impacts Assessment Process................................. 7-5

Figure 8.1 Work Zone Performance Assessment Process................................................... 8-5

Figure A.1 High-Level WWB Project Location Map..............................................................A-1

Figure A.2 Detailed Project Location Map ............................................................................A-2

Figure A.3 Sample News/Media Release from WWB Project Web Site........................... A-11

Figure A.4 Anticipated I-495/U.S. 1 Traffic Impacts 2005-06.............................................A-12

WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

1.0 Introduction

1.1 What is Work Zone Impacts Assessment?

Work zone impacts assessment is the process of understanding the safety and mobility 

impacts of a road construction/maintenance/rehabilitation project. This constitutes:

• Assessing the likely work zone impacts and developing appropriate work zone 

transportation management plans (TMPs) during project development and delivery.

• Monitoring the actual impacts of the project and making adjustments to the TMP (if 

necessary) during project implementation.

• Conducting performance assessment to track performance, document lessons learned, 

and identify trends towards overall improvement of work zone policies, procedures, 

and practices.

Factors that will influence the level of impacts caused by a work zone include traffic 

conditions and characteristics, project characteristics, geographic/physical features, 

and aspects of the surrounding area (e.g., alternate routes, nearby businesses). The 

assessment process may involve a high-level, qualitative review of these factors for 

some projects, and a detailed quantitative analysis using modeling and/or simulation 

tools for other projects. 

1.2 Why Assess Work Zone Impacts?

Current and future work zone safety and mobility issues mean that transportation 

practitioners need to minimize and manage the work zone impacts of road projects. 

Some of the key work zone issues of today include:

• Traffic volumes and congestion are increasing on our roads, but there is very little 

growth in road miles.

• Highways are approaching middle age, requiring more construction and repair, 

which means more work zones. More work is done on existing roadways, affecting 

traffic using the road under construction and possibly other nearby roads. This adds 

pressure to compress schedules, finish projects early, and sometimes perform work at 

night, while maintaining safety and the quality of work.

• Work zone safety continues to be a concern, with more than 41,000 injuries and 

around 1,000 fatalities in work zones each year (from 1999 – 2003)1.

• Travelers are frustrated with the delays and unexpected road conditions caused by 

work zones.

In order to meet safety and mobility needs during highway maintenance and 

construction, and to meet the expectations of the traveling public, it is important to 

systematically assess the work zone impacts of projects and take appropriate action to 

manage these impacts. 

1

 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System and 

General Estimates System. Washington D.C., 2003.

1-1
Assessing work zone impacts is intended to help transportation professionals:

• Identify and understand the work zone safety and mobility impacts of road 

projects (construction, maintenance and utility work).

• Understand the work zone safety and mobility implications of alternative project 

options and design strategies.

• Identify those projects that are likely to have greater work zone impacts to 

allocate resources more effectively to projects.

• Identify transportation management strategies to manage the expected work zone 

impacts of a project.

• Estimate costs and allocate appropriate resources for the implementation of the 

work zone transportation management strategies.

• Understand, coordinate, and manage multiple projects and construction 

schedules to minimize overall impacts.

• Monitor and manage work zone impacts during construction, maintenance, and 

utility work, and adjust the transportation management strategies if needed.

• Provide information for conducting performance assessment.

• Use work zone performance assessment information to improve and update work 

zone policies, procedures and practices.

Recognizing the above, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), updated the 

work zone regulation in 23 CFR 630 Subpart J to help States and local transportation 

agencies2 better address and manage the work zone safety and mobility impacts of 

their road projects. Section 1.6 provides a discussion of the updated regulation.

1.3 Purpose of This Document

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to practitioners on developing 

and/or updating procedures to assess and manage the work zone impacts of their 

road projects. 

Over the years State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and other transportation 

professionals have taken several successful measures and used innovative 

strategies and tools to manage the safety and mobility impacts of work zones. 

Practices and procedures vary greatly across the country and the decision-making 

process for work zone impacts assessment and management is not always 

consistent. This is both appropriate and essential, as what applies in one part of 

the country may not apply equally in another. However, the FHWA and many State 

and local practitioners recognize that some guidance on an approach for work zone 

impacts assessment and management could be helpful. 

This document presents a general approach for conducting work zone impacts 

assessment and management. This approach is not the only way to perform work 

zone impacts assessment, and is not intended to advocate a “one-size-fits-all” 

approach. The guidance provided in this document will:

• Assist agencies with developing and/or updating their own policies, processes, 

and procedures for assessing work zone impacts throughout the different 

program delivery stages.

2 1-2 Hereinafter referred to as agencies.
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• Set forth some basic guiding principles and describe one possible approach for 

conducting work zone impacts assessment.

• Provide practitioners with information to support work zone related decision-making 

based upon relevant project information that is available at each stage.

• Help agencies implement the provisions of the updated work zone regulation.

1.4 Target Audience

This guide primarily applies to staff belonging to State and local transportation agencies. 

Categories of staff include:

• Technical staff, including planners, engineers, designers, construction engineers, traffic 

engineers, and specialists such as environmental engineers, hydraulics experts, and 

right-of-way (ROW) experts. Technical staff will typically be responsible for assessing 

work zone impacts during the respective stages of program delivery and developing 

appropriate work zone management strategies.

• Field staff, including construction managers, project engineers, construction and safety 

inspectors, and highway maintenance workers, who are responsible for building road 

projects in the field and for managing work zone impacts during construction. 

• Management-level and executive-level staff who are responsible for formulating 

policies, identifying program vision, goals, and objectives, and setting program-level 

priorities.

• Appropriate representatives from the above areas who are responsible for assessing 

the performance of work zones and developing recommendations for improving 

policies, practices, and procedures.

Appropriate non-agency staff that partner with, or are contracted by the agency, to plan, 

design, and build road projects may also find this guidance useful. This group includes 

industry representatives, consultant staff, contractor staff, and highway workers.

1.5 How to Use This Guide

This document is intended to serve as a resource for conducting work zone impacts 

assessments. It covers a wide range of related topics applicable to the different program 

delivery stages. Given the exhaustiveness of the subject matter and to minimize 

document length, the Guide does not always present all of the issues that fall under 

a specific topic area, and neither does it focus on providing detailed explanations on 

individual topics/issues. It does provide both generic and real-world examples to help 

put discussions in context, and also points to resources where more information on 

specific topics/issues can be obtained. Appendix A contains an example of how the 

overall impacts assessment process described in this Guide has been applied to the 

Virginia Department of Transportation I-495/U.S. Route 1 Interchange project, which is 

part of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge reconstruction project in the Washington, D.C. area. 

The basic process steps discussed in this Guide for the different program delivery stages 

may seem identical; however the work zone impacts related topics/issues are specific to 

the level of information and project-detail that progressively becomes available from one 

stage to another. The Guide does include some repetition and many cross references 

1-3
between chapters. This is intended to facilitate its use as a reference document, so that 

someone who refers primarily to the chapter pertaining to his/her role (e.g., as a designer), 

will readily see how that step relates to the rest of that process. 

Agencies are encouraged to use this guidance as a general framework to update and/or 

develop their own work zone impacts assessment process and identify relevant issues 

that need to be addressed under a specific topic area. This Guide is written to be a helpful 

reference for conducting a work zone impacts assessment for a wide range of projects. 

The basic principles presented in this Guide can be applied to any type of project. Some of 

the more in-depth or detailed analysis may be most appropriate for complex projects and 

projects likely to cause a relatively greater amount of work zone impacts.

1.6 Work Zone Impacts Assessment and 

the Work Zone Rule

The FHWA published the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule (the Rule) on September 

9, 2004 in the Federal Register (69 FR 54562). The Rule updates and renames the former 

regulation on “Traffic Safety in Highway and Street Work Zones” in 23 CFR 630 Subpart 

J. All State and local governments that receive Federal-aid highway funding are affected 

by this updated Rule, and are required to comply with its provisions no later than October 

12, 2007. The purpose of this update is to help States and local transportation agencies3

better address and manage the work zone safety and mobility impacts of their road 

projects. While the Rule applies specifically to Federal-aid highway projects, agencies are 

encouraged to apply the good practices that it fosters to other road projects as well. 

The Rule brings about a new focus and new requirements to address work zone safety and 

mobility. It advocates comprehensive and systematic consideration of the broader safety 

and mobility impacts of work zones 4 through a project’s life cycle, and the implementation 

of appropriate strategies to help manage these impacts. 

The Rule is characterized by a policy-driven focus to institutionalize work zone processes 

and procedures, with specific provisions for application at the project-level. The Rule’s 

provisions are organized under three primary components:

• Policy-level provisions that help agencies implement an overall work zone safety and 

mobility policy for the systematic consideration and management of work zone impacts.

• State-level processes and procedures that help agencies implement and sustain their 

respective work zone policies. These include procedures that address work zone impacts 

assessment, work zone data, work zone training, and process reviews.

• Project-level procedures that help agencies assess and manage the work zone impacts of 

projects.

As evident from these three primary components, the Rule places an emphasis on 

comprehensive and systematic assessment and management of the work zone impacts of 

road projects. While the Rule does not require a specific work zone impacts assessment 

process/procedure, it recommends that agencies develop and implement systematic 

procedures to assess work zone impacts in project development, and to manage safety and 

mobility during project implementation. Table 1.1 describes the key provisions in the Rule 

that pertain to work zone impacts assessment

1-4

3

 Hereinafter referred to as agencies.

4

 The phrase “broader safety and mobility impacts of work zones” emphasizes that work zone impacts may extend beyond 

the physical location of the work zone itself. Impacts may be felt on the roadway on which work is being performed, adjacent 

facilities, highway corridors, other transportation facilities, other modes of transportation, and on businesses and the community.
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

1

 23 U.S.C. 134 (i)(1)(A) & (B) requires the Secretary of Transportation to designate as a TMA each urbanized area with a 

population of over 200,000 individuals. In addition, at the request of the Governor and metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) (or affected local officials), other areas may be officially designated as TMAs by the Administrators of the FHWA and 

the FTA. The list of TMAs is contained in the July 8, 2002 Federal Register on pages 45173 to 45178 (http://frwebgate.access.

gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&docid=02-16998-filed).

1-5

Table 1.1 Key Provisions in the Rule that Pertain to Work Zone Impacts Assessment
1.7 Overview of Guidance Material for the Rule

To help agencies implement the provisions of the Rule, the FHWA has developed a suite 

of guidance documents that address the following topics:

• Overall Rule Implementation. Provides an overview of the Rule and general guidance 

for implementing the Rule, lays out fundamental principles, and presents agencies 

with ideas for implementing the Rule’s provisions.

• Work Zone Impacts Assessment. The guidance material provided in this document 

addresses this topic.

• Work Zone Transportation Management Plans (TMPs). Provides guidance on 

developing TMPs for managing work zone impacts of projects.

• Work Zone Public Information and Outreach Strategies. Provides guidance 

on developing communications strategies to inform affected audiences about 

construction projects, their expected work zone impacts, and the changing conditions 

on projects.

All Rule resources are available on the FHWA work zone web site at

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm.

1-6

Table 1.1 Key Provisions in the Rule that Pertain to Work Zone Impacts Assessment (Continued)
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

2.0 Overview of the Work Zone Impacts 

Assessment Process

2.1 Overall Structure

Transportation agencies strive to provide for a safe, efficient, and reliable transportation 

system for the public. To achieve this, they perform the following two basic types of 

functions:

• Operate, manage, and maintain the existing transportation system.

• Identify system deficiencies and improvement needs, and develop and implement 

appropriate solutions that serve the identified needs.

State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) perform these two functions using a 

set of processes that include policy, planning, project development, construction/

implementation, maintenance and operations, and performance assessment, as shown 

in Figure 2.1. In the figure, policy is shown as a vertical bar because an agency’s policies 

affect all the steps of the program delivery process to some degree. Performance 

measurement and system management, maintenance, and operations are shown 

as vertical bars in Figure 2.1 because these are ongoing activities that are done 

continuously, rather than at one step in the program delivery process. Work zones are 

a necessary part of system maintenance and system improvement. Each work zone 

causes some level of safety and mobility impacts that can be managed by decisions 

made during the program delivery process. 

Figure 2.1 Typical Program Delivery Process

2-1 1

 STIP – Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan; TIP – Transportation Improvement Program

2

 NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act
2.2 Incorporating Work Zone Impacts 

Assessment in Program Delivery

Incorporating work zone impacts assessment in program delivery does not entail an 

entirely new process; rather, it involves the consideration of work zone impacts issues 

during pre-existing program delivery activities. Thus, the work zone impacts assessment 

process described in this Guide is structured to mirror the typical State DOT program 

delivery process. 

Work zone impacts assessment may be incorporated into program delivery by:

• Implementing an overall work zone safety and mobility policy at the policy-level.

• Conducting a first-cut work zone impacts assessment at the systems planning-level.

• Conducting a preliminary project-level work zone impacts assessment during 

preliminary engineering.

• Conducting detailed project-level work zone impacts assessment during design.

• Managing work zone impacts during construction.

• Conducting work zone performance assessment on a regular basis.

• Incorporating work zone impacts assessment procedures in ongoing systems 

management, maintenance, and operations.

The level of detail and type of work zone impacts assessment varies depending upon 

the program delivery stage. For example, during systems planning work zone impacts 

assessment may involve qualitatively identifying the potential work zone impacts of a 

project, whereas, during design it may involve a more detailed analysis of the work zone 

impacts. The flowchart shown in Figure 2.2 provides an overview of the overall work 

zone impacts assessment process described in the remainder of this Guide.

2-2
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

2-3

Figure 2.2 Overall Work Zone Impacts Assessment Flow Diagram
Tables 2.1 – 2.6 provide an overview of what happens during the program delivery 

stages, and how work zone impacts assessment may be incorporated. Many of the key 

work zone impacts assessment activities are already being performed by agencies. This 

discussion re-emphasizes them, and incorporates the additional aspects of work zone 

impacts assessment and management that are advocated by the updated work zone Rule 

(the Rule). Subsequent chapters provide more detail on work zone impacts assessment 

during the individual program delivery stages.

2-4

Table 2.1 Policy-Level
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The transition from systems planning to project development may not always be 

distinct. Some activities may extend across both systems planning and project 

development. For example, environmental/NEPA analyses, and the consideration of 

regional and corridor impacts may extend well into the preliminary engineering phase 

of projects. Practitioners are encouraged to consider work zone impacts issues during 

these activities irrespective of the stage in which they take place.

2-5

Table 2.2 Systems Planning 
2-6

Table 2.3 Project Development (Preliminary Engineering and Design)

Table 2.4 Construction/Implementation

Table 2.5 Performance Assessment
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

2-7

Table 2.6 Maintenance and Operations

2.3 Work Zone Impacts Considerations

The essence of assessing and managing the work zone impacts of road construction and 

maintenance projects lies in:

• Maximizing the safety of road users and highway workers.

• Maximizing mobility and accessibility on roadways.

• Planning, designing, and building projects as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Safety, mobility, and constructability are the three critical work zone related issues 

that need to be addressed while planning, designing, and building road projects. 

Constructability can be defined as the optimum use of construction knowledge and 

experience in planning, design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall 

project objectives. The objective of constructability is to facilitate rational bids and 

minimize problems during construction. Benefits of constructability include cost 

reduction, schedule adherence, higher productivity, enhanced quality, and more safety 

and convenience for the traveling public3. Constructability reviews are performed to 

facilitate the practicality of construction and minimize project delays, changes, and costs, 

while at the same time maximizing productivity, quality, safety, and convenience. 

3

 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 390, Constructability Review Process for Transportation 

Facilities, Stuart Anderson and Deborah Fisher, National Academy Press, 1997.

Safety

Mobility

Constructability
TIP: Constructability and value engineering may be similar in that they require 

reviews of project plans and designs; however, their purposes are vastly 

different. Value engineering provides for the necessary functions while 

reducing or eliminating project costs. Value engineering is normally 

performed during the design and/or construction phase, whereas 

constructability needs to be reviewed on an ongoing basis throughout 

project development. More information on value engineering is available 

on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Value Engineering web site 

at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/index.htm. 

As work zone impacts assessment is performed progressively through the 

various program delivery stages, the three basic issues of safety, mobility, and 

constructability are addressed in an iterative manner. Information from one 

stage feeds into the next, with the level of detail of the assessment progressively 

increasing from stage to stage. The objective is to achieve constructability without 

compromising safety and mobility. Safety, mobility, and constructability are affected 

by the following types of issues, including:

• Project characteristics.

• Travel and traffic characteristics.

• Corridor, network, and community issues.

• Design, procurement, and construction options.

• Work zone design and safety issues.

• TTC strategies.

• Transportation operations (TO) strategies.

• Public information (PI) strategies.

Table 2.7 provides an overview of different work zone impacts considerations for each 

of these issues. Additional detail on these considerations is provided throughout this 

document at appropriate locations.

2-8
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

2-9

Table 2.7 Work Zone Impacts Considerations
2-10

Table 2.7 Work Zone Impacts Considerations (Continued)
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones

provides a focused discussion on TTC, TO, and PI strategies along with overview 

discussions, applicability, advantages, and disadvantages. This Guide is available 

at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm (Accessed 1/18/06).

Appendix A presents an example application of how the overall work zone impacts 

assessment process described in this Guide can be applied to a project. The appendix 

discusses the work zone impacts issues faced by the project and describes the strategies 

used for the project to mitigate work zone impacts. 

2-11

WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

3.0 Addressing Work Zone Impacts

at the Policy-Level

3.1 What Happens at the Policy-Level?

At the policy-level, overall policies and program priorities are established and used for 

decision-making during the different program delivery stages. The policy is applied 

through policy provisions that address various aspects of transportation system 

planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operations. Policy provisions may be 

in the form of standard procedures, specific requirements, performance standards, and/

or policy guidance. Examples of policy-level guidance and procedures include:

• Guidance on the type of work zone impacts assessment for different types of projects 

(e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or both).

• Guidance on the use of tools to assess and estimate impacts of projects (e.g., some 

agencies require the use of specific models or analytical methods to estimate the 

potential work zone impacts of projects).

• Standard processes and procedures for specific activities (e.g., developing standard 

traffic control plan sheets for shoulder and guard-rail work, or by specifying night-time 

work for certain categories of projects).

• Guidance on the type of contracting options that best suit different project types (e.g., 

traditional low-bid, design-build, incentive/disincentive, performance-based).

• Work zone performance monitoring requirements (e.g., requiring the measurement of 

travel times and the tracking of crashes for specific categories of projects).

Policy development and implementation is an ongoing and over-arching aspect of 

program delivery. Policies are periodically updated and revised to address new issues 

and to make their components concurrent with the state of the art and/or the state of the 

practice.

3.2 Why Consider Work Zone Impacts Issues 

at the Policy-Level?

Addressing work zone safety and mobility at the policy-level and applying the policy at 

the various stages of program delivery will facilitate streamlined decision-making and 

consistency. Policies can help standardize work zone practices that are known to work 

well, and serve as a guide for planning, designing, and constructing road projects. In 

addition, a policy-based approach to work zone safety and mobility facilitates buyin and support from management for the effective assessment and management of 

work zone impacts. Such standardization and streamlining will in turn lead to good 

decision-making that results in safe and effective work zones, well-constructed projects, 

construction quality, improved agency operational and organizational efficiency, and cost 

effectiveness.

Recognizing the above, the updated Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility (the Rule) 

requires State Departments of Transportation and local transportation agencies1 to 

implement a Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy for the systematic consideration 

and management of work zone impacts. Many agencies have pre-existing work zone 

3-1 1

 Hereinafter referred to as agencies.
policies, in which case, those policies may be updated and/or enhanced to incorporate 

the concepts and principles advocated by the Rule. For example, the former Rule 

required traffic control plans (TCPs)2 for road projects while the updated Rule requires 

transportation management plans (TMPs)3. Pre-existing policies on TCPs may now 

be expanded to include provisions on TMP development and implementation. In the 

absence of a pre-existing overall policy, a new one may have to be developed and 

implemented.

Table 1.1 in Section 1.0 of this document presents excerpts of the provisions in the Rule 

that pertain to work zone impacts assessment and management. Section 630.1006 of 

the Rule addresses the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy. 

More information on the Rule, including the Rule language, may be obtained in the 

Final Rule section of the FHWA work zone web site at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/

resources/final_rule.htm (Accessed 11/18/05).

Development and application of policy provisions for work zone impacts 

assessment may provide quick answers to questions such as:

• Do I need to perform an extensive work zone impacts assessment for my project?

• What project classification does my project fall under, and what are the 

corresponding work zone impacts assessment actions that I need to take?

• What management strategies should I consider in the Transportation Management 

Plan (TMP)?

• Are there any policy provisions that require maintenance of a certain number of 

lanes of traffic capacity during roadwork on a certain type of facility?

• What is the agency’s policy guidance on how to account for road user costs in 

developing TMPs?

• What are the agency’s policy provisions on traffic incident management strategies 

for work zones?

• Does the agency’s policy allow performance-based contracting?

• Are there any policy provisions that require monitoring of work zone performance 

for my project?

3.3 Developing and Implementing 

a Work Zone Policy

3.3.1 Key Components of a Work Zone Policy

The key components that may be considered when developing or revising a work 

zone policy include a vision, goals, and objectives, and specific policy provisions for 

application during program delivery. Work zone impacts issues may be addressed in 

3-2

2

 TCPs are the equivalent of temporary traffic control (TTC) plans.

3

 Section 630.1012(b) of the Rule addresses TMPs. A TMP expands work zone mitigation from a traffic control approach to 

a transportation management approach. According to the Rule, a TMP must always consist of a temporary traffic control (TTC) 

plan, and for significant projects, it must also address Transportation Operations (TO) and Public Information (PI) components. 
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

these components by laying out a vision that facilitates assessment and management 

of work zone impacts, setting goals and objectives that aim to improve the safety and 

mobility of work zones, and including specific policy provisions that address various 

aspects of decision-making during work zone impacts assessment and management. 

The three components are briefly discussed as follows:

• Vision. This is an overall policy statement that supports the systematic consideration 

and management of work zone safety and mobility impacts on road projects, and 

lays out the agency’s vision for providing safe and efficient travel for road users, 

worker safety, and quality of construction.

The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) commitment is to, 

“Minimize motorist delays for ALL activities on the State highway system 

without compromising public or worker safety, or the quality of the work being 

performed.” Caltrans’ aim is to achieve 100% compliance on all activities on the 

State highway system, including construction, special events, encroachment 

permits, and maintenance, but with varying levels of treatment.

Source: Transportation Management Plans Effectiveness Study, Robert Copp, Caltrans, 

TRB 2004 Annual Meeting, Session 526: Work Zone Impacts – A New Frontier

• Goals and Objectives. Strategic goals and performance objectives help agencies 

attain their work zone safety and mobility vision. Performance objectives can serve 

as the basis for developing and implementing actions designed to meet the goal(s) 

in a specified time frame. For example, an agency may have a goal of reducing work 

zone related fatalities by 50% within the next 5 years. One of the objectives that 

helps meet this goal may be to use enhanced traffic enforcement in all work zones to 

achieve greater compliance with speed limits and thereby reduce speed variability.

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has a performance goal to 

design work zones for the regular posted speed limit rather than a reduced 

work zone speed limit. This is especially applicable to situations where traffic 

realignment is required (e.g., reverse curves and super-elevations). This design 

practice helps reduce unexpected curves and sharp curves and keep traffic 

flowing smoothly, thereby reducing rear-end, truck roll-over, and run-off-the-road 

accidents. This practice is most effective for high-volume/high-speed locations.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/

best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/16/05).

• Specific Policy Provisions for Application During Project Delivery. Specific policy 

provisions help implement and sustain the overall work zone policy, and provide for 

standardized decision-making at appropriate stages of program delivery. They may 

consist of processes, procedures, criteria, standards, and/or guidance for work zone 

related decision-making. Agencies may choose to implement policy provisions in 

the form of mandated requirements or in the form of policy guidance, as appropriate 

to their individual operating environments. More information on different types of 

specific policy provisions is provided in Section 3.4.

3-3
In addition to the above key components, the following may also be useful items to include in 

a work zone policy:

• Definitions and Explanation of Terms.

• Stakeholder and Team Information.

• Roles and Responsibilities.

• Contact Person(s).

• Policy Exemption Criteria and Process.

Additional information on the components that may be addressed in a work zone policy 

is available in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety 

and Mobility, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

(Accessed 11/18/05).

3.3.2 Who Develops and Implements the Policy?

Development and implementation of the work zone policy is the responsibility of management 

level agency staff from both executive and technical areas. They may be assisted by 

other technical and field staff. Agencies are encouraged to adopt a multi-disciplinary 

team4 approach for policy development and implementation. The core team should 

consist of agency staff representing the agency’s primary work zone-related functions, 

including planning, engineering/design, construction, maintenance, operations, and public 

information. This is reflective of the various issues involved in planning, designing, and 

building road projects, and the increasing complexity of managing work zone safety and 

mobility under current road and traffic conditions. Primary external members to consider 

include the FHWA, law enforcement, the contracting industry, and regional associations. 

Other external partners may also be included as appropriate. A multi-disciplinary team can 

infuse varying perspectives and a vast knowledge base into the policy. For example, traffic 

operations specialists can address issues related to work zone transportation operations, law 

enforcement personnel can contribute their field experience on most effective enforcement 

strategies, and contracting industry representatives can address the practicality of any new 

construction methods or contracting strategies. 

The Florida DOT has instituted a multi-functional Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) 

committee through which all MOT policies, standards, specifications, new components, 

etc. are reviewed and approved. Members of this committee are from design, 

construction, maintenance, traffic operations, and the FHWA.

Source: Florida DOT comments in response to the FHWA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Work Zone Safety 

and Mobility, August 5, 2003, United States Department of Transportation online Docket Management System. 

URL: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf87/250607_web.pdf (Accessed 09/08/05).

Over time there will likely be a need for the agency to update its policy as situations change, 

knowledge is gained, and new trends and issues are identified. Ongoing feedback and 

information from agency staff and other applicable external sources will serve as input for 

such updates.

3-4 4

 Section 630.1006 of the Rule recommends that the policy be instituted using a multidisciplinary team and in 

partnership with the FHWA. 
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The staff that may develop and implement the work zone policy, the inputs to the 

process and who is likely to provide the inputs, and the outputs and users of the output 

are presented in Table 3.1.

More information on who develops and implements the policy is available in Section 3.4 of 

Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.

dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm (Accessed 11/18/05).

3-5

Table 3.1 Policy Development and Implementation Participants

3

 The contracting industry includes members of organizations such as ATSSA – American Traffic Safety Services Association; 

ARTBA – American Road and Transportation Builders Association; AGC – Associated General Contractors of America.
3.3.3 Policy Development and Implementation Process

The policy development and implementation process is illustrated in Figure 3.1. Input 

from and interaction with appropriate sources (as shown in Table 3.1) may be required 

during the process.

The process is summarized as follows:

• Step 1: Develop Policy. Agencies that have pre-existing work zone policies may not 

need an entirely new policy, but rather a review and update of their existing policies as 

appropriate. In the absence of a pre-existing policy, a new work zone policy needs to be 

developed.

• Step 2: Apply the Policy to the Program Delivery Stages. This step represents 

the ongoing application of the overall policy and the associated policy provisions 

for decision-making during the program delivery stages (i.e., systems planning, 

project development, construction, performance assessment, and maintenance and 

operations).

• Step 3: Refine/Update the Policy. The final step in the policy implementation process 

entails using feedback from the different stages of program delivery to improve and 

refine the policy over time. The purpose is to improve work zone programs, processes, 

and practices, leading to effective management of work zone safety and mobility.

More information on the policy development and implementation process is 

available in Section 3.5 of Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

(Accessed 11/18/05). 

3-6

Figure 3.1 Policy Development and Implementation Process
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

3.4 Potential Policy Provisions for 

Application During Program Delivery

This section provides a general discussion and examples of some of the issues that may 

be considered in developing specific policy provisions. It presents agencies with some 

general ideas and options to consider in developing policy provisions that best suit their 

work zone impacts assessment and management needs.

Specific policy provisions help implement and sustain the agency’s work zone policy. 

Provisions on key aspects of work zone impacts assessment and management can help 

improve decision-making and bring about consistency, efficiency, and standardization 

in the way projects are planned, designed, and built. Agencies may develop and 

implement policy provisions in the form of mandated requirements and/or in the form 

of policy guidance, as appropriate to their individual operating environments. Broadly 

stated, policy provisions help:

• Classify projects based on their expected work zone impacts.

• Apply work zone performance standards/requirements for different project types.

• Provide guidance on agency processes and procedures for work zone related decisionmaking during program delivery.

Many agencies may already have policy provisions that address specific aspects of 

decision-making during project delivery. For example, most agencies employ typical 

temporary traffic control (TTC) approaches for different types of projects. When agencies 

develop and/or update their respective work zone policies they should evaluate such preexisting provisions for update and incorporation in the policy.

Agencies may also develop new policy provisions that help address additional aspects 

of work zone impacts assessment and management. For example, an agency may 

decide to develop policy guidance on performance-based contracts to respond to 

a lack of consistency in the application and usage of performance-based contracts. 

Such new policy provisions may be developed as part of periodic review and update 

of the agency’s work zone policy. They may also be developed to respond to specific 

circumstances that necessitate an out-of-cycle action (e.g., to respond to changing 

industry trends, technological advancements, change in overall agency policy).

3.4.1 Classification of Projects Based on Expected Work Zone Impacts

A project classification system separates road projects into different types based on the 

severity of expected work zone impacts. Such classification enables agencies to apply 

policies and practices that are best suited to each type of project. It also helps address 

specific aspects of work zone related decision-making for different project types. For 

example, a project classification system may be used to identify the needed level of work 

zone impacts assessment for a project (i.e., high-level qualitative assessment or detailed 

quantitative analysis); preferred construction approaches; work zone design options and 

TMP strategies; and work zone monitoring and performance assessment requirements.

3-7
Some of the parameters that affect work zone impacts of projects and may be used for 

project classification include:

• Roadway functional classification – e.g., Interstate, expressway, principal arterial, major 

arterial, minor arterial, collector.

• Area type – e.g., urban, suburban, rural.

• Traffic demand and travel characteristics – e.g., lanes affected, average daily traffic (ADT), 

expected capacity reduction, level of service (LOS).

• Type of work – e.g., new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, maintenance, bridge 

work, equipment installation/repair.

• Complexity of work – e.g., duration, length, intensity.

• Level of traffic interference with construction activity.

• Potential impacts on local transportation network and businesses.

• Considerations specific to the region – e.g., tourism, special events, weather.

Classification systems will vary based on an agency’s needs. They can range from a simple 

scheme (e.g., high, medium, and low work zone impact projects) to a multidimensional 

matrix of projects that recommends appropriate work zone management strategies for 

different project types. In general, a simple classification system that is practical and easy to 

adopt and apply is recommended.

Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones

presents a table listing work zone impacts management strategies. The table 

presents some of the project characteristics that could lead an agency to consider 

specific work zone impacts management strategies. The table may be used as a 

starting point to identify management strategies that suit different project types. 

This Guide is available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

(Accessed 1/18/06).

Recognizing the variation in transportation management needs for different projects, the 

Rule requires the identification of significant projects6, and appropriate application of TMP 

components based on whether projects are classified as significant. This is a high-level 

approach that helps stratify the application of TMP components. Agencies may further hone 

this high-level approach by developing a scheme with additional levels of classification. One 

potential approach is the classification system used in the FHWA Work Zone Mobility and 

Safety Self Assessment Guide7. The guide categorizes work zones into four types based on 

their expected impact levels as shown in Table 3.2. These levels may not encompass all 

possible combinations or degrees of work zone categories; rather they are intended to serve 

as a general guide to help relate individual projects to some overall criteria.

3-8

6

 A significant project is one that, alone or in combination with other concurrent projects nearby is anticipated to cause 

sustained work zone impacts that are greater than what is considered tolerable based on the respective agency’s policy and/or 

engineering judgment. This definition, provided in Section 630.1010 of the Rule, also specifies that all Interstate system projects 

within the boundaries of a Transportation Management Area that occupy a location for more than three days and have lane 

closures are significant.

7

 The FHWA Work Zone Self Assessment program is designed to help agencies assess their work zone programs, procedures, 

and practices against many of the good work zone practices in use today. FHWA Division Offices work together with 

transportation agency staff from their State partners to complete the assessment each year. More information is available at 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/decision_support/self-assess.htm (Accessed 12/16/05). 
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The British Columbia Ministry of Transportation classifies projects according 

to five categories based on the type of basic traffic control required. Project 

complexity increases progressively from Category 1 trough Category 5. This 

scheme sets the basis for identifying work zone impact levels and appropriate 

transportation management strategies for different project categories. The 

Ministry’s guidelines contain specific requirements, standards, and step-by-step 

procedures for developing and implementing traffic management plans.

Source: British Columbia Ministry of Transportation, Traffic Management Guidelines for Work on Roadways, 

September 2001, URL: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/eng_publications/geomet/traffic_mgmt_

guidelines.pdf (Accessed 07/12/05).

Table 3.2 FHWA Work Zone Self Assessment – Project Classification Scheme

Table Source: FHWA Work Zone Self Assessment Guide.

3-9
Agencies may also classify projects into different categories based on the type of 

TMPs that may be needed. Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility8

provides an example using three different categories of TMPs:

• Basic TMP. Basic TMPs are typically applied on construction or maintenance 

projects with minimal disruption to the traveling public and adjacent businesses and 

community. Such projects are not significant projects, and the TMPs typically consist 

of a TTC plan.

• Intermediate TMP. Intermediate TMPs are likely to be used for construction or 

maintenance projects that are anticipated to have more than minimal disruption, but 

have not been identified as significant projects. For example, these projects may be 

expected to impact a moderate number of travelers and have moderate public interest, 

such as single lane closures in urban areas or commercial business districts (CBDs). 

In addition to a TTC plan, intermediate TMPs would also include some elements of 

transportation operations (TO) and public information (PI) strategies.

• Major TMP. Major TMPs are intended for significant projects that typically have 

moderate to high impacts on traffic and the local area and generate a significant 

amount of public interest. Examples include projects involving multiple lane-closures 

or total closure of a vital corridor in an urban area or CBD. Major TMPs consist of a 

TTC plan, and also address TO and PI components.

Additional information on TMPs is available in Developing and Implementing 

Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones, available at 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm (Accessed 11/15/05).

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) uses three categories 

of transportation management plans (TMPs) based on the expected work zone 

impacts of projects.

• The first category is a “Blanket TMP.” This applies to projects where work is done 

on low volume roads during off peak hours and no delays are expected. It also 

applies for moving lane closures. Typical TMP strategies for such projects include 

portable changeable message signs (CMS), freeway service patrols (FSP), travel 

management techniques (TMT), and work during off-peak hours. 

• The second category is a “Minor TMP.” The majority of Caltrans road projects fall 

under this category. Generally such projects cause minimal impacts. Lane closure 

charts and some mitigation measures are required. Typical TMP strategies for such 

projects include night work, portable and fixed CMS, construction zone enhanced 

enforcement program (COZEEP), TMT, highway advisory radio (HAR), FSP, gawk 

screens, etc. 

• The third category is a “Major TMP.” About 5% of Caltrans road projects fall under 

this category. Generally such projects cause significant work zone impacts, and 

may require multiple TMP strategies and multiple contracts. Typical TMP strategies 

for such projects include public awareness campaigns, fixed CMS, extended 

closures, moveable barriers, COZEEP, detours, reduced lane widths, a web site, 

helicopter traffic reports, etc. 

Source: Transportation Management Plans Effectiveness Study, Robert Copp, Caltrans, TRB 2004 Annual 

Meeting, Session 526: Work Zone Impacts – A New Frontier.

3-10 8

 Available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm 
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

3.4.2 Work Zone Performance Standards/Requirements

After a project classification system is setup, agencies may establish work zone safety 

and mobility performance requirements for different types of projects. Appropriate 

performance standards for different types of projects can drive decision-making on work 

zone design, construction, and management strategies that help achieve the desired 

performance. This facilitates consistent thinking across project development stages and 

helps minimize design alterations and change orders during construction. For example:

• Performance standards may be used in project planning and design to identify work 

zone transportation management strategies that help achieve the desired performance.

• During construction, the actual impacts of work zones may be monitored and 

managed so that they fall within a reasonable limit of the desired performance 

standards.

• During performance assessments, anticipated work zone impacts (i.e., modeled or 

predicted) may be compared with the actual impacts in the field (i.e., observed or 

measured).

Many agencies are increasingly using performance measures and performance goals for 

transportation decision-making. Performance standards can be implemented as specific 

performance objectives that address work zone safety, mobility, and constructability. 

For example, reduce work zone crashes or crash rates can be used as a safety 

performance objective. An example of a mobility performance objective is to 

maintain a specific average travel time through a work zone over a certain timeperiod. Performance-based contracts present another potential area where work zone 

performance standards may be incorporated.

The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) has adopted a maximum 

motorist delay specification of 20 minutes for major construction projects in 

remote locations. Generally no reasonable detours are available on such projects 

and work must be performed under traffic. This specification permits the motorist 

to continue to use existing routes without unreasonable delays or detours.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/20/05).

Performance standards can also be implemented indirectly through work zone 

management requirements for specific project types. For example, a traffic management 

policy may drive decision-making on lane-closures (e.g., whether lanes may be closed, 

when they may be closed, how many lanes may be closed), delay and queue thresholds, 

and work hour restrictions. The traffic management policy may also include safety 

performance standards that address work zone related crashes.

3-11
An Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) policy requires that work zone 

lane and shoulder widths meet the minimum geometric standards specified in the 

ODOT Highway Design Manual. Internal policy also calls for 300-foot minimum 

acceleration lanes. Wider lanes and shoulders reduce the potential conflicts 

often associated with narrow lanes and shoulders, and thereby reduce side-swipe 

accidents and truck off-tracking. Safety of construction personnel is also improved 

because they are farther away from moving traffic. This practice is considered for 

every project but is most effective for high-volume/high-speed locations.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/20/05).

The Ohio Department of Transportation developed and adopted a policy that 

limits the number of lanes that may be closed for construction and maintenance 

activities on interstate highways and other freeways. The policy requires sufficient 

mainline capacity during construction and maintenance and provides for allowable 

queue thresholds. 

Source: Ohio Department of Transportation policy on Traffic Management in Work Zones Interstate and 

Other Freeways, Policy No.: 516-003(P), July 18, 2000, URL: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Policy/516-003p.pdf 

(Accessed 09/08/05).

Section 8.0 of this document discusses work zone performance assessment. Specifically, 

Table 8.4 presents examples of work zone performance measures. At the end of Section 

8.0, a list of resources are presented that may be useful for incorporating performance 

measures and goals in work zone decision-making.

3.4.3 Policy Guidance and Agency Processes and Procedures

Policy guidance and agency processes and procedures help work zone related decisionmaking lead to achieving and/or maintaining a desired level of performance for 

different types of projects. They help institutionalize, streamline, and standardize work 

zone safety and mobility practices, make project delivery more efficient and effective, 

and ultimately result in better work zones. Agency-level guidance, processes, and 

procedures may be incorporated in the agency’s policy, or be considered as an extension 

of the policy. 

The Rule specifically addresses agency-level processes and procedures9 for work zone 

assessment and management, use of work zone data, and work zone related training and 

process reviews.

Agency-level processes and procedures are discussed in Section 4.0 of 

Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility, available at 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm (Accessed 11/18/05).

9

 Section 630.1008 of the Rule addresses State-level processes and procedures 3-12
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Typically policy guidance, processes, and procedures provide recommendations on 

project options, work zone design, and impacts management strategies that suit different 

project types. The following are examples of topics that can be addressed in such 

guidance, policies, and procedures:

• Examples of Overall Policy Issues. Overall policy provisions have an over-arching 

influence and are not specific to any particular issue or activity. Examples include:

– Establishment of a multi-disciplinary team to serve as a standing committee on 

work zones (as discussed in Section 3.3.2 of this document and Section 3.4 of 

Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility10).

– Agency organizational strategies (e.g., assigning a specific individual to serve as the 

agency’s work zone safety and mobility coordinator, establishing an agency office for 

work zone safety and mobility management)

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) uses a Full-Time Work Zone 

Traffic Control Person in Metro District Offices. This staff member makes sure 

that motorists have a safe and efficient means of travel through work zones. 

This person also takes measures to reduce delays and work zone crashes and to 

improve communication with motorists. The ODOT District 12 (Cleveland area) 

has used this position for 6 years. Similar positions are also used in the Columbus 

and Cincinnati areas.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/21/05).

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) established a new Office 

of Capital Project Safety (OCPS) to improve and enhance safety awareness in 

construction work zones. As problem areas are identified in work zones, the OCPS 

will evaluate and resolve the problem, and then develop a process to prevent it 

from recurring. A recent accomplishment of the OCPS was the development of 

a new safety program specification that requires all contractors to have a written 

safety program prior to starting work on a project.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/21/05).

– Policy guidance on using the work zone impacts assessment guidance provided in 

this document.

– Development of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with utility operators 

regarding schedule and work coordination.

– Acceptable or desired work zone performance levels such as crash, travel time, and 

queue thresholds.

3-13 3

 Available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm
– Criteria for identifying significant projects (e.g., using a delay and/or queue threshold 

or by using qualitative criteria). The Rule requires the identification of significant 

projects and the development of appropriate TMPs. The required components of 

a TMP vary based on whether projects are classified as significant. Agencies may 

develop and implement specific policy guidance and criteria to guide their staff in 

identifying significant projects11. 

– Exception criteria and procedures for significant projects.

– Provision of training for personnel involved in development, design, 

implementation, operation, inspection, and enforcement of work zones, particularly 

related to approaches to improve safety and mobility of work zones.

• Examples of Policy Issues Related to Systems Planning.

– Policy guidance on coordination (grouping and sequencing) of long-range corridor 

improvements within the project prioritization process of Long Range Plans (LRPs), 

Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs), and other agency planning efforts.

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is attempting to identify 

all needed construction work in a corridor and then let a contract to address all 

of it. The principle they are applying is “get in, get out, and stay out”. A typical 

implementation is for MDOT to allow a total weekend closure within a long-term 

contract project and invite road maintenance, utility, and survey forces to also 

work on their road interests during that time period. This concept is being used 

primarily on high-volume urban freeway projects where traffic distribution is a 

major issue.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/21/05).

– Policy guidance on addressing work zone impacts related issues in alternatives 

evaluation for transportation improvements (e.g., addressing work zone impacts 

issues as part of Major Investment Studies (MISs) and Environmental Impact 

Statements (EISs)).

– Procedures for identification and cost estimation of work zone transportation 

management strategies as part of transportation planning and programming.

– Policy guidance on consideration of work zone related road-user costs and impacts 

to affected businesses and residents in corridor plans.

– Requiring the inclusion of work zone related intelligent transportation systems (ITS) 

components in regional ITS architectures. This will help system integration and 

interoperability.

– Requiring the assessment of work zone performance as part of Congestion 

Management Programs (CMPs) and Congestion Management Systems (CMS) as 

work zones are a significant source of congestion.

9

 More information related to significant projects, including possible criteria, is provided in Section 5.0 of Implementing 

the Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm.

3-14
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• Examples of Policy Issues Related to Project Planning and Design.

– Project development activities and analysis recommendations for different project 

types (e.g., if a project cost exceeds a certain dollar value, an agency may require 

assessment of its life-cycle cost implications).

– Recommendations on project design strategies that increase the overall life-cycle of 

the project and minimize the need for frequent maintenance over its life-cycle.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established a Long Life 

Pavement Rehabilitation Program (LLPRP) for Urban Freeways in April of 1997. 

Every pavement rehabilitated under the LLPRP will have a 30- to 40-year design 

life. Thus the program will pay dividends to the highway users and Caltrans in 

reducing the frequency of maintenance and rehabilitation treatments, thereby 

reducing the number of work zones, number of maintenance activities, and 

therefore worker exposure.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/21/05).

– Policy guidance on collection of traffic and crash data to develop appropriate work 

zone transportation management strategies (e.g., for significant projects).

– Policy guidance on work zone options for different project types (e.g., reduced-lane 

widths, lane closures, night work, full closure, detours).

The Minnesota Department of Transportation has produced a document entitled, 

“A Guide to Establishing Speed Limits in Highway Work Zones.” This document 

outlines the guidelines, proper layouts, and procedures for implementing work 

zone speed limits.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/21/05).

– Standard construction approaches for different project types (e.g., use of night-time 

work for pavement preservation/rehabilitation type projects in urban areas).

– Work zone traffic control standards/practices (e.g., delay and queuing thresholds, 

permitted lane/road closures and time, work hours, detours, temporary structures, 

positive separation).

The Washington State Department of Transportation uses work hour charts for 

typical types of maintenance work zones. Maintenance crews in individual regions 

use these charts to determine the most appropriate time to perform a certain 

activity on a corridor (or type of corridor). This is based on how much the work 

would impact traffic on a particular type of highway.

Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Work Zone Traffic Control Guidelines, January 2005, 

M54-44, URL: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fasc/EngineeringPublications/Manuals/Workzone.pdf

(Accessed 09/08/05).

3-15
– Use of project-specific lane closure policies, including an approval and notification 

process.

– Policy guidance on addressing work zone related user costs (e.g., guidelines on 

assessment of user costs and the extent to which they need to be mitigated).

• Examples of Policy Issues Related to Work Zone Transportation Management 

Strategies.

– Procedures for determining TMP needs for different project types.

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) provides guidance on when 

the agency requires certain types of Transportation Management Plans (TMPs) for 

projects. It provides the following nine project characteristics to be considered: 

major reconstruction or new construction, high traffic volumes, urban/suburban 

areas, significant detrimental impacts on mobility, facility’s capacity will be 

significantly reduced, alternate routing will be necessary, significant impacts on 

local communities and businesses, significant timing and seasonal impacts, and/or 

significant grade changes.

Source: Indiana Department of Transportation, Chapter 81 of the Indiana Design Manual, Transportation 

Management Plans, URL: http://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/standards/dm/Part%208/Ch%2081/Ch81.pdf

(Accessed 12/21/05).

– Policy guidance on maintaining pre-existing roadside safety features12 in developing 

the TTC plan.

– Policy guidance on TO strategies (e.g., travel demand management (TDM), ITS, 

operations planning, traveler information, real-time work zone monitoring, work 

zone traffic incident management, work zone traffic enforcement).

– Recommendations on specific TMP strategies for different project types (e.g., use 

of work zone traffic incident management plans for projects in urban areas where 

shoulders are unavailable during construction, use of an work zone incident and 

construction management coordinator for major projects)

The Colorado Department of Transportation has instituted guidelines for 

developing traffic incident management plans for work zones. This guidebook 

provides recommendations on the types of projects for which work zone traffic 

incident management plans will be developed.

Source: Colorado Department of Transportation, Guidelines for Developing Traffic Incident Management 

Plans for Work Zones, Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch, September 2003. URL: http://www.dot.state.

co.us/Traffic_Manuals_Guidelines/incident_management_guidelines/incident_management_guidelines_

20030919.pdf (Accessed 09/08/05).

– Public information requirements for specific project types (e.g., use of standardized 

public information provided a certain number of days in advance of upcoming 

mobile and short-term road work.)

3-16 12 Section 630.1012(1) of the Rule addresses TTC Plans. The TTC provisions require the maintenance of pre-existing 

roadside safety hardware at an equivalent or better level than existed prior to project implementation. 
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• Examples of Policy Issues Related to Contracting.

– Policy guidance on when to use different types of contracting strategies (e.g., low 

bid, design-build, lane rental, A+B bidding, incentives/ disincentives, performancebased contracting) based on project type. Innovative contracting mechanisms can 

be used to reduce project implementation delays, accelerate construction, and 

shorten overall construction duration, thereby reducing exposure and the resulting 

work zone impacts. 

In 1996, the Florida Legislature authorized the Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) to use accelerated contracting techniques on construction 

projects, and limits innovative contracting to $60 million in contracts annually. 

Alternative contracting techniques include the following: A+B, Lane Rental, Design/

Build, Warranty Clauses, No Excuse Bonus, Lump Sum, Liquidated Savings, and 

Incentive/Disincentive.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/21/05).

– Development of standard specifications for incorporating work zone performance 

monitoring requirements in contract documents.

• Examples of Policy Issues Related to Construction.

– Policies on the use of value engineering (VE) and partnering, and on addressing any 

related work zone impacts issues (e.g., requiring the assessment of potential work 

zone impacts implications of any modifications proposed to the original TMP).

– Monitoring requirements for specific project types (e.g., monitoring travel times 

through work zones that are expected to have significant delays.)

– Work zone safety and mobility reporting and record-keeping procedures (e.g., 

requiring record-keeping on work zone related crashes).

– Policy guidance on collecting, reporting, synthesis, and storage of work zone crash 

and traffic operations data during construction.

– MOUs and policies with other public and private agencies for coordinating activities 

during construction (e.g., police agencies, TMCs, utility companies).

The Illinois State Toll and Highway Authority keeps close track of all lane closures 

on the tollways. One person maintains a list of all lane closures and coordinates 

these lane closures with the State police, public relations, construction, and 

project development. An updated list of lane closures is always available for 

public relations, the Authority, and the police. This also provides for better record 

keeping and analysis of incidents in work zones.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/21/05).

3-17
• Examples of Policy Issues Related to Performance Assessment.

– Procedures for work zone reviews, process reviews, and work zone safety and 

mobility inspections/audits.

– Recommended strategies for use and analysis of any data and/or information 

collected during construction (e.g., recommending the cross-tabulation of work zone 

traffic incident data, mobility and operational data, and construction activity data for 

identifying potential project circumstances that trigger certain types of incidents).

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) compiles work zone 

fatalities and injury accidents based on type, area within the work zone, driver 

characteristics, etc. The data is also categorized and analyzed by type of collision. 

This information is used to identify trends in driver behavior and work zone 

emphasis areas, develop countermeasures, and also for reporting purposes to 

the FHWA and NYSDOT in their annual report. The information is collected at the 

NYSDOT regional level and collected and analyzed by the main office.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 12/21/05).

3-18
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

4.0 Work Zone Impacts Assessment

During Systems Planning

4.1 What is Systems Planning?

Systems planning is the stage of program delivery where planning for the future is 

carried out by identifying transportation systems needs and deficiencies, developing and 

evaluating alternative improvement solutions, and compiling plans and programs for 

implementing the solutions. Systems planning is conducted at several levels including 

Statewide, regional, metropolitan, county, local, and corridor. The process is both 

interactive and iterative, with participation and feedback from concerned public and 

private organizations, other interested parties, and the general public.

4.1.1 Key Activities Performed During Systems Planning

Two major groups of activities constitute systems planning – “Identification of 

Transportation Improvement Needs,” and “Development of Transportation Plans and 

Programs.”

Identification of transportation improvement needs includes:

• Needs Assessment and Solution Development (also referred to as scoping). This 

involves identifying transportation system needs and deficiencies, and developing 

alternative solutions (alternatives/potential projects) to meet the needs.

• Alternatives Evaluation. This involves the evaluation of the alternatives to determine 

how well they meet the need, assess their cost and benefit-cost effectiveness, and 

identify any undesirable impacts to the environment, society, and the respective 

communities. Typical activities include corridor/sub-area studies, environmental/

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses, and air-quality conformity 

analyses.

• Project Identification. This involves the identification of projects by selecting the best 

alternatives, and developing the final project concepts, cost estimates, implementation 

timelines, and if required, impacts mitigation strategies. Funding sources are also 

identified for the respective projects.

The above activities are carried out either as part of ongoing system management, 

preservation, and upgrade, or through specific studies including corridor safety/mobility 

studies, regional/sub-area/district studies, congestion management plans or systems, 

and regional intelligent transportation systems (ITS) architectures. The rigor and level of 

effort of these activities depends upon the type, size, and scope of the identified needs 

and alternatives.

4-1
Development of transportation plans and programs involves the development of longrange transportation plans (LRTPs) and short-term Statewide Transportation Improvement 

Programs (STIPs) and regional Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). LRTPs lay 

out the long-range vision for the transportation system for a given horizon year, usually 

projected out 20 to 25 years. STIPs and TIPs are smaller packages of projects within longrange plans, and they outline five-to-six-year and/or two-year streams of projects. The 

following activities are performed during this process:

• Project Prioritization. This involves the prioritization of projects identified in 

the previous step based on the urgency of the needs, project costs, benefit-cost 

effectiveness, and the expected impacts of the projects. 

• Plan and Program Development. This involves the assimilation, scheduling, and 

coordination of the prioritized projects to develop LRTPs, STIPs, and TIPs.

Systems planning is intricate, requires multi-agency participation, uses sophisticated 

modeling and analysis tools, and extends across multiple transportation disciplines and 

modes. An attempt has been made here to present systems planning in a simple format 

so that work zone impacts assessment may be discussed in the context of systems 

planning. The Federal Highway Administration’s planning web site located at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/index.htm (Accessed 12/22/05) provides more 

information and resources on systems planning.

4.2 Why Assess Work Zone Impacts During 

Systems Planning?

Work zone impacts are not generally considered in systems planning. The primary 

reason cited for this is the lack of sufficient project-specific data during systems planning, 

such as how the project will be constructed, when exactly it will be built, how long it will 

last, etc. But many State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs), and other transportation agencies recognize the potential value of 

assessing work zone impacts during systems planning. There is general thinking in the 

industry that advancing work zone considerations as early as possible in the program 

delivery process will lead to overall benefits in terms of better planned, budgeted, and 

implemented projects that minimize work zone impacts. This section provides a potential 

approach and general guidance on advancing the consideration of work zone impacts to 

the systems planning stage. 

The following section summarizes the importance of work zone impacts in systems 

planning.

4.2.1 Importance of Work Zone Impacts Assessment in 

Systems Planning

The essential outputs of the systems planning process, irrespective of the type of plan or 

program are:

• A set of projects with respective implementation schedules, expected impacts, potential 

mitigation strategies, cost estimates and funding sources.

• An implementation plan/program that compiles and coordinates the identified projects.

4-2
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

If work zone impacts of projects are not considered in systems planning, work zone 

impacts of projects may not be understood sufficiently enough to identify the work 

zone management strategies that are needed for a project. As a result, the project cost 

estimates (that are programmed into transportation plans) may not reflect the complete 

costs of work zone management. This could lead to expensive change orders during 

design, thereby delaying project implementation and increasing total cost. It may 

also lead to unavailability of funds for implementing appropriate work zone impacts 

management strategies, potentially resulting in undesirable safety and mobility issues. 

Another potential effect is that the combined work zone impacts of multiple concurrent 

projects, either at the corridor or network level may not be accounted for, potentially 

resulting in additional delay to road users and prolonged work zone durations.

Therefore, considering work zone impacts in systems planning can result in better 

planned and programmed projects that:

• Account for potential work zone related impacts, management strategies, and cost 

estimates.

• Are coordinated and scheduled to minimize the combined work zone impacts of 

multiple concurrent projects.

• Are adequately funded and resourced for work zone impacts management, 

minimizing cost over-runs and/or project delays.

• Ultimately result in better managed work zones leading to improved safety and 

mobility.

Though the above discussion amplifies the need for work zone impacts assessment 

during systems planning, lack of sufficient project-specific data at this stage is still 

an issue. However, the assessment during systems planning does not have to 

be an elaborate analysis. A conceptual assessment using available information, 

appropriate rationale and reasoning, and engineering judgment can go a long way 

towards avoiding cost increases and schedule delays during the later stages of project 

development and implementation. For example, currently work zone temporary traffic 

control (TTC) costs are generally estimated as a percentage of the total project cost. 

This approach is generally accepted in the industry and works well in most cases. 

However, certain projects (e.g., significant projects1) require additional work zone 

management in the form of transportation operations (TO) and/or public information 

(PI) strategies. A conceptual assessment during systems planning can indicate whether 

projects will need additional management strategies in addition to a TTC plan. Such a 

conceptual assessment may not require extensive quantitative analyses; rather it may 

be performed qualitatively using engineering judgment. Once the need for TO and/or 

PI strategies is established, their costs may be estimated and appropriately budgeted 

into transportation plans and programs. 

4-3

1

 A significant project is one that, alone or in combination with other concurrent projects nearby, is anticipated to cause 

sustained work zone impacts that are greater than what is considered tolerable based on the respective agency’s policy and/

or engineering judgment. This definition, provided in Section 630.1010 of the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule (the Rule), 

also specifies that all Interstate system projects within the boundaries of a Transportation Management Area that occupy a 

location for more than three days and have lane closures are significant. 
4-4

4.3 When in Systems Planning Can Work Zone 

Impacts be Assessed?

Work zone impacts assessment during systems planning may help answer 

questions such as:

• What are the potential work zone impacts of identified projects?

• What are the combined impacts of multiple road projects taking place at the 

same time?

• What are the coordination issues, if any, that need to be accounted for in 

planning and scheduling multiple projects in the vicinity of each other?

• What can be done during this stage to manage the work zone impacts?

• What are the potential work zone management strategies that may be used for 

a project?

• How much money should be budgeted for work zone transportation 

management for a project?

Given that systems planning consists of many processes, participants, and products, 

when exactly should work zone impacts be assessed – during needs and project 

identification (scoping), during alternatives analysis and solution development, 

or during plan/program development? This is a very relevant question because 

systems planning activities do not always take place sequentially. Projects may be 

identified and programmed during any of the systems planning processes and by 

different entities. Further, the people who plan and manage work zone activities 

(i.e., engineers, designers, construction specialists, etc.) are not the people who 

are actively involved in systems planning. This is further exacerbated in situations 

where systems planning is conducted at the MPO or regional levels and not by road 

owner agencies2. In order to reflect these variations, it is important to make work 

zone impacts assessment an independent part of the systems planning process, and 

perform the assessment before projects are programmed and funded. This keeps 

work zone impacts assessment independent of the source of the potential project, 

and helps incorporate it into the regular flow of activities that take place for any 

potential project.

TIP: Ideally, work zone impacts assessment needs to be performed for 

potential projects identified through the various systems planning 

processes before they are programmed and funded into LRPs, TIPs, and 

STIPs. This helps account for expected work zone impacts, potential 

management strategies, costs of management strategies, and combined 

work zone impacts issues early in the process.

2

 State DOTs and local transportation agencies (hereinafter collectively referred to as agencies.)
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

4-5

Figure 4.1 provides a high-level illustration of how work zone impacts assessment may 

be performed during systems planning. More details are provided in Section 4.5

4.4 Who are the Participants?

Systems planning constitutes many activities that span across multiple participants and 

stakeholders. The staff that may perform work zone impacts assessment during systems 

planning, the inputs and input providers, and the outputs and users of the output are 

shown in Table 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Incorporating Work Zone Impacts Assessment in Systems Planning
4-6

Table 4.1 Systems Planning Assessment Participants

NOTE: The level of participation from the input providers shown in Table 4.1 will depend on the scope and complexity of the project, and in many 

cases will be limited to the staff that perform the impacts assessment.
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

4-7

4.5 Assessment Process

Figure 4.2 illustrates the steps involved in work zone impacts assessment during systems 

planning. Some notes pertaining to the figure are presented in Table 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Systems Planning–Work Zone Impacts Assessment Process
4-8

Table 4.2 Process Notes
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The following discussion provides an explanation of the individual steps shown in 

Figure 4.2.

In the following discussion, the terms “alternatives” and “potential projects” are 

used interchangeably. They refer to the different alternative solutions or potential 

projects that are being evaluated as options to serve a particular transportation 

improvement need. Sometimes there may be only one alternative to serve a 

particular need, in which case the work zone impacts assessment needs to be 

performed only for that alternative.

Step 1 of 6: Compile Project/Work Zone Scope Information for 

the Alternatives

This step involves the compilation of available information (also referred to as project 

scoping information) on the alternatives/potential projects. Work zone impacts 

assessment may be performed by the same staff who assess needs and identify 

alternative solutions / potential projects. Therefore, the project and work zone scope 

information may be readily available to them. The purpose of the information collection 

is to obtain some contextual information on the project so that its work zone impacts 

may be assessed. If it is clearly evident that a project will not have major work zone 

impacts, that assertion may be noted, and much data or information need not be 

collected.

TIP: This step is a good check-point to determine if there are any policy provisions 

that apply to the project. For example, the agency may have a policy on 

regional coordination when planning for road projects, in which case, the 

participation of appropriate stakeholders may need to be facilitated.

The major categories of information that may be needed include the following:

• Project Scope, including goals and objectives, location, type of work, area type, 

roadway classification, duration, and length.

• Roadway/Traffic Characteristics, including number of lanes, roadway capacity, crosssectional details, pre-existing safety issues, grade, curvature, and traffic demand/

patterns/volumes, available alternate routes.

• Other Influencing Factors, including community and public outreach information, 

weather variation, school-zone issues, emergency vehicle traffic issues, whether 

project is located in a Central Business District (CBD), presence of other nearby 

transportation junctions (e.g., railroad crossings, transit junctions), availability 

of alternate modes, tourist traffic issues, upcoming and planned special events, 

coordination issues with other projects, utility coordination issues, and local 

regulations (e.g., noise restrictions).

4-9
The types of information listed above are intended to serve as a guide for the different 

factors that may influence work zone impacts. All of the above information may not 

be needed – it may be sufficient to just take note of major issues that are apparent or 

readily identifiable. For example, if there are no viable alternate routes for a project, that 

information needs to be noted and recognized, so that it may be accounted for when 

identifying work zone traffic control and management strategies in subsequent steps.

Hard data (e.g., traffic counts, crash records) may not be required at this point. It may 

be sufficient to qualitatively identify issues, (e.g., whether there are any pre-existing 

safety issues, whether there is a history of weekend congestion at the location). Such 

information, if noted at this early stage, will help in the selection of a suitable work zone 

strategy for the project. For example, if there is a major event that occurs every Memorial 

Day at a location nearby, construction starting before June may not be a good option for 

the project. If hard data is readily available it may be useful to note the availability of data.

Step 2 of 6: Assess Work Zone Impacts of Alternatives at a Screening-Level

This is the first time that the alternatives/potential projects are looked at from a work 

zone impacts perspective to get an idea of what it may take to develop, design, and 

build a project with minimum disruption. The objective of this step is to get a first-cut 

understanding of the potential work zone impacts of each alternative/potential project. The 

assessment is generally qualitative and relies upon engineering judgment and available 

information from the previous step. Screening of small projects or those likely to have 

minimal impacts could be done with templates or simplified tools/rules so that more 

detailed analyses can focus on projects that are likely to cause greater impacts. The result 

of this screening level assessment will be a summary-level list of the work zone impacts 

and related issues for the project.

This step is also a good checkpoint to identify the potential impact area3 of a project. 

Work zone impacts of some projects may be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the 

work zone (e.g., a small queue leading up to the work zone), or may be felt on the corridor 

on which the work is being performed (e.g., sizeable queuing and impacts to a nearby 

interchange/intersection). However, the work zone impacts of some projects may be 

felt on a good portion of the corridor and roadway network, affecting other roadways, 

interchanges, intersections, and/or multi-modal junctions in the transportation network. 

This is especially true for work zones in urban/suburban settings (e.g., commercial 

business districts (CBDs), arterial grid networks). In conducting the screening level work 

zone impacts assessment the potential extent of the impacts (e.g., immediate vicinity only, 

corridor impacts, network impacts) should also be identified where applicable.

The following discussion provides an overview of the activities that may be performed as 

part of the screening-level assessment. Table 2.7 – Work Zone Impacts Considerations in 

Section 2.0 provides a list of the different work zone impacts issues and considerations that 

may be addressed.

3

 Section 630.1004 of the Rule defines work zone impacts as work zone-induced deviations from the normal range of 

transportation system safety and mobility. These impacts may extend beyond the physical location of the work zone 

itself, and may occur on the roadway on which the work is being performed, as well as other highway corridors, other 

modes of transportation, and/or the regional transportation network. The extent of the work zone impacts may vary 

based on factors such as road classification, area type (urban, suburban, and rural), traffic and travel characteristics, 

type of work being performed, time of day/night, and complexity of the project. 

4-10
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Screening level work zone impacts assessment of alternatives/potential projects may 

include the following activities:

• Identification of High-level Construction/Traffic Control Approach(es) for the Project. 

The types of issues to be considered include:

– Potential construction approach(es). Examples include phased construction, 

design-build, asphalt pavement vs. concrete pavement, and pre-cast concrete 

members vs. cast-in-place concrete members.

– Potential traffic control and management approach. Examples include lane 

closure, total roadway closure, shoulder closure, use of shoulder for travel during 

construction, cross-over, and use of detour routes.

– Potential time of construction. Examples include off-peak, night work, 

weekend work, and intermittent closures.

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) recognizes that 

mobility and safety impacts should be considered in initial phases of project 

development (called scoping). The scoping process should identify mobility needs, 

which may influence the selection of a preferred design alternative. However, 

“construction details” will always be a relatively minor consideration in this phase.

Source: NYSDOT comments in response to the FHWA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Work Zone 

Safety and Mobility, August 5, 2003, United States Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT) online Docket 

Management System. URL: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf81/175976_web.pdf (Accessed 12/29/05).

More information on different construction/traffic control approach(es), where 

and when they are likely to be suitable, and their pros and cons are discussed in 

Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones, 

available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

(Accessed 1/18/06).

TIP: Design/construction personnel can provide valuable input towards identifying 

the potential construction/traffic control approach(es) for a project.

• Identification of Safety Issues. Issues to be considered include:

– Pre-existing safety issues. Examples include high crash history at the project location, 

obvious safety issues known to staff or the public, curve and gradient issues, line 

of sight issues, weather related safety issues, lack of adequate shoulder width, and 

prevailing speeds.

– Safety implications of potential construction approach(es). Examples include 

implications of night work, lane width issues, lane-closure related safety issues, 

channelization and work area separation issues, construction staging areas, 

construction traffic access issues, and management/enforcement of speed in advance 

of and through the work zone.

4-11
• Identification of Traffic Capacity/Demand Issues. Issues to be considered include:

– Traffic and travel characteristics at the project location. Examples include heavy 

traffic volumes, congested urban/suburban corridor, rural corridor with heavy truck 

traffic, and recreational or seasonal traffic issues.

– Recurring congestion issues. Examples include capacity and level of service (LOS) 

issues, uni-directional peak hour congestion, heavily congested urban/suburban 

corridor, high-volume interchange(s), and pre-existing bottlenecks and choke-points 

in the vicinity of the project.

– Non-recurring congestion issues. Examples include high potential for incident 

related traffic congestion, special event traffic issues, and weather related traffic 

delays.

– Mobility implications of potential construction approach(es). For example, lack of 

shoulders during construction may require a work zone traffic incident management 

plan. Doing work at night may preclude the need for an elaborate TMP. Traffic 

capacity and management issues may exist on a detour route.

• Identification of Community Impacts and Related Issues. This involves the 

identification of the work zone impacts on the community, businesses, and residents 

likely to be affected by the project. Types of issues to be considered include:

– Accessibility issues. Examples include business access relocation, ramp-closure 

related access issues, and detour related mobility impacts on communities.

– ROW related issues. Examples include property relocation, easement, and 

realignment of property lines.

– Other coordination issues. Examples include utility related issues, and construction 

noise issues.

• Identification of Combined Impacts and Coordination Issues with Nearby, Concurrent 

Projects. This involves the identification of nearby and/or concurrent projects, 

and assessing whether the projects may have an impact on the project under 

consideration, or vice-versa. It also involves the assessment of potential combined 

impacts of multiple projects at the corridor/network level. This assessment may be 

performed using a qualitative fatal-flaw type approach to identify potential conflicts 

and coordination opportunities. The process may be informal (e.g., based on any 

readily available information), or formal (e.g., through a coordination process for 

identifying district/region-level project coordination issues.)

In Oklahoma, an effort is made to coordinate all State Department of 

Transportation and local government utility construction and maintenance work. 

This minimizes concurrent rehabilitation of adjacent and alternate routes and 

instances of digging up the same road twice (e.g., installation of a new utility 

crossing shortly after an overlay/rehabilitation job). In addition to reducing 

motorist delay, this practice provides a forum to discuss formal agreements to 

detour traffic from State to local routes or vice versa; funding to improve local 

highways that serve as alternate routes for State highway projects; and traffic 

management through partnerships and networking.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 12/16/05). 

4-12
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• Identification of Whether the Project is a Significant Project. Some projects are likely 

to have greater work zone impacts than other projects (e.g., greater congestion, more 

effects on road safety, or greatly reduce access to businesses or event venues). Such 

projects may warrant additional attention during project delivery and additional funding 

for work zone transportation management strategies. Recognizing this, the updated Rule 

(the Rule) establishes a category of projects called significant projects. Simply stated, a 

significant project is one that an agency expects to cause a relatively high level of work 

zone related disruption. Classification of certain projects as significant helps stratify4 the 

application of TMP components. Agencies can then allocate resources more effectively 

to those projects that are likely to have greater impacts.

Since decisions on project budgets, high-level design issues, and sequencing of 

projects are generally made early in the program delivery process, the identification 

of significant projects should be made as early as possible when the most options are 

available. Alternatives/potential projects are assessed for their work zone impacts for 

the first time in this step. Therefore, this is a good juncture to do an early assessment 

of whether a potential project will be a significant project. Once a project is identified as 

significant, appropriate resources may be set aside to plan, design, and build the project, 

and appropriate TO and PI strategies may be identified and funds set aside for those 

strategies. This helps set the basis for TMP development in future stages.

The work zone impacts issues identified (as discussed in the previous bullet points) may 

be used to identify whether a given project is a significant project. If an agency’s work 

zone policy has provisions on significant projects, those policy provisions will govern 

the decision-making. Often it is obvious that a project will not likely have major work 

zone impacts, in which case that project will probably not be a significant project (e.g., a 

repaving project in a low-volume corridor). It may also be the case that certain projects 

are obviously significant (e.g., a major freeway interchange reconfiguration project in 

a congested CBD setting). In some cases it may not be apparent whether a project is 

significant or not, in which case it may be noted that further examination and/or analysis 

may be required (discussed in Step 3).

More information on identifying significant projects, including possible criteria, is 

provided in Section 5.0 of Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility, 

available at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/rule_guide/rule_guide.pdf (Accessed 11/18/05).

Step 3 of 6: Analyze Potential Impacts (Optional)

This is an optional step to further investigate and analyze the potential work zone impacts 

of a project/alternative using appropriate analysis tools. At this stage of project delivery, 

quantitative analysis may be needed only for longer-duration projects that are expected 

to have major impacts (corridor, network, or regional levels), and may represent a small 

percentage (e.g., 5%) of all projects that an agency is involved in. For many projects the 

screening-level qualitative assessment (in Step 2) may be sufficient. 

The following are some examples of scenarios under which an agency may find it helpful 

to quantitatively analyze impacts:

• The screening-level assessment in Step 2 may indicate that the project is a significant 

project, and the agency may desire to obtain a better (quantitative) understanding of 

what the impacts may be so that appropriate work zone management strategies and 

their costs can be identified.

4

 As stated in Section 630.1012(b) of the Rule, TMPs for significant projects must consist of a TTC plan, and must also 

address TO and PI strategies. TMPs for all other projects must consist of a TTC plan, and may also address TO and PI 

as needed for the project.

4-13
• It may not be very obvious during the screening-level assessment in Step 2 whether 

or not a project is significant. So the agency may decide to further analyze the 

potential work zone impacts. For example, an agency may identify in Step 2 that a 

particular project would have significant sustained work zone impacts if performed 

during daytime hours, but likely would not if performed at night. So, in this step the 

agency may conduct a queuing and delay analysis to determine if it would be feasible 

to conduct the project at night without an extensive TMP.

• To help the agency choose between multiple traffic control and management 

approaches. Examples include night work vs. daytime work, weekend vs. weekday, 

lane closure vs. no closure, and full closure vs. partial closure.

• To justify additional funds for work zone transportation management for a particular 

project or to justify as to why a particular project will not have major impacts. 

Analyses may help provide hard numbers for the potential work zone impacts, the 

resulting user-costs, and the amount of user-cost savings that the recommended 

management strategies may yield.

The following is a summary of how the Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) considers work zone issues during scoping:

• Prior to 1996-97, most of the scoping was performed by groups of about ten staff 

members who would conduct field tours to identify deficiencies. This was then 

followed by cost estimation using rules of thumb, for example, the cost for a certain 

activity on a 5-mile highway section at $1 million per mile would amount to a total 

of $5 million.

• In 1995, there was a re-engineering of the scoping process to increase crossfunctional involvement, and resources, time, and money for scoping. This paid-off 

significantly in project delivery. For the first time, WSDOT incorporated the concept 

of work zones into scoping. They started thinking about work zones at the earliest 

possible stage to develop a “work zone strategy.” For smaller projects, the work 

zone strategies document may be relatively short and typically refer to a section 

of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). For larger projects 

(e.g., a bridge project or a major repaving project through downtown Tacoma) the 

work zone strategies document may be more involved and require a structured 

assessment and documentation of work zone traffic control and transportation 

management issues.

• Scoping now constitutes 1.5% to 3% of the total engineering for the construction 

program, but prior to 1996-97, it was only 0.3%. WSDOT practice is to over scope 

by 30% - 50% of the approximate budget allocation. This over scoping is done for 

both preservation and improvement projects. The identification of studies such as 

EISs and feasibility studies is also part of the scoping process. For a major project 

an EIS normally constitutes 30% of the engineering/design for the project.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Workshop conducted at WSDOT, December 12, 2002.

TIP: Quantitative analysis of work zone impacts may not be possible during 

systems planning due to inadequate project detail and lack of data. In such 

cases, the particular issue under investigation may be noted so that the staff 

that conduct assessments in subsequent phases are made aware of the issue.

4-14
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The following are some issues to be considered in conducting the quantitative analysis:

• High-level tools such as sketch-planning, travel demand modeling, and deterministic tools 

may be most appropriate for this level of analysis. Any quantitative analysis conducted 

during this step is intended to provide a quick understanding of work zone impacts related 

issues (e.g., whether a project may be a significant project, choice of construction/traffic 

control approach, early identification and cost estimation of work zone management 

strategies). For example, an agency may want to evaluate the feasibility of closing one 

lane in each direction for a future Interstate project. The agency may contact the region’s 

MPO to perform a quick analysis of potential travel impacts of such a construction scenario. 

The MPO may then use the region’s travel demand model to conduct this analysis and 

determine if the construction scenario would be feasible. If the project complexity and the 

desired level of accuracy for the work zone impacts estimation warrant a more detailed 

analysis (e.g., simulation), the agency can choose to do so using appropriate analysis tools.

More information on different analysis tools is provided in APPENDIX B – Overview of 

Work Zone Impacts Analysis Tools. The appendix also has links to additional resources 

on analysis tools.

• The analysis may be performed at the work zone, corridor, and/or network levels. Work 

zone impacts issues and measures that may be considered in the analysis include:

– Work zone related safety impacts induced by the project (e.g., expected crashes, crash 

rate). It may not be possible to perform an accurate estimation of transportation safety 

impacts because of the various factors that influence crash occurrence, especially in and 

around work zones. However, analysis tools are capable of providing order-of-magnitude 

estimates based on several factors including highway capacity, traffic demand, trip 

distribution and attraction patterns, quality of highway safety features, and the presence 

of special safety improvement strategies/technologies. For example, a lane-closure for 

road construction may change the traffic dynamics on a particular corridor. Analysis 

tools may be useful for assessing the safety impacts of various project options. 

– Work zone related mobility impacts induced by the project (e.g., traffic volumes, travel 

time, delay, travel time reliability/variability, vehicle miles traveled (VMT))

– Work zone related societal impacts (e.g., additional fuel consumption, air-quality, and 

other environmental impacts.)

– User-costs of the above work zone impacts (i.e., dollar value of the safety, mobility, and 

societal impacts using average dollar figures for parameters such as cost of crashes, 

value of time, cost of fuel, cost of emissions, etc.)

4-15
The conversion of safety, mobility, environmental, fuel consumption, and other 

impacts into equivalent dollar values is an accepted practice in the transportation 

profession to estimate benefits and costs of proposed investments, as well as to 

justify the need for the investments. The same rationale may be applied here, 

wherein, the user costs of work zone impacts and the monetized benefits of the 

work zone management strategies may be used to justify the additional funds 

required to reduce and manage the user costs. More information on user-costs 

and user-cost calculations is available online at the following web sites:

• FHWA’s QuickZone web site, located at http://www.tfhrc.gov/its/quickzon.htm

(Accessed 01/06/06)

• FHWA’s ITS Benefits and Costs databases, located at http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.

gov/ and http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov (Accessed 08/23/06)

• FHWA Office of Planning web site, located at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/ 

(Accessed 01/06/06)

• The IDAS web site located at http://idas.camsys.com/ (Accessed 01/06/06)

– Life-cycle cost implications (i.e., taking into account the work zone impacts of 

building the project, as well as the work zone impacts of performing periodic 

maintenance on the facility over the life of the project.)

– Benefits that may be attained by using specific work zone management strategies

(e.g., the IDAS model predicts that traffic incident management systems can reduce 

incident duration by about 51%, fatality rates by about 21%, and fuel consumption 

and major pollutant emissions by 42%5. 

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) conducted an evaluation of 

its construction mitigation for the reconstruction of I-496 in Lansing, Michigan. 

The IDAS model was used for the analysis. It was estimated that the construction 

project would have resulted in negative impacts to user mobility, safety, fuel 

consumption, and emissions amounting to about $13 million over the life of 

the construction. MDOT’s construction mitigation included a public outreach 

campaign, a temporary ITS system for construction traffic management, and 

upgrades to arterial operations on alternate routes. The analysis estimated that 

these efforts resulted in user mobility, safety, fuel, and emissions savings of about 

$11 million, mitigating a good portion of the estimated $13 million negative impact 

of the construction that would otherwise have occurred. The overall benefit-cost 

ratio was estimated at approximately 3:1. In this case, the analysis was conducted 

after the project was completed. However, the same methodology may be used 

to conduct analysis during systems planning and/or future project development 

activities, to estimate potential benefits of an agency’s construction mitigation 

efforts, and also to justify the need for specific management strategies.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, ITS Deployment Analysis System Case Study 2: Michigan 

Department of Transportation Evaluation of the Temporary ITS for the Reconstruction of I-496 in Lansing, 

Michigan, April 2002. URL: http://www.camsys.com/idas/CaseStudies/CaseStudy2/caseStudyFrame.htm

(Accessed 09/13/05).

5

 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, ITS Deployment Analysis System – Version 2.3, 

Copyright 2000 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Copyright 2000 ITT Industries, Systems Division.

4-16
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• The analysis may be combined with an ongoing project study such as a corridor/subarea study, EIS, MIS, etc. Generally, the mitigation measures discussed in an EIS 

must cover the range of impacts of the proposal and address issues such as design 

alternatives that would decrease pollution emissions, construction impacts, esthetic 

intrusion, as well as relocation assistance, possible land use controls that could be 

enacted, and other possible efforts. For example, corridor analyses and environmental 

impacts assessments for major new facilities or reconstruction are likely to require 

detailed corridor traffic management plans to address the traffic disruption caused by 

potentially years of construction and work zones that affect the capacity of the corridor 

to meet its travel demand. This may be reflected in the need to expand capacity and 

improve facilities along alternate travel paths in the short term, or provide travel 

alternatives such as increased transit service or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) use 

should also be reflected in the TIP.

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) prepared a Preliminary 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the I-70 Mountain Corridor project. 

One specific aspect of the PEIS is a technical report on Construction Traffic 

Impact Mitigation Strategies, which addresses the potential impacts that may be 

caused during construction, and presents a set of strategies that may be used 

to mitigate those impacts. It also consists of a list of resources on construction 

impacts mitigation, as well as a brief overview of how construction impacts were 

addressed in different EISs conducted by other agencies. 

Source: I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Construction Traffic Impact Mitigation Strategies, April 13, 2005. 

URL: http://www.i70mtncorridor.com/documents/12%7EConstruction_Mitigation.pdf (Accessed 01/04/06).

Once work zone impacts analysis is complete, appropriate work zone transportation 

management strategies may then be identified in Step 4. The link between Steps 3 and 

4 is bi-directional as it represents an iterative process to conduct the work zone impacts 

analysis in conjunction with the work zone management strategies. For example, an 

agency may want to analyze whether the use of a work zone traffic incident management 

system would mitigate the work zone impacts sufficiently enough for work to be 

performed during the day instead of night.

TIP: Design/construction personnel can provide valuable input regarding the 

influence of design and construction issues in analyzing the work zone 

impacts of a project.

4-17
Step 4 of 6: Identify Potential Work Zone Management Strategies

This step involves the conceptual identification of potential work zone management 

strategies based on the impact assessments conducted in the previous steps. This 

conceptual identification needs to be sufficient enough to estimate the costs of the 

management strategies for future programming into transportation plans. Agencies 

may arrive at this step directly after the screening-level assessment in Step 2, or after 

conducting further quantitative analysis in Step 3. In either case, at this point enough 

information should be available on the potential work zone impacts of the project/

alternative, so that decisions can be made on the work zone management strategies that 

may be needed for the TMP. At this stage of assessment, the purpose is to identify the 

management strategies and estimate their costs at a high-level – not to develop the TMP. 

So, the level of effort is expected to be minimal compared to that required for actual design 

and development. Often, it may just involve a compilation of the work zone impacts issues 

from the previous steps, quick identification of appropriate management strategies, and 

estimation of their costs based on simplistic procedures and available data.

The following provides a general idea about the issues that need to be addressed in 

identifying work zone management strategies:

• TTC Strategies. The Rule requires TMPs for all projects to consist at least of a TTC plan. 

Therefore, TTC strategies need to be identified for all projects. This involves conceptual 

decisions on issues such as potential construction approaches, traffic control and 

management approaches, and time of construction.

• TO and PI Strategies. As per the Rule, TMPs for significant projects must address TO 

and PI components. TO and PI components are encouraged for all other projects as 

appropriate. For example, a project may be expected to have moderate work zone 

impacts. For such a project an extensive TMP may not be required, but some elements 

of TO (e.g., work zone traffic incident management) and PI (e.g., use of a web site for 

information dissemination) may be needed. In this step conceptual decisions need to be 

made on what TO and PI strategies may be needed.

• Coordination Strategies with Other Projects. This includes the identification of issues 

such as project inter-dependencies, schedule coordination, aggregation of multiple 

projects, corridor-level and network-level coordination, etc.

• Costs for the Management Strategies.

– Generally, costs for TTC strategies are estimated as a percentage of total construction 

costs. Agencies have been following this approach for many years, and are generally 

equipped with the necessary data to perform this estimation.

– Costs for TO and PI strategies may have to be estimated based on the agency’s past 

experience in deploying TO and PI strategies for both work zone and non-work zone 

related activities. Information from prior implementations by other agencies may also 

be used as appropriate. 

The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Benefits Database and Costs Database, 

maintained and updated by the FHWA’s Joint Program Office (JPO), provide several 

resources for benefit and cost estimation for a range of TO and PI strategies. 

The databases are available at http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov and 

http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov (Accessed 08/23/06). 

4-18
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

More detailed information about the different work zone management strategies is 

provided in Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for 

Work Zones, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.

htm (Accessed 1/18/06).

Step 4 is the culmination of the work zone impacts assessment during the alternatives 

evaluation stage. After the assessments in Steps 1 through 4, the work zone impacts 

issues, management strategies and costs that have been identified for the respective 

alternatives should be included in selecting the best alternative to serve a particular 

transportation improvement need. Work zone impacts issues may also be officially 

noted in the record-of-decision (ROD) for a project. In choosing alternatives, agencies 

are encouraged to consider the maintenance of the alternative over its life-cycle as a 

decision-making factor. For example, if an alternative has a longer life-cycle and/or 

requires less maintenance, it may be preferred over other alternatives. Examples 

of features that facilitate more efficient maintenance and operations include wider 

shoulders, designated pullouts, and wider bridges. The selected projects are then 

passed on to the next stage for plan/program level assessment.

Step 5 of 6: Perform Plan/Program Level Work Zone Impacts Assessment

This step represents the assessment that may be performed during project prioritization 

and plan/program development. Here, the work zone impacts of individual projects 

(from the previous steps) are used to assess work zone impacts that apply at the plan/

program level. Examples include corridor/network, sub-area, regional impacts, and 

project scheduling and coordination issues. The staff who perform these activities 

generally include community planners and systems-level planners belonging to 

State DOT Planning departments, MPOs, and county-level planning commissions/

organizations. Once this assessment is performed, individual projects can then be 

programmed into appropriate transportation plans/programs (i.e., STIP, TIP, etc.) along 

with a line item budget for work zone transportation management and a note of any 

coordination issues that may be needed.

The objective of the assessment at this stage is to identify and address the combined 

and/or inter-relational work zone impacts of projects identified in a transportation 

plan/program. The assessment may be performed by coordinating and consulting 

with appropriate regional stakeholders, including MPOs, local jurisdictions, regional 

TMCs, emergency services, business representatives, community representatives, 

contractor associations, and AAA. The types of issues that may be addressed during this 

assessment include:

• Combined work zone impacts of multiple concurrent projects on an influence area 

(corridor, network/subarea, regional, and/or Statewide). Concurrently active projects 

may be geographically spaced such that they are likely to impact each other. In other 

cases the key alternate route for a particular project might also be under construction 

at the same time, thereby posing a conflict and leaving the alternate route incapable 

of handling diverting traffic. An early understanding of the combined impacts of 

concurrent projects on an influence area at this stage of systems planning can help 

an agency take appropriate actions to minimize and/or eliminate those impacts. 

Examples of such actions include: 

4-19
– Aggregating projects. For example, if multiple projects are identified for the same 

corridor, they may be combined into one project, provided the project purposes are 

reasonably similar and justify such combination through reduced construction time and/

or overall cost. Generally, such aggregation is done to combine multiple contracts and 

reduce construction time and cost. The distance between multiple work zones along 

the same corridor is an important traffic flow and mobility consideration. Inadequate 

spacing between work zones can hinder traffic flow recovery between work zones. 

Consolidation of work zones can help solve this problem, and also reduce the number 

of approach/merge areas, resulting in smoother traffic flow.

– Identifying project interdependencies. For example, a particular arterial route may 

have been identified as an alternate route for a repaving project on a freeway corridor. 

However, the arterial route itself may need certain upgrades (e.g., traffic signal 

system upgrades, addition of turn lanes) to be able to handle the diverted freeway 

traffic. The early identification of this issue during the plan/program level work zone 

impacts assessment may lead to the programming and scheduling of the arterial route 

improvements before the freeway project.

– Adjusting project schedules. For example, if two different projects are scheduled for the 

same location at different times (e.g., the first project in year 1 and the second in year 

2), it may be feasible to combine the two projects to reduce the number of times that a 

work zone will have to be setup at the same location. In other cases, it may be desirable 

to stagger the schedule for two nearby projects that would otherwise have occurred 

concurrently. If the two projects are done at the same time, it may be difficult for the 

local transportation network to handle the travel demand. Accelerating or delaying one 

of the projects to a different time or construction season can be considered to lessen 

the severity of impacts at any one time. 

– Coordinating the management strategies for multiple projects. This opportunity may 

be used to identify common management strategies for multiple projects, potentially 

resulting in cost savings (e.g., use of the same public relations/information contract 

for concurrent projects along a corridor). Another example is the sharing of work zone 

traffic incident management resources across projects that are in the vicinity of each 

other.

• Work zone impacts on other transportation infrastructure and junctions. Examples 

include increased mass transit demand during construction and impacts in and around 

train stations and bus stops.

• Other regional issues. Examples include the impacts of work zones on known special 

events, tourist traffic, and holiday traffic, and the effects these factors have on work zones.

This assessment may be performed either qualitatively or quantitatively. Qualitative 

assessment may be done by examining all concurrent projects in the plan/program to 

identify potential conflicts, combined impacts, alternate route issues, etc. The use of a 

fatal-flaw analysis technique is very applicable in this situation to identify any fatal flaws 

that may lead to future work zone issues during implementation. Quantitative analysis 

may be performed using an approach similar to that described in Step 3, the only difference 

being that in this case, the analysis is more focused on combined impacts of multiple 

projects. The analysis tools presented in Step 3 are also applicable for this analysis. Upon 

completion of the assessment, the plan/program may then be adjusted and modified 

accordingly to minimize and/or eliminate the combined and inter-relational work zone 

impacts of concurrent projects.

4-20
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

At the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), impacts to road 

users are first identified during long range planning at the District level in the 

Transportation Corridor Study (TCR), the District System Management Plan 

(DSMP) and in the Transportation System Development Program (TSDP). In these 

documents, future planned and programmed projects are discussed along with 

any issues associated with them. These documents are part of the basis for short 

range planning for Project Study Reports (PSR) or Project Scope and Summary 

Reports (PSSR). These plans are circulated to the local agencies affected in the 

region, which allows for further discussion regarding particular impacts of the 

various proposed and programmed projects.

Source: Caltrans comments in response to the FHWA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 

on Work Zone Safety, June 6, 2002, United States Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT) online Docket 

Management System. URL: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf81/176155_web.pdf (Accessed 01/04/06).

Step 6 of 6: Compile Planning-Level Work Zone Strategy

This step represents the culmination of the systems planning level work zone impacts 

assessment, and involves the compilation of the information from the prior five steps 

into a planning-level work zone strategy. The information that comprises the planninglevel work zone strategy may be retained by both the road-owner agency and the 

regional planning entity, as appropriate. The road-owner agency may then use that 

information for further assessments during preliminary engineering and design, while 

the regional planning entity may use the information for budgeting and financing and to 

track projects and update plans/programs.

The planning-level work zone strategy may generally consist of the following 

information: 

• Project Definition. This includes the location, type, expected duration, length, and 

other details that pertain to where the roadwork will be performed and the type of 

work. This information can be grouped under three categories, namely – Project 

Scope, Traffic/Roadway Characteristics, and Other Influencing Factors.

• Potential High-Level Construction/Traffic Control Approach(es). These represent the 

potential alternative(s) to construct the project, based on information available at the 

planning stage. For example, it may be apparent at the planning stage that a particular 

project will need to be performed at night, or that, the project will likely require fullclosure over multiple weekends. This may also include a conceptual definition of 

the construction approach(es), such as whether to use asphalt pavement or concrete 

pavement, or whether to use pre-cast concrete members or cast-in-place concrete 

members.

• Expected Work Zone Impacts. This includes documentation of the anticipated 

work zone impacts of the project, based on the planning-level impacts assessment 

performed for that project. It may be a qualitative assertion of the anticipated impacts 

or a quantitative summary of the anticipated impacts, depending on agency policies 

and/or procedures and the type and complexity of the project.

4-21
• Significant Project Status. This identifies whether the project is a significant project. 

• Potential Transportation Management Strategies for the Work Zone. This documents 

the potential transportation management strategies that have been identified as 

part of the planning-level impacts assessment for the project. Documentation of the 

expected benefits of the strategies or how they will mitigate the work zone impacts 

of the project will also be useful to understand the impacts of the project with and 

without the strategies. This may be a good selling point to obtain the required funding 

for the strategies. This information may be presented qualitatively or quantitatively as 

appropriate.

• Planning-Level Cost Estimate for the Identified Transportation Management 

Strategies. Planning-level cost estimates are typically based on previously available 

information and/or thumb-rule methods that help estimate costs of work zone 

transportation management strategies (e.g., as a percentage of total project cost). 

The identification of specific potential transportation management strategies for a 

project will help perform this cost estimation in a more structured manner, and will 

also help ensure that sufficient funds for work zone mitigation are allocated when the 

projects are being programmed into long-range and short-term transportation plans.

Agencies may not be able to identify all of these components that constitute the 

planning-level work zone strategy, and the level of detail available on these components 

may also be limited. This need not be a deterrent to performing work zone impacts 

assessment during systems planning. The idea is to identify as much information as 

possible to conceptually define the work zone. This will help provide a rational link 

between systems planning and project development, allow engineers and designers 

to design projects better, and potentially avoid under-allocation of funds for work zone 

mitigation and management.

When developing transportation plans, the Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WisDOT) considers impacts on road users by doing the following: 

1) coordinating project schedules to avoid construction on alternate routes 

simultaneously, 2) avoiding construction activities during peak travel periods, 

and 3) planning and funding congestion mitigation measures. To support better 

decisions on project scheduling and staging, more documentation of the costs of 

nighttime work compared to daytime work is needed.

Source: WisDOT comments in response to the FHWA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 

on Work Zone Safety, May 31, 2002, United States Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT) online Docket 

Management System. URL: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf81/176160_web.pdf (Accessed 01/04/06).

TIP: The application of the work zone impacts assessment process to a project in 

the systems planning stage may result in more than one planning-level work 

zone strategy, in which case, each of the options may be carried over to the 

programming stage.

4-22
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

5-1

5.0 Work Zone Impacts Assessment 

During Preliminary Engineering

5.1 What Happens During Preliminary 

Engineering?

Preliminary engineering is the first stage in project development. This is the stage when 

designers and project planners conduct early project-level planning and develop an 

overall design concept of what the new facility would look like. At this stage, projects 

that are identified in systems planning are handed over to the respective project 

planners and designers to further develop the project. The main objective is to identify 

ways to implement the project, and develop appropriate plans and design concepts. 

Therefore, during preliminary engineering more project-specific information is collected 

and synthesized.

The key difference between systems planning and preliminary engineering is that, in 

systems planning transportation improvement needs are identified, potential alternative 

solutions are developed and evaluated, and the best alternatives are chosen for further 

development and implementation. Therefore, the focus of systems planning is to 

identify projects. In preliminary engineering, planning is done at the project-level to 

identify and develop ways to implement the solution, identify potential issues/obstacles, 

and develop an implementation concept for the project. The focus of preliminary 

engineering is to identify ways to implement projects.

Preliminary engineering is also referred to as the first stage of design. Project design 

is an iterative process with several design stages. Some States refer to these stages 

as the 30% (preliminary engineering), 60%, 90%, and final design stages. Preliminary 

engineering and the subsequent design stages are generally performed by similar staff, 

i.e., project planners and designers belonging to the design/engineering departments 

of transportation agencies, either at the central office or the region/district level. Their 

primary responsibility is to plan, develop, and design specific projects. Often preliminary 

engineering and design take place in tandem without a clear-cut distinction between 

the stages. This document however discusses work zone impacts assessment for 

preliminary engineering and design in separate chapters. This was done to emphasize 

the importance and potential benefits of specifically advancing work zone considerations 

to the preliminary engineering stage, and to highlight some of the early work zone 

impacts assessment activities that may be performed during preliminary engineering. 

Such advancement of work zone considerations could make project development and 

work zone impacts assessments more systematic. The discussion of work zone impacts 

assessment separately for preliminary engineering and design is not intended to imply 

that decision-making by transportation agencies is highly compartmentalized.

Major preliminary engineering activities include:

• Conducting early project-level planning activities (e.g., collecting data, reassessing the 

project purpose and definition, conducting site visits and site investigations).

• Further defining project needs (e.g., identifying the type of pavement, identifying the 

required thickness for the overlay).
• Identifying build options for the project (e.g., rebuild on existing right-of-way (ROW), 

realign roadway, use of multiple contracts vs. a single contract). 

• Identifying other impacts and coordination issues (e.g., environmental, utility, ROW). 

• Identifying potential construction and traffic control approach(es) (e.g., reduced width 

construction, night work, cross-over construction, weekend closures).

• Developing preliminary design concept(s) based on the above activities; and

• Developing a preliminary cost estimate for the project.

For some projects preliminary engineering activities may overlap with systems planning 

and/or design (e.g., large regionally significant projects that require multi-year planning, 

preliminary engineering and design studies).

5.2 Objectives of Work Zone Impacts Assessment 

During Preliminary Engineering

The bulk of work zone impacts assessment has typically taken place during the later design 

stages of project development. This can be a problem if work zone issues identified during 

the later design stages lead to changes in overall project approach. Often times, designers 

and construction staff express frustration when they encounter issues that could delay 

project development and/or implementation. For example during design if it is identified 

that an alternate route chosen for a particular project will also be under construction at the 

same time, the entire transportation management approach for the project may have to 

be changed, potentially resulting in project delays and increased costs. If such issues are 

identified just prior to, or during construction, it could be even more problematic because 

construction may have to be stopped on the project. As a result, sometimes in order to 

keep the project moving, decisions may be made that may not best address the work zone 

safety and mobility needs of the project.

In light of the above, agencies are increasingly trying to address and at least identify more 

of the work zone impacts issues during preliminary engineering.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) develops a Work Zone 

Traffic Control Strategy early in project development during a required project design 

conference attended by traffic engineers, law enforcement officials, and construction 

engineers. The strategy addresses issues such as the number of lanes that can be 

closed, hours of the day and days of the week when work can occur, level of service 

(LOS) to be provided during construction, and the need for night operations. The 

development of such an overall work zone strategy early in project development 

ensures that the identified issues are considered in design, and later in developing 

the traffic control plan (TCP). A checklist has been developed to alert people to the 

various strategies available. This approach also helps earmark funds early in project 

design to cover the cost of providing adequate safety and mobility.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 01/05/06).

5-2
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The key to work zone impacts assessment during preliminary engineering lies in advancing 

work zone considerations as early as possible in project development; identifying the 

potential work zone impacts of the project early enough so that work zone related project 

delays or costs are not incurred in later design stages; and identifying and developing work 

zone management strategies in a more streamlined manner.

The following are the objectives of work zone impacts assessment during preliminary 

engineering:

• Using the preliminary engineering development information (e.g., concept plans, 

preliminary designs, location and design documents, environmental/NEPA assessments) 

to further incorporate work zone impacts considerations in choosing build options for the 

project and identifying potential construction staging approach(es).

• Reassessment/identification of the potential work zone impacts of the project.

• Reassessment/confirmation of significant project1 designations.

• Reassessment/identification of potential work zone management strategies.

• Further identification of coordination issues with other projects, and other coordination 

issues (e.g., utilities, enforcement, environmental, ROW, community impacts).

• Reassessment/estimation of the cost of the identified work zone management strategies, 

and development of high-level implementation plans for the strategies.

Assessing work zone impacts during preliminary engineering may answer questions 

such as:

• Is the project definition any different than what was identified during systems 

planning and are there additional work zone impacts issues that need to be 

addressed?

• Given the concept design for the project, what are the possible construction staging 

and traffic control approaches that I can use for the project?

• What are the work zone impacts implications of the potential construction staging and 

traffic control approaches?

• Given that the project strategy has changed from what was originally assumed during 

systems planning (e.g., decision is made to build the project at night), are the work 

zone impacts any different now, and are there additional issues that I should address?

• Based on the concept design and potential construction and work zone traffic control 

strategies, is the originally assumed designation of significant project still valid for 

my project, and should I re-examine the work zone management strategies that were 

identified during systems planning? 

• Are there any other concurrent projects nearby that were not identified during 

systems planning and may have an impact on my project or vice-versa (e.g., based on 

an updated version of the transportation plan/program for the region)?

• Based on site visits, are there any other coordination issues such as utilities, 

environmental, ROW, and community?

5-3

1

 A significant project is one that, alone or in combination with other concurrent projects nearby is anticipated to cause 

sustained work zone impacts that are greater than what is considered tolerable based on the respective agency’s policy 

and/or engineering judgment. This definition, provided in Section 630.1010 of the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule (the 

Rule), also specifies that all Interstate system projects within the boundaries of a Transportation Management Area that 

occupy a location for more than three days and have lane closures are significant.
5.3 Who are the Participants?

The staff that may perform the work zone impacts assessment during preliminary 

engineering, the inputs and input providers, and the outputs and users of the outputs are 

shown in Table 5.1.

5-4

Table 5.1 Preliminary Engineering Assessment Participants
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

5.4 Assessment Process

Figure 5.1 illustrates the steps involved in work zone impacts assessment during 

preliminary engineering. Some notes pertaining to the figure are presented in Table 5.2. 

5-5

Figure 5.1 Preliminary Engineering — Work Zone Impacts Assessment Process
5-6

Table 5.2 Process Notes
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

5-7

The following sections provide a brief explanation of the process.

Step 1 of 7: Compile Project Information

Compilation of available project information includes:

• Project planning material from the systems planning phase. This material includes 

the project definition and scope and the systems planning level work zone strategy. In 

essence, the systems planning-level work zone strategy will now be refined based on 

more project-specific information to develop the “Preliminary Work Zone Strategy.” 

This preliminary work zone strategy will have more project-specific detail and will 

serve as a foundation for the subsequent design stage. If the planning level work zone 

strategy is not available, information on the project definition/scope, roadway/traffic 

characteristics, and other contributing factors (public/community issues, weather 

considerations, special events, etc.) should be compiled as described in Step 1 of the 

Systems Planning process.

• Preliminary engineering development information. This is the concept design for 

the project, and consists of preliminary decisions on roadway alignment and ROW, 

cross-sectional details, elevation and super-structure details, and other information 

necessary to initially depict what the new facility will look like after it is built. In the 

case of preservation projects, the new facility may not be very different from the 

current facility. For rehabilitation, reconfiguration, and new projects, the vision of the 

new facility may be drastically different from the present state. The information that is 

collected in this stage is essential to be able to perform work zone impacts assessment 

in later steps and at later stages. The following are some examples of information that 

need to be collected and/or developed:

– Engineering plans, documents, and supporting information that define the project 

environment in detail.

– Information from available or ongoing studies and environmental/NEPA 

assessments (e.g., project constraints, impact mitigation requirements, 

recommended assessments and/or analyses).

– Topographical, soil, and hydraulics information.

– Existing and future roadway and traffic characteristics.

– Base plans showing existing and planned roadway alignment, existing and planned 

ROW, existing and proposed traffic control devices (e.g., signs, signals, pavement 

markings), and existing and proposed overhead/underground utilities.

– Information on other nearby transportation facilities and/or junctions (e.g., adjacent 

routes, highway interchanges/intersections, railroad crossings, rail stations, bus 

stops).

– Coordination issues with other ongoing or planned projects.

– Any other relevant information specific to the project location (weather, special 

events, etc.).

TIP: This step is a good checkpoint to reassess/identify if there are any policy 

provisions that apply to the project. For example, the agency may provide 

policy guidance on the different work zone impacts issues that need to be 

addressed during preliminary engineering.
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) provides guidelines on data 

collection/preliminary design in its Project Development Process Manual. 

Guidance is provided on obtaining the data necessary for making engineering 

and environmental decisions related to project design. TxDOT recommends that 

data collection be as complete as possible so that project solutions that provide 

the most benefit are selected. The activities that comprise data collection/

preliminary design include: early coordination with stakeholders; preparation and 

execution of additional agreements; review of traffic data; obtaining right of entry; 

obtaining related data, plans, studies, and reports; conduct of a site visit; obtaining 

information on existing utilities; obtaining traffic accident data; obtaining hydraulic 

studies; obtaining aerial photography/planimetrics/digital terrain maps (DTMs)/

digital orthophotography; and conduct of topographic and other surveys.

Source: TxDOT Project Development Process Manual, August 1, 2003. URL: http://manuals.dot.state.tx.us/

dynaweb/coldesig/pdp/@Generic__BookView (Accessed 01/05/06).

Step 2 of 7: Reassess Project Definition

This step involves performing a reality check as to whether the previously developed 

project definition (during systems planning) still holds true, given that there is more 

detail available on the project. Additional data may be collected in this phase in order to 

provide a more complete set of information with which to complete the assessment and 

evaluation of project and work zone issues. Examples of the types of additional data that 

may be required to reassess the project definition are:

• Additional traffic counts.

• Information from other projects and studies.

• Information related to project specific issues and concerns, such as:

– Pedestrian counts in residential areas.

– School bus schedules.

– Existing incident response times from accidents in the project area.

• Coordination issues with other projects (within the impactable vicinity).

All data elements may not be required for all projects. The required data elements and 

the level of effort will depend on agency policy/procedures and on the type, duration, 

complexity, and expected work zone impacts of the project.

The following are examples of issues that may be considered in reassessing the project 

definition:

• Project purpose, location, extent, duration, nature of work, and type of work zone.

• Roadway alignment and ROW issues.

• Cross-sectional details, elevation and super-structure details.

• Related pavement and structural needs.

• Soil, hydraulics, and environmental needs.

• Utility related infrastructure and coordination issues.

• Design parameters.

5-8
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Step 3 of 7: Reassess Project Definition

This is where a preliminary decision as to how the project will be built is made and 

an overall strategy for the construction (e.g., phased construction, design-build) 

and the work zone type (e.g., night work, lane-closure, cross-over, full-closure) is 

developed. Until this step, most of the effort involved collecting systems planning level 

information, collecting preliminary design information, and verifying and re-examining 

prior assumptions. Given the information available at this juncture, the designer 

may now consider and develop candidate construction approach(es). The planninglevel construction staging and traffic control approaches are revisited and potentially 

modified, and other alternatives are developed. Transportation management issues 

related to the project and candidate construction, staging, and traffic control approaches 

are also identified.

The types of issues to be considered in developing the candidate construction 

approaches are discussed in Step 2 of the systems planning process description in 

Section 4.5.

More information on different construction/traffic control approach(es) is available 

in Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work 

Zones, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

(Accessed 1/18/06).

TIP: Construction personnel and/or contractor representatives (if allowable) can 

provide valuable input towards identifying the potential construction/traffic 

control approach(es) for a project.

Step 4 of 7: Perform Preliminary Work Zone Impacts Assessment

Preliminary engineering is accomplished by conducting field investigations, surveys, 

and public/community outreach using the principles of highway and traffic engineering. 

This is also the phase where potential ROW acquisition issues; environmental impact/

NEPA issues, including impact of the new facility and the construction project on the 

environment; and community impact issues, including impact of the new facility and the 

construction project on the community, are addressed. Therefore, this is a very suitable 

time to incorporate work zone impacts issues into the investigations and assessments 

that are already being performed. The information obtained from the assessments 

can help the agency take further action, such as establish the requisite teams, involve 

appropriate personnel, contact stakeholders, and take necessary actions to facilitate 

the availability and use of transportation management strategies for construction. 

For example, if it is determined that a work zone traffic incident management system/

strategy will be necessary for the construction project, the agency may delegate that to 

their traffic operations staff who may begin assessing the traffic incident management 

needs for the project, in conjunction with the project design/construction team, and other 

appropriate stakeholders.

5-9
This step is expected to be a qualitative assessment involving a quick identification of work 

zone impacts issues, re-confirmation whether a project is a significant project (discussed 

in Table 1.1 and in Section 4.5 under Step 2 of 6), identification of potential work zone 

management strategies, and determination of whether more detailed (quantitative) 

work zone impacts analysis is needed. The assessment will be based on the candidate 

construction staging, traffic control approaches, and transportation management issues 

identified in Step 3, and will help flush out and identify potential concerns prior to the 

completion of partial design (e.g., 30% design plans). In later stages of design, designers 

may use the work zone issues and impacts identified in this step to “design their way out 

of” any potential problems or obstacles.

It is important at this stage to re-confirm whether a project is significant because more 

detailed project specific information is now available, which may change previous 

assertions/assumptions. For example, during preliminary engineering the project 

approach may be modified to construct the project at night as opposed to the planning 

level assumption of constructing the project during the day. As a result, the work zone 

impacts of the project may be lower than what was anticipated in the systems planning 

assessment, resulting in a re-classification of the project to a non-significant project. 

Conversely, an assumption may have been made during systems planning that designated 

a project as non-significant. Additional preliminary engineering data during this step may 

void that assumption, leading to a re-classification of the project as significant.

The activities that need to be performed in this step are similar to those of Step 2 of the 

systems planning process, where a screening-level work zone impacts assessment of 

alternatives is performed. The key difference between the systems planning and the 

preliminary engineering assessments is that in preliminary engineering the objective is 

to develop the best way to plan, design, and build a given project; whereas in systems 

planning, the objective is to identify alternatives that best meet a given need and have the 

least impacts from an environmental, work zone, and societal perspective. Extensive and 

well thought-out preliminary engineering and investigation leads to a better understanding 

of the project needs and potential impacts, and eventually leads to a better project design. 

The following are some examples of issues to consider. Refer to Step 2 of systems 

planning for more information.

• Is the project definition any different than what was identified during systems planning?

• If the project strategy has changed from what was originally assumed during systems 

planning (e.g., decision is made to build the project at night), are the work zone impacts 

any different now, and are there additional issues that I should address? Does the 

potential impact area (discussed in Step 2 of systems planning) of the project need to be 

reassessed or identified?

• Do ongoing (or completed) environmental/NEPA or other studies provide any 

constraints and information that may limit project location, design, and construction 

options?

• What are the safety implications (e.g., lane width issues, lane/shoulder closure issues, 

line-of-sight issues, horizontal and vertical curvature, ramp-closure issues) of the 

potential construction approaches?

• What are the traffic/mobility implications of the potential construction approaches? 

(e.g., lane closure restrictions, potential choke points, whether delays are expected, 

need for detour routes, potential impact on detour routes, potential impact on other 

transportation infrastructure such as railroad crossings and interchanges).

5-10
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• Identify and list out major impacts (safety and mobility) of the project and possible 

mitigation strategies, including project/work zone design options, contracting 

strategies, and other mitigation measures.

• Based on the concept design and potential construction and work zone strategies, is the 

originally assumed designation of significant project still valid for my project?

• Based on site visits, are there any other coordination issues such as utilities, 

environmental, ROW, and community?

• Are there any obvious issues that can be addressed right away and noted down so that 

they need not be addressed in later design stages (e.g., history of high weekend traffic 

volumes at the project location due to tourist traffic as a result of which weekend lane 

closures may not be a good option)?

• The level of work zone impacts assessment needed for the project: Is a high-level 

(qualitative) assessment sufficient or will a more detailed (qualitative) analysis be 

needed?

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) has established a Maintenance 

of Traffic Alternatives Analysis (MOTAA) process. It involves the analysis of 

potential work zone impacts “constraints” and occurs prior to the first detail plan 

submissions. It occurs early enough so that MOTAA can be used to:

• Pick between feasible project alternatives;

• Size structure widths; and

• Highlight work zone right-of-way and environmental impacts early enough to do 

something about them.

The following illustrates how early in project development the ODOT MOTAA takes 

place:

Source: Transportation Research Board 84th Annual Meeting, Session 476: Work Zone Impacts and 

Mitigation Efforts, How One State DOT is Addressing Work Zone Impacts, Dave Holstein, Ohio Department of 

Transportation, January 11, 2005, URL: http://webboard.trb.org/file.asp?file=David+Holstein%2Epdf

(Requires Login. Accessed May 30, 2006).

5-11
Step 5 of 7: Analyze Potential Impacts (Optional)

Typically, work zone impacts assessment is not a major focus of preliminary engineering 

activities. Many agencies qualitatively identify the potential work zone impacts of the 

construction project, but do not necessarily analyze the impacts to any degree of detail. 

However, quantitative analysis does have its benefits, especially because more projectspecific information is available during preliminary engineering, and any analysis 

conducted with this information can help the agency better understand the potential 

work zone impacts of the project. For example, preliminary engineering site visits, 

investigations, and conceptual design activities may yield more detailed (project-specific) 

information on aspects such as the exact scope of work for the project, design concepts, 

ROW issues, utility issues, environmental issues, traffic data and studies, and base plans. 

This kind of information is a big step-up from what is normally available in systems 

planning, and can be very useful to quantitatively understand the work zone impacts of a 

project before any major design work is accomplished.

In the process diagram (Figure 5.1), this step is shown as a box with dashed lines, which 

means that this step is optional. It is up to individual agencies to determine (in Step 

4) whether or not quantitative analysis is needed, based on the type, complexity, and 

expected work zone impacts of the project. If it is determined (in Step 4) that further 

quantitative analysis is not needed, the agency would skip this step and proceed directly 

to Step 6. At this stage of project development, quantitative impacts analysis may 

generally be done for significant projects that are expected to have major impacts at the 

corridor, network, or regional levels, but this does not mean that it will not be needed for 

other projects. Any decision to analyze or not to analyze should be made on a projectby-project basis.

TIP: Sometimes, quantitative work zone impacts analysis during preliminary 

engineering may not be possible due to inadequate project detail and lack 

of data to perform the analysis. In such cases, the particular issue under 

investigation may be noted so that the staff that conduct assessments in 

subsequent phases are made aware of the issue.

The following are some examples of scenarios under which an agency may find it helpful 

to quantitatively analyze impacts during preliminary engineering:

• The preliminary assessment in Step 4 may indicate that the project is a significant 

project, and the agency may desire to obtain a better (quantitative) understanding 

of what the impacts may be so that appropriate work zone management strategies 

and their costs can be identified. This does not automatically mean that quantitative 

analysis is needed in this step if a project is identified as significant in Step 4; any 

decision should be made on agency policy and individual project needs.

• It may not be very obvious during the preliminary assessment in Step 4 whether or 

not a project is significant. So the agency may decide to further analyze the potential 

work zone impacts. For example, an agency may identify in Step 4 that a particular 

project would have significant sustained work zone impacts if performed during 

daytime hours, but likely would not if performed at night. So, in this step the agency 

may conduct a queuing and delay analysis to determine if it would be feasible to 

conduct the project at night without an extensive TMP.

5-12
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• To help the agency choose between multiple project design and construction options.

Examples include asphalt pavement vs. concrete pavement, white top vs. black top, 

narrow shoulders vs. wide shoulders (life-cycle costs), and cast in place concrete vs. 

pre-fabricated concrete.

The Construction Analysis for Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies (CA4PRS) is a 

computer model intended to estimate the maximum amount (distance) of highway 

that can be rehabilitated or reconstructed within various closure timeframes. This 

model integrates pavement, construction, and traffic-related decision-making 

by balancing numerous constraints such as scheduling interfaces, pavement 

materials and design, contractor logistics and resources, and traffic operations. 

When combined with a traffic model, the CA4PRS software can help determine 

which pavement structures and rehabilitation strategies maximize on-schedule 

construction production without creating unacceptable traffic delays.

Source: A Computer Simulation Model: Construction Analysis for Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies 

(CA4PRS), Report Prepared for California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), E. B. Lee, John Harvey, 

and C.W. Ibbs, February 2004, University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies, 

Pavement Research Center. URL: http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~eblee/CA4PRSModel_Tech_021204.pdf 

(Accessed 01/06/06). 

More information on CA4PRS is available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/roadway/ca4prs/ca4prs.htm

(Accessed 01/06/06), and http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~eblee/CA4PRS.htm (Accessed 01/06/06).

• To help the agency choose between multiple traffic control and management 

approaches. Examples include night work vs. daytime work, weekend vs. weekday, 

lane closure vs. no closure, and full closure vs. partial closure.

• To justify additional funds for work zone transportation management for a particular 

project or to justify as to why a particular project will not have major impacts. 

Analyses may help provide hard numbers for the potential work zone impacts, the 

resulting user-costs, and the amount of user-cost savings that the recommended 

management strategies may yield.

The following are some issues to be considered in conducting quantitative work zone 

impacts analysis during preliminary engineering:

• Sketch-planning tools and deterministic tools may be most appropriate for this level 

of analysis. Quantitative analysis at this stage is generally aimed at estimating the 

work zone impacts of the project (at a high-level) in and around the work zone, and/

or the immediate transportation network within the impactable vicinity of the work 

zone. Therefore, sketch-planning tools and deterministic tools may be most suitable. 

Travel demand modeling tools may also be used, but they are generally intended for 

regional and/or metropolitan level analysis, and may not provide the desired level 

of analysis clarity. For example, some deterministic tools are capable of replicating 

and analyzing the impacts of the traffic control plan (TCP) for a project, including 

taper lengths, number of lanes, lane widths, shoulder widths, turning lanes, traffic 

signal information; and the use of different management strategies (e.g., ITS, demand 

management, real-time information.). However, travel demand modeling tools do 

not have this level of clarity and may not serve the purpose. Also, if agencies are 

interested in estimates of queue lengths, travel time, and delay, in addition to volume, 

5-13
volume/capacity (V/C) ratios, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and vehicle hours traveled 

(VHT), travel demand models may not serve the purpose. This does not mean that 

travel demand models cannot be used. This decision needs to be made based upon 

individual project needs and the types of information that the agency is interested 

in. Using travel demand models for the analysis may be better than conducting 

no analysis at all. Examples of tools that may be most appropriate for conducting 

quantitative work zone impacts analysis during preliminary engineering are:

– Work Zone Specific Sketch-Planning Tools such as MicroBENCOST, QuickZone, 

QUEWZ, and CA4PRS.

– Deterministic/Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Based Tools such as Highway 

Capacity Software (HCS 2000), Assessment of Roundabout Capacity and Delay 

(ARCADY), Freeway Delay Calculation Program (FREWAY), and Dynamic Toll Plaza 

Queuing Analysis Program (Dqueue).

– Generic Sketch-Planning Tools such as the ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS), 

Screening for ITS (SCRITS), and IMPACTS.

If the project complexity and the desired level of accuracy for the work zone impacts 

estimation warrant a more detailed analysis (e.g., simulation), the agency may choose to 

do so depending on the availability of the data needed to conduct a low-level analysis. 

A traffic simulation tool like CORSIM would require additional information including trip 

tables, origin-destination patterns, and more details on the traffic control parameters. 

At the preliminary engineering stage, such detail may not always be available, and 

therefore simulation tools may not be suitable for this analysis. They may however be 

appropriate for use on larger projects where both preliminary engineering and design 

may take place in tandem.

QuickZone is a work zone delay estimation model developed by the Federal 

Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Research, Development and Technology 

(RD&T) program. QuickZone helps project planners and engineers estimate delay, 

queuing and user costs associated with alternate work zone design and mitigation 

strategies. The kind of input data required include basic network definition data, 

traffic counts, high level work zone configuration (e.g., lane-closure details), 

and construction times. The user may add specific transportation management 

strategies, e.g., ITS, public information, and demand management strategies 

to estimate the benefits that may be obtained. Based on this information, the 

user may then run multiple scenario analyses to estimate delay, queuing, and 

user-costs of different potential construction and management strategies. More 

information on QuickZone is available at http://www.tfhrc.gov/its/quickzon.htm

(Accessed 01/06/06).

More information on analysis tools is provided in APPENDIX B — Impacts 

Analysis Tools.

5-14
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• The analysis may be performed at the work zone, corridor, and/or network levels. 

Appropriate measures may be considered in the analysis for safety, mobility, societal 

impacts, road user-costs, life-cycle cost implications, and benefits of the work zone 

management strategies. Examples of different work zone impacts issues and 

measures are provided in the systems planning process description, under Step 3 of 6, 

in Section 4.5.

• The analysis may be combined with an ongoing project study such as corridor/subarea study, EIS, etc. Environmental/NEPA assessments must cover the range of 

impacts of the project, and address issues such as design alternatives that would 

decrease pollution emissions, construction impacts, esthetic intrusion, relocation 

assistance, possible land use controls that could be enacted, and other possible efforts. 

Any work zone impacts analysis that is conducted during preliminary engineering may 

be combined with other such project assessments, can provide information towards 

effective completion of other assessments, and can use information and constraints 

that come out of the other assessments. 

The New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) is studying the reconstruction 

of the NYS Thruway between Interchanges 23 and 24 to improve deteriorating 

conditions on the underlying roadway. Construction is expected to begin sometime 

in 2007, and the project is currently in the environmental study and review phase. 

An environmental assessment conducted by the NYSTA indicated potential impacts 

to wetlands, noise levels, increased storm water discharge, and archeological sites. 

Therefore a positive declaration was made to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). Preliminary assessments indicate that if the proposed project goes 

forward an additional temporary lane may be required to maintain traffic during 

construction. The temporary lane may be converted to a permanent lane if the 

study concludes that this is the preferred alternative. The EIS scope identifies the 

need to examine the impacts of construction activities in and adjacent to the project 

area and identify appropriate mitigation strategies. The types of construction 

impacts to be considered include accidental spills including fuel spills; temporarily 

increased noise levels; temporarily degraded air quality; temporarily increased 

levels of dust in the air; erosion and sediment control; and traffic congestion.

Source: New York State Thruway Authority’s web site for the Thruway Reconstruction Project between 

Interchanges 23 and 24. URL: http://www.thruway.state.ny.us/projectsandstudies/projects/i23-i24/index.html

(Accessed 01/06/06).

Once the work zone impacts analysis is complete, appropriate work zone transportation 

management strategies may then be identified in Step 6. The link between Steps 5 and 

6 is bi-directional as it represents an iterative process to conduct the work zone impacts 

analysis in conjunction with the work zone management strategies. For example, if a 

work zone traffic incident management plan is chosen as a strategy, the agency may 

perform a scenario analysis to estimate its benefits in terms of mitigating the work zone 

impacts of the project. 

5-15
Step 6 of 7: Identify Preliminary Work Zone Management Strategies

This step involves the preliminary identification of potential work zone management 

strategies based on the impact assessments conducted in the previous steps. Agencies 

may arrive at this step directly after the preliminary assessment in Step 4, or after 

conducting further quantitative analysis in Step 5. In either case, at this point enough 

information should be available on the project with regards to the potential design, 

construction/staging, overall work zone/traffic control approach, environmental issues, 

other coordination issues (utility, ROW, community/business impacts, etc.), and the 

resultant work zone impacts of the project. This information will be used to identify 

the management strategies and estimate their costs sufficiently enough to initiate the 

implementation plans for those management strategies. 

The objective of this step is not to develop the TMP but to identify the potential 

management strategies that could constitute the TMP and take the necessary actions that 

set the basis for TMP development in subsequent design stages. So, the level of effort 

is expected to be minimal compared to that required for actual design and development. 

Often, it may just involve a compilation of the work zone impacts issues, quick identification 

of appropriate management strategies, estimation of their costs based on simplistic 

procedures and available data, and identifying resources and means to implement them. 

The discussion on identification of management strategies provided under Step 4 of 6 of 

the systems planning process in Section 4.5 can be used as a framework for identifying the 

management strategies.

This step may seem identical to the Step 4 of the systems planning process – and 

appropriately so, because the objective of this step and that of Step 4 of systems 

planning is essentially the same, which is to identify work zone management strategies 

for the project. The biggest difference is in the level of work zone impacts assessment. 

In systems planning the focus is on getting a conceptual understanding; whereas in 

preliminary engineering, the focus is on using more project-specific information to 

conduct the preliminary activities that help set the tone for actual design in subsequent 

stages. Another aspect to note in preliminary engineering is that in addition to identifying 

management strategies and estimating their costs, implementation plans for the 

management strategies are also initiated. For example, the management strategies that 

are identified in this step may include a work zone traffic monitoring system, work zone 

traffic incident management program, and a public information campaign including a webbased traveler information program. As part of initiating the implementation plan for the 

management strategies, the agency may investigate the possibility of using pre-existing 

traffic surveillance and detection devices for work zone traffic monitoring, initiate contacts 

with the agency’s traffic operations group to develop concepts for the work zone traffic 

incident management program, and initiate discussions with the agency’s information 

systems group to setup a web site for the project.

More detailed information about the different work zone management strategies is 

provided in Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for 

Work Zones, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

(Accessed 1/18/06).

5-16
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Step 7 of 7: Compile Preliminary Work Zone Strategy

In this step, the information from the impact assessment conducted in the previous steps 

is compiled to develop a “Preliminary Work Zone Strategy” which consists of:

• The project definition.

• Candidate construction/staging and traffic control approaches.

• Anticipated/estimated work zone impacts.

• Preliminary transportation management strategies.

• Cost estimate for the transportation management strategies (may be one or multiple 

sets of strategies, depending upon whether there is more than one construction/

staging alternative).

• High-level identification of implementation resources, challenges, and opportunities, 

and initiation of appropriate action items for the management strategies.

Potential coordination and/or conflicts with other projects may also be addressed. The 

alternative(s) that best suits the needs of constructability, safety, and mobility should be 

selected. In some instances, it may not be clearly evident that one particular alternative 

is most appropriate, in which case, multiple alternatives may be carried over to the 

design phase where more detailed investigation and analyses may be performed. 

5-17

WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

6-1

6.0 Work Zone Impacts Assessment 

During Design

6.1 What Happens During Design?

Design represents the stage in program delivery where the final design is conducted 

for the project and appropriate plan documents, specifications, and cost estimates are 

developed. These documents lay out exactly how the project will be built, what the 

issues are, and how the work zone will be implemented and managed. Design is an 

iterative process that consists of different stages, sometimes referred to by different 

percentages such as the 30% stage (preliminary engineering), the 60% and 90% stages, 

and then the final design for the project. Through the course of these design stages, 

final decisions are made on the best options for all the aspects of the project. Based 

on these decisions the final plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&Es) and the bid 

package are developed, followed by bidding and contract award.

The following is a summary of the activities that are performed during design:

• Conducting further analysis and design.

• Choosing the best build option.

• Choosing project design and contracting strategy.

• Addressing right-of-way (ROW) and other issues (e.g., utility relocation, coordination).

• Choosing specific design elements (e.g., structural, pavement, geometry).

• Developing construction staging plan(s).

• Developing plans for work zone traffic control and management.

• Developing final cost estimates.

• Developing PS&Es.

• Bidding and contract award.

Preliminary engineering and the subsequent design stages are generally performed by 

similar staff, i.e., project planners and designers belonging to the design/engineering 

departments of transportation agencies, either at the central office or the region/district 

level. Their primary responsibility is to plan, develop, and design specific projects. 

Often preliminary engineering and design take place in tandem without a clear-cut 

distinction between the stages. However, this document discusses work zone impacts 

assessment for preliminary engineering and design in separate chapters. This was done 

to emphasize the importance and potential benefits of specifically advancing work zone 

considerations to the preliminary engineering stage, and to highlight some of the early 

work zone impacts assessment activities that may be performed during preliminary 

engineering. Such advancement of work zone considerations could make project 

development and work zone impacts assessments more systematic. The discussion 

of work zone impacts assessment separately for preliminary engineering and design 

is not intended to imply that decision-making by transportation agencies is highly 

compartmentalized.
6-2

6.2 Objectives of Work Zone Impacts Assessment 

During Design

Design is the stage where the final work zone impacts assessment is conducted so as to choose 

the best construction/staging option(s), the most suitable design and contracting approach, 

and the most appropriate work zone transportation management strategies. The impacts 

assessment during design is an iterative process progressing through the various stages 

of design, and addressing the basic issues of safety, mobility, and constructability. Basic 

assumptions are re-examined and appropriate changes are made. Consensus of all involved 

parties is sought, and performance objectives for the work zone are developed.

Most agencies have extensive design manuals, customized versions of the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)1, and standards that help assess work zone impacts and 

develop appropriate work zone strategies. Typically these work zone strategies are limited to 

traffic safety and control strategies within the work zone or just adjacent to it. Transportation 

management strategies are not always included. However, there is an increasing recognition 

that traffic management efforts beyond temporary traffic control (TTC) plans are needed to deal 

with the increasing traffic volumes using the same roads on which agencies need to perform 

maintenance and rehabilitation2. Therefore, the focus of this guidance is to enhance designlevel work zone impacts assessment by considering and addressing work zone impacts from a 

broader transportation management perspective, rather than solely a traffic safety and control 

perspective. This broader approach leads to the development of a transportation management 

plan (TMP) for the project that includes a TTC plan, as well as other appropriate strategies. 

The objectives of work zone impacts assessment during design are to:

• Perform a detailed project-level work zone impacts assessment progressively and 

comprehensively through the various design iterations.

• Reassess and confirm whether the project is a significant project3.

• Develop recommendations for final construction approach and construction staging.

• Identify final design and contracting strategies – consider innovative design and contracting 

approaches.

• Develop final recommendations and plans for work zone management strategies.

• Estimate the final costs for the chosen work zone management strategies.

• Identify performance requirements4 for the work zone.

• Develop the TMP, appropriate PS&Es, and other documents that are required to implement 

the TMP.

• Develop contracting documents.

The TMP may be developed by the agency itself – either in-house or by using a consultant. 

Alternatively, the agency may choose to allow the contractor to develop a TMP prior to start 

1

 The MUTCD is available at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.

2

 Recognizing the growing complexities in performing road work today, in September 2004 the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) updated 

the work zone regulation at 23 CFR 630 Subpart J and renamed it the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule (the Rule). The former Rule required 

the development of traffic control plans (TCPs) for all road projects. The updated Rule expands the former TCP requirement to now require 

the development and implementation of transportation management plans (TMPs) for all projects. More information on developing TMPs is 

available in Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/

resources/final_rule.htm.

3

 A significant project is one that, alone or in combination with other concurrent projects nearby is anticipated to cause sustained work 

zone impacts that are greater than what is considered tolerable based on the respective agency’s policy and/or engineering judgment. This 

definition, provided in Section 630.1010 of the Rule, also specifies that all Interstate system projects within the boundaries of a Transportation 

Management Area that occupy a location for more than three days and have lane closures are significant.

4

 Performance requirements/guidelines that are identified during design may be useful to monitor the actual performance of the work zone 

during construction. Section 7.0 of this document discusses work zone impacts assessment during construction.
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

6-3

of work, and/or use performance-based specifications. If the agency chooses to use a 

contractor developed TMP (instead of an agency developed TMP), appropriate specifications 

for the TMP are developed, rather than the TMP itself. In either case, TMP development will 

be governed by agency-developed recommendations and/or performance specifications. 

All TMPs that are developed by a non-agency entity (e.g., contractor, consultant) must to 

be approved by the agency. The agency may also have the TMP reviewed, stamped, and 

approved by a licensed Professional Engineer.

Work zone impacts assessment during design may provide answers to specific work 

zone impacts related questions such as:

• Now that I know how I am going to build the project, what are the specific traffic safety 

and control requirements for the project?

- e.g., taper lengths, type of separation, number of barrels/cones, work site access points, signage 

requirements for the work zone, detour signs.

• Now that I know my chosen work zone type, what are the additional traffic safety 

features that I need to incorporate?

- e.g., for night work the issues that need to be addressed include lighting and visibility needs, advance 

warning to motorists, reflectorized separation, reflectorized clothing for workers, presence of law 

enforcement in advance of and through the work zone, etc.

• Now that I know that I am going to deploy a work zone traffic incident management 

system using advanced intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology as part of 

the Transportation Operations (TO) component for the TMP, what are the requirements 

for that system?

- e.g., detector requirements, coordination with pre-existing regional transportation management 

center (TMC), information communication and dissemination requirements, number of tow-trucks 

needed for incident response and management, work zone traffic incident management policies, etc.

• Now that I know that I am going to deploy a real-time work zone traveler information 

system as part of the Public Information (PI) component of the TMP, what are the needs 

of the system?

- e.g., whether portable dynamic message sign(s) (DMS) will be needed or pre-existing stationary DMS 

can serve the purpose, other en-route information dissemination methods, project web site, project 

telephone hotline, E-mail alerts, media contacts, etc.

• Now that I know the construction/staging approach, the chosen design, and the TMP for 

the project, what are the expected work zone impacts of the project and how effective 

are the TMP strategies expected to be?

- e.g., expected queue lengths and delays, expected crashes/crash rate, analysis/estimation of the 

work zone impacts of the project, analysis/estimation of how well the TMP mitigates those impacts 

(i.e., analysis of work zone impacts with and without TMP strategies), etc.

• Now that I know the specific components of the TMP, what are the individual items that 

constitute them, what are the estimated costs, and can I save some money by utilizing 

pre-existing resources or by combining resources?

- e.g., given that the project needs a TO component, what are the actual TO strategies that I need, such 

as a work zone traffic incident management system, enhanced work zone enforcement, real-time 

work zone monitoring and management, work zone speed advisory system, transit subsidies, etc.

- What is the implementation plan for the TMP components? Are there any components that need to 

be implemented much ahead of the projected start date for the project (e.g., the PI plan), or are there 

any components that need to be implemented prior to implementing other components?
6.3 Who are the Participants?

The staff that may perform the work zone impacts assessment during design, the inputs 

and input providers, and the outputs and users of the outputs are shown in Table 6.1.

6-4

Table 6.1 Design-Level Work Zone Impacts Assessment Participants
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

6.4 Assessing Work Zone Impacts During Design

Figure 6.1 illustrates the steps involved in work zone impacts assessment during design. 

Some notes pertaining to the figure are presented in Table 6.2. 

6-5

Figure 6.1 Design – Work Zone Impacts Assessment Process
6-6

Table 6.2 Process Notes
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

6-7

The following sections provide a discussion of the steps shown in Figure 6.1.

Step 1 of 5: Compile Preliminary Engineering Material

This step involves the compilation of the preliminary engineering material (i.e., the 

preliminary work zone strategy), which should include:

• The project definition.

• Candidate construction/staging approach(es).

• Preliminary assessment of work zone impacts.

• Significant project designation.

• Preliminary work zone transportation management strategies.

• Preliminary cost estimates for the management strategies and the candidate construction/

staging approach(es).

• Available information on implementation resources, challenges, and opportunities for the 

management strategies.

• Available project coordination/conflict information. 

If the preliminary engineering work zone strategy has not been developed yet, the agency can 

follow a process like the one described in Section 5.4 to perform the preliminary engineering 

work zone impact assessment, and develop a preliminary work zone strategy for the project. 

For larger projects, preliminary engineering and design may take place as part of one study 

effort.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) provides guidance on the activities 

that should be performed during the early stages of design. The guidance states 

that this period of project development requires a substantial amount of the project 

manager’s experience and attention. Decisions made during this time will directly 

affect the project schedule and quality. Input from the project manager’s peers and 

supervisor should be sought for quality assurance. The design field survey, stream 

crossing hydraulics, and pavement design should be completed before detailed plan 

development. Traffic control and permits/agreements may delay the project if not 

handled properly at the beginning of detailed design. Design Division approval of 

geometric schematics for new location or added capacity projects should be obtained 

before beginning detailed design. The activities that may be performed at this juncture 

include the following groups of tasks (which may be performed concurrently):

• Traffic Control – plan the sequence of construction, develop conceptual detour/road 

closure plan;

• Permits and Agreements – obtain miscellaneous permits, design environmental 

mitigation details;

• Design Data Collection – review data collection needs;

• Stream Crossing Hydraulics – refine hydrologic study, prepare stream crossing 

hydraulics, prepare hydraulic report; and

• Pavement Design – prepare pavement design report.

Source: TxDOT Project Development Process Manual, August 1, 2003. URL: http://manuals.dot.state.tx.us/

dynaweb/coldesig/pdp/@Generic_BookView (Accessed 01/05/06).
5

 Design-level constructability reviews are aimed at using construction knowledge and experience (field knowledge) to design 

projects that are practical to construct, facilitate rational bids, and minimize problems/delays during construction. Examples of 

State DOT constructability review processes are available in the FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook. URL: http://ops.

fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 01/6/05).

6

 Value engineering (VE) is an organized application of common sense and technical knowledge to find and eliminate 

unnecessary costs in a project. VE can be performed either during design or construction. VE is briefly discussed in Section 

7.4 under Step 2 of 7. More information is available on the FHWA VE web site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/index.htm 

(Accessed 11/15/05).

Step 2 of 5: Reassess Work Zone Impacts

The purpose of this step is to reassess the work zone impacts of the project so that any 

issues are identified and addressed before the final design is completed. Reassessment 

of work zone impacts starts with the preliminary work zone strategy and progresses 

through the various design stages. As design progresses, more detailed project 

information becomes available and project-related decisions are finalized (e.g., pavement 

choice may be finalized, which will influence the total duration of construction). 

Decisions may be made during later design stages that may change the project 

parameters, potentially changing the work zone impacts implications of the project. 

Therefore, the reassessment of work zone impacts should be conducted along with the 

ongoing design activities, with work zone impacts issues being accounted for at each 

concurrence/decision point. For example, any design-level constructability reviews5 and 

value engineering (VE)6 studies should be encouraged to look at the potential for work 

zone impact reductions. Such reassessment can help avoid the propagation of errors to 

the final design, and potentially avoid costly changes later during construction.

Reassessment of work zone impacts is expected to be a qualitative process to doublecheck the validity of the assessments and assumptions that were made in earlier stages, 

as more design decisions are finalized and more information becomes available. If 

the assessment indicates that the work zone impacts may be different from what was 

expected, further investigation and analysis may be needed. If not the agency may 

proceed to final design. Depending on the complexity of the project, the agency may 

conduct additional quantitative analysis of work zone impacts in Step 3. General 

guidance is provided in Step 3 on the types of projects for which additional quantitative 

analysis may be required.

The reassessment of work zone impacts can be done in a manner similar to that 

described in Step 2 of 6 of the systems planning process (Section 4.5), and Step 4 of 7 of 

the preliminary engineering process (Section 5.4). The key difference in design is that 

the assessment is more detailed and specific, and the issues that are identified will lead 

to the final TMP strategies and design recommendations for the project.

The following are some issues to consider in reassessing work zone impacts during 

design:

• Project Definition. As design progresses, final decisions are made on various aspects 

related to the project definition. These include decisions on the exact nature of work 

to be performed, location, extent, and duration; roadway alignment and ROW; crosssectional, elevation and super-structure details; pavement and structural needs; soil, 

hydraulics, and environmental needs; utility related infrastructure and coordination 

issues; and design parameters. When such decisions are finalized, an assessment 

should be made to determine if those decisions influence the work zone impacts of the 

project. Project design options should be chosen with consideration for minimizing 

their life-cycle work zone impacts (e.g., choosing long-life pavements, designing wider 

shoulders to facilitate easier maintenance, incorporating other features that reduce the 

work zone impacts of maintenance/rehabilitation). Project Definition is also discussed 

in Step 2 of 7 of the preliminary engineering process (Section 5.4).

6-8
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

At the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), materials and life 

cycle costing are key design issues. NYSDOT has incorporated design features to 

accommodate future work zone mobility needs (e.g., wider bridges to facilitate use 

of the shoulder as a travel lane during construction, avoiding piers in medians).

Source: NYSDOT comments in response to the FHWA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 

on Work Zone Safety, June 6, 2002, United States Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT) online Docket 

Management System. URL: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf81/175976_web.pdf (Accessed 01/18/06).

The FHWA Highways for LIFE program focuses on how to build a highway safer, 

longer lasting, at a lower cost, and faster. More information on this program is 

available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl (Accessed 01/18/06).

• Constructability/Construction Staging Approach(es). During preliminary engineering 

and early design, it may not be possible to finalize the construction/staging approach 

for the project. In design, further investigation is performed and decisions are made 

on the most suitable construction/staging approach for the project, and constructability 

issues are identified and addressed. The choice of construction/staging approach 

directly influences the potential work zone impacts of the project. Therefore, as design 

progresses and decisions are made, any variations from prior decisions/assumptions 

should be noted and assessed for their work zone impacts implications. In choosing 

the construction/staging approach and in conducting constructability reviews, work 

zone impacts issues should be considered and the selection of construction/staging 

approach(es) should seek to minimize work zone impacts. Construction staging 

approach is also discussed in Step 3 of 7 of the preliminary engineering process 

(Section 5.4), and Step 2 of 6 of the systems planning process (Section 4.5).

Many agencies have successfully used full road closures for accelerating road 

construction and minimizing overall impacts to road users. The FHWA developed 

a series of case studies to provide examples of projects using full road closure for 

work zone operations. The case studies are available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.

gov/wz/construction/full_rd_closures.htm (Accessed 01/18/06).

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 476 

contains Guidelines for Design and Operation of Nighttime Traffic Control for 

Highway Maintenance and Construction. This report is available at http://trb.org/

publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_476.pdf (Accessed 01/18/06).

A Traffic Control Handbook for Mobile Operations at Night is available from the 

FHWA Office of Safety (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov — Accessed 8/25/06).

6-9
• Work Zone Management Strategies. Design-level decisions can influence the choice of 

work zone management strategies. As specific decisions are made and milestones are 

attained, the work zone management strategies should also be reassessed to determine 

if they still apply and whether they adequately serve the purpose of mitigating the 

work zone impacts of the project. If not, additional management strategies need to be 

identified. This reassessment is a quick review as to whether the prior assumptions 

(from preliminary engineering or other design stages) still apply, or whether the 

previously identified management strategies need to be modified. For example, the 

preliminary engineering assessments may result in the identification of two alternative 

“construction and work zone management approaches” – the first being a night work 

option with a basic TMP (i.e., TTC plan only), and the second being a daytime work 

option with a complete TMP (i.e., TTC, TO, and PI included). As design progresses, 

more information may become available on the feasibility of each of the construction 

approaches, leading to the elimination of the night work option. Therefore, the 

second option would be chosen and further developed. Step 6 of 7 of the preliminary 

engineering process in Section 5.4, and Step 4 of 6 of the systems planning process in 

Section 4.5 discuss the initial identification of work zone management strategies.

More detailed information on the different work zone management strategies is 

provided in Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for 

Work Zones, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

(Accessed 1/18/06).

• Work Zone Impacts. Work zone impacts should be reassessed when decisions are 

made on the construction/staging approach(es) and the accompanying work zone 

management strategies. The reassessment is expected to be an iterative process that 

progresses along with the ongoing design activities, with checks and balances being 

made at the respective design milestones and concurrence points. Work zone impacts 

issues to address include safety; traffic capacity/demand; community impacts; combined 

impacts with nearby, concurrent projects; significant project designation; modifications 

to management strategies; and work zone performance requirements (either policylevel or project-specific). If the reassessment indicates that the chosen work zone 

management strategies will be effective and help attain the performance requirements/

goals for the work zone, the agency would proceed to Step 4 (final design). If not, the 

management strategies may need to be modified, or additional management strategies 

may need to be identified as appropriate. For smaller (less complex) projects, the 

reassessment can be based on simplified tools and rules and/or engineering judgment. 

For larger (more complex) projects a more detailed (quantitative) analysis may be 

needed, which is discussed in Step 3. In general, a quick reassessment can indicate 

whether or not a project would need additional quantitative analysis. General guidance 

is provided in Step 3 on the types of projects for which additional quantitative analysis 

may be needed. Table 2.7 – Work Zone Impacts Considerations in Section 2.0 provides 

a detailed list of the different work zone impacts issues and considerations that may be 

addressed.

6-10
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

6-11

Step 3 of 5: Reassess Work Zone Impacts (As Needed)

This step may be considered as an extension of the work zone impacts reassessment 

discussed in Step 2. The purpose of this step is to conduct a more detailed (quantitative) 

investigation and analysis of the work zone impacts. Similar to Step 2, this quantitative 

analysis should also be performed iteratively, progressing along with the design activities, 

with the design milestones and concurrence points being used as junctures for work zone 

related checks.

In the process diagram (Figure 6.1), this step is shown as a box with dashed lines, 

indicating that this step would be performed on an as-needed basis. It is up to individual 

agencies to determine whether or not quantitative analysis is needed, based on the type, 

complexity, and expected work zone impacts of the project. If it is determined that further 

quantitative analysis is not needed, the agency would skip this step and proceed directly 

to Step 4. 

TIP: Though this step may not be performed for all projects, detailed quantitative 

analysis during design may be the best way to get a clear understanding of the 

expected work zone impacts of a project. Most project decisions are finalized 

during design and this is when the project design/construction team may have 

the best understanding of how exactly the project will be built. A quantitative 

analysis conducted during design will probably yield the best estimation of the 

magnitude, location, duration, and costs of the work zone impacts, and help 

identify the management strategies that best mitigate these impacts. Further, 

detailed analysis may potentially avoid omission or oversight of work zone 

safety and mobility issues prior to final design. It may also help identify and 

address issues that may lead to a work stoppage during the construction stage 

(e.g., queue lengths or delays in excess of agency policy).

Quantitative analysis may be used to:

• Confirm and re-examine whether the project is a significant project.

• Choose between alternative project design, construction/staging, and traffic control and 

management approaches.

The Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) routinely performs quantitative 

analysis to compare the construction time for maintaining traffic through the work 

zone versus closing the highway and diverting traffic. The objective is to maintain 

pre-existing levels of vehicular and pedestrian mobility and minimize construction 

cost and schedule.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 01/18/06).

• Estimate the life-cycle costs of the project, taking into account the cost of maintaining 

and rehabilitating the facility over its life-cycle.
The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) uses Life Cycle Costing to select the 

type of pavement to be used. In the past, pavements were selected for reasons such 

as supply, personal choice, and maintenance. These reasons were not quantified, 

were generally subjective, and sometimes did not yield a long pavement life. Lifecycle cost analysis provides quantitative information about the pavement type to 

use, helps justify decisions, and maximizes pavement cost and life.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 01/18/06).

• Choose between alternative work zone transportation management strategies.

• Understand specific aspects of work zone impacts of the project (e.g., choke points, 

bottlenecks, diversion patterns, queue lengths, queue build-up and dissipation rates).

DYNASMART-P is a tool developed by FHWA to model the impacts of operational 

aspects on the transportation network, including work zones and incidents. The user 

can represent work zones on the network, and run dynamic simulations to estimate 

impacts such as traffic backup and queuing, queue length, delay, and the effects of 

using management strategies (e.g., using DMS to divert traffic to alternate routes). 

More information on DYNASMART-P is available at http://www.dynasmart.com

(Accessed 01/18/06).

• Understand the work zone impacts implications of any value engineering proposals that 

recommend the removal of certain project elements for cost-cutting purposes.

• Understand the combined impacts and coordination issues with other nearby, 

concurrent projects.

• Identify the work zone performance requirements/goals for the project (e.g., by 

analyzing the work zone impacts under different scenarios and developing a range of 

potential impacts, which can then serve as the basis for the performance goals).

• Set the parameters for any innovative/alternative contracting approach (e.g., in the case 

of A+B bidding, the objective is to minimize construction duration by getting contractors 

to bid on the actual work items (Part A), and the total number of days to complete the 

project multiplied by the daily road user cost stipulated in the contract (Part B). The 

combined values of A and B determine the winning bid. The agency may need to 

conduct a quantitative analysis of the work zone impacts to estimate the associated 

daily road user costs that it needs to stipulate in the contract).

6-12
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) uses the QUEWZ software to 

predict congestion and associated user costs. The user cost information is used 

to establish incentives on A+B Contracts and as criteria for the best alternative 

for maintaining traffic. The version of QUEWZ used by INDOT has the ability to 

account for the traffic that will divert from the route. It has been calibrated by 

INDOT and found to be reasonably accurate in user cost and delay estimation, 

resulting in more efficient construction phasing and maintenance of traffic 

planning.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 01/18/06).

• Justify additional funds for work zone management strategies, or to justify why a 

project will not have major work zone impacts. (e.g., by quantifying the work zone 

impacts, the associated user-costs, and the benefits and costs of the work zone 

management strategies).

• Determine and design the specific aspects of the management strategies.

– TTC Plan – quantify expected queue length and incorporate that information in 

designing the taper for the project; design the lane-widths; set the work zone speed 

limits; estimate costs of TTC strategies; etc.

– TO Component – determine the communications and detector requirements for 

a work zone traffic monitoring and incident management system; estimate traffic 

diversion patterns and rates to determine potential impacts on the alternate 

route(es) and appropriately improve operations on the alternate route (e.g., signal 

timing adjustments); evaluate the positioning of dynamic message signs (DMS) 

which may affect the diversion patterns; estimate the number of people who would 

switch to transit so as to structure the transit incentive program; estimate the costs 

of the TO strategies; etc.

– PI Component – estimate the volume of traffic that would be affected by the project 

to determine the PI needs; determine the types of PI strategies to use (e.g., real-time 

updates through email, telephone based information); coordinate with stakeholders 

to initiate the PI program; estimate the costs of the PI strategies; etc. 

Quantitative impacts analysis may generally be needed for significant projects that are 

expected to have major impacts at the corridor, network, or regional levels, but this does 

not mean that it will not be needed for other projects. A decision to analyze or not to 

analyze should be made on a project-by-project basis. The following provides some 

general guidance to help agencies determine the types of projects for which detailed 

quantitative analysis may be appropriate:

• Section 3.4.1 discusses the classification of projects according to their expected work 

zone impacts. Table 3.2 in that section presents the project classification scheme used 

in the FHWA Work Zone Self Assessment program7, which classifies projects into four 

types. The project complexity and expected work zone impacts is highest for Type I 

projects, followed by Types II, III, and IV, respectively. In general, quantitative analysis 

of work zone impacts may be appropriate for all Type I and Type II projects; may be 

needed for some Type III projects; and may not be needed for most Type IV projects.

6-13 7

 The FHWA Work Zone Self Assessment program is designed to help agencies assess their work zone programs, 

procedures, and practices against many of the good work zone practices in use today. FHWA Division Offices work 

together with transportation agency staff from their State partners to complete the assessment each year. More 

information is available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/decision_support/self-assess.htm (Accessed 12/16/05).
• Section 3.4.1 also presents a classification scheme based on the type of TMP that may 

be needed for projects. The example classification scheme uses three types of TMPs 

– Basic TMP, Intermediate TMP, and Major TMP. Using this classification scheme, 

quantitative analysis may not be needed for most Basic TMP projects; may be needed 

for some Intermediate TMP projects; and may be needed for most Major TMP projects.

Quantitative analysis can be performed at the work zone, corridor, and/or network levels. 

Appropriate measures may be considered in the analysis for safety, mobility, societal 

impacts, road user-costs, life-cycle cost implications, and benefits of the work zone 

management strategies. Examples of different work zone impacts issues and measures 

are provided in Step 3 of 6 in Section 4.5 (Systems Planning Process) and under Step 

5 of 7 in section 5.4 (Preliminary Engineering Process). The key difference in design is 

that the analysis is more detailed and will lead to the development of the final design 

and TMP for the project. The level of detail and clarity of analysis is expected to be 

higher. For example, early work zone impacts analysis performed during preliminary 

engineering (e.g., using a sketch-planning tool) for a particular project may indicate that 

traffic diversion to the designated alternate route for the project would be significant, 

leading to a preliminary decision to upgrade and re-time the traffic signals on the 

alternate route. In design, a more detailed analysis (e.g., using a micro-simulation tool) 

may be conducted to determine the actual diversion patterns, the volume of traffic 

expected to divert to the alternate route, and the actual intersections that would be 

affected. This analysis may then be used to identify the number of traffic signals that 

need to be upgraded and the exact nature of the upgrades, and to develop the signal 

timing plans and estimate the costs for the same.

In addition to the measures in Section 4.5 and Section 5.4, agencies may be interested in 

understanding some more specific operational issues during the design level analysis. 

Examples include queue build-up and dissipation patterns/durations, queue lengths, 

traffic diversion patterns/volumes, effects of slight modifications in work duration (i.e., 

changes in start and stop time), vehicle trajectory analysis (e.g., to understand the 

impacts of tight curves and lane shifts), benefits of specific management strategies (e.g., 

travel time savings that may be attained by deploying a work zone traffic monitoring and 

incident management system, speed and crash reduction that may be attained through a 

speed advisory and enforcement program, overall mobility savings that can be attained 

through a work zone traveler information program). 

Key technical issues to be addressed in the analysis include:

• Constructability (project cost, schedule, construction effectiveness and efficiency, 

construction staging, work area access, construction quality, environmental 

constraints, utilities, noise, weather interference, project coordination and 

interdependencies, any interference with/to ongoing maintenance activities, etc.).

• Work Zone Impacts (crashes; queues; recurring delay; non-recurring delay; traffic 

diversion; nearby railroad crossings; transit junctions; interchanges/intersections; 

impacts to businesses/residents; combined impacts with nearby, concurrent projects; 

user-costs of the impacts; etc.). Table 2.7 – Work Zone Impacts Considerations in 

Chapter 2.0 provides a detailed list of the different work zone impacts issues and 

considerations that may be addressed.

• Work Zone Management Strategies (TTC, TO, PI, innovative design and contracting, 

advanced construction technologies, coordination with other projects, combining 

multiple projects, etc.).

6-14
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

More detailed information on the different work zone management strategies is 

provided in Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for 

Work Zones, available at www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

(Accessed 1/18/06).

The three technical issues presented above are briefly explained in Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 of 

the systems planning process in Section 4.5; and Steps 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the preliminary 

engineering process in Section 5.4. The key difference in design is the level of detail in 

analyzing and addressing individual issues.

Deterministic/Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) based tools, traffic simulation models, 

and other tools that can help perform a detailed analysis may be most appropriate for 

this level of analysis. The objective of quantitative analysis during design is to analyze 

and address specific issues in detail, and make final decisions and recommendations 

towards development of the final design and TMP for the project. Detailed analysis 

tools such as deterministic tools and traffic simulation models may be most suitable. 

Higher-level travel demand models and sketch planning tools may also be used if the 

project situation warrants their use (e.g., budgetary constraints, regional impacts, readily 

available model from the agency’s planning division). Sometimes a combination of 

different levels of tools may be needed to appropriately analyze the impacts. Many 

agencies also use tools that are developed in-house and are customized according to 

their respective policies and program priorities.

Deterministic tools are capable of providing accurate results for specific locations or 

small roadway sections provided there is adequate information on traffic volume, 

roadway geometrics, traffic control and management features, and any roadside friction 

that may exist. For example, an HCM-based deterministic tool can replicate the TTC 

plan for a project (i.e., taper lengths, number of lanes, lane widths, shoulder widths, 

turning lanes, traffic signal information), and predict the delay and queue length for 

the corridor on which the work zone is setup. A tool such as QuickZone (which uses 

both deterministic and sketch-planning methods) can estimate queues and delays on 

the mainline corridor and diversion to the adjoining network. It also provides a highlevel estimate of the benefits of different management strategies (e.g., ITS, demand 

management, real-time information). However, if agencies are interested in simulating 

the effect of the work zone on a dynamic basis8 (e.g., determine the roadways to which 

traffic may divert, estimate queue development and/or discharge rates, estimate queue 

durations, identify traffic overflow/spillback, estimate the operating effects and benefits 

of management strategies) simulation models may be most suitable.

6-15 8

 In dynamic analysis or dynamic traffic assignment (DTA), vehicles are simulated such that they arrive at a particular 

point on the network (e.g., the starting point of the corridor) in time slices rather than all at one time. Some tools 

exclusively use DTA (e.g., micro-simulation tools) while others use a combination of DTA and static assignment. 
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), Facilities Development 

Manual provides a Traffic Volume Analysis Example, based on deterministic 

equations. The objective is to estimate the Design Hour Volume (DHV) for the 

work zone, using both Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and Seasonal Average 

Daily Traffic (ADT), and decide the construction time and allowable work hours. 

The example shows that the estimated DHV based on AADT appears to indicate 

no problem with 1-lane in each direction, but the estimated DHV for the seasonal 

peak ADT indicates otherwise. The high weekend travel hours exceed the capacity 

for 1-lane in the northbound direction on Friday afternoon, and in the southbound 

direction on Sunday afternoon. If the project is an asphalt overlay, the contractor 

can complete the work during the week (before the weekend traffic arrives). 

However for reconstruction, one side of the highway may be closed and a median 

crossover needed to allow traffic on the other side. This scenario may also need 

bridge/highway widening to accommodate heavy weekend traffic with 2-lanes in 

each direction.

Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Facilities Development Manual, Procedure 11-50-22, 

Chapter 11 Design, Section 50 General Design Considerations, Subject 22 Work Zone Traffic Congestion and 

Mitigation, February 2003.

Examples of tools that may be most appropriate for conducting the design-level 

quantitative work zone impacts analysis are:

• Work Zone Specific Sketch-Planning Tools such as MicroBENCOST, QuickZone, 

QUEWZ, and CA4PRS.

• Deterministic/Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Based Tools such as Highway Capacity 

Software (HCS 2000), Assessment of Roundabout Capacity and Delay (ARCADY), 

Freeway Delay Calculation Program (FREWAY), and Dynamic Toll Plaza Queuing 

Analysis Program (Dqueue).

• Traffic Simulation Tools such as:

– Macroscopic Simulation Models such as Bottleneck Traffic Simulator (BTS), CORFLO, 

and NETCELL.

– Mesoscopic Simulation Models such as DYNASMART-P, DYNAMIT-P, etc. Microscopic 

Simulation Models such as TSIS/CORSIM, PARAMICS, and VISSIM. 

More information on available software tools that support work zone impacts 

analysis can be found in APPENDIX B – Overview of Work Zone Impacts Analysis 

Tools, and on the following web sites:

• Work Zone & Traffic Analysis/Management section of the FHWA work zone web 

site, available at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/traffic_analysis.htm

(Accessed 08/19/05). 

• FHWA Traffic Analysis Tools web site, available at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/

trafficanalysistools/index.htm (Accessed 08/19/05). 

6-16
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The quantitative analysis may be combined with an ongoing project study such as 

corridor/sub-area study, EIS, etc. Environmental/NEPA assessments must cover the 

range of impacts of the project, and address issues such as design alternatives that 

would decrease pollution emissions, construction impacts, esthetic intrusion, relocation 

assistance, possible land use controls that could be enacted, and other possible efforts. 

Any work zone impacts analysis that is conducted during design may be combined with 

other such project assessments, can provide information towards effective completion of 

other assessments, and can use information and constraints that come out of the other 

assessments. This applies especially to large projects for which planning, preliminary 

engineering, and design are performed as part of the same study.

Based on the results of the analysis, the agency may choose to either revise the 

management strategies and/or the construction/staging approach for the project. This 

represents the iterative aspect of the work zone impacts assessment process. Decisionmaking at this juncture is driven by the required level of performance for the work zone 

(as determined by the agency and/or design team, or as defined by applicable policies 

and standards).

Step 4 of 5: Develop/Recommend Final Construction Staging and TMP

In this step, information from the previous steps is used to complete the final design, 

the construction staging, the TMP, and the cost estimates for the project. These are 

then compiled into the PS&E package. Agencies may arrive at this step directly after 

the reassessment in Step 2, or after conducting further quantitative analysis in Step 

3. In some agencies and/or for some projects, these plans and documents may not 

be finalized until the construction stage. Also, TMP development responsibility and 

sequencing may vary according to the chosen design approach and contracting strategy.

• Traditional Design-Bid-Build process. In this case, the final plans, TMP, PS&E and bid 

package are developed by the agency (or consultant as appropriate).

• Design-Build. This involves a stage-by-stage approach to designing and building the 

project, where design and construction take place in tandem. When construction is 

taking place on one phase, the subsequent phase is designed. This generally saves 

project time and money. This approach is more often adopted for major infrastructure 

reconstruction or rehabilitation projects and is performed by a team of engineering 

consultants and contractors.

• Contractor Developed TMP. In this case, the agency includes basic TMP requirements 

and recommendations in the bid package, rather than the agency developing the TMP 

itself. Contractors may then include appropriate TMPs in their bids.

• Performance Based TMP. In this case, work zone performance requirements are 

established by the agency. Contractors may then include TMPs that help meet those 

performance requirements in their bids.

All TMPs that are developed by a non-agency entity (e.g., contractor, consultant) must 

be approved by the agency. The agency may also have the TMP reviewed, stamped, and 

approved by a licensed Professional Engineer.

As stated in the updated Rule9 (the Rule), the TMP for a significant project must consist 

of a TTC plan, and also address TO and PI components. TMPs for all other projects must 

consist of a TTC plan, with the consideration of TO and PI components being encouraged 

as appropriate.

6-17 9

 Section 630.1012 of the Rule addresses TMPs. 
6-18

The following provides some general guidance and resources for TMP development, based 

on information provided in Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility10:

• A TTC plan describes TTC measures to be used for facilitating road users through a 

work zone or an incident area. The TTC plan plays a vital role in providing continuity of 

reasonably safe and efficient road user flow and highway worker safety when a work 

zone, incident, or other event temporarily disrupts normal road user flow. The TTC plan 

must be consistent with the provisions under Part 6 of the MUTCD and with the work zone 

hardware recommendations in Chapter 9 of the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Roadside Design Guide. In developing and 

implementing the TTC plan, pre-existing roadside safety hardware must be maintained at 

an equivalent or better level than existed prior to project implementation. The scope of 

the TTC plan is determined by the project characteristics, and the traffic safety and control 

requirements identified by the agency for that project. The TTC plan must either be a 

reference to specific TTC elements in the MUTCD, approved standard TTC plans, agency 

TTC manual, or be designed specifically for the project.

Chapter 9 of the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide is entitled, ‘‘Traffic Barriers, 

Traffic Control Devices, and Other Safety Features for Work Zones.” The entire 

document is available for purchase from the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 249, 

Washington, DC 20001 or at the URL: http://bookstore.transportation.org

(Accessed 01/18/06). It is available for inspection from FHWA Headquarters and 

Division Offices.

• The TO component of the TMP includes strategies that will be used to mitigate impacts of 

the work zone on the operation and management of the transportation system within the 

work zone impact area. Typical TO strategies may include but are not limited to demand 

management, corridor/network management, safety management and enforcement, and 

work zone traffic management. The scope of the TO component should be determined by 

the project characteristics, and the transportation operations and safety strategies identified 

by the agency.

The FHWA conducted a cross-cutting study on several deployments of ITS in work 

zones. This report, “Intelligent Transportation Systems in Work Zones: A Cross-Cutting 

Study,” showcases four examples and is available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/

its/index.htm (Accessed 01/18/06).

• The PI component of the TMP includes communications strategies that seek to inform 

affected road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate 

public entities about the project, the expected work zone impacts, and the changing 

conditions on the project. This may include traveler information strategies. The scope 

of the PI component should be determined by the project characteristics and the public 

information and outreach strategies identified by the agency. Public information should 

be provided through methods best suited for the project, and may include information 

such as the project characteristics, expected impacts, lane closure details, and commuter 

alternatives.

10 Available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm 
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

6-19

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) uses special management 

and operations plans on selected, high traffic volume projects (usually Interstate 

projects). These include the use of incentive and disincentive clauses to expedite 

the work, A + B type bidding taking both project cost and user delay into 

consideration, using public input in determining the construction strategy and least 

impact to the business community, and extensive public awareness campaigns.

Source: VDOT comments in response to the FHWA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Work 

Zone Safety, June 6, 2002, United States Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT) online Docket Management 

System. URL: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf81/176059_web.pdf (Accessed 01/18/06).

More specific guidance on designing a public information and outreach campaign 

for work zones is provided in Work Zone Public Information and Outreach 

Strategies, available at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

(Accessed 11/18/05). 

• Agencies should develop and implement the TMP in sustained consultation with 

stakeholders (e.g., other transportation agencies, railroad agencies/operators, transit 

providers, freight movers, utility suppliers, police, fire, emergency medical services, 

schools, business communities, and regional transportation management centers).

• The PS&Es must include either a TMP or provisions for contractors to develop a TMP

at the most appropriate project phase as applicable to the agency’s chosen contracting 

methodology for the project. A contractor developed TMP must not be implemented 

before it is approved by the agency. 

• The PS&Es must include appropriate pay item provisions for implementing the TMP, 

either through method or performance based specifications. For method-based 

specifications individual pay items, lump sum payment, or a combination thereof may 

be used. For performance based specifications, applicable performance criteria and 

standards may be used (e.g., safety performance criteria such as number of crashes 

within the work zone; mobility performance criteria such as travel time through the work 

zone, delay, queue length, traffic volume; incident response and clearance criteria; work 

duration criteria).

• The agency and the contractor must each designate a trained person, as specified in 

section 630.1008(d) of the Rule, at the project-level who has the primary responsibility 

and sufficient authority for implementing the TMP and other safety and mobility aspects 

of the project.

More specific guidance on TMPs is provided in Developing and Implementing 

Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones. The Guide includes a listing 

and brief explanation of the different types of TTC, TO, and PI strategies and their 

characteristics and applicability. This Guide also has a matrix that summarizes the 

key aspects of the different strategies, which can be used as a quick reference guide. 

This Guide is available at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

(Accessed 11/18/05).
6-20

Step 5 of 5: Advertise and Award Contract

This activity is already performed as part of existing design and construction 

programs, and is included in this discussion solely for process continuity and 

integrity.

The activities that generally occur in this step include finalization of ROW issues, 

finalization of utility and other coordination, submission and approval of fund requests, 

final review of bid package and project documents by the agency’s contracts (bidding 

and letting) department, contract advertising, addressing contract amendments (if any), 

conducting pre-bid meetings (if any), and bid review and contract award. The following 

are some aspects to consider during the contracting process: 

• Innovative and alternate contracting approaches (as alternatives to the traditional 

low-bid process) can help achieve the project objective, accelerate construction, and 

minimize impacts to road users. Examples include design-build, A+B bidding, lanerentals, incentive/dis-incentive contracting, and performance-based specifications.

• Timing of the bidding and award process directly impacts the on-time completion of 

the project and the impacts to road users. For example, if contracts are let in early 

spring rather than in summer (to late summer), the contractor can take advantage of 

the spring, summer, and early fall season to complete the work in one construction 

season as opposed to extending it over two or more construction seasons.

• Timely budgeting and funding are key to ensuring on-time start and completion of 

work.

• Timely reviews of bids and other contract related issues (amendments, value 

engineering proposals) can avoid project delays.

• This is a good juncture to coordinate schedules of multiple projects (that may impact 

each other) by making final adjustments and coordination.

• ROW, utility, and other coordination issues need to be addressed on time.

• Increasingly, agencies are allowing contractors to participate in and provide input 

to the overall project and construction approach so that their field experience is 

incorporated into the project before designs, PS&Es, and bids are finalized. Agencies 

use pre-bid conferences, design competitions, and pre-qualification of contractors 

to seek contractor input. Such input may help produce designs that are practical to 

implement, facilitate rational bids, and avoid change orders.

Information on Innovative Contracting is available on the FHWA work zone 

web site at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/contracting/index.htm

(Accessed 01/18/06). Additional examples of innovative/alternative contracting 

approaches are available in the FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook at 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm (Accessed 01/18/06).
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

6-21

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) awarded the contract for the 

I-5 Interstate Bridge Lift Span Repair Project based on contractor performance 

and cost to ensure that repairs were made by the most qualified contractor with 

the most attractive price proposal. This was the first time that ODOT awarded 

a contract on any basis other than the lowest bid. Bidders submitted both a 

technical and a price proposal. The proposals were scored according to specific 

criteria that assigned points for technical merit and cost. The technical proposals 

were evaluated by a panel of experts from the ODOT Bridge Section, the design 

consultant, ODOT Program Services, and the Associated General Contractors 

(AGC) of America. This practice is most applicable on complex projects that 

require specialized equipment, materials, fabrication, or expertise. Because of 

State law ODOT needed to get an administrative exemption in the event the 

award was not made to the lowest bidder. Use of the performance and cost based 

award concept was also approved by FHWA under SEP-14 as an alternate bidding 

method.

Source FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 01/18/06).

WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

7-1

7.0 Work Zone Impacts Assessment 

During Construction

7.1 What Happens During Construction?

Construction is the stage where the project is actually built in the field. The decisions 

made during the planning, preliminary engineering, and design stages are implemented 

during the construction stage.

The key activities that are performed during construction include:

• Conducting pre-construction coordination.

• Considering any alternate construction staging or traffic control approaches that 

may be proposed by the contractor through methods such as value engineering or 

partnering agreements1.

• Constructing the project and implementing the traffic control plan (TCP)2 .

• Managing the construction and maintaining traffic through the work zone. 

• Documenting any findings for assessments and evaluations.

During construction, agencies focus on implementing the TCP, managing the 

construction project, facilitating safety for motorists and workers, and maintaining traffic 

through the work zone. Recordkeeping of day-to-day project activities and tracking 

of project progress is performed using field diaries and project logs. Generally, such 

recordkeeping and tracking focuses on the actual construction (e.g., length of roadway 

section that is milled, volume of concrete placed). Construction and safety inspections 

are performed to ensure that the project execution and the TCP implementation comply 

with the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&Es).

Many agencies recognize the need for increased monitoring and management of work 

zone safety and mobility impacts. For example, some agencies use queue thresholds, 

which if exceeded, could result in a temporary shutdown of the construction. Some 

agencies control work zone impacts through incentive/disincentive provisions for the 

contractor to limit delay (e.g., monitoring and management of travel time through 

the work zone). Many agencies are also trying to coordinate with stakeholders and 

communicate better with the public through web sites, project hotlines, and traveler 

information systems (e.g., 5113 dial-in information, web sites, email updates). In spite of 

such efforts, there is recognition that a more concerted effort that employs transportation 

management concepts is needed to actively monitor and manage the work zone impacts 

of projects during construction.

1

 A brief overview of value engineering and partnering is provided in Section 7.4, under Step 2 of 7.

2

 In September 2004 the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) updated the work zone regulation at 23 CFR 630 Subpart J 

and renamed it the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule (the Rule). The former Rule required the development of traffic control 

plans (TCPs) for all road projects. The updated Rule expands the former TCP requirement to now require the development 

and implementation of transportation management plans (TMPs) for all projects. More information on developing TMPs is 

available in Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones, available at http://www.ops.

fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm.

3

 511 is a 3-digit telephone number that is available for nationwide use. It provides current information about travel conditions, 

including information on work zones. This information is intended to help people make better travel decisions. Several States 

and metropolitan areas now offer 511 telephone traveler information services. More information on 511 is available online at 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/travelinfo/about/about511.htm (Accessed 11/17/05).
7.2 Objectives of Work Zone Impacts Assessment 

During Construction

Work zone impacts can be better managed during construction by implementing 

transportation management plans (TMPs) for road projects, and by actively monitoring 

and managing work zone impacts during the course of the project implementation. 

Recognizing these aspects, the updated Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule (the Rule) 

contains specific provisions that require TMP development and implementation, and the 

management of work zone impacts during project implementation. These provisions are 

briefly discussed below.

Section 630.1012(b) of the Rule addresses TMPs. A TMP consists of strategies to manage 

the work zone impacts of a project. Its scope, content, and degree of detail may vary 

based upon the State Department of Transportation or local transportation agency4 work 

zone policy and understanding of the expected work zone impacts of the project. For a 

significant project (as defined in section 630.1010), the TMP must consist of a temporary 

traffic control (TTC) plan, and also address transportation operations (TO) and public 

information (PI) components. For individual projects or classes of projects that are 

determined to have less than significant work zone impacts, the TMP may consist only of 

a TTC plan. The consideration of TO and PI issues is encouraged for all projects.

Section 630.1008(c) of the Rule pertains to management of work zone impacts during 

project implementation. This provision requires the use of field observations, available 

work zone crash data, and operational information to manage work zone impacts for 

projects during implementation.

Table 1.1 in Section 1.6 of this document summarizes the provisions in the Rule that 

pertain to work zone impacts assessment and management. 

In keeping with the above discussion, the objectives of work zone impacts assessment 

during construction are to:

• Address and resolve any pre-construction coordination issues.

• Assess the impact of any proposed changes prior to the start of work (e.g., contractor 

proposed alternate construction staging and/or TMP).

• Implement the TMP.

• Actively monitor and manage work zone impacts during construction.

• Revise the TMP and implement appropriate revisions, if necessary.

• Document any findings or lessons for use in performance assessments.

7-2 4

 Hereinafter referred to as agencies.
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

7-3

Work zone impacts management during construction may help answer questions 

such as:

• Were the assumptions, modeling/analysis, etc. that were made during project 

development accurate?

• Are there other TMP approaches and staging options not considered or 

incorporated during design that may further reduce work zone impacts?

• The work zone impacts assessment documentation indicates that the expected 

queue length is one-mile. Is that what is actually happening in the field?

• Are there any safety issues or locations where frequent incidents are occurring that 

the project construction team has been made aware of through project engineers, 

workers, or the general public?

• Are the work zone and the TMP meeting the overall expectations and performance 

goals for the project?

• Are individual TMP strategies as effective in managing work zone impacts as 

expected?

• Are there any bottleneck issues that need to be addressed?

• Do we need to make any modifications to the TMP or the construction staging so 

that work zone impacts can be managed better?

• Is there anything that we can learn from this project implementation, or is there 

any data/information that we can save for use in performance assessment? 
7.3 Who are the Participants?

Table 7.1 shows the staff that may perform work zone impacts assessment during 

construction, along with the inputs and input providers, and the outputs and users of the 

output. 

7-4

Table 7.1 Construction Work Zone Impacts Assessment Participants
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

7-5

7.4 Managing Work Zone Impacts During 

Construction

Figure 7.1 illustrates the steps involved in work zone impacts assessment during 

construction. Some notes pertaining to the figure are presented in Table 7.2.

Figure 7.1 Construction — Work Zone Impacts Assessment Process
The following sections provide a brief discussion of the steps shown in Figure 7.1.

Step 1 of 7: Coordinate Pre-Construction Activities

After the award of a contract, pre-construction coordination is performed to bring 

all concerned parties to the table, and to take steps towards project implementation. 

Typically, this involves holding a construction kick-off meeting that includes 

participation by agency construction management and inspection staff, project design 

staff, other technical specialists, contractor(s) and sub-contractor(s), utility companies, 

and local representatives (e.g., city, county). The purpose of this meeting is to review 

and re-examine the PS&Es and TMP, and develop action items related to next steps.

The TMP may be developed by the agency or by the contractor depending on the 

type of contract and agency policies and procedures5. For example, in the case of a 

performance-based contract, the contractor will have to develop the TMP based upon 

performance requirements specified by the agency. For a design-build contract, design 

and construction generally take place in tandem – i.e., when one phase of the project is 

being constructed, the subsequent phases are designed. Contractor developed TMPs 

should reflect the work zone impacts management objectives of the project, and must 

be submitted to the agency for review and approval prior to implementation.

7-6

Table 7.2 Process Notes

5

 Section 630.1012(c) of the Rule addresses agency and contractor developed TMPs. It requires the plans, 

specifications, and estimates (PS&Es) to include either a TMP or provisions for contractors to develop a TMP at the 

most appropriate project phase as applicable to the chosen contracting methodology for the project. Contractor 

developed TMPs shall be subject to the approval of the State, and shall not be implemented before such approval. 
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

If a TMP has already been developed (which is often the case), minor modifications may 

be proposed during pre-construction coordination. If the proposed changes are major, 

they are generally submitted through a formal value engineering process or through 

a partnering agreement between the agency and the contractor (discussed in Step 2). 

Any proposed modifications need to be assessed for work zone impacts implications 

(discussed in Step 3), and must be reviewed and approved by the agency prior to 

implementation.

Pre-construction coordination is already performed as part of existing construction 

programs and practices, and is included in this discussion for process continuity 

and integrity.

Step 2 of 7: Review Contractor’s Alternate Approach (As Needed)

This activity is performed on an as needed basis to respond to and review any alternate 

approach(es) that may be proposed by the contractor. The contractor may propose 

an alternate construction/staging approach or recommend changes to the TMP. Such 

a proposal may be submitted as part of the bid package, at the kick-off meeting, prior 

to the start of work, or further along in the construction process. The proposal may be 

submitted formally (i.e., through a value engineering proposal or through a partnering 

agreement) or informally. The purpose of such alternate proposals may be to reduce 

overall construction time, reduce project costs, improve construction quality, use better 

construction methods, and facilitate better work zone transportation management. 

Any changes that the contractor proposes are reviewed by the agency and must be 

approved prior to implementation. Issues that are addressed in such reviews include 

consistency with project objectives, worker safety, work zone safety and mobility needs, 

and adherence to standards and requirements such as agency design specifications and 

the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)6. The review of contractors’ 

alternate proposals is already performed as part of current construction programs and 

practices.

The two most common approaches used to facilitate contractor participation are 

partnering and value engineering:

• Partnering is a concept whereby the agency and the contractor6 work in a joint, 

non-adversarial relationship to complete a road project in a timely fashion with 

minimal disruption. The objective is to facilitate amicable and quick resolution of 

any possible issues and/or disputes that may arise during construction. All involved 

parties and the public benefit through such partnering. Partnering is initiated by 

conducting a workshop attended by decision makers and representatives from 

all stakeholder groups who are either affected by the outcome, or who can affect 

the outcome of the project. The workshop addresses issues such as construction 

phase responsibilities, work processes, conflict resolution, potential problems, and 

partnering follow-up activities. Costs of the partnering workshop are generally 

shared between the agency and the contractor. When utilizing the partnering 

process, the bid documents and PS&Es should include information on the 

partnering process so that the contractor understands that the agency’s objective is 

to create a cooperative team environment.

6 7-7 The MUTCD is available at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.

7

 If design is performed by a third party (e.g., a private consultant), the designer may also participate in the partnering 

process. In case of design-build contracts, the designer and contractor are part of the same team
• Value engineering (VE) is defined by the FHWA as “the systematic application of 

recognized techniques by a multi-disciplined team which identifies the function of 

a product or service; establishes a worth for that function; generates alternatives 

through the use of creative thinking; and provides the needed functions, reliably, 

at the lowest overall cost.”8 Applying the VE process to suitable projects helps 

achieve the objective of the best overall project value for the taxpayer. Simply 

stated, VE is an organized application of common sense and technical knowledge 

directed at finding and eliminating unnecessary costs in a project. VE can either be 

performed during design or construction. Contractors may submit VE proposals 

for the agency’s review prior to or during construction. VE recommendations are 

not implemented before review and approval by the agency. More information on 

value engineering is available on the FHWA Value Engineering web site at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/index.htm (Accessed 11/15/05).

Any changes that are proposed to the project need to be assessed for their work zone 

impacts implications before they are approved, and the TMP may need to be adjusted 

to reflect those changes. For example, in the case of VE, the project team should not 

compromise on the TMP and the work zone safety and mobility needs of the project 

just to save costs. The reassessment of work zone impacts in response to any proposed 

changes is discussed in Step 3.

TIP: • Partnering and VE studies can be used to identify potential ways to further 

reduce work zone impacts. This is not intended to supplant the proactive 

intent of early assessment (in prior planning and design stages), but would 

help capitalize on the more detailed information and practical knowledge 

that are available during construction. For example, a project involving 

lane closures may call for work to be performed on weekdays in the time 

window between the morning and evening peak periods of travel. The 

contractor, as part of a VE proposal may suggest a combination of night 

work and extended weekend closures. This may help reduce the ongoing 

work site setup and break down costs, increase the window of work 

available, and reduce the duration of the project, thereby reducing overall 

costs and accelerating project completion. As part of the VE proposal, the 

contractor may also conduct an assessment of the work zone impacts of the 

proposed approach, and indicate to the agency that due to a combination of 

night work, weekend work, and accelerated project delivery, the work zone 

impacts are expected to be reduced.

• The agency’s policies, procedures, and processes should allow the flexibility 

necessary to explore and utilize various approaches to address work zone 

related issues and impacts. VE studies and partnering agreements are 

encouraged, consistent with regulatory requirements and thresholds, 

to help assess the potential for work zone impact reductions. Adequate 

agency procedures should be in place to ensure that contractor proposals 

are reviewed in a timely manner, and that a response is provided to the 

contractor in sufficient time to take advantage of any improvements 

the proposal may offer. Contractor innovation can be encouraged by 

allowing the contractor to share in any cost savings achieved through the 

implementation of such proposals.

8

 As defined in the “About VE” section of the FHWA value engineering web site. URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/veabout.htm 

(Accessed 11/23/05).

7-8
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SC DOT) and the South Carolina 

FHWA Division conducted a partnering workshop to develop initiatives to improve 

traffic flow and safety and reduce actual construction time on the State’s highways. 

The 1-day workshop drew representatives from SC DOT, contractors, industry, 

and FHWA. The workshop was jointly hosted by FHWA, SC DOT, and the Carolina 

Associated General Contractors of America (CAGC). The purpose of the workshop 

was to identify contracting issues, specifications, and other barriers to reducing 

construction time, improving safety, and minimizing traveler inconvenience and 

disruption in work zones. The workshop participants then worked on finding ways 

to overcome those barriers.

Source: FHWA Construction and Maintenance Fact Sheets – Optimizing Highway Performance: Partnering for 

Work Zone Safety in South Carolina, December 1998. URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/fs98001.pdf 

(Accessed 11/23/05).

The State of Florida uses flexible start times (up to 100 days from notice to proceed) 

to reduce the time period the public is exposed to construction conditions and 

increase the frequency of completing contracts within the authorized contract time.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 9/13/05).

Step 3 of 7: Reassess Anticipated Work Zone Impacts 

(Revise TMP, if necessary)

As a result of the pre-construction activities and/or any alternate approach(es) proposed 

by the contractor, the agency, the contractor, and/or the project design team may need 

to re-assess the potential work zone impacts and “tweak” the TMP to effectively manage 

safety and mobility on the project. Construction supervision staff and traffic control/

management specialists may also be involved in the re-assessment and tweaking of the 

design level TMP.

Any changes proposed by the contractor (or others) to the construction staging or to 

the TMP should be re-assessed for effects on work zone impacts, and on the potential 

effectiveness of the TMP. Any proposed changes will need to be approved by the agency 

prior to implementation. For example, the contractor may propose an alternate approach 

that proposes to reduce the cost of the project and the total construction duration. The 

agency should review any cost reductions to see that they will not compromise work 

zone safety and mobility (e.g., reduction or elimination of work zone safety devices 

and/or TMP components that help preserve mobility). The agency should also ensure 

that any proposed reduction in construction duration does not adversely influence work 

zone impacts (e.g., extending construction into the peak periods of travel can result in 

intolerable travel delays to motorists).

7-9
The following activities may be considered as a framework for the reassessment of the 

work zone impacts:

• Determine if any issues identified during pre-construction coordination may affect 

the work zone impacts of the project (e.g., assess potential impacts of any planned 

maintenance and operations (M&O) activities to determine if they affect planned traffic 

operations for the work zone).

• Understand any proposed changes.

• Identify any effects that the proposed changes may have on the original thinking with 

regards to work zone impacts, and work zone design and transportation management.

• If necessary (e.g., if the proposed changes are major) apply the concepts and impacts 

assessment steps recommended in the design section of this document (Section 6.0).

• Revise the work zone impacts assessment to reflect the changes.

• If the potential work zone impacts are expected to be different (from what was 

originally anticipated), identify any new strategies for inclusion in the TMP or modify 

existing TMP strategies or construction staging appropriately9. 

• Understand the cost implications of the additions or revisions to the TMP and develop 

an action plan to account for any potential cost increases (or allocate and share any 

potential cost decreases).

If no changes are proposed to the construction staging or the TMP in Steps 1 and 2, 

the reassessment of work zone impacts in this step may be accomplished with minimal 

effort, and may involve just a quick recap and re-confirmation of expected impacts.

Step 4 of 7: Implement TMP

This involves the implementation of the selected construction staging approach and 

TMP. Practitioners are encouraged10 to consult with appropriate stakeholders on an 

ongoing basis for the duration of the construction. Examples of stakeholders include 

transit agencies, regional transportation management centers (TMCs), law enforcement 

and emergency response agencies, local and regional transportation agencies, railroad 

operators, freight movers, utility suppliers, schools, and business communities. The 

purpose of such consultation is to keep the stakeholders informed, seek their input 

on and knowledge of regional issues, and improve inter-agency and intra-agency 

coordination and response to work zone issues. Sometimes, such consultation may also 

include the general public, and community and business organizations, as appropriate. 

Ongoing communication with the public, as part of the PI component of the project (if 

applicable) or through other methods and channels, is also an important aspect of TMP 

implementation and work zone management during construction. Such public outreach 

and communication may include information on the expected work zone impacts, 

changing conditions on the project (i.e., lane closures, ramp-closures, etc.), commuter 

alternatives and incentive programs, and real-time traveler information. More detailed 

information on work zone related public information and outreach is available in Work 

Zone Public Information and Outreach Strategies11.

7-10

9

 This is represented in Figure 7.1 as the dotted arrow that connects Step 3 back to Steps 1 and 2.

10 Section 630.1012(b)(4) of the Rule recommends that TMPs be developed and implemented in sustained consultation with 

stakeholders. 

11 Available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Step 5 of 7: Monitor Work Zone Safety and Mobility Impacts 

During Construction

Steps 5 and 6 represent the ongoing management of work zone impacts in the field 

during the construction phase. In this step, work zone safety and mobility are monitored 

and/or measured to determine how well the TMP and the work zone are performing. 

Until construction is underway, information pertaining to work zone impacts is 

expected or anticipated. Once construction begins, it is the responsibility of the agency, 

construction management team, and/or the contractor team to monitor and/or measure 

the actual work zone impacts of the project. They determine if the actual impacts 

comply with agency policies, fall within a reasonable range of what was anticipated 

(e.g., expected impacts predicted through prior analyses, any performance requirements 

specified in the contract), and whether the impacts meet the desired level of safety 

and mobility performance for that work zone. Applicable performance requirements 

and criteria may have been determined during design and incorporated in the contract 

documents and PS&E package.

Monitoring and measuring12 may be done with available information and data sources, 

including field observations, crash data, operational information, and construction 

and safety inspections. Sometimes the contractor may have to take additional action 

to monitor and/or measure the work zone impacts. Examples of such actions include 

measuring travel time through the work zone using floating car studies or having towtrucks available on stand-by to clear any incidents so as to maintain traffic flow through 

the work zone. Record keeping on project events and incidents (e.g., queue spillover, 

crashes) and other issues may also aid this process.

While specific issues vary from project to project, the major performance aspects to 

monitor/measure include safety, recurring congestion, non-recurring congestion (e.g., 

incident related delay), community and environmental impacts, and combined issues/

impacts with nearby, concurrent projects. Congestion in the work zone can also affect 

project efficiency. Issues such as delays to vehicles delivering materials to the work 

zone may be indicators of work zone congestion. Examples of performance aspects that 

may be monitored are provided in Table 7.3, and more detail is available in Section 8.0 

of this document. Depending on the project, feedback from businesses, residents, and 

neighborhood groups may also be appropriate. If it is determined that the actual work 

zone impacts are unacceptable, then the team needs to identify approaches to modify 

the TMP and/or the construction staging approach to minimize the impacts. This is 

discussed in Step 6. 

7-11 12 Section 630.1008(c) of the Rule requires the use of field observations, available work zone crash data, and operational 

information to manage work zone impacts for specific projects during implementation. 
In Missouri, active construction work zones are reviewed by the appropriate 

Missouri DOT (MoDOT) resident engineer and the district engineer to ensure that 

the following actions are taken:

• Notify the District Work Zone Coordinator 48 hours before any work requiring 

a lane closure begins

• Work with the contractor to ensure lane closures are minimized

• Make every effort to minimize traffic backups

• Ensure all contract specifications, special provisions, and work restrictions are 

enforced

• Ensure all work zones are neat, orderly, and effective for the safety of highway 

workers and motorists

• Ensure work zone speed limits are appropriate in active and non-active work.

Source: Missouri Department of Transportation, 2003 MoDOT Work Zone Guidelines, March 2003, URL: 

http://modot.mo.gov/business/documents/MoDOT2003WorkZonesGuidelines_000.pdf (Accessed 09/13/05).

7-12

Table 7.3 Sample Performance Aspects to Monitor and Measure
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

On major Interstate reconstruction projects, the Iowa Department of Transportation 

uses contract services to provide 24-hour-per-day continuous monitoring of traffic 

control devices and incident response. The contractor traverses the work zone 

providing assistance to stranded motorists and maintaining traffic control devices. 

This results in better traffic flow and prompt notification of incidents and problems.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 8/15/05).

Step 6 of 7: Assess Compliance with Performance Criteria

This step represents the decision-making juncture where the information/data from 

the impacts monitoring and measurement performed in the previous step are used to 

determine whether the TMP and/or construction staging approach need to be modified in 

order to manage work zone impacts better. This may be performed by the agency and/

or construction/contractor team, with any changes being reviewed and approved by the 

agency prior to implementation.

If the actual work zone impacts of the project are within acceptable limits of performance 

requirements and criteria established for the project or by agency policy, then no changes 

are needed, and the TMP implementation and monitoring should continue13. 

If the actual work zone impacts are not within acceptable limits of the performance 

requirements and criteria, then the project construction/contractor team should take the 

necessary actions to minimize the impacts. One option is to implement any pre-established 

TMP contingency plans14 or use “what-if loops” to resolve any unintended consequences 

(e.g., if queues are excessive, parking restrictions may be implemented on a detour route 

to provide more travel lanes during peak periods. If that does not suffice, the TMP and/or 

the construction staging approach may need to be modified appropriately15. This revision 

may either be a small change that is carried out with the approval of the project engineer 

on site, or may be a more involved process that requires work stoppage, identification of 

problem areas or issues, reassessment of the work zone impacts, and modification of the 

construction staging and/or TMP. TMP and construction staging modifications need to be 

approved by the agency prior to implementation. The input and participation of the project 

design team and other technical specialists should be sought as necessary and appropriate 

for the situation at hand.

7-13

13 This is represented in Figure 7.1 as the arrow that connects Step 6 back to Step 5 with a “Yes” indication (i.e., the 

performance criteria and requirements are being met). 

14 More detailed information on TMPs and contingency plans is available in Developing and Implementing 

Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.

htm (Accessed 11/15/05) 

15 This is represented in Figure 7.1 as the solid arrow that connects Step 6 back to Step 3, and its dotted extension to 

Steps 1 and 2. This arrow has a “No” indication (i.e., the performance criteria and requirements are not being met).
In 1997, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) implemented a Work 

Zone Safety Checklist for reviewing and documenting the status/condition of 

work zones for construction/maintenance/utility/permit operations. Construction 

inspectors are required to fill out the form at least once a week. Every other 

review is performed at night. The contractor is given a copy for correcting work 

zone deficiencies, and a copy is filed with the project records. This resulted in 

consistent work zone reviews, improved documentation of work zone conditions, 

and improved response time to work zone deficiencies by contractors.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 11/23/05).

Step 7 of 7: Document Work Zone Performance Findings

This step involves the documentation of the findings of the work zone impacts 

monitoring process. This documentation should be done throughout the course of the 

project construction phase. If possible, after the project is complete, this information 

should be summarized to document:

• The observed and/or measured impacts.

• A comparison of the actual work zone impacts versus the anticipated work zone 

impacts of the project.

• The effectiveness of the implemented TMP and its constituent management strategies.

• Best practices.

• Innovative approaches/techniques/technologies used on the project.

• Lessons learned and mistakes to avoid. 

• Any recommendations for policy or procedural change. 

Such performance documentation, if performed at the individual project-level, supports 

the assessment of work zone performance on a large scale (regional/district level, 

agency-level, State-level, etc.). Information for project-level assessments provides the 

basis for conducting overall agency work zone performance assessment (discussed in 

Section 8.0 of this document).

7-14
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

8.0 Performance Assessment

8.1 What is Performance Assessment?

Periodic evaluation of work zone policies, processes, procedures, and work zone impacts 

aids in the process of addressing and managing the safety and mobility impacts of work 

zones. Performance assessments both at the project-level and program-level provide the 

required feedback to make policy, process, procedure, and program improvements and 

evaluate the effectiveness of work zone management strategies.

Understanding how work zones perform is a critical step in identifying how to improve 

work zone safety and mobility. The updated Rule (the Rule) contains provisions that 

address work zone performance assessment. Section 630.1008(c) of the Rule requires 

State Departments of Transportation and local transportation agencies1 to “continually 

pursue improvement of work zone safety and mobility by analyzing work zone crash and 

operational data from multiple projects to improve State processes and procedures.” It 

also recommends that, “States should maintain elements of the data and information 

resources that are necessary to support these activities.” Section 630.1008(e) requires 

States to perform a process review at least every two years. This review may include the 

evaluation of work zone data Statewide and/or for randomly selected projects. Appropriate 

staff representing the various project development stages, different offices within the State, 

and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) should participate in this review. Other 

non-State stakeholders may also participate, as appropriate. The results of the review 

are intended to lead to improvements in work zone processes and procedures, data and 

information resources, and training programs to enhance efforts to address safety and 

mobility for current and future work zones. Ongoing performance assessment helps an 

agency gather information and identify issues and successful practices that will be useful in 

performing process reviews2.

Work zone performance assessment is not intended to require agencies to embark 

on a large data collection, storage, and analysis effort. The goal is to improve work 

zone safety and mobility by making effective use of the available data and information 

sources. Examples of available data and information sources include project logs, field 

observations, crash records, operational data from transportation management centers 

(TMCs) and intelligent transportation system (ITS) devices, other monitoring activities 

including work zone speed enforcement or citations, and complaints from the public and 

other stakeholders.

8.2 Objectives of Work Zone Performance 

Assessment

Work zone performance assessment may be performed at two levels: 1) at the programlevel (i.e., assessing the performance of work zone policies, processes, and procedures); 

and 2) at the project-level (i.e., assessing the actual performance of the work zone and 

management strategies on individual projects in the field). Performance assessment 

includes:

• Collection of data, including project-related information and public/stakeholder 

perception data.

1

 Hereinafter referred to as agencies. 8-1

2

 More information about performing process reviews can be found in Section 4.0 of Implementing the Rule on Work 

Zone Safety and Mobility, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm. 
• Synthesis and analysis of data at multiple levels (i.e., project, program, local, regional, 

State, and national) and comparison of findings to performance metrics.

• Application of the analysis results toward continually improving work zone policy, 

practices, policies, processes, and procedures.

There are four key measures of work zone performance:

• Safety.

• Mobility.

• Construction efficiency and effectiveness.

• Public perception and satisfaction.

Where feasible and appropriate, these performance measures should be evaluated 

quantitatively. In the absence of funding and/or data availability, measures of 

performance may be evaluated qualitatively.

Development and application of the performance assessment process for work 

zones will help address the following concerns:

• How are work zones performing with respect to mobility and safety?

• Are the best possible decisions in planning, designing, and implementing our 

work zones being made?

• Are customer expectations being met with respect to maintaining safety and 

mobility and minimizing business and community impacts both through, and in 

and around the work zone?

• Can areas for improvement be identified?

• What has worked/not worked – which strategies have proven the most/least 

effective in improving the safety and mobility of work zones?

• What other strategies can be considered for implementation?

• Are there certain combinations of strategies that seem to work well?

• Are there any work zone safety and mobility trends that can be identified, either at 

the national level or local level? What can be done to advocate the characteristics 

associated with the good trends? What can be done to remedy the problems 

associated with the bad trends?

• Should policies or standard procedures be adjusted based on what has been 

observed and/or measured?

• Can consistency be brought about through the identification of trends, issues, and 

problems and in the standardization of tools and guidelines for application at the 

agency and/or national level?

8-2
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

8.3 Who are the Participants?

The end users of the performance assessment process are the management-level 

executive and technical staff who will use the findings to refine and/or develop new 

policies, processes, and procedures. However, the assessment of performance and 

development of recommendations will likely be performed by technical staff with 

input and review by different disciplines, including: planning, engineering and design, 

construction, maintenance, and operations. Table 8.1 shows the likely participants in 

performance assessment. 

Table 8.1 Performance Assessment Participants

3

 ATSSA – American Traffic Safety Services Association; ARTBA – American Road and Transportation Builders 8-3

Association; AGC – Associated General Contractors of America
8-4

8.4 Conducting Work Zone Performance 

Assessment

In general, the current state of work zone performance assessment is in its infancy. 

However, information that could be used for such an evaluation is often available or will 

be available in the future as agencies face increased pressure to measure and report 

performance to stakeholders; more technology is deployed through ITS and TMCs; and 

as agencies further implement the requirements and recommendations of the Rule.

The steps described in the following pages provide guidance and a method to develop 

and improve work zone impacts assessment and ultimately, improve work zone policies, 

processes, and procedures. Generally, this guidance consists of the steps identified in 

Figure 8.1. Some notes pertaining to the figure are presented in Table 8.2.
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

8-5

Figure 8.1 Work Zone Performance Assessment Process
8-6

Step 1 of 5: Collect Project Information

The first step in performance assessment is to collect and synthesize project-level 

information. As shown in the process diagram, this includes information and data items 

pertaining to the project characteristics, project environment, TMP and its strategies, 

anticipated and actual work zone impacts, costs, lessons learned, and recommendations 

for policy and/or procedural change. Project information may be grouped as shown in 

Table 8.3.

Table 8.2 Process Notes
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

8-7

Table 8.3 Project Information Categories and Examples for Performance Assessment
8-8

Step 2 of 5: Collect Public Perceptions/Stakeholder Inputs

In addition to observed and/or measured performance, another important aspect 

of performance assessment involves public perceptions and input. Meeting the 

performance requirements alone does not guarantee that the public’s expectation with 

regards to the safety and the quality of their travel is met. Public perception often turns 

out to be an eye-opener for many agencies. Therefore, it is important to get feedback 

from the public regarding the effectiveness of an agency’s work zone transportation 

management efforts. (Similarly, as illustrated in the process flow diagrams for the 

other processes, it is important to appropriately involve the public and solicit their input 

during the various phases of project planning and development). If public perception 

surveys, focus groups, or other data collection efforts are conducted during project 

implementation, that information should be included in performance assessment. 

Stakeholder feedback and input through surveys and complaints may also be used to 

assess public perceptions at the program, regional, and/or agency-levels. 

The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department assessed the 

use of ITS strategies for the Big I Construction Project (I-40/ I-25) in Albuquerque 

to manage traffic through the work zone. The assessment included system 

performance, system evaluation, mobility and safety impacts, cost savings, public 

reception/reaction, and obstacles encountered/lessons learned.

Source: Intelligent Transportation Systems in Work Zones: A Case Study. Work Zone Traffic and Incident 

Management System, 2004, URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/its/index.htm (Accessed 8/16/05).

Step 3 of 5: Assess Project-Level Performance

Agencies are encouraged to perform project-level performance assessments to improve 

work zone policies, processes, and procedures and improve their work zone data and 

information resources. Most of the data needed for this assessment should be available 

from each project’s monitoring efforts including field observations, crash data, and 

operational data. It is important that traffic and safety monitoring data collected during 

construction be documented and maintained in a consistent manner for each project. 

Table 8.4 presents some examples of performance measures that may be considered.

The Michigan Department of Transportation conducted an evaluation of the 

temporary ITS for the reconstruction of I-496 in Lansing.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, ITS Deployment Analysis System Case Study 2: Michigan 

Department of Transportation Evaluation of the Temporary ITS for the Reconstruction of I-496 in Lansing, 

Michigan, April 2002. URL: http://www.camsys.com/idas/CaseStudies/CaseStudy2/caseStudyFrame.htm

(Accessed 09/13/05).
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

8-9

Table 8.4 Example Work Zone Performance Assessment Measures
Step 4 of 5: Synthesize and Analyze Data for Program-Level Assessment

This step represents the synthesis and analysis of performance assessment data and 

information gathered from the various sources. This data may be aggregated and 

collated to perform analysis and make inferences/recommendations at the project, 

program, regional, State and/or national levels. Appropriate data analysis tools may 

be used for the assessments (e.g., spreadsheets, statistical analysis tools, simulation 

software).

Project-level work zone performance data serve as the basis for program-level and 

other higher-level assessments. The flow of data to and from the project-level to other 

higher levels will likely require a few years of data collection at the project-level to 

establish critical masses and statistically significant trends and inferences. Such data 

flows from the project-level to other higher levels and vice-versa should ideally reflect 

a bottom-up as well as a top-down flow structure. The bottom-up flow represents 

the incremental flow of basic data and the associated analyses from the project-level 

through the higher levels. The top-down flow represents the reverse data flow of 

national-level trends, figures, and analyses that may be used for decision-making at the 

State, regional, program and project-levels. 

The lack of sufficient before and after data, especially before data, is often cited as 

a hindrance to performance measurement assessments. The establishment of a 

comprehensive work zone performance measurement framework and sustained 

implementation of work zone performance measurement will eliminate such obstacles. 

The four areas of interest in work zone performance assessment are safety, mobility, 

construction efficiency and effectiveness, and public perception and satisfaction. These 

are presented in Table 8.3, along with examples of performance measures that fall 

under each of the areas.

Data collection and analysis will likely involve a combination of existing/available 

sources and methods, and ideally, a performance tracking process/program specifically 

intended for work zones. Some of the data collection methods/sources include: 

• Transportation planning and forecasting models.

• Transportation and traffic simulation models.

• Field observations.

• Specific field measurements, either infrastructure based (e.g., dynamic queue 

detection and management) or probe vehicle based (e.g., floating car study).

• Crash records.

• Traffic records.

• Construction project logs.

• Construction project plans, designs, and estimates.

• Traffic incident management and response logs.

• Archived ITS data from existing deployed systems.

• Use of ITS data from work zone specific ITS systems.

• In-vehicle data from Intelligent Vehicle (IV) systems.

8-10
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• Previously available data and reports.

• TMP and TMP evaluation findings.

• Interviews.

• Surveys.

• Focus Groups.

Indiana DOT’s Design Manual Section 81-1.03(01) recommends that upon the 

completion of a project, the TMP team prepare a report identifying the successes 

and failures of the TMP. 

Source: Indiana Department of Transportation, Chapter 81 of the Indiana Design Manual, Transportation 

Management Plans, URL: http://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/standards/dm/Part%208/Ch%2081/Ch81.pdf

(Accessed 8/16/05).

The National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse contains work zone 

crash and accident data including links to various work zone crash “press releases” 

and studies, including program-level assessments.

Source: The National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse, Work Zone Crash/Accident Data. 

URL: http://wzsafety.tamu.edu/crash_data/ (Accessed 09/13/05).

Step 5 of 5: Evaluate and Revise Work Zone Impacts Assessment and 

Management Process/Practices/Procedures

This is the final step in the performance assessment process, where the information from 

Steps 3 and 4 are used to develop lessons learned and to evaluate and revise policies, 

processes, practices, and/or procedures. Items that should be assessed/reassessed and 

revised as necessary include:

• Work zone types (i.e., significant/non-significant projects, type of roadwork being 

performed, etc.).

• Work zone management strategies.

• Programs (e.g., training).

• Policies (e.g., for maintenance of traffic).

• Procedures (e.g., for identifying significant projects or developing TMPs).

• Standards (e.g., design standards, contract specifications).

• Thresholds/benchmarks.

• Systems planning process.

• Preliminary engineering and design processes.

• Construction process.

• Performance assessment process.

8-11
8-12

The State of California conducted a performance review of the costs, enforcement 

alternatives, automated enforcement tools, and recommendations associated 

with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Construction Zone 

Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP). In place since 1992, COZEEP involves 

an agreement between Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), 

where Caltrans pays the CHP for providing officers and their vehicles for use in 

construction zones, particularly for speed enforcement.

Source: The Report of the California Performance Review – Government for the People for a Change, Volume 

4, Issues and Recommendations, INF12 Improve Efficiency of Extra Enforcement Program in Highway Work 

Zones with Fewer Resources. URL: http://cpr.ca.gov/report/cprrpt/issrec/inf/inf12.htm (Accessed 09/13/05).

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) conducts an annual 

quality assessment program to monitor the condition of its work zones. Initiated 

in the 1980s, this program compiles detailed information on a large sample of 

work zones on DOT projects each year. The information is used to track work 

zone quality, and to identify needed revisions and improvements to work zone 

procedures.

Source: A Quality Assurance Program For Work Zone Traffic Control, TRB Transportation Research Record 

1745, 2001. Copies of recent annual reports may be obtained by contacting Mr. Charles Riedel at NYSDOT at 

criedel@dot.state.ny.us or at 518-457-2185.

In 2003, as the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) was embarking on 

the largest construction program in its history, the ODOT Director was concerned 

about the impact the resulting work zones would have on crashes. The Director 

questioned if work zones were causing more accidents, and if so, what could be 

done to limit the increase in crashes. In response to these questions, ODOT began 

analyzing work zone crashes and performing before and after analyses of crash 

rates for a set of work zones. ODOT obtains work zone crash reports in near real 

time from local law enforcement and inputs the information from the reports into 

a spreadsheet that can sort and compare crashes to historical pre-construction 

crash frequency for the same road segments. Using this information, ODOT 

looks for abnormally high concentrations of crashes in work zones. When these 

high concentrations are found, ODOT makes field visits to identify the causes and 

determine solutions. Through these analyses ODOT has been able to identify 

some common factors contributing to a number of work zone crashes. To date, 

these factors include inadequate off-ramp capacity, inadequate ramp merges, and 

insufficient paved shoulders. As a result of this analysis, ODOT has made some 

changes to work zone design standards so that they can mitigate these problems 

early in the project development process and prevent replicating past problems. 

Source: Transportation Research Board (TRB) 84th Annual Meeting, Session 476: Work Zone Impacts and 

Mitigation Efforts, How One State DOT is Addressing Work Zone Impacts, Dave Holstein, Ohio Department of 

Transportation (ODOT), January 11, 2005, URL: http://webboard.trb.org/file.asp?file=David+Holstein%2Epdf

(Accessed May 30, 2006).
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

8-13

The following resources may be useful for incorporating performance measures 

and goals in decision-making:

1. Performance measurement section of the FHWA Office of Operations web site. 

URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/index.htm (Accessed 

09/08/05).

2. Performance measurement section of the FHWA Work Zone web site. URL: 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/decision_support/perf_measurement.htm

(Accessed 09/08/05).

3. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Performance Measurement Committee 

(A5022/ABC30). URL: http://www.trb-performancemeasurement.org/ (Accessed 

09/08/05).

4. Online Performance Measurement Exchange sponsored by the TRB performance 

measurement committee and the FHWA. URL: http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/

cops/pm.nsf/home (Accessed 09/08/05).

5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

Quality Information Center. URL: http://www.transportation1.org/quality

(Accessed 09/08/05).

6. TRB Transportation Research Circular E-C073, “Performance Measures to Improve 

Transportation Planning Practice: A Peer Exchange.” URL: http://trb.org/news/

blurb_detail.asp?id=5022 (Accessed 09/08/05).

7. The Washington State Department of Transportation best practices inventory 

of performance measurement practices in other State departments of 

transportation. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/library/default.htm

(Accessed 09/08/05)

8. California Department of Transportation, Transportation System Performance 

Measures web site. URL: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tspm/index.htm

(Accessed 09/08/05).

9. Florida Department of Transportation Mobility Performance Measures web site. 

URL: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/mobilitymeasures/default.

htm (Accessed 09/08/05).

10. The FHWA is developing a framework that can be used to support efforts to 

develop and implement work zone performance measures. This includes 

the development of national and project-level performance measures, the 

tracking of measures over time, and the encouragement of widespread use and 

understanding of these measures. URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/

decision_support/perf_measurement.htm (Accessed 09/08/05).

WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

9-1

9.0 Work Zone Impacts Assessment in 

Maintenance and Operations

9.1 Overview of Maintenance and Operations 

(M&O)

Maintenance and operations (M&O) encompass the activities that help maintain and 

upkeep highways to be safe, usable, and at an acceptable level of operation. M&O 

includes both planned and emergency work that addresses preservation and upkeep 

of right-of-way (ROW), pavement, structures, safety devices, signs, roadside aesthetics 

(e.g., trees, planting), illumination equipment, and other roadway and roadside features/

facilities. M&O does not include reconstruction or other major improvements. Typical 

examples of M&O work include installation and maintenance of traffic signs and other 

roadside devices, debris removal, mowing operations, utility work, painting/striping, 

minor guard-rail work, pavement patching, small pavement repair and overlay work, 

limited bridge repairs (decks and substructure), culvert replacement, traffic signal 

maintenance, and lighting work. Special or emergency maintenance or repair may be 

necessitated by storms (or other weather conditions), slides, settlements, accidents, 

equipment failure/outage, or other unexpected damage to a roadway, structure, or facility.

M&O may either be performed by state and local agency1 maintenance personnel or 

be contracted to private entities. Contract maintenance is a predominant practice in 

some agencies and is increasing in many others. A majority of M&O activities are 

implemented through short-term and/or mobile work zones. In urban areas, M&O is 

generally performed at night. Sometimes, M&O activities (e.g., minor pavement overlay 

or pothole patching) at different locations along a corridor are combined into a single 

project involving a longer duration work zone that lasts anywhere from a few days to a 

few weeks.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) defines 5 work types 

based on their work duration and time at a location. They are: (a) long-term 

stationary – work that occupies a location more than 3 days; (b) intermediateterm stationary – work that occupies a location more than one daylight period up 

to 3 days, or nighttime work lasting more than 1 hour; (c) short-term stationary 

– daytime work that occupies a location for more than 1 hour within a single 

daylight period; (d) short duration – work that occupies a location up to 1 hour.; and 

(e) mobile – work that moves intermittently or continuously. Most M&O work zones 

generally fall under categories b, c, d, and e.

Source: MUTCD 2003 Edition Revision 1. URL: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ (Accessed 01/25/06).

1

 Hereinafter referred to as agencies.
9.2 Objectives of Assessing Work Zone Impacts 

in M&O

M&O activities are typically smaller in scale than construction projects because of 

the short-term nature of the work and the level of effort needed. However they do 

cause work zone impacts – sometimes even large impacts, depending on the type and 

location of the activity (e.g., day-time shoulder work on a high-volume urban corridor 

can lead to major slow-downs and backups). Currently, most agencies provide for 

work zone traffic control during M&O by using typical temporary traffic control (TTC) 

approaches/standards that apply to different types of M&O activities. Field crews select 

appropriate TTC plans for their respective activities by using standardized procedures, 

field handbooks, and their experience. Agencies develop (and periodically update) 

their typical TTC plans/standards, procedures, and field handbooks using engineering 

judgment, analyses, and guidance provided in the MUTCD and other sources such as 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

Roadside Design Guide2.

In the past, agencies mainly focused on providing for traffic and worker safety in 

developing their typicals and standards for M&O traffic control. Increasingly, many 

agencies are considering the mobility aspects of M&O work zones as well (e.g., 

combining and consolidating multiple activities, performing M&O during night and offpeak hours, performing M&O as part of large construction projects.). Many agencies are 

also recognizing the need to plan and coordinate M&O activities to minimize conflicts 

with other ongoing construction activities, and to minimize the overall work zone 

impacts on the transportation system.

The work zone impacts of M&O activities need to be addressed from the overall system 

management perspective in addition to the individual activity/corridor perspective. For 

example, a maintenance lane-closure on a particular roadway may use a TTC plan that 

helps maintain and manage traffic through that maintenance work zone. However if 

that highway is the designated alternate route for a larger construction project, closing 

a lane on the alternate route can reduce its traffic carrying capacity, leading to backups 

and delays for traffic diverting from the mainline of the large construction project. Such 

a situation may be avoided by scheduling the maintenance work such that its impacts are 

minimized (e.g., before/after the mainline construction project).

Assessing and managing the work zone impacts of M&O activities involves the following 

four key activities:

• Enhance agency procedures so that the direct safety and mobility impacts of M&O 

activities are minimized and better managed (e.g., improving TTC procedures, 

improving the visibility of maintenance workers/vehicles, better public information 

and advance warning systems, permitted lane-closure times, off-peak/nighttime 

work).

• Plan and coordinate M&O such that overall system-wide impacts are minimized

(e.g., performing M&O activities as part of planned construction projects to 

minimize doing the M&O work as a separate activity – “don’t dig up the same road 

twice”).

• Implement and manage M&O activities such that they have minimal impacts on 

other construction projects and vice-versa (e.g., consider detour routes, diversions, 

adjacent highway sections).

9-2 2

 Roadside Design Guide, Chapter 9 - Traffic Barriers, Traffic Control Devices, and Other Safety Features for Work Zones, 

AASHTO, 2002, URL: https://bookstore.transportation.org/ (Accessed 01/18/06).
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• Incorporate features in construction projects that would facilitate future M&O with 

minimum disruption (e.g., wider shoulders, maintenance turn-abouts, designated 

pullouts).

Work zone impacts assessment in M&O involves the same concepts and guidance 

presented in prior sections. The types of work zone safety and mobility issues and 

management strategies to consider are basically the same. Therefore, this section will 

focus mainly on the four aspects listed above. However specific work zone impacts 

issues that pertain especially to M&O are discussed at appropriate locations. The reader 

may refer to Table 2.7 – Work Zone Impacts Considerations in Chapter 2.0 for a detailed 

list of the different work zone impacts issues and considerations that may be addressed.

Work zone impacts assessment in M&O may help provide answers to the following 

types of questions:

• Given the district’s construction program for the upcoming year, are there any 

scheduled/periodic maintenance activities that may have an impact on, or be 

impacted by, any of the construction projects?

• The winter snow season is over and I need to patch-up the potholes on the 

region’s roadways. There are a few roadway sections that are due for pavement 

resurfacing in early spring. Can I hold off on the pothole patching for those 

roadway sections and just wait for the resurfacing?

• How do the work zone impacts of multiple maintenance lane-closures compare 

with those of combining lane-closures into a single project?

• A certain utility company needs to upgrade its infrastructure along a roadway 

and needs to perform the work through several utility cuts on the roadway. 

Is there any way of combining that work with planned rehabilitation on that 

roadway?

• A section of high-volume/high-speed roadway is going to be widened by one 

lane in each direction. Along with this roadway widening, I would like to widen 

the inner shoulders on that facility from a half-shoulder to full-shoulder to 

improve safety and provide for easy future maintenance, incident management, 

etc. How can I justify the added cost for this shoulder widening?

• Are there any innovative strategies that I can use to provide better protection for 

my maintenance personnel?

• What are the impacts of performing scheduled maintenance on a designated 

alternate route for an ongoing construction project? Can I perform the work 

such that the impact to the mainline construction project and any traffic diverting 

from it are minimal?

• Is there any planned utility or other maintenance work that can be accomplished 

along with my upcoming pavement rehabilitation project? If so, how will that 

affect my work schedule and how can I include the utility work into my project 

without adversely affecting my work?

9-3
9.3 Who Performs the Assessment?

The following is an overview of the staff that may be involved in assessing and 

managing the work zone impacts of M&O activities:

• Maintenance managers, engineers, and supervisors belonging to the maintenance 

departments of transportation agencies are the primary staff responsible for planning, 

coordinating, implementing and managing M&O activities. They are responsible for 

developing/updating standard processes, procedures, and guidelines related to M&O 

(e.g., developing typical TTC plans for different types of short-term work zones). They 

are also responsible for assessing and managing the work zone impacts of M&O 

activities on a day-to-day basis.

• In the field, agency and/or contractor3 maintenance crews, and agency maintenance 

supervisors are responsible for implementing and monitoring their M&O activities 

such that their work zone impacts are minimized.

• Input from and interaction with different entities may be required at appropriate 

junctures (e.g., when coordinating M&O projects with the construction program for 

a region/district), including:

– Agency technical staff and specialists including planners, highway engineers/

designers, safety engineers, traffic engineers/managers, operations/intelligent 

transportation systems (ITS) engineers, pavement managers/experts, bridge 

managers, utility coordination personnel (water, sewage, power, gas, telecom 

infrastructure), and marketing/public relations staff.

– Other stakeholders such as law enforcement agency personnel, emergency response 

personnel, other transportation agencies, and regional transportation management 

center (TMC) operators may also provide input.

– Sometimes the input of other stakeholder groups, such as local community 

representatives, business representatives, other public safety agencies, trucking 

associations, and American Automobile Association (AAA), may also be needed.

9.4 Assessment Framework

Assessing and managing the work zone impacts of M&O activities may be performed 

by: (a) improving agency procedures so that the direct safety and mobility impacts of 

M&O activities are minimized and better managed; (b) planning and coordinating M&O 

such that overall system-wide impacts are minimized; (c) implementing and managing 

M&O activities such that they have minimal impacts on other construction projects and 

vice-versa; and (d) incorporating features in construction projects that would facilitate 

future M&O with minimum disruption. These are briefly discussed in the following subsections.

9-4 3

 For contract maintenance.
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

9-5

9.4.1 Improving Agency Procedures so that the Direct Safety and 

Mobility Impacts of M&O Activities are Minimized and Better 

Managed

M&O activities present some of the biggest work zone safety and mobility challenges. 

Most M&O activities are implemented through short-term and/or mobile work zones. 

Unlike stationary/long-term work zones, often there are no barricades, drums, or cones 

to outline the work area in M&O work zones. Worker and motorist safety is the number 

one priority; however, it may not be efficient to setup an elaborate work zone for an 

activity that may take a very short time to perform, both from a resource utilization 

perspective as well as a traffic mobility perspective.

Therefore M&O work zones present a significant challenge in terms of:

• Delineating and protecting the work zone adequately enough to provide visibility and 

safety for the workers and any advance warning crew.

• Providing sufficient space and time for the crew to efficiently and effectively perform 

their work.

• Providing sufficient advance warning to motorists so that they may take appropriate 

action to slow down or change lanes well in advance of the work area.

• Setting up the work zone, implementing the work, and clearing the work zone setup 

such that the mobility impacts are minimal.

Transportation agencies use many processes, procedures, and guidelines that help 

address the above challenges. The MUTCD provides general TTC guidelines for 

intermediate-term stationary, short-term, and mobile operations. Many agencies use 

typical TTC templates and other guidelines to help setup appropriate traffic control and 

management plans for different types of M&O activities. A majority of such guidelines 

are based on the MUTCD and are customized according to the individual needs of 

different agencies.

The following are some additional issues that agencies can consider in assessing and 

managing the impacts of their M&O activities:

• Periodic review and update of agency M&O procedures and guidelines. As time 

passes, M&O work zone safety and mobility needs may change and agencies should 

update their procedures to reflect current needs. For example, in the last few years 

many agencies are increasingly performing all M&O activities requiring lane-closures 

exclusively at night due to the steady increase in traffic volumes in urban areas. 

In updating their procedures and typical TTC plans, agencies should identify the 

potential safety hazards and mobility impacts of different types of M&O activities, 

and recommend countermeasures that help mitigate those impacts. Advanced 

technologies and methods should be considered as applicable, and when available.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) recommends the 

identification of “red zones” where short duration work zones are not a desirable 

choice due to poor traffic conditions (high volume, high speed, weaving areas, 

bridges, interchanges, etc.).

Source: WSDOT Work Zone Traffic Control Guidelines, January 2006. URL: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fasc/

EngineeringPublications/Manuals/Workzone.pdf (Accessed 01/26/06).
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has identified seven 

intrusion countermeasures for stationary, mobile, and short duration work zones. 

They are: (1) reduced channelization spacing; (2) enhanced flagger stations; 

(3) rumble strips; (4) reduced speed limits; (5) police enforcement; (6) dynamic 

message signs (DMS); and (7) drone radar.

Source: Identification of Traffic Control Devices for Mobile and Short Duration Work Operations, Working 

Paper: Evaluation Criteria and Analysis, May 24, 2004, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), 

City College of New York, NC State University Centennial Campus. URL: http://www.utrc2.org/research/

assets/97/wz-criteriawp1.pdf (Accessed 01/25/06).

The Advanced Highway Maintenance and Construction Technology (AHMCT) 

Research Center conducts technology research for improving highway 

maintenance and construction. One of the research products of the center is an 

automated machine for cone placement and retrieval. Traffic cones are one of the 

most common items used to delineate work zones. However, present methods of 

deploying traffic cones require considerable manual effort and expose workers to 

the hazards of traffic. The AHMCT Cone Machine automatically lays down cones at 

regular intervals, and then picks them up again later. A single operator can safely 

and quickly open and close busy lanes during construction or maintenance.

Source: AHMCT Research Center at UC-Davis, a joint program of University of California (UC), Davis and the 

California Department of Transportation Caltrans. URL: http://www.ahmct.ucdavis.edu/index.htm?pg=Cones

(Accessed 01/25/06).

• Reinforce and reemphasize the safety and mobility needs of M&O activities. There 

may be a tendency in the field to underestimate the potential impacts of M&O 

activities due to the short-term nature and the size of the work. It is therefore 

important to reinforce and reemphasize the need to follow the MUTCD and other 

agency procedures and guidelines that govern the setup and management of M&O 

work zones. One way to accomplish this is to provide periodic training and training 

updates to M&O staff and field crews.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s (WisDOT) work zone guidelines 

contains a Maintenance Supervisor’s Checklist, which is as follows:

1. Follow Part 6 and the Wisconsin Supplement of the MUTCD.

2. Have a traffic control plan before going to the work site.

3. Ask yourself, “What is the driver‘s view of the work site—at night, during peak 

hours, etc.?”

4. Investigate crashes/incidents to identify if changes are needed in the traffic control 

plan.

Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Work Zone Safety Guidelines for Construction, 

Maintenance, and Utility Operations, January 2003. URL: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/publications/

format/books/wzsguide.pdf (Accessed 01/25/06).

9-6
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The National Highway Institute (NHI) course, “Work Zone Traffic Control for 

Maintenance Operations (Short-Term)” provides guidance and training for field 

personnel working in the planning, selection, application, and operation of shortterm work zones. More information is available at http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/

training/brows_catalog.aspx. Enter 380060 in the Course Number box and click 

“Search.” (Accessed 01/26/06).

• Explicitly address the mobility issues associated with M&O activities. Sometimes 

there may be a tendency to underestimate the mobility impacts of M&O activities 

that are short-term and/or mobile. However, given the steady increase in traffic 

volumes over the years and the need to maintain and better operate our limited 

highway infrastructure, it is essential to address and mitigate the mobility impacts 

of performing any work on our highways. This is especially applicable to urban 

areas with pre-existing heavy congestion. Several agencies have adopted and many 

more are increasingly adopting practices that minimize the mobility impacts of M&O 

activities. Some of the strategies to consider include:

– Night work.

– Off-peak work.

– M&O activity coordination and aggregation.

– M&O schedule optimization.

– Enhanced public information (e.g., advance notice using the different media outlets 

including web sites/email, improved methods to warn motorists in advance of M&O 

work zones using dynamic message signs (DMS) and other active warning devices).

– Queuing and delay analysis for setting thresholds and providing guidance on 

allowable work hours and permitted lane closure times.

– Addressing the impacts of M&O activities (and vice-versa) on nearby transportation 

infrastructure and on other construction projects (discussed in Section 9.4.3).

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) uses look-up charts 

to determine whether or not a maintenance lane-closure can be implemented on 

a particular corridor (based on the road classification) at a particular time of day. 

This controls the traffic impacts of the maintenance activity.

Source: FHWA Workshop Conducted at WSDOT headquarters in connection with the updates to the work 

zone regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

• Improved communication and coordination. On a day-to-day basis, M&O staff and 

crew members perform a variety of activities that span across different levels of 

complexity (e.g., something as simple as changing a bulb in a roadway light fixture 

to something as complicated as performing repair work on a bridge shoulder). Field 

maintenance crew may be involved in multiple activities and job-sites during the 

course of their work shift, and sometimes they may be pulled from their scheduled 

maintenance to tend to an emergency maintenance request. In the midst of all 

this, communication and coordination may falter. However, the lack of proper 

9-7
communication may lead to problems from both a maintenance efficiency and 

effectiveness perspective, as well as from a motorist impact perspective. For example, 

a local traffic signal crew may be performing emergency traffic signal repairs at an 

intersection just downstream of an Interstate highway off-ramp. The activity may lead 

to traffic backup onto the freeway off-ramp with possible spillover onto the mainline. 

If the appropriate State DOT authority or the local TMC were notified about the work, 

they can advise motorists about potential backups via DMSs and possibly re-route 

them to a different off-ramp.

It is important for maintenance supervisors, staff and crew to understand that M&O 

activities not only have impacts at the immediate work location and corridor level, 

but also have system-level impacts that extend into other corridors, intersections, 

interchanges, etc. Sustained communications with appropriate regional/local entities 

(e.g., TMC operators, local/county traffic signal system operators, transit and railroad 

agencies, State DOT operations managers) can keep concerned stakeholders informed 

about any work activity that is taking place on the transportation system. Many 

regions have regional TMCs that provide information to motorists via DMSs, media 

outlets, and other information channels. If maintenance staff keep them updated on 

a daily basis of their planned activities (and emergency activities as and when they 

come up), the TMC operators can then provide periodic and timely updates to the 

traveling public and other agencies. 

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) recommends that, if there 

is a rail crossing near the work area, coordination with the railroad company 

should occur before work starts. Lane restrictions, flagging, or other operations 

shall not create conditions where vehicles can be stopped on the railroad tracks 

with no means of escape. If traffic backups are anticipated to extend through the 

crossing, special procedures for warning motorists should be used, which are 

provided in WisDOT work zone guidelines.

Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Work Zone Safety Guidelines for Construction, 

Maintenance, and Utility Operations, January 2003. URL: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/publications/

format/books/wzsguide.pdf (Accessed 01/25/06).

• Improved public information, awareness, and communication. Public inattention, lack 

of awareness, and lack of sufficient advance warning are often cited as a major cause 

of crashes and safety issues when performing M&O work. Agencies should try to use 

all available information dissemination channels to inform the public of upcoming/

planned M&O work, and provide sufficient warning in advance of M&O work zones. 

Traveler information web sites/email updates (either agency or non-agency) are a 

good resource for keeping track of and providing information on planned and ongoing 

M&O activities. Several new technologies are increasingly used to warn motorists and 

urge them to reduce speeds in advance of M&O work zones such as DMSs (portable or 

pre-existing), and speed display trailers. 

9-8
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) conducted a survey of all State 

transportation agencies to obtain data on safety operations for mobile and short 

duration maintenance. The survey results indicated that the most significant 

hazards for all responding agencies were high speed traffic and inattentive 

motorists, which resulted in rear end crashes of safety vehicles and errant vehicles 

entering the shadow vehicle convoy or the work area. Some State agencies 

approach the solution to these issues by incorporating advance warning devices 

in addition to the standard MUTCD safety devices. Examples include brighter or 

fluorescent signs on shadow vehicles; trail vehicles with speed display boards 

below the arrow panel; use of better or additional lighting on shadow vehicles 

such as solid light bars, blue lights, or light emitting diode (LED) lights; dynamic 

message signs (DMSs) in advance of the work area; and police to enforce traffic 

laws.

Source: Ullman, Brook R., Melissa D. Finley, and Nada D. Trout, Identification of Hazards Associated with 

Mobile and Short Duration Work Zones. Report Number: 4174-1. Texas Transportation Institute, College 

Station, Texas, September 2003. URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4174-1.pdf (Accessed 01/25/06).

9.4.2 Planning and Coordinating M&O to Minimize Overall 

System-Wide Impacts

M&O activities have both localized and system-wide impacts. Often, the lack of adequate 

planning and coordination between multiple M&O and construction activities performed 

by multiple agencies is a cause for increased traffic delays and frustration for motorists. 

M&O work adjacent to a construction work zone (at nearby intersections/interchanges, 

adjacent corridors, etc.), if performed in an uncoordinated manner, can create unwanted 

delays and frustration to motorists and may also interfere with the effective performance 

of the work. Lack of coordination between agency maintenance and construction 

departments during planning can result in conflicts and combined impacts that can delay 

project schedules and exacerbate motorist frustration.

The following are some issues to consider in planning and coordinating M&O activities 

so that their overall system-wide impacts are minimized and better managed:

• Account for M&O needs and potential impacts during systems planning (i.e., when 

developing transportation plans and programs) by coordinating construction project 

schedules and plans with those of M&O activities. The participation of maintenance 

engineers and staff in the planning and programming processes can help provide 

input towards such planning and coordination. For example, in developing a twoyear Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for a region, M&O activities can 

be planned and scheduled such that their conflicts and potential combined impacts 

can be minimized. Even something as simple as performing mowing operations 

on a highway section may not be able to take place if that highway section will be 

under construction. So agencies should make an effort to plan and coordinate within 

multiple M&O activities as well as with other construction projects.

• Coordinate and combine multiple M&O activities into a single larger project.

9-9
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) uses a Corridor 

Management Approach for Maintenance and Construction Operations to 

coordinate multiple construction/maintenance projects within a corridor. For 

maintenance projects, a complete corridor will be closed off during the night with 

a “maintenance gang” performing the work. Construction projects are much 

longer in duration and entail coordination among different projects to be tied into 

one corridor project. This practice has led to a reduction in overall congestion 

and delay as well as improved perception by the public through coordination and 

planning efforts by Caltrans.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 01/26/06).

• Perform M&O activities as part of planned construction projects (whenever possible) 

to minimize doing the M&O work as a separate activity. Another way of saying this 

is, “don’t dig up the same road twice.” For example, many agencies combine ITS 

infrastructure projects (e.g., laying a fiber-optic/communications conduit) along with 

ongoing construction projects.

In the City of Phoenix, design and construction of city water and sewer lines within 

the street right-of-way (ROW) is done by the Street Transportation Department. 

Prior to the implementation of this policy, each entity designed and constructed 

their facilities in a separate project. This resulted in neighborhoods being torn up 

on three separate occasions to construct the project. By bringing all work under 

the Street Transportation Department, the work could all be accomplished in one 

contract thereby saving time and money, increasing safety, and having less impact 

and disruption to the community. The City also implemented a penalty provision 

for utilities that trench through new pavements.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 01/26/06).

• Coordinate, implement, and manage M&O and construction activities at the regional/

district/corridor level to minimize overall impacts.

9-10
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) has a policy to sequence, 

coordinate, and schedule projects to minimize motorist delay and interference to 

affected business/residential communities. Internal coordination meetings are 

routinely held to discuss various projects from the Bureaus of Traffic, Highways, 

and Bridges that have the greatest impact on traffic. Specifically, CDOT internally 

discusses the upcoming construction season’s major projects and proceeds to map 

out coordinated project letting schedules in order to minimize motorist delay and 

interference to affected business/residential communities. Information that comes 

from these regular CDOT internal meetings is used to update their public web 

site. This leads to construction cost savings and travel time improvements and 

motorists/pedestrian safety improvements within construction and maintenance 

work zones.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 01/26/06).

• Improve ongoing and day-to-day communications on M&O and construction activities 

at both the intra-agency and inter-agency levels. This is the same as the “Improved 

Communication and Coordination” discussion in Section 9.4.1.

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) employs a Lane Closure 

Coordinator for Interstate Highways in a State Highway District. The coordinator 

serves as a single contact for compilation and distribution of planned lane closures 

in the coming week. This practice helps avoid concurrent lane closures, whether 

they are on maintenance, construction, operation, or utility work areas, on nearby 

sections of roadway and helps to avoid conflicts in operations. Ultimately, traffic 

delay and congestion due to multiple operations in nearby areas are reduced.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 01/26/06).

9-11
9.4.3 Implementing and Managing M&O Activities with Minimal 

Impacts on Other Construction Projects and Vice-Versa

M&O activities in the impactable vicinity of other construction projects can adversely 

affect traffic safety and mobility (and construction efficiency) of the construction project 

and vice-versa. Interfering M&O work is often cited as a major cause of construction 

project schedule delays and exacerbated work zone impacts. Conversely, a nearby 

construction project can also have a negative impact on an ongoing M&O activity.

Therefore, during the planning, design, and construction phases of a construction 

project, it is important to assess the potential impacts of any nearby M&O work that 

is scheduled to take place concurrently. During the construction process, if adverse 

impacts are experienced due to any nearby M&O work, appropriate actions should be 

taken to manage those impacts. Also before scheduling and implementing an M&O 

job, coordination should be performed to identify any nearby construction projects 

that could interfere with the M&O job or be interfered with by the M&O job. Such 

coordination should be forthcoming from both the construction side and the M&O side, 

and should take place at the planning/design level and the day-to-day operational level. 

Coordination and communication at the operational level can also help keep all parties 

informed, even in the case of emergency maintenance situations. The planning and 

coordination may be done as discussed in Sections 9.4.1 and 9.4.2.

Some of the issues that may be considered in assessing the impacts of M&O work on 

construction projects include:

• M&O that affects detours or diversion routes.

• Impacts of M&O within or adjacent to an active construction project – e.g., an M&O 

lane closure that interferes with a project lane closure.

• Overlapping or contradictory signs between construction project and M&O activities.

• M&O work that can result in stoppage of construction or schedule delays 

(e.g., utility delays).

• Multiple work zones within close vicinity of each other (e.g., along the same corridor) 

resulting in added motorist frustration.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) uses a District Work 

Zone Traffic Management Coordinator in each of the 12 Caltrans Districts. The 

cumulative effect of projects in close proximity can sometimes lead to poor, 

inefficient operations. Also, travel volumes tend to be dynamic in nature and 

fluctuate due to incidents or recreational/holiday demand. The Coordinator is 

able to see the “bigger picture” and make decisions that provide relief to an area 

affected by construction (e.g., halt lane closures, use temporary signals). The 

Coordinator stays abreast of the regional traffic situation, whereas the Resident 

Engineer tends to focus on the happenings within the project limits of his/her 

contract.

Source: FHWA Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, April 2000, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/

Default.htm (Accessed 01/26/06).

9-12
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) requires all maintenance and 

internal work zone activities requiring lane closures to be reviewed by the District 

Work Zone Coordinator to reduce the work zone effects on motorists. The District 

Engineer ensures the appropriate district staff considers the following actions 

when scheduling lane closures:

• Notifying the District Work Zone Coordinator 48 hours before beginning any nonemergency work requiring a lane closure.

• Scheduling lane closures during off-peak and/or nighttime hours, when possible.

• Ensuring work zones are maintained in a neat, orderly, and effective manner for the 

safety of highway workers and motorists.

• Scheduling multiple tasks in a single work zone, rather than scheduling multiple 

lane closures in the same area.

• Making every effort to minimize traffic backups.

• Ensuring the appropriate traffic-control equipment is used.

• Ensuring work zone speed limits are appropriate in active and non-active work 

zones.

The above guidelines apply to commercial utility/permit work as well.

Source: Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Work Zone Guidelines, 2004. 

URL: http://www.modot.org/business/documents/MoDOTWorkZonesGuidelines.pdf (Accessed 01/26/06).

9.4.4 Incorporating Features in Construction Projects to Facilitate Future 

M&O with Minimum Disruption

In designing construction projects (roadway rehabilitation/reconstruction, etc.) features 

should be incorporated, whenever possible, to facilitate future M&O with minimum 

disruption. Examples of such features include:

• Wider shoulders.

• Wider bridge decks.

• Maintenance turn-abouts.

• Designated pullouts.

• Use of non-contact roadway sensors (instead of embedded pavement loops).

• Making roadway and roadside structures (e.g., sign support structures, DMS 

message boards) easily accessible without requiring lane closures or excessive traffic 

interference.

• Using roadside and roadway devices that facilitate fast and easy maintenance (e.g., 

in the case of tower mounted equipment, using lowering devices instead of having to 

use a bucket truck to get on top of the tower).

• Reducing the need for and cost of maintenance/upgrade work by using longer-life 

materials (e.g., long-life pavement markings and lane markers).

9-13
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is trying to 

address the issue of maintenance and re-installation of raised pavement markers 

(also referred to as “buttons”). The button crew gets hit by traffic often as they 

move down the road at 1 mph installing the raised pavement markers. WSDOT 

considered several strategies but have exhausted all options. The types of raised 

pavement markers that are currently in use need to be replaced every two years. 

Therefore, WSDOT is considering alternatives to the currently available raised 

pavement marker technology.

Source: FHWA Workshop Conducted at WSDOT headquarters in connection with the updates to the work 

zone regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) incorporates design 

features to accommodate future work zone mobility needs, such as wider bridges 

to facilitate use of the shoulder as a travel lane during construction and avoiding 

piers in medians.

Source: NYSDOT comments in response to the FHWA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 

on Work Zone Safety, June 6, 2002, United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) online Docket 

Management System. URL: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf81/175976_web.pdf (Accessed 01/18/06).

The FHWA Highways for LIFE program focuses on how to build a highway safer, 

longer lasting, at a lower cost, and faster. More information on this program is 

available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl (Accessed 01/18/06).

9-14
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Appendix A – Example Work Zone Impacts 

Assessment: Virginia 

Department of Transportation 

I-495/U.S. Route 1 Interchange 

Reconstruction Project

Project Overview

The Woodrow Wilson Bridge (WWB) project, in the Commonwealth of Virginia and 

State of Maryland, is a 7.5 mile-long corridor located on I-95/495 (also referred to as the 

Capital Beltway) extending from MD 210 interchange in Maryland, over the Potomac 

River, to Telegraph Road in Virginia. The existing Woodrow Wilson Bridge carries more 

than three times the traffic that it was designed to handle. Daily miles-long backups 

occur on both sides of the bridge where eight-lanes merge down to six for the bridge 

crossing, and several adjacent interchanges feed into the bridge causing merge/weave 

issues. The WWB project consists of widening I-95/495 to 12 lanes at the bridge and 

reconstructing four interchanges, including the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange in Virginia. 

The example work zone impacts assessment discussed in this appendix focuses on the I495/U.S. Route 1 Interchange Reconstruction project. More information and data related 

to the project can be found at http://wilsonbridge.com.

Figure A.1 presents a high-level map of the WWB project location and Figure A.2 

presents a more detailed location map (including the I-495/U.S. Route 1 Interchange).

Appendix A-1

295

295

270

395

495

95

95

95

64

Maryland

Virginia

Washington, 

D.C.

Alexandria

Project Location

Figure A.1 High-Level WWB Project Location Map 

(Source: http://www.wilsonbridge.com/po-projectArea.htm)
Appendix A-2

The I-495/U.S. Route 1 Interchange project involves complete reconstruction of the existing 

interchange to provide for increased capacity, better geometry, and improved safety. This 

involves:

• Bridge replacement and widening of the I-95/I-495 mainline roadway section from 0.91 

miles west of U.S. Route 1 to the west abutment of the Potomac River Bridge at Royal 

Street. 

• Replacement of all the ramp movements.

• Ramp connections to future HOV lanes.

• Ramp connection to Eisenhower Valley at Mill Road.

• Intersection improvements.

• Retaining and sound barrier walls.

• An extensive ground improvement program.

• Utility relocations, including electrical transmission tower relocation.

Work Zone Impacts Assessment Process 

Example

This section contains an overview of the components of the work zone impacts assessment 

process that were applied to the I-495/U.S. Route 1 Interchange project to date. 

Policy

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has a general policy related to 

construction work zone lane closures. Briefly: 

• Lane closures are not permitted during AM and PM peak hour periods, Monday through 

Friday.

• One lane can be closed during non-peak hour periods Monday through Friday.

• Multiple lanes can be closed during overnight and weekend periods.

I-495/U.S. Route 1 Interchange

Figure A.2 Detailed Project Location Map
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Appendix A-3

This policy was revised and tailored to address specific local issues related to the I-495/

U.S. Route 1 interchange due to the following considerations:

• Extensive commuter traffic.

• Heavy traffic during Friday afternoons related to travelers departing the area early for 

the weekend.

• Recreational traffic related to events in Alexandria.

• Heavy overnight commercial traffic.

• Regional recreational traffic related to major/special events (e.g., Washington Redskins 

football games, stadium concerts).

VDOT’s general policy related to construction work zone lane closures was revised 

to address the local environment of the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange. Some of the 

highlights include:

• Lane closures are not permitted between 5:00 – 9:00 AM and 3:00 – 7:00 PM, Monday 

through Thursday.

• Lane closures are not permitted between 5:00 – 9:00 AM and Noon – 10:30 PM on 

Fridays.

• One lane can be closed between 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM and 7:00 – 10:30 PM, Monday 

through Thursday.

• Multiple lanes can be closed between 10:30 PM – 5:00 AM, Sunday through Thursday. 

• Directional and total roadway closures are permitted between Midnight – 5:00 AM, 

Sunday through Thursday for up to 20-minutes.

• Lane closures or traffic restrictions will not be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, and 

holidays from noon the day before the holiday until noon the day after the holiday 

unless otherwise approved by the Engineer. When a holiday falls on a Friday, lane 

closures are not permitted from noon Thursday to noon Monday. When a holiday falls 

on a Monday, lane closures are not permitted from noon Friday to noon Tuesday.

• Lane closures are not permitted on Washington Redskins game days or other special 

events as specified by the Engineer.

• In case of emergency or accidents, the construction access lanes on the shoulder 

within the project or lane closure limits (Outer Loop Express) must be available for 

emergency vehicles.

• A shoulder cutout area should be deployed for every continuous 1⁄4-mile of shoulder 

closure to provide a place for disable vehicles, nominally 10 feet by 200 feet in size.

Construction at the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange is to be conducted concurrent with 

other WWB construction projects. As such, a WWB project-wide Lane Closure Policy 

was developed to address differences in Virginia and Maryland lane closure policies and 

practices for providing for the safe, orderly and efficient movement of traffic through 

adjacent work zones. The WWB Lane Closure Policy addresses:

• Procedures for approval to implement a lane closure including a detailed request form 

to provide consistency among all contractors.
• Advance notification requirements (by lane closure type).

• Advance notification limits to avoid “blanket” lane closure approvals.

• How to secure State Police support.

• Requirements and points of contact for lane closures.

• Lane closure restrictions.

• Holiday schedule.

The overall policy and policy provisions were applied to the respective program delivery 

stages as follows:

• Systems Planning – No work zone policy provisions were applied during the systems 

planning stage of the I-495 /U.S. Route 1 project.

• Project Development – Revisions to VDOT’s lane closure policy as described above were 

adhered to during the design of final plans, specifications, and estimates development. 

Lane closure exceptions have been granted to allow for:

- Emergency repairs.

- Extensions to existing work zones due to unforeseen complications that prevented the 

completion of planned work.

- Opportunities for contractors to perform operations that have minimal traffic impact 

during off peak hours.

• Construction – The contractor has complied with and has not recommended changes to 

the work zone policy provisions above.

• Performance Assessment – Work zone policy provisions have not been assessed to date.

Since the project is underway and will not be complete until 2008, feedback from the 

various stages is not available to develop recommendations.

Systems Planning

A Transportation Technical Report was developed for the WWB Project that also 

addresses the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange project. The report is the definitive technical 

transportation planning and analysis document for the WWB project and is one of several 

technical reports that are part of the documentation for the WWB Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). The Transportation Technical Report provides substantive, extensive, 

and detailed transportation data including:

• An Introduction section with details on the project location, description, history, purpose 

and the need for action.

• Summary of findings.

• An overview of the existing transportation system including details on policy context, 

land use and travel patterns, roadway network, operational conditions, truck travel, and 

existing transit services.

• A detailed overview of alternatives including the development process, future travel 

demand and patterns, end-to-end alternatives and a description of the no-build and 

build alternatives.

Appendix A-4
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• An assessment of future conditions including land use and travel patterns, operational 

performance and project related arterials, safety and operational performance, toll 

collection and public transportation.

A screening-level work zone impact assessment was not specifically conducted to 

identify whether the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange constituted a “significant project”. 

However, it would clearly be a significant project under any criteria developed or based 

on engineering judgment. In addition, specific work zone management strategies were 

not developed during the planning phase of the project.

The EIS sets forth 51-pages of construction impacts for the WWB project, many of which 

are related to the I-495 /U.S. Route 1 interchange including:

• General phasing plans for six types of construction activities were set forth for the 

I-495 / U.S. Route 1 project. These include distinct phasing plans for:

– Demolition, utility work and permits, earthwork and drainage, pile driving, and 

foundation construction.

– Mobilization, demolition, utility work, earthwork and drainage, pile driving, and 

foundation construction.

– Utility work and permits (if required), earthwork and drainage, pile driving, 

foundation construction, substructure construction and superstructure construction.

– Shift traffic to new lanes, earthwork and drainage, pile driving, substructure 

construction, demolition of old lanes, and superstructure construction.

– Utility work and permits (if required), earthwork and drainage, pile driving, 

substructure construction, and superstructure construction.

– Superstructure construction, paving, signing and lighting and landscaping.

• Construction staging areas.

• Environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures, including traffic, socioeconomic, air quality, noise, natural environment, and cultural resources. Mitigation 

measures set forth in the EIS were clearly labeled as “potential” mitigation measures. 

Some of the measures identified for construction traffic impact mitigation included:

– Maintenance of traffic and construction sequencing will be planned and scheduled to 

minimize delay throughout the project area.

– Six lanes of traffic will be maintained over the Potomac River throughout the 

construction period.

– Access to businesses and residences affected by construction will be provided.

– Rerouting of traffic may be necessary during the construction. Lane or ramp 

closures could create circuitous routes for emergency services, but access will be 

maintained to all areas.

– Signs will be used as appropriate to provide notice of road closures, detours, and 

other pertinent information.

– Local media will be notified appropriately in advance of construction related 

activities that could excessively inconvenience the community.

Appendix A-5
– Signs will be posted in the project vicinity with a hotline phone number for 

questions.

– During final design, a maintenance of traffic plan for both pedestrians and 

bicyclists will also be developed, based on consultation with local jurisdictions and 

organizations.

The WWB Project Record of Decision (ROD) specifically states the design development 

process for the WWB project (which includes the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange) shall 

meet 12 design goals to the maximum extent possible. Three of the 12 goals are 

construction related:

• All practicable measures shall be taken to minimize the construction period of the 

project.

• Construction impacts to historic and archeological resources shall be avoided or 

minimized to the extent possible. If possible, construction related traffic in the City of 

Alexandria would be routed away from residential areas via South Street to minimize 

construction related traffic through residential areas north of the project. 

• The project shall be designed to avoid all temporary and permanent impacts to a local 

cemetery.

In addition, the ROD sets forth the following commitments and considerations:

• Federal, State, county and local jurisdictions and organizations will be involved in the 

review process for maintenance of traffic (MOT) plans.

• Detailed maintenance or traffic plans will be developed for each individual contract 

that address vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

• Coordination with local jurisdictions, community groups and residents to further 

identify and evaluate potential construction activities and their effects (i.e., haul routes, 

dust control, etc.).

• Use signs, as appropriate, to provide notice of road closures, detours, etc.

• Post signs in the project area with the phone number of a hot line people can call 

about project-related activities.

Preliminary Engineering

The following materials were available at the outset of preliminary engineering 

development:

• WWB Transportation Technical Report.

• WWB Record of Decision.

• A separate WWB Project Traffic Projections and Operational Analyses document 

published four years after the WWB Project Technical Transportation Report. This 

report reflects the use of updated traffic data and land use assumptions for the agreed 

upon design alternative.

• Conceptual horizontal plan view roadway alignment drawings.

Appendix A-6
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• WWB Construction Contract Summary. A graphical depiction of the anticipated 

construction projects was developed to illustrate the physical limits of each project. 

Start dates, end dates, and critical path dates were also set forth. This tool enabled 

engineers to better understand design and construction issues related to individual 

projects (e.g., I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange) and coordination issues related to other 

adjacent contracts.

• WWB Project Master Schedule. The schedule sets forth start and finish dates for all 

construction contracts envisioned at the outset of the preliminary engineering phase 

of the project. The schedule was updated monthly.

The I-495/U.S. Route 1 project was not re-assessed, nor the overall WWB project. The 

sheer complexity and size of the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange were understood by all 

parties involved in the project. 

Candidate construction approaches were not developed as part of the preliminary 

engineering phase of the project because the final roadway alignment was not set forth 

until the end of the preliminary engineering design phase. 

One of initial efforts of the preliminary engineering phase of the project was to identify 

cost savings through value engineering (e.g., elimination of a ramp, revisions to 

roadway alignment that conceptually could result in construction costs savings and time 

reductions). Once this was completed, engineers then began the extensive and detailed 

efforts necessary to decide on the horizontal and vertical roadway alignment and identify 

other issues (e.g., right-of-way requirements, utility relocation requirements) that needed 

to be addressed. A preliminary engineering cost estimate was developed for comparing 

an engineering cost estimate to the available, budgeted funding for the project.

An actual assessment of whether the project was significant was not conducted for the 

I-495/U.S. Route 1 project, or for the WWB project. However, it was understood that the 

expansion and reconstruction of the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange was a significant 

project – whether by itself or as part of the larger WWB project.

The following work zone strategies were identified and examined in detail for their 

applicability to minimize construction impacts upon traffic flow:

• Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – ITS that was anticipated to be designed for 

the final roadway alignment was also sought to be designed and deployed to help in 

the management of traffic during construction.

• Incident Management – Strategies that would enhance incident management during 

and after the construction of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (WWB) project were 

examined.

• Travel Demand Management (TDM)/Transit – Strategies that could divert traffic 

away from the WWB construction zone were examined. Public information was also 

addressed as part of TDM/transit strategy identification.

• Local Street Operations – Strategies and improvements along major alternate routes 

to be used by traffic diverting from the WWB construction zone to facilitate local travel 

during construction and times of incidents were examined.

Appendix A-7
ITS, incident management, TDM/transit, public information, and local street operations 

strategies that were identified as being cost effective and practical were recommended 

for approval and inclusion in the 30% preliminary project cost estimate. Only selected 

ITS, incident management and public information strategies were included in the 30% 

preliminary cost estimate as the TDM/transit and local street operations strategies were 

found not to be cost effective or practical.

It was also agreed that the deployment of the incident management and public 

information programs would be managed by the General Engineering Consultant (GEC). 

Program elements were not specific to the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange; rather, they 

were WWB project-wide. Having the GEC manage these programs would also enable a 

deployment of specific actions and activities that could be matched against anticipated 

spikes in corridor-wide work zone lane and/or ramp closure impacts.

Design

In addition to the aforementioned Transportation Technical Report, Record of Decision 

and other materials (e.g., WWB Traffic Projections and Operational Analysis), the 

following materials were available and gathered at the outset of final engineering design 

development:

• 30% preliminary engineering plans and cost estimate.

• Additional traffic characteristics (e.g., volume, turning movements) used to aid in the 

preliminary engineering plan development.

• Updated WWB Construction Contract Summary.

• Updated WWB Project Master Schedule.

Multiple candidate construction staging approaches were developed for the I-495/U.S. 

Route 1 interchange contract, concurrent with taking the 30% preliminary design plans 

to the semi-final design stage. The management strategies themselves were not 

reassessed.

Similar to the Preliminary Engineering Module, the expansion and reconstruction of the 

I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange was understood to be a significant project. As such, work 

zone impacts were analyzed for each candidate construction staging approach to build 

the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange including:

• Detailed traffic engineering analyses were conducted to assess the traffic operations 

impacts related to closing shoulders, lanes, ramps, traffic switches, and queues. 

• The ability to respond, clear and manage incidents was reviewed with an emphasis on 

providing an incident management friendly work zone.

• Opportunities to advance the deployment of permanent ITS field devices (e.g., 

closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, highway advisory radio (HAR), and dynamic 

message signs (DMS)) for use in supporting maintaining traffic flow through the 

construction zone were examined.

Appendix A-8
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Coupled with this quantitative and qualitative analysis, working session meetings were 

held to review the various approaches with an emphasis on reviewing:

• Constructability.

• Feasibility.

• Budget impacts.

• Community impacts.

• Environmental impacts.

A series of iterative working session meetings and refinements to proposed construction 

staging ultimately led to the selection of a an agreed upon construction staging 

sequence and supporting traffic control plan for the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange.

A final construction staging and supporting traffic control plan was developed for the 

I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange project. Drawings specifying construction staging and 

detailed signing, striping and placement of traffic control devices were developed and 

set forth in the final contract plans.

A separate ITS construction contract was developed to advance the deployment of 

selected CCTV camera and DMS. The purpose for the break-out was twofold – to 

complete installation in advance of major interchange construction and traffic impacts, 

and to obtain the services of an ITS contractor in lieu of a general contractor. A special 

provision was developed and included in the final contract that required the contractor to 

submit site-specific traffic control plans for approval prior to the implementation of any 

work zones.

During the completion of the final design plans for the I-495/U.S. Route 1 Interchange, 

designers examined different methods to accelerate the duration of construction. 

Alternative maintenance of traffic plans were developed and CORSIM modeling software 

was used to further assess the traffic impacts of the alternate MOT plans. At this time, 

the contractor has not implemented these alternate MOT plans.

Construction

An I-495/U.S. Route 1 Construction Project Kick-off Meeting was held with key personnel 

including the contractor, Virginia DOT staff, the construction management and inspection 

team, and local utility agencies. Elected officials and representatives of local and county 

agencies were also invited to attend. Contract plans, construction staging, the traffic 

control plan and the WWB Project Lane Closure Policy were reviewed in detail. No 

alternative approach was proposed by the I-495/U.S. Route 1 interchange contractor. 

Thus, the anticipated work zone impacts reassessment was not conducted.

Through the first year of construction, construction staging and traffic control have been 

implemented by the general contractor as set forth in the final contract plans. Partnering 

meetings, held bi-weekly, have resulted in recommended substantive changes to 

construction staging and traffic control. The Contractor proposed the closure of a oneblock stretch of a local street that would facilitate the installation of numerous utilities, 

traffic signal and a TMS conduit system that would require numerous lane closures for 

several months. The contractor’s reasoning behind this proposal was they would go in 

and do the work, close the road one time, and have a viable detour route that would not 

send motorists to far from the existing route.

Appendix A-9
Appendix A-10

As a result of this proposal, a Synchro model analysis was conducted to analyze the 

implications of the disruption to motorist traveling through the work zone area. The 

result of the modeling indicated numerous improvements in traffic flow with no 

delays to motorists. Field observation demonstrated that the results of the analysis 

were consistent with how traffic was flowing through the work zone. As such, the 

recommended change was implemented.

With respect to work zone safety and mobility impacts monitoring during construction, 

the General Engineering Consultant team:

• Conducts windshield surveys to review construction signing and striping installations 

for proper use and placement.

• Conducts windshield surveys to monitor average queue lengths within and 

approaching the construction zone.

• Conducts quarterly meetings, or meetings as needed with the State, county and local 

agency incident management community to review operations and advise them in 

advance of major construction changes.

• Conducts an evaluation of traffic signal timing to insure signals are operating 

efficiently and effectively.

• Has a dedicated staff person responsible for monitoring work zones with the use of 

CCTV at the project office.

• Has a dedicated staff person responsible for updating real-time work zone information 

by utilizing highway advisory radio system.

• Has dedicated staff responsible for addressing questions and issues raised by the local 

business and residential communities.

• Coordinates lane closures and other operational issues with other nearby major 

roadway reconstruction projects.

• Has work zone safety and mobility as a standing item for construction Partnering 

meetings.

A project web site was established for the overall WWB project (http://wilsonbridge.com). 

This site contains information on:

• The overall WWB project.

• “Bridge Bucks” which provides a $50 incentive for using alternative modes of 

transportation.

• “Mission Possible, Keep You Moving” program providing traveler information on:

- Commuter solutions.

- Employer solutions.

- Current traffic conditions (real-time traffic, lane closures, traveler information).

- Regional travel solutions.

- Clearing traffic incidents.

- Bridge openings. 

- Mariner’s alerts.
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Appendix A-11

• Construction program (including the I-495/U.S. Route 1 Interchange project).

• Project news.

• Neighborhood news.

• Environmental aspects.

• Civil rights/DBE programs.

• Project scrapbook.

• Project videos.

Media releases similar to that shown in Figure A.3 are used to provide information to 

motorists on lane closure updates, major traffic changes, detours, etc.

In March 2005, information about the project construction periods (phases) and the anticipated 

traffic impacts for 2005-06 was made available in a presentation that can be viewed on the 

project web site (http://wilsonbridge.com/powerpoint/050322-NicholsonCityCouncilPres.

pdf). The presentation includes Figure A.4, which shows the work that was scheduled to occur 

during various construction periods for the I-495/U.S. 1 project. 

Figure A.3 Sample News/Media Release from WWB Project Web Site
3

8b

5

7

95 495

Summer 2005

Open new ramp from Outer Loop 

to southbound Route 1 over 

Cameron Run.

Fall 2005 – Summer 2007

Open temporary ramp from Outer Loop to 

northbound Route 1 for approximately 18 

months to allow construction of new ramps. 

Ramp includes temporary signal at Route 1.

Fall 2005

Inner Loop – Open permanent new ramp 

from southbound Route 1.

Outer Loop – Open permanent new ramp 

from southbound Route 1.

Spring 2005 – Fall 2005

Open temporary ramp from southbound 

Route 1 to Inner Loop for approximately 

one year. Tighten radius of exit loop ramp 

from Inner Loop to southbound Route 1 to 

allow construction of new ramps.

1

Capital Beltway

To Fort Belvoir

To Springfield, VA

Appendix A-12

Figure A.4 Anticipated I-495/U.S. 1 Traffic Impacts 2005-06
1

2

8a

9

4a

4c

4b

6

Spring 2006

Open southern span of new Wilson Bridge to twoway traffic. Existing Beltway traffic will be routed 

onto new bridge, in six travel lanes (three lanes in 

each direction). Shoulders will provide immediate 

safety and efficiency benefit.

Demolish existing bridge.

Mid-2008, northern span of new Wilson Bridge 

slated for opening.

Fall 2005

Open new permanent ramp 

from northbound Route 1 to 

Outer Loop over Hunting Creek.

Spring 2005

Four traffic lanes will be temporarily restored 

on S. Washington Street between Hunting 

Creek and Church Street.

Temporary three-lane traffic configuration 

will return during Fall 2005 / Winter 2006 until 

work is completed in 2007.

Summer 2005 – Summer 2008

Close ramp from Inner Loop to Church 

Street for approximately three years to 

accommodate work on S. Washington Street 

and widening of Beltway.

Summer 2005 – Spring 2006

Tie-in traffic to newly widened Outer Loop by 

shifting traffic south under the southern portion of 

S. Washington Street dock and then back to existing 

Beltway alignment.

Summer 2005 – Fall 2005

Shift traffic onto temporary ramp from south 

and northbound Route 1 to Outer Loop to 

accommodate “tying-in” traffic to Outer Loop.

Late Summer 2005

Complete intersection 

improvement at Franklin Street 

and Route 1.

Winter 2005

Reduce ramp from south 

and northbound Route 1 to 

Outer Loop from two lanes 

to one lane to accommodate 

“tying-in” traffic to newly 

widened Outer Loop.

1

To Maryland

To Old Town, 

Alexandria

S. Washington

 Street

Church 

Street

WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Appendix A-13
The presentation also contains several color-coded maps showing the anticipated U.S. 1 

traffic impacts for the different construction periods, with a focus on impacts to the City 

of Alexandria. In the maps, the traffic impacts are classified into several levels:

• Improvement – decrease in delays/travel times expected; opening new ramp/roadway; 

improved shoulders.

• Low – slight increase in delays/travel times expected; lower speed, narrow or 

temporary ramp; slight lane shift, new temporary traffic signal.

• Moderate – modest increase in delays/travel times expected; considerable lane shift; 

new merge point with minimal acceleration lane.

• Severe – substantial increase in delays/travel times expected; significant lane shift.

Mitigation measures suggested for addressing these work zone safety and mobility 

impacts include:

• Sequencing construction activities.

• Reducing speeds to 50 mph in the project corridor.

• Enhancing signs and pavement markings for clear and positive guidance.

• Increasing police presence.

• Coordinating activities with City of Alexandria traffic (signal timing, etc.).

• Using CCTV cameras.

• Disseminating real-time traffic information via HAR, overhead and portable VMS, 

project web site, and e-mail list.

• Disseminating information about scheduled traffic changes (e.g., lane closure 

schedules) via telephone hotline, project web site, and media/stakeholder outlets.

During construction, work zone performance has been monitored through field 

observations and work zone evaluations.

Performance Assessment

The I-495/U.S. Route 1 Interchange project was under construction during development 

of this document. This step has not yet been conducted.

Appendix A-14
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Appendix B – Impacts Analysis Tools

Several methodologies and tools are available for conducting transportation analyses and 

estimating the effects of various transportation planning alternatives and projects. These 

tools vary in level of complexity, and each tool offers different capabilities. Some tools 

were designed specifically for work zone applications. Other traffic analysis tools, although 

not designed specifically for work zones, can be used for to analyze work zone situations. 

This section includes information on both of these types of tools. 

Types of Traffic Analysis Tools

Traffic analysis tools can be grouped into the following categories:

• Sketch-planning tools – Sketch-planning methodologies and tools produce general 

order-of-magnitude estimates of travel demand and traffic operations in response 

to transportation improvements. They allow for evaluation of specific projects or 

alternatives without conducting an in-depth engineering analysis. Sketch-planning tools 

perform some or all of the functions of other analysis tool types using simplified analyses 

techniques and highly aggregate data. Such techniques are primarily used to prepare 

preliminary materials and budgets, and are not considered a substitute for the detailed 

engineering analysis often needed later in the project design and implementation 

process. Sketch-planning approaches are typically the simplest and least costly of 

traffic analysis techniques, and are usually limited in scope, analytical robustness, and 

presentation capabilities. Examples of sketch-planning tools include QuickZone, Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (STEAM), and ITS Deployment Analysis System 

(IDAS). QuickZone was developed for work zone applications and is described in the 

Work Zone Specific Analysis Tools section later in this appendix.

• Travel demand models – Travel demand models have specific analytical capabilities, 

such as the prediction of travel demand and the consideration of destination choice, 

mode choice, time-of-day travel choice, and route choice, as well as the representation 

of traffic flow in the highway network. These are mathematical models that forecast 

future travel demand based on current conditions, and future projections of household 

and employment characteristics. Travel demand models were originally developed to 

determine the benefits and impacts of major highway improvements in metropolitan 

areas. Travel demand models are suited for static analyses and are not capable of 

dynamic traffic analysis (i.e., time-varying analyses). Therefore, they have only limited 

capabilities to evaluate ITS/operational strategies and operational characteristics such as 

speed, delay, and queuing. Examples of travel demand models include TransCAD, Cube, 

Quick Response System (QRS) model, Équilibre Multimodal, Multimodal Equilibrium 2 

(EMME2), IDAS1, and VISUM.

• Analytical/deterministic tools (HCM Based) – Most analytical/deterministic tools 

implement the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). HCM procedures 

are closed-form, macroscopic, deterministic, and static analytical procedures that 

estimate capacity and performance measures to determine the level of service (e.g., 

density, speed, and delay). They are closed-form because they are not iterative. The 

practitioner inputs the data and parameters and, after a sequence of analytical steps, the 

HCM procedures produce a single answer. Moreover, HCM procedures are macroscopic 

(inputs and outputs deal with average performance during a 15-minute or a one-hour 

1

 The ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) may be classified as both a sketch-planning tool and a travel 

demand model, because it uses sketch-planning methods to estimate the benefits and costs of ITS/operational 

strategies using a travel demand model as the base.

Appendix B-1
analysis period), deterministic (any given set of inputs will always yield the same 

answer), and static (they predict average operating conditions over a fixed time period 

and do not deal with transitions in operations from one state to another). As such, 

these tools quickly predict capacity, density, speed, delay, and queuing on a variety 

of transportation facilities and are validated with field data, laboratory test beds, or 

small-scale experiments. Analytical/deterministic tools are good for analyzing the 

performance of isolated or small-scale transportation facilities, but are limited in their 

ability to analyze network or system effects. Examples of analytical/deterministic tools 

include Highway Capacity Software (HCS), Synchro, and the TEAPAC suite of programs.

• Traffic signal optimization tools – Traffic signal optimization tools are similar to 

analytical/deterministic tools, and are largely based on HCM procedures. However, 

traffic signal optimization tools are primarily designed to develop optimal signal 

phasings and timing plans for isolated signal intersections, arterial streets, or signal 

networks. Some optimization tools can also be used for optimizing ramp metering 

rates for freeway ramp control. The more advanced traffic signal optimization tools are 

capable of modeling actuated and semi-actuated traffic signals, with or without signal 

coordination. Examples of traffic signal optimization tools include Progression Analysis 

and Signal System Evaluation Routine (PASSER), Signal Operations Analysis Package 

(SOAP), Synchro, Traffic Network Study Tool (TRANSYT-7F), Time-Space Diagram for 

Windows (TSDWin), and the TEAPAC suite of programs.

• Macroscopic simulation models – Macroscopic simulation models are based on 

deterministic relationships of flow, speed, and density of the traffic stream. The 

simulation in a macroscopic model takes place on a section-by-section basis rather 

than tracking individual vehicles. Macroscopic simulation models were originally 

developed to model traffic in distinct transportation subnetworks, such as freeways, 

corridors (including freeways and parallel arterials), surface street grid networks, and 

rural highways. They consider platoons of vehicles and simulate traffic flow in small 

time increments. Macroscopic simulation models operate on the basis of aggregate 

speed/volume and demand/capacity relationships. Macroscopic models have 

considerably less demanding computer requirements than microscopic models. They 

do not, however, have the ability to analyze transportation improvements in as much 

detail as microscopic models, and do not consider trip generation, trip distribution, 

and mode choice in their evaluation of changes in transportation systems. Examples 

of macroscopic simulation models include Bottleneck Traffic Simulator (BTS), Freeway 

Corridor Simulation Model (FREQ), Corridor Flow Simulation Software (CORFLO), 

PASSER, and TRANSYT-7F.

• Mesoscopic simulation models – Mesoscopic models combine properties of both 

microscopic (discussed below) and macroscopic simulation models. As in microscopic 

models, the mesoscopic models’ unit of traffic flow is the individual vehicle. Similar 

to microscopic simulation models, mesoscopic tools assign vehicle types and driver 

behavior, as well as their relationships with the roadway characteristics. Their 

movement, however, follows the approach of macroscopic models and is governed by 

the average speed on the travel link. Mesoscopic model travel prediction takes place 

at an aggregate level, and does not consider dynamic speed/volume relationships. 

As such, mesoscopic models provide less accuracy than microsimulation tools, 

but are superior to typical planning analysis techniques. Examples of mesoscopic 

models include Continuous Traffic Assignment Model (CONTRAM), and Dynamic 

Network Assignment Simulation Model for Advanced Road Telematics for Planning 

(DYNASMART-P).

Appendix B-2
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

• Microscopic simulation models – Microscopic simulation models simulate the 

movement of individual vehicles, based on theories of car-following and lanechanging. Typically, vehicles enter a transportation network using a statistical 

distribution of arrivals (a stochastic process), and are tracked through the network 

over small time intervals (e.g., one second or fraction of a second). Typically, upon 

entry, each vehicle is assigned a destination, a vehicle type, and a driver type. In many 

microscopic simulation models, the traffic operational characteristics of each vehicle 

are influenced by vertical grade, horizontal curvature, and super-elevation, based on 

relationships developed in prior research. Computer time and storage requirements 

for microscopic models are large, usually limiting the network size and the number of 

simulation runs that can be completed. Examples of microscopic simulation models 

include Traffic Software Integrated System/Corridor Simulation (TSIS/CORSIM), 

INTEGRATION, SimTraffic, Wide Area Traffic Simulation (WATSim), VISSIM, and 

Parallel Microscopic Traffic Simulator (PARAMICS).

More information on traffic analysis tools can be found on the FHWA Office of 

Operations Traffic Analysis Tools web site, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/

trafficanalysistools/index.htm (Accessed 9/16/05).

Work Zone Specific Analysis Tools

• QuickZone is a work zone delay estimation model developed by the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) program. 

QuickZone was developed to help State and local transportation agencies better 

understand and consider the impacts of work zones as they plan, design, and 

implement their highway projects. QuickZone can help enable the consideration of the 

work zone impacts of alternate work zone design and mitigation strategies. QuickZone 

provides this capability to project planners and engineers, whereby they can obtain 

an estimate of delay, queuing, and user costs associated with alternate work zone 

design and mitigation strategies. The ability to estimate these work zone impacts at 

the early planning and design stages will facilitate better decision-making that will 

ultimately improve the operational performance of highways during construction and 

maintenance activities, and minimize the impacts on road users and businesses.

QuickZone provides analysis options to estimate work zone delays and user costs 

for different demand patterns and for temporal (seasonal, weekly, daily) and spatial 

variations of work zone configurations. It can quantify corridor delay resulting 

from capacity decreases in work zones; identify the impact on delay of alternative 

construction phasing plans; and support tradeoff analyses between construction costs 

and delay costs. Work zone impacts and costs are estimated for an average day of 

work, which can then be amortized to get an estimate of average annual costs based 

on a user-specified life-cycle for the improvement. It can assess the impact of delaymitigation strategies, such as alternate routing, signal re-timing, lane widening, and 

ramp metering. In addition to estimating work zone delays and user costs, QuickZone 

also provides a sketch-planning analysis of travel behavioral changes in response to 

work zones. QuickZone also supports the calculation of work-completion incentives.

Appendix B-3
The software will therefore help highway agencies better phase and stage their 

construction and maintenance activities. For example, QuickZone enables road 

owners and contractors to compare the effects of doing highway work at night instead 

of during the day, or that of diverting traffic to one road versus another road at various 

stages of construction2. Information on QuickZone can be found at http://www.tfhrc.

gov/its/quickzon.htm (Accessed 09/16/05).

• QUEWZ-98 is a microcomputer analysis tool for planning and scheduling freeway 

work zone lane closures. It analyzes traffic conditions on a freeway segment with and 

without a lane closure in place and provides estimates of the additional road user 

costs and of the queuing resulting from a work zone lane closure. The road user costs 

calculated include travel time, vehicle operating costs, and excess emissions. A user’s 

manual for QUEWZ-98 is available. After describing the capabilities and input data 

requirements of QUEWZ-98, it provides instructions on using Q98MENU, a menudriven user interface, to run QUEWZ-98. It also includes three examples to illustrate 

the various input and output options that are available. QUEWZ-98 can be obtained 

from McTrans at http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/ (Accessed 09/16/05).

• Construction Analysis for Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies (CA4PRS) is a computer 

model intended to estimate the maximum amount (distance) of highway that can 

be rehabilitated or reconstructed within various closure timeframes. This model 

integrates pavement, construction, and traffic related decision-making by balancing 

numerous constraints such as scheduling interfaces, pavement materials and design, 

contractor logistics and resources, and traffic operations. When combined with a 

traffic model, the CA4PRS software can help determine which pavement structures 

and rehabilitation strategies maximize on-schedule construction production without 

creating unacceptable traffic delays. More information on CA4PRS is available at 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/roadway/ca4prs/ca4prs.htm (Accessed 01/06/06), 

and http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~eblee/CA4PRS.htm (Accessed 01/06/06).

Additional information on work zone analysis tools can be found at the Work Zone & 

Traffic Analysis/Management section of the FHWA work zone web site, available at 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/traffic_analysis.htm (Accessed 06/05/06). 

Choice of Analysis Tools

There is no one analytical tool that can do everything or solve every problem. The 

method or tool selected for any analysis should be consistent with the analysis needs 

and fit within budget and resource requirements. Using too complex of a tool for 

the analysis needs, such as using a microsimulation tool for preliminary screening of 

scenarios, may result in a poor use of resources. At the same time, using too simplistic 

of a tool for the situation, for example using a travel demand model for detailed design 

of an operational strategy, may result in inaccurate or unreliable results. 

Appendix B-4 2

 FHWA News Release, FHWA Software Package Estimates Work Zone Traffic Delays, April 5, 2002.
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Some tools, such as IDAS and DYNASMART-P, were not designed specifically for work 

zones but they can be used to analyze work zone situations. For example, IDAS may be 

used to analyze work zone situations in a planning context for a sketch-planning level 

analysis, while DYNASMART-P may be used to perform a more detailed operational 

analysis on a dynamic (time-varying) basis.

The FHWA Traffic Analysis Toolbox provides reference information on current tools and 

also presents a needs-based framework for selecting the appropriate tools. The Toolbox 

provides a spreadsheet-based tool selection framework that is based on user-specific 

analysis needs and criteria. The Toolbox is available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/

trafficanalysistools/toolbox.htm (accessed 06/05/06). 

Appendix B-5

WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Appendix C – Resources Referenced in 

This Document

The following resources were referenced in examples throughout this Guide.

A. Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook, 

Federal Highway Administration, April 2000

Many of the examples referenced in this Guide come from the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook (http://www.ops.fhwa.

dot.gov/wz/practices/best/Default.htm). This guidebook is a resource designed to 

give state and local transportation agencies, construction contractors, transportation 

planners, trainers, and others access to information and points of contact about current 

helpful practices for achieving work zone safety and mobility. The best practice entries 

describe approaches used by transportation agencies, along with contact information. 

Each organization must determine which of these practices are best suited for its 

particular situation, considering all the factors that affect work zone operations. Each 

best practice entry describes some of these factors for consideration.

The best practices are organized by the following 11 categories:

• Policy and Procedures

• Public Relations, Education, and Outreach 

• Prediction Modeling and Impact Analysis: Congestion and Crashes

• Planning and Programming

• Project Development and Design

• Contracting and Bidding Procedures

• Construction/Maintenance Materials, Methods, and Specification 

• Traveler and Traffic Information

• Enforcement

• ITS and Innovative Technology

• Evaluation and Feedback

From http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/practices/best/bestpractices.htm, users can 

access an online (html) version of the Guidebook that enables searching for practices. 

Searches can be done using the 11 categories, through several cross-references (e.g., 

State/agency using the practice), by a subject index, or through a keyword search of 

all best practices. A PDF version of the Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook is also 

available at this site and can be downloaded.

Appendix C-1
	 B. Comments in Response to the FHWA 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) on Work Zone Safety and 

Mobility

1. California Department of Transportation, June 6, 2002, URL: http://dmses.dot.gov/

docimages/pdf81/176155_web.pdf

2. Virginia Department of Transportation, June 6, 2002, URL: http://dmses.dot.gov/

docimages/pdf81/176059_web.pdf

3. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, May 31, 2002, URL: http://dmses.dot.

gov/docimages/pdf81/176160_web.pdf

	 C. Comments in Response to the FHWA 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on 

Work Zone Safety and Mobility

4. Florida Department of Transportation, August 5, 2003, URL: http://dmses.dot.gov/

docimages/pdf87/250607_web.pdf

5. New York State Department of Transportation, August 5, 2003, URL: http://dmses.

dot.gov/docimages/pdf81/175976_web.pdf

D. Publications and Presentations

6. “A Computer Simulation Model: Construction Analysis for Pavement 

Rehabilitation Strategies (CA4PRS), ” Report Prepared for California Department 

of Transportation, University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Transportation 

Studies, Pavement Research Center, February 2004, URL: http://www.ce.berkeley.

edu/~eblee/CA4PRSModel_Tech_021204.pdf 

7. “A Quality Assurance Program for Work Zone Traffic Control, ” Transportation 

Research Board (TRB) Transportation Research Record 1745, 2001, contact Mr. 

Charles Riedel at NYSDOT at criedel@dot.state.ny.us or at 518-457-2185 to obtain 

copies.

8. “AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, Chapter 9, Traffic Barriers, Traffic Control 

Devices, and Other Safety Features for Work Zones, ” American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2002, URL: http://bookstore.

transportation.org

9. “Benefit/Cost Analysis of the Temporary Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) 

for the Reconstruction of I-496, Lansing, Michigan,” Michigan Department of 

Transportation, November 2001. 

10. “Chapter 81 of the Indiana Design Manual, Transportation Management Plans,” 

Indiana Department of Transportation, September 2005, URL: http://www.in.gov/

dot/div/contracts/standards/dm/Part%208/Ch%2081/Ch81.pdf

Appendix C-2
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

11. “Construction and Maintenance Fact Sheets, Optimizing Highway Performance, 

Partnering for Work Zone Safety in South Carolina,” U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, December 1998, URL: http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/construction/fs98001.pdf

12. “Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones,” 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, December 2005, 

URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

13. “Facilities Development Manual, Procedure 11-50-22, Chapter 11 Design, Section 

50 General Design Considerations, Subject 22 Work Zone Traffic Congestion and 

Mitigation,” Wisconsin Department of Transportation, February 2003.

14. “Full Road Closure Case Studies,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 2004, URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/construction/

full_rd_closures.htm

15. “Government for the People for a Change, Volume 4, Issues and Recommendation, 

INF12 Improve Efficiency of Extra Enforcement Program in Highway Work Zones 

with Fewer Resources,” California Performance Review, 2004, URL: http://cpr.ca.gov/

report/cprrpt/issrec/inf/inf12.htm

16. “Guidelines for Developing Traffic Incident Management Plans for Work Zones,” 

Colorado Department of Transportation, September 2003, URL: http://www.dot.

state.co.us/Traffic_Manuals_Guidelines/incident_management_guidelines/incident_

management_guidelines_20030919.pdf

17. “I-70 Mountain Corridor Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), 

Construction Traffic Impact Mitigation Strategies,” Colorado Department of 

Transportation, April 13, 2005, URL: http://www.i70mtncorridor.com/documents/

12%7EConstruction_Mitigation.pdf

18. “Identification of Hazards Associated with Mobile and Short Duration Work Zones, 

Report Number: 4174-1,” Texas Transportation Institute, September 2003, URL: 

http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4174-1.pdf

19. “Identification of Traffic Control Devices for Mobile and Short Duration Work 

Operations, Working Paper: Evaluation Criteria and Analysis,” New Jersey Department 

of Transportation, City College of New York, NC State University Centennial Campus, 

May 24, 2004, URL: http://www.utrc2.org/research/assets/97/wz-criteriawp1.pdf

20. “Implementing the Rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility,” U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 2005, URL: http://www.

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

21. “Intelligent Transportation Systems in Work Zones: A Case Study. Work Zone Traffic 

and Incident Management System,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 2004, URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/its/index.htm

22. “Intelligent Transportation Systems in Work Zones: A Cross-Cutting Study,” U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2002, URL: http://

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/its/index.htm

Appendix C-3
23. “ITS Deployment Analysis System Case Study 2: Michigan Department of 

Transportation Evaluation of the Temporary ITS for the Reconstruction of 

I-496 in Lansing, Michigan,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, April 2002, URL: http://www.camsys.com/idas/CaseStudies/

CaseStudy2/caseStudyFrame.htm

24. “Missouri Department of Transportation Work Zone Guidelines,” Missouri 

Department of Transportation, 2004, URL: http://www.modot.org/business/

documents/MoDOTWorkZonesGuidelines.pdf 

25. “MUTCD 2003 Edition Revision 1,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 2003, URL: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

26. “Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Planning Practice: A Peer 

Exchange,” Transportation Research Board (TRB) Transportation Research Circular 

E-C073, May 2005, URL: http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=5022

27. “Policy on Traffic Management in Work Zones Interstate and Other Freeways, Policy 

No.: 516-003(P),” Ohio Department of Transportation, July 18, 2000, URL: http://

www.dot.state.oh.us/Policy/516-003p.pdf 

28. “Project Development Process Manual,” Texas Department of Transportation, 

August 1, 2003, URL: http://manuals.dot.state.tx.us/dynaweb/coldesig/pdp/@

Generic__BookView

29. “Report 476: Guidelines for Design and Operation of Nighttime Traffic Control for 

Highway Maintenance and Construction,” National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP), 2002, URL: http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_476.pdf

30. “Traffic Control Handbook for Mobile Operations at Night,” U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2003, contact the FHWA Office of 

Safety (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov) to obtain this publication.

31. “Traffic Management Guidelines for Work on Roadways,” British Columbia Ministry 

of Transportation, September 2001, URL: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/

eng_publications/geomet/traffic_mgmt_guidelines.pdf

32. “Transportation Management Plans Effectiveness Study,” Presentation given by 

Robert Copp, California Department of Transportation, at the TRB 2004 Annual 

Meeting, Session 526: Work Zone Impacts – A New Frontier. 

33. “Work Zone Public Information and Outreach Strategies,” U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, November 2005, URL: http://ops.

fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

34. “Work Zone Safety Guidelines for Construction, Maintenance, and Utility 

Operations,” Wisconsin Department of Transportation, January 2003, URL: 

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/publications/format/books/wzsguide.pdf

35. “Work Zone Traffic Control Guidelines, M54-44,” Washington State Department 

of Transportation, January 2005, URL: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fasc/

EngineeringPublications/Manuals/Workzone.pdf

Appendix C-4
WORK ZONE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

E. Training

36. Work Zone Traffic Control for Maintenance Operations (Short-Term), National 

Highway Institute (NHI) Course, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, URL: “http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/training/

brows_catalog.aspx. Enter 380060 in the Course Number box and click “Search.”

F. Web Sites

37. 511 Web Site, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 

URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/travelinfo/about/about511.htm

38. AHMCT Research Center at UC-Davis, a joint program of University of California 

(UC), Davis and the California Department of Transportation, URL: http://www.

ahmct.ucdavis.edu/index.htm?pg=Cones

39. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

Quality Information Center, URL: http://www.transportation1.org/quality/

40. Best Practices Inventory of Performance Measurement Practices in Other State 

Departments of Transportation, Washington State Department of Transportation, 

URL: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/library/default.htm

41. CA4PRS Web Sites, URLs: http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/roadway/ca4prs/

ca4prs.htm and http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~eblee/CA4PRS.htm

42. DYNASMART-P Web Site, University of Maryland, URL: http://www.dynasmart.com

43. Guidance on Innovative Contracting, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/contracting/

index.htm

44. Highways for LIFE Web Site, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl

45. Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) Web Site, 

URL: http://idas.camsys.com/

46. ITS Benefits and Costs Web Site, U.S. Department of Transportation, ITS Joint 

Program Office, URL: http://www.benefitcost.its.dot.gov/

47. Mobility Performance Measures Web Site, Florida Department of Transportation, 

URL: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/mobilitymeasures/default.

htm

48. NEPA Web Site, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, URL: http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/index.asp

49. New York State Thruway Reconstruction Project Between Interchanges 23 and 24 

Web Site, New York State Thruway Authority, URL: http://www.thruway.state.

ny.us/projectsandstudies/projects/i23-i24/index.html

50. Office of Planning Web Site, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/index.htm

Appendix C-5
51. Online Performance Measurement Exchange, TRB Performance Measurement 

Committee and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 

URL: http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/pm.nsf/home

52. Performance Measurement Web Site, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/

index.htm

53. QUEWZ-93, McTrans, URL: http://mctrans.ce.ufl.edu/

54. QuickZone Web Site, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, URL: http://www.tfhrc.gov/its/quickzon.htm

55. The National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse, Work Zone Crash/

Accident Data, URL: http://wzsafety.tamu.edu/crash_data/

56. Traffic Analysis Tools Web Site, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, URL: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/trafficanalysistools/index.htm

57. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Performance Measurement Committee (A5022/

ABC30), URL: http://www.trb-performancemeasurement.org/

58. Transportation System Performance Measures Web Site, California Department of 

Transportation, URL: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tspm/index.htm

59. Value Engineering Web Site, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/index.htm

60. Work Zone Rule Web Site, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/final_rule.htm

61. Work Zone Self Assessment, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/decision_support/

self-assess.htm

Appendix C-6

Technical Report Documentation Page

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

6. Performing Organization Code

8. Performing Organization Report No.

7. Author(s)

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

17. Key Words

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

FHWA-HOP-05-068

Work Zone Impacts Assessment – An Approach to Assess and Manage Work Zone 

Safety and Mobility Impacts of Road Projects

Param Sankar and Krista Jeannotte – Cambridge Systematics

Jeffrey P. Arch, P.E., and Marcelino Romero – PB Farradyne

James E. Bryden 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Office of Operations

400 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

May 2006

HOTO

This Guide is designed to help transportation agencies develop and/or update their own procedures for assessing and 

managing the work zone impacts of their road projects throughout the different program delivery stages. Understanding 

work zone impacts is critical to developing effective work zone transportation management plans (TMPs) that provide for 

safety, mobility, and quality in maintaining, rehabilitating, and rebuilding the nation’s highways. The primary intended 

audience for this Guide is transportation agency staff, including technical staff (planners, designers, construction/traffic 

engineers, highway/safety engineers, etc.); management and executive-level staff responsible for setting policy and 

program direction; field staff responsible for building projects and managing work zones; and staff responsible for assessing 

performance in these areas.

This document also provides support to agencies in their efforts to implement the recently updated work zone regulations. 

In September 2004, the FHWA published updates to the work zone regulations at 23 CFR 630 Subpart J. The updated rule 

is referred to as the Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule (Rule) and applies to all State and local governments that receive 

Federal-aid highway funding. Transportation agencies are required to comply with the provisions of the Rule by October 12, 

2007. The changes made to the regulations broaden the former Rule to better address the work zone issues of today and the 

future.

The Rule provides a decision-making framework that facilitates comprehensive consideration of the broader safety and 

mobility impacts of work zones across project development stages, and the adoption of additional strategies that help 

manage these impacts during project implementation. The Rule requires agencies to develop an agency-level work zone 

safety and mobility policy to support systematic consideration and management of work zone impacts across all stages of 

project development. Based on the policy, agencies will develop processes and procedures to support implementation of 

the policy. These include procedures that address work zone impacts assessment, work zone data, work zone training, and 

process reviews. The Rule also calls for the development of project-level procedures to help agencies assess and manage the 

work zone impacts of individual projects. While the Rule does not require a specific work zone impacts assessment process/

procedure, it recommends that agencies develop and implement systematic procedures to assess work zone impacts in 

project development, and to manage safety and mobility during project implementation.

This document is the last of four guidance documents developed on the Rule, and provides a general approach for 

conducting work zone impacts assessment and management, as well as many examples of the approaches currently being 

used by transportation agencies.

18. Distribution Statement

Work zone, safety, mobility, road construction, road 

projects, work zone impacts, impacts assessment, work 

zone management strategies, work zone policy, regulation, 

rule, guidance

No restrictions. This document is available to the public.

Unclassified Unclassified 177

FHWA Project Leader – Tracy Scriba, FHWA

DTFH61-01-C-00181
Office of Transportation Operations

Room 3408

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Toll-Free Help Line: (866) 367-7487

www.fhwa.dot.gov/workzones

FHWA-HOP-05-068
Notice

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to 

serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically 

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure 

continuous quality improvement.