Modern Solutions to Safe and Efficient Work Zone Travel (2025)
Chapter: Summary
Summary
Project Objectives
The goal of this project was to identify best practices for leveraging technology to help the traveling public navigate roadway maintenance or construction work zones. This project utilized the research team members’ extensive experience with Smart Work Zone technology development, testing, and Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) Amplified Work Plan: NCHRP 10-109 implementation; work zone data creation and dissemination; stakeholder outreach and engagement; and development of effective guidance materials. Drawing upon this expertise, the research team:
- Evaluated innovative and adaptive technologies that are attention capturing and enhance work zone safety and mobility;
- Evaluated the use of crowdsourcing applications and data analytics for dynamic work zone devices and in-vehicle notifications for traffic management; and
- Developed a guide for the application and management of innovative work zone technologies.
The research identified and evaluated technologies with the potential to enhance work zone safety and mobility; assessed how work zone data created by roadside sensors, crowdsourced applications, etc. can be effectively disseminated; and created guidance materials that can be used to help organizations apply and manage these new technologies to realize significant work zone safety and mobility benefits.
Project Approach
Our research approach involved multiple tasks with the goal of evaluating the current state of technologies used to improve work zone safety and mobility, resulting in a guide for state and local practitioners to use for implementation. Initially, a literature review and industry scan were conducted to provide information about new technology demonstrations and implementations and to identify case studies and current knowledge about effectiveness and best practices. The team then investigated and assessed current and emerging technologies that identify work zone locations, travel speed, queues, and alternate routing in real time (mobile apps, crowdsourcing, sensors, etc.). Information about work zone locations and operational conditions was also collected, analyzed, and distributed. Additionally, the team considered how a variety of drivers can be informed about the operational conditions of the work zone in real time so they can avoid hazards and impediments to mobility. Outreach activities were completed that built on the findings of prior tasks, resulting in the creation of a Guide for Improving Work Zone Safety and Mobility. A practitioner workshop was then convened, which provided the research team with feedback on that Guide. Based on the approved technical solution(s) and the guidance developed, the team implemented a proof of concept on pre-approved state department of transportation (DOT) projects. Lastly, the project team prepared all final deliverables and presented them to the NCHRP panel and committees.
Suggested Research
Another key task of this project was to prioritize research needs relevant to connected and automated vehicle (CAV) technologies and work zones.
Issues Affecting Potential Implementation
There are several potential barriers to successful implementation of technologies in work zones, such as insufficient or inadequate data to support the benefit-cost analyses; lack of practitioner understanding of the proposed benefit-cost framework; and organizational, political, or societal resistance to the suggested framework. To mitigate the impacts of potential barriers, the research team created a risk register covering the main risks. The register includes management actions for each risk. The risks identified within this section are classified with ratings for three aspects of each individual risk: the probability of that risk occurring; the impact on the project cost, schedule, or scope; and the ability of that risk to be mitigated. These levels are defined in Table 1 (Note: Risks have been rated using the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office standard, which may be found at https://www.its.dot.gov/project_mang/index.htm). The noted risks and associated mitigation suggestions were informed by findings from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2023) report Preparing Transportation Agencies for Connected and Automated Vehicles in Work Zones which addressed complementary research questions. Table 2 summarizes the main challenges expected when implementing the benefit-cost analyses framework and the experience-based strategies for mitigating a risk’s potential impact on the project. Risks are identified using a taxonomy that includes institutional, personnel, and technical risks. Table 2 also lists the anticipated risks, their ratings and probabilities, and planned mitigation strategies.
Table 1. Risk Rating and Probability Definitions
| Risk Probability | Risk Rating/Impact on Cost, Schedule, and/or Scope | Ability to Mitigate Risk |
|---|---|---|
| 4 = High Risk (>10%) | 4 = Catastrophic: Major Impact | 4 = None |
| 3 = Medium Risk (Between 5% and 10%) | 3 = Critical: Significant Impact | 3 = Low |
| 2 = Low Risk (Between 1% and 5%) | 2 = Marginal: Low Impact | 2 = Medium |
| 1 = Negligible Risk (Less than 1%) | 1 = Negligible: Insignificant Impact | 1 = Excellent |
| Category | Description | Risk Probability | Risk Impact | Mitigation Rating and Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Institutional | Insufficient or inadequate data to support the implementation or adoption of the benefit-cost framework | 1 | 4 | 2 – Mitigate risk by engaging in continual review of ongoing research efforts and consulting with a broad range of personnel with expertise in conducting benefit-cost analyses |
| Institutional | Organizational and/or political leadership unable or unwilling to support research effort | 3 | 3 | 2 – Reduce risk by involving stakeholder leadership early in the process to address potential concerns and seek endorsement. |
| Category | Description | Risk Probability | Risk Impact | Mitigation Rating and Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Notification frequency and level of urgency must be at an appropriate level to elicit a proper response | 4 | 2 | 2 – Solicit feedback in testing to arrive at an appropriate quantity and intensity of warnings |
| Personnel | Lack of value returned by technology to agency personnel and supplemental contractors | 2 | 2 | 1 – Educate and provide supporting data to show reduction in injury and fatality rates |
| Technical | New developments in CAV technologies or data availability | 2 | 2 | 1 – Accept risk and integrate new developments as appropriate into new analyses for consideration |
| Technical | Lack of maturity or robustness in technologies | 4 | 3 | 2 – Accept risk and integrate new developments as appropriate; mitigate risk with strong coordination and education |
| Technical | Stakeholders unable or unwilling to support deployment- and evaluation-related efforts | 3 | 3 | 2 – Mitigate risk by assessing resource availability and expressed implementation concerns by stakeholders. |
| Technical | Inability of technical components to efficiently and effectively communicate with supporting infrastructure | 3 | 4 | 2 – Mitigate risk by designing layers of systems, tools, and technologies to establish and optimize stable, consistent communication |
