NOTICE

Th is document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. Th e U.S. Government assumes 

no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.

Th e U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential 

to the objective of the document.

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

Th e Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 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.

Source: Cover image, interior images, and sidebar images, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
i

Table of Contents

Defining Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................................. 1

Determining Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) ................................................................................... 1

Identifying Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Alternatives ......................................................................... 1

Conducting Fatal Flaw Analysis ............................................................................................................. 1

Establishing an MOTAA and Decision Framework Process ................................................................. 2

Identifying Work Zone Traffic Analysis Tool Types ............................................................................... 3

Selecting the Appropriate Traffic Analysis Tool .................................................................................... 3

Identifying Key Considerations for Modeling Approach ....................................................................... 4

Establishing Model Development and Application Process ................................................................ 5

Reconciling Inconsistencies and Conducting Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................... 6

Identifying Factors for Alternative Recommendation ......................................................................... 7

Establishing an MOTAA Decision Framework ....................................................................................... 7

Referencing Checklists .......................................................................................................................... 8

Developing Analysis Report Structure .................................................................................................. 9

Case Studies ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 10
ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: MOTAA and Decision Framework Flowchart ....................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Work Zone Modeling Spectrum ........................................................................................... 3

Figure 3: Framework for Identifying Appropriate Modeling Tool for Work Zones ............................. 3

Figure 4: Typical Model Development and Application Process for Work Zone Analysis ................ 5

Figure 5: Sample Analysis Report ....................................................................................................... 9

List of Tables

Table 1: Capacity of Long-Term Work Zones (PCPHPL)...................................................................... 4

Table 2: Typical Parameters to Adjust for Work Zone Analysis in Microsimulation Software .......... 6

Table 3: Decision Framework Methodologies .................................................................................... 7

Table 4: Example Application of Simple Additive Weighing (SAW) Method ...................................... 8

Table 5: Microscopic Simulation Model Development and Application – Checklist ........................ 8

Table 6: Work Zone Analysis Examples ............................................................................................ 10
1

Defining Goals and Objectives

Before starting a work zone traffic analysis, it 

is important to define the goals and objectives 

of the analysis. By establishing a set of goals 

and objectives, an agency has a clear vision 

on what needs to be evaluated, such as the 

traffic impacts, benefits, and costs of the work 

zone project.

Determining Measures of 

Effectiveness (MOE)

Once goals and objectives have been established, MOEs and thresholds should be set 

to determine the performance standards for 

the mobility, safety, and constructability of the 

work zone. The MOEs and thresholds selected 

should be customized to the agency’s goals 

and project characteristics. The MOEs and 

thresholds set a minimum performance 

standard that the objectives should meet 

or exceed. 

Identifying Maintenance of Traffic 

(MOT) Alternatives

MOT alternatives generally have the following 

five factors: 

1) Construction approach; 

2) Traffic control and operations; 

3) Public information and outreach; 

4) Incident management and enforcement; and 

5) Travel demand management (TDM).

Conducting Fatal Flaw Analysis

Once identified, the preliminary MOT alternatives are first evaluated to determine if an 

alternative has a “fatal flaw” i.e., some factor 

that renders the alternative infeasible. These 

factors may include constructability, schedule, 

and cost. If a fatal flaw is found, the alternative 

EXAMPLE: GOALS & OBJECTIVES

• Goal: Keep work zone congestion at preconstruction levels. 

• Objectives: Optimize lane closure strategies; determine the 

impact of detours; and evaluate alternative work schedules 

(i.e., nighttime, weekend work).

EXAMPLE MOE: 

OHIO DOT QUEUE THRESHOLDS

• For queues less than 0.75 miles, the work 

zone impacts are acceptable.

• For queues greater than 0.75 miles 

and less than 1.5 miles, the work zone 

impacts are acceptable if the queue 

exceeds 0.75 miles for 2 hours or less. 

Where queues are expected to exceed 

0.75 miles for any period of time, 

additional advanced work zone warning 

signing should be specified.

• For queues longer than 0.75 miles for 

more than 2 hours or longer than 1.5 

miles for any period of time, the work zone 

impacts are unacceptable.

Work Zone Traffi c Analysis (WZTA) is the process of analyzing the work zone 

traffi c impacts and related impact mitigation strategies of construction, 

maintenance, or rehabilitation projects. The purpose of this document is 

to provide guidance on work zone traffi c analysis applications and decision 

framework. It serves as a useful resource for practitioners in understanding 

the analytical methods involved in conducting a work zone traffi c analysis.

Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume XII

Work Zone Traffi c Analysis –

Applications and Decisions Framework
2

is dismissed from further consideration. While 

this review may result in the elimination of 

alternatives, it also can result in refinement 

of the proposed alternatives. However, care 

must be taken not to cut too deeply with the 

fatal flaw analysis process as some of the 

more innovative strategies, which may utilize 

unconventional approaches, could be lost.

Establishing an MOTAA 

and Decision Framework Process

Figure 1 presents typical steps involved in the 

application of a maintenance of traffic alternatives analysis (MOTAA) and decision framework. While work zone traffic analysis can 

vary in complexity, there are common steps 

that can be categorized into the 

following stages: 

Define the Problem

Scope the Project

Determine Criteria,

MOEs, and Thresholds

Monitor Work Zone

Conduct Post

Implementation Review

Determine Optimal Alternative

Using Decision Framework

Determine Mitigation

Strategy

Determine Analysis Tool(s)

Identify Alternative

Fail

Pass

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Conduct Fatal Flaw Analysis

Calibrate Model

Develop Alternative Model

Obtain Model Output

Validate Model

Does Model Output Match Data?

Continue Analysis

Does Another Feasible 

Alternative Exist?

Evaluate Implementation

Will Alternative Be Used

 In Construction?

Evaluate Alternatives

Does Alternative Meet

Needed Threshold?

Continue Development

Are Additional Alternative Needed?

Identify Data Needs

Collect Data

Develop Baseline Model

BEGIN

WORK ZONE

ANALYSIS

REJECT

ALTERNATIVE

RECOMMEND

ALTERNATIVE

ANALYSIS

COMPLETE

Figure 1: MOTAA and Decision Framework Flowchart

(Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.)
3

1) Project planning and data collection; 

2) Work zone impacts analysis; 

3) Decision-making criteria;

4) Impact mitigation; and

5) Monitoring and post-implementation.

Identifying Work Zone Traffic 

Analysis Tool Types 

Figure 2 depicts a continuum of traffic analysis tools from simple to complex. Simpler tools 

include the categories of HCM and sketch 

planning, travel demand models, and signal 

optimization tools, while the more complex 

tools include macro-, meso-, and micro-scopic 

simulation software. 

The spectrum includes several commonly 

used transportation analysis tools for 

assessing the impacts of roadway 

construction projects. As the diagram 

shows, the resources needed increase with 

the increase in complexity of the tool.

Sketch-planning Travel Demand Signal Optimization Macro Meso Micro

EMME/2

Dynasmart

SYNCHRO CORSIM

SIMPLE

COMPLEX

Highway Capacity

Manual Quick Zone

HCS 2000

Each tool is unique and has its own set of 

capabilities and limitations. There are many 

factors that go into determining which tool is 

right for the work zone analysis, and there is 

no “one-size-fits-all” approach. More than one 

tool might be needed to address the analysis 

needs, particularly as the project progresses 

from planning to design to construction. A 

step-by-step guidance has been developed to 

assist the analyst in determining the suitable 

tool(s) to perform work zone analysis. Figure 3 

illustrates the seven factors involved to assist 

the analyst in identifying the most appropriate 

modeling tool(s). 

Selecting the Appropriate Traffic Analysis Tool

Figure 2: Work Zone Modeling Spectrum

If Insufficient

If Insufficient

Score Work Zone Factors Identify Strategic

Methodology

Work Zone

Scoping Worksheet

Select Modeling

Approach & Justify

Project Stages

Facility Types

Tool Features

Agency Resources

Work Zone

Characteristics

Performance Measures

Transportation

Management Plan (TMP)

Challenge

Factors &

Resources

Figure 3: Framework for Identifying Appropriate Modeling Tool for Work Zones

(Source: Hardy and Wunderlich, 2009.)

(Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.)
4

The tool selection process involves four 

major steps: 

1) assign criteria relevance weight; 

2) assign tool relevance values; 

3) calculate criteria score; and 

4) calculate total score.

The tool type(s) with the highest totals are the 

most appropriate tools for the work zone analysis. A work zone analysis scoring worksheet 

is provided to assist in selecting the analysis 

tool(s) using the proposed methodology. An 

example is provided in order to demonstrate 

the steps of this approach.

Identifying Key Considerations

for Modeling Approach

After a suitable analysis tool is selected, the 

next step is to determine the impacts of a 

work zone. Key considerations when applying 

various modeling tools for work zone traffic 

analysis are discussed. In particular, roadway 

capacity is one of the most important factors 

in work zone analysis. Table 1 lists work zone 

lane capacity defaults for use based on previous studies for long-term work zones (in passenger cars per hour per lane or PCPHPL). It is 

strongly recommended, though, that local data 

at work zones be collected and used instead 

whenever possible and applicable. Some 

state DOTs and other agencies may have their 

own guidelines on work zone capacity and 

related defaults. In the absence of better 

local data, the analyst may use these 

defaults as the starting point and make necessary adjustments accordingly to reflect local 

work zone conditions.

 NORMAL LANES TO REDUCED LANES

Default Type 2-1 3-2 3-1 4-3 4-2 4-1

Range 1,200-1,800 1,300-1,600 1,200-1,800 1,300-1,600 1,300-1,600 1,200-1,600

Single Value 1,400 1,450 1,450 1,500 1,450 1,350

Table 1: Capacity of Long-Term Work Zones (PCPHPL)

Some other key considerations covered in 

the document include: 

• Study network;

• Variability of capacity and time-of-day models;

• Analysis period; 

• Changes in traffic pattern;

• Data collection;

• Error checking;

• Number of runs; 

• Dynamic traffic assignment (DTA); 

• Network convergence; 

• Model calibration; and

• Level of effort.

(Source: Transportation Research Board, 2011. Weng and Meng, 2011. WSDOT Work Zone Safety and Mobility, 2009.)
5

The overall process of developing and applying models to work zone 

analysis is illustrated in a flowchart (Figure 4). The major tasks involved 

in the process include: 

1) Identification of project 

scope and data collection; 

2) Existing conditions 

model development 

and calibration; 

3) Work zone base conditions 

mode development 

and calibration; 

4) Alternatives analysis; and 

5) Final report/technical 

documentation.

Each tool has its own set of 

parameters that may need to be 

adjusted for work zone analysis. 

For instance, Table 2 lists major 

parameters that the analyst may 

adjust for several commonly 

used microsimulation 

software packages.

No

Project Scope &

Data Collection

Existing Conditions Model

Development (“No Build”)

Calibrated Mode

(“No Build”)

Compare Model MOEs

to Field Data

Compare Model MOEs

to Field Data

Calibrated Mode

(Work Zone Base)

Work Zone Base

Conditions Model

Final Report/

Technical Documentation

Alternatives Analysis

Acceptable Match

Initial Modeling

Existing Conditions

Model Calibration

Model

Application

Adjustment Model

Parameters

No

Adjustment Model

Parameters

Acceptable Match

Work Zone Base 

Conditions Model 

Development & 

Calibration

Figure 4: Typical Model Development and Application Process 

 for Work Zone Analysis

Establishing Model Development and Application Process

(Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.)
6

Throughout the project development process, 

different analysis tools may be used which 

may produce inconsistent output. For 

instance, one tool may use a jam density of 

190 vehicles/mile (or 28 feet/vehicle) while 

the other may use 250 vehicles/mile 

(or 21 feet/vehicle). This would result in 

inconsistent queue length estimation. This 

guidebook highlights various ways to 

reconcile inconsistencies.

Input data (e.g., traffic demand and capacity) 

are often subject to uncertainty, which results 

in uncertainties in model output (e.g., delay 

and queue length). Sensitivity analysis is suggested to improve understanding of the effect 

of these potential variations on model output 

and the following assessment of impacts 

and benefits.

Reconciling Inconsistencies and Conducting Sensitivity Analysis

Table 2: Typical Parameters to Adjust for Work Zone Analysis in Microsimulation Software

PARAMETERS

MICROSIMULATION

SOFTWARE

SPEED CAR-FOLLOWING

LANE-CHANGING

(BEFORE APPROACHING

WORK ZONE)

AIMSUN • Maximum speed

• Turn speed at 

intersections

• Lane speed limit 

• Reaction time factor

• Minimum headways

• Maximum delay time to 

remove vehicles

• Look ahead distance

• Lane changing model

• Lane selection model

• Global reaction time and 

local reaction time factor

CORSIM • Speed limit • Car-following sensitivity

• Headway factor by 

vehicle type 

• Rubbernecking factor

• Time to complete lane 

change maneuver

• Percentage of drivers 

yielding the right-of way 

to lane changing vehicles

• Gap acceptance

PARAMICS • Speed limit

• Roadway type

• Headway factor

• Reaction factor

• Lane choice

• Signposting

VISSIM • Reduced speed area

• Desired speed 

decision

• Standstill distance (CC0)

• Headway time (CC1)

• Following variation (CC2)

• Look-back distance

• Safety distance 

reduction factor

• Waiting time before 

diffusion

• Maximum deceleration

TRANSMODELER • Lane width factor

• Tunnel factor

• Max speed 

difference

• Speed limit

• Desired speed model

• Headway thresholds

• Look ahead

• Critical distance
7

Identifying Factors for 

Alternative Recommendation 

In addition to the mobility-based performance 

measures (e.g., delay, queue length, and 

speed), a variety of quantitative and qualitative 

factors that may be considered in an MOTAA 

also are presented in this document. These 

factors include environmental and land use 

impacts, project costs, safety, surrogate safety 

measures, and road user costs (RUC).

Work Zone Road User Cost (WZ RUC) is 

defined as the incremental cost or value 

incurred by highway users and the community 

at-large as a result of a work zone alternative. 

It primarily refers to monetary and nonmonetary components of work zone impacts, 

e.g., delay cost (passenger cars and trucks), 

vehicle operating cost, and crash cost. The 

costs of such impacts can be used for multiple 

applications such as evaluation of different 

work zone alternatives, assessment of acceleration construction techniques, and computation of incentives/disincentives.

Establishing an MOTAA 

Decision Framework

After models are developed and alternatives 

are analyzed, a set of performance measures 

are generated which can be used to determine how well the alternative meets the goals 

and objectives of the project using a decision 

framework. A typical decision framework often 

has two levels of analysis:

• Level 1: Factor prioritization analysis methods that prioritize and/or assign weights to 

the factors that are used to compare and 

evaluate potential work zone alternatives.

• Level 2: Scoring techniques for recommending alternatives which provide the 

structure for the decision framework. 

Table 3 lists typical methodologies used for 

both levels of analysis in a decision framework. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK METHODS

LEVEL 1: 

Factor Prioritization Methods

• Delphi

• Factor Analysis

• Ranking

• Ratio

• Paired Comparison Analysis

• 100-Point Distribution

LEVEL 2: 

Scoring Techniques

• Simple Additive Weighting (SAW)

• Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

• Kepner Tregoe (KT) Method

• Benefi t/Cost Analysis

Table 3: Decision Framework Methodologies
8

CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS

ALTERNATIVE

SPEED 

REDUCTION 

POTENTIALS

(0.27)

CAPITAL AND 

O&M COSTS

(0.33)

QUEUE 

LENGTH

(0.20)

TRAVEL 

TIMES

(0.13)

PROJECT 

DURATION

(0.07)

TOTAL

WEIGHTED

SCORE

1 25 20 15 30 15 21.30

2 10 30 20 30 30 22.60

3 30 10 30 10 10 19.40

Referencing Checklists

A high-level checklist for performing work zone traffic analysis is provided in the document 

for each modeling tool type for quick reference. Table 5 provides a sample checklist for 

microscopic simulation tools.

 Determine Study Objectives 

 Identify Needed Coordination Tasks 

 Determine Study Network 

 Determine Analysis Time Period 

 Confi rm Analysis Method 

 Select MOEs and Thresholds 

 Collect and Analyze Data 

 Identify Work Zone Alternatives 

 Conduct Fatal Flaw Analysis 

 Determine Work Zone Capacity 

 Determine Initialization Period 

 Develop Existing Conditions Model 

 Check Errors 

 Calibrate Existing Conditions Model 

 Verify Network Convergence 

 Determine Number of Runs 

 Develop Work Zone Base 

Conditions Model 

 Simulate Work Zone Taper 

 Calibrate Work Zone Base 

Conditions Model 

 Conduct Alternatives Analysis 

 Recommend Best Alternative 

 Document Findings

Table 4 shows an example application of the simple additive weighting method. For each criterion, the alternatives are scored based on a scale of 10 (not effective) to 30 (most effective). In 

this example, Alternative 2 scores the highest and is recommended.

Table 4: Example Application of Simple Additive Weighing (SAW) Method

Table 5: Microscopic Simulation Model Development and Application – Checklist
9

Figure 5: Sample Analysis Report

Developing Analysis Report Structure

Once the analysis is complete, the final step is to prepare a report. A sample 

analysis report structure is illustrated in Figure 5. The essential components 

of an MOTAA report include:

 Introduction and project background;

 Existing and future conditions;

 Alternatives considered;

 Alternatives analysis and decision 

framework methodology;

 Analysis results, recommended 

alternative, and mitigation strategies;

 Post implementation and 

monitoring plan; and 

 Appendices.

7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV

3URMHFW%DFNJURXQG

3URMHFW$UHD

3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ

3URMHFW*RDOVDQG2EMHFWLYHV

3URMHFW&RQVWUDLQWV

([LVWLQJDQG)XWXUH&RQGLWLRQV 

([LVWLQJ)DFLOLWLHV

([LVWLQJ+LVWRULFDO7UDI¿F'DWD

([LVWLQJ7UDI¿F2SHUDWLRQV

+LVWRULFDO,QFLGHQWDQG&UDVK'DWD

(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQFHUQV

)XWXUH)DFLOLW\

)XWXUH7UDI¿F*URZWK

$OWHUQDWLYHV&RQVLGHUHG 

'HVFULSWLRQRI$OWHUQDWLYHV

&RQFHSW3ODQ

3UHOLPLQDU\$OWHUQDWLYHV$QDO\VLV

3RWHQWLDO0LWLJDWLRQ6WUDWHJLHV

$OWHUQDWLYHV$QDO\VLVDQG'HFLVLRQ)UDPHZRUN 

,PSDFW$VVHVVPHQW0HWKRGRORJ\

2WKHU)DFWRUV

'HFLVLRQ)UDPHZRUN

$QDO\VLV5HVXOWVDQG0LWLJDWLRQ6WUDWHJLHV 

$QDO\VLV5HVXOWV

$OWHUQDWLYHV5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV

0LWLJDWLRQ6WUDWHJLHV

3RVW,PSOHPHQWDWLRQDQG0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ 

0RQLWRULQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV

'DWD1HHGV

0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ

$SSHQGLFHV 

2EVHUYHG7UDI¿F'DWD

/DQG&ORVXUH&KDUWV

$VVXPSWLRQV

3DUDPHWHUV8VHG

(Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.)
10

More information can be found in the full document: Work Zone Traffic Analysis – Applications 

and Decision Framework, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

FHWA-HOP-12-009, April 2012. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12009/index.htm.

NO. PROJECT TYPE WORK ZONE TYPE STATE CATEGORY OF ANALYSIS TOOL

1 Rural Arterial Simple Flagging MD Traffi c Signal Optimization

2 Rural Freeway Lane Closure MD Sketch Planning

3 Rural Freeway Lane Closure TX Mesoscopic Simulation

4 Rural Freeway Lane Closure IA Microscopic Simulation

5 Urban Freeway Lane Closure NC Analytical/Deterministic 

Tools (HCM-based)

6 Urban Freeway Lane Closure MI Sketch Planning

7 Bridge Temporary Two-Way

One-Lane Operation MD Traffi c Signal Optimization

8 Urban Arterial Lane Closure MD Traffi c Signal Optimization

9 Interchange Ramp Closure IN Traffi c Signal Optimization

and Microsimulation

10 Urban Freeway/

Bridge Lane Closure OH Travel Demand Modeling

11 Urban Freeway Lane Closure/

Ramp Closure NJ Mesoscopic Simulation

Case Studies

Eleven (11) work zone analysis projects, as summarized in Table 6, are presented using 

steps shown in Figure 4.

Summary

In summary, this document provides guidance on Work Zone Traffic Analysis (WZTA) applications 

and presents the steps involved in the application of an MOTAA and decision framework. It covers 

the following major components:

• Identification of MOT alternatives; 

• Establishment of an MOTAA and decision 

framework process;

• Work zone traffic analysis tool types;

• Selection of the appropriate traffic 

analysis tool(s);

• Key considerations for modeling approach;

• Model development and application process;

• Reconciliation of inconsistencies and 

conducting sensitivity analysis;

• Factors for alternative recommendation;

• MOTAA decision framework; 

• Analysis report structure; and

• Case studies.

Table 6: Work Zone Analysis Examples