Construction Research Congress 2016 2872

Impacts of Construction Work Zone Equipment and Operations on Vehicle

Speeds

Fan Zhang, S.M.ASCE1; and John Gambatese, P.E., M.ASCE2

1
Graduate Student, School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State
Univ., 101 Kearney Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-3212. E-mail:
zhangfan@oregonstate.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2
Professor, School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State Univ., 101
Kearney Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-3212. E-mail: john.gambatese@oregonstate.edu

Abstract
Mobile construction operations that are conducted at night and do not employ
positive barrier systems present significant safety hazards for workers and motorists.
As part of several research studies on the effectiveness of traffic control devices to
enhance work zone safety, the authors investigated the impacts of construction
equipment and operations on safety and exposed how a contractor could use the
construction operations advantageously to benefit work zone safety. Five preservation
(re-paving) projects on high-speed roadways were selected for data collection. On
each project, traffic speeds were recorded prior to and at multiple points within the
work zones while the work was conducted. The results reveal that the presence of
large construction equipment in the work area impacts driver speed. Vehicles begin to
slow down approximately 0.2 to 0.6 mi. before reaching the paver, and then increase
over approximately the same distance after the paver. The amount of decrease in
speed ranged from approximately 5 to 25 mph. In addition, the lateral distance
between vehicles and construction equipment was also found to impact vehicle
speeds. The findings reveal that contractors can utilize the presence of equipment and
strategically-planned operations to benefit safety in work zones. While the findings
are applicable to mobile construction operations on high-speed roadways, it is
expected that equipment could be used and operations planned strategically on other
types of projects, such as building projects, to benefit safety in a similar manner.

INTRODUCTION
Preservation projects on interstate highways usually take place at night, with
one or more lanes closed for the construction operation and high-speed traffic shifted
to the adjacent lane(s). Construction equipment and workers are separated from
traffic by a line of cones and a few feet of space. This situation creates a significant
level of safety risk for both construction workers and the public traffic. Accidents that
occur in interstate highway work zones are often severe and sometimes fatal. It is
widely accepted that vehicle speed is one of the most significant factors in roadway
crashes (Mahoney et al. 2007). Therefore, reducing vehicle speeds in work zones
becomes an interest of many contractors and state transportation agencies.
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has funded three
continuous research studies to explore the ability of different types of traffic control

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2873

measures to reduce vehicle speeds in highway preservation project work zones

(Gambatese et al. 2013, Gambatese and Zhang 2014, Gambatese and Zhang 2015).
The researchers implemented different traffic control measures on five case study
projects and collected vehicle speeds through the entire work zones for selected work
periods. During the data collection process, the researchers noticed that motorists
tended to slow down as they approached the large construction equipment and then
speed up after passing the equipment. This speed pattern occurred no matter what
kind of traffic control measures were implemented at that time. To further understand
the observed driver behavior in work zones, the researchers decided to quantitatively
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

investigate the impact of construction equipment and operations on vehicle speed,

and develop guidance on how to stage equipment during construction operations to
enhance work zone safety.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The control of vehicle speeds in work zones has been explored in many past
research efforts. A variety of traffic control devices, techniques, and procedures have
been tested and evaluated; including variation of traditional fixed signing, changeable
message displays, radar units with speed sign messages, and a range of electronic
devices to sense and display information related to speed (Pigman et al. 2006). For
example, McCoy et al. (1995) examined the effectiveness of speed displays at a rural
interstate work zone in South Dakota. In a similar study, Garber and Fontaine (1996)
used changeable message signs (CMS) with a radar unit to examine speed reductions
at rural interstate work zones in Virginia. The South Dakota DOT conducted a
research study to identify and evaluate a speed monitoring display suitable for use in
interstate highway work zones (Wertjes 1996). The laser/CMS display was equipped
to capture speeds of on-coming vehicles. Many other studies have been conducted
that quantify the impacts of common devices used to control and slow down passing
vehicles (e.g., Garber and Srinivasan 1998; Maze et al. 2000; Fontaine et al. 2000;
Benekohal et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2014; and Hildebrand and Mason 2014).
While current literature provides a thorough understanding of the impacts of
added traffic control devices on speeds in work zones, quantitative information of
how equipment used for the construction work impacts traffic speeds is absent. After
an extensive literature search, the researchers could not find any archival documents
on the impact that construction equipment and operations have on vehicle speeds in
work zones. There seems to be a lack of effort or interest in this potentially beneficial
way to enhance work zone safety. The lack of available information may be a result
of researchers collecting traffic speed data on behalf of transportation agencies that
do not plan, oversee, or control the construction process. Additionally, the equipment
and operations used on preservation projects are often the same from project-to-
project; since the equipment is always needed and present, it may be viewed that
there is no need in studying its impact. However, the researchers believe that this is a
construction topic worth studying. Research on this topic will help the industry
understand motorist behavior in work zones in order to more effectively design
construction work zone layouts and operations. Furthermore, such research may help
contractors stage the work zone to enhance safety for both workers and motorists.

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2874

CASE STUDY PROJECTS

During the three phases of ODOT research studies, five case study projects
were selected based on the location and time of the construction. The projects took
place on four-lane (two lanes in each direction) interstate highways in rural or sub-
urban locations. Three of the projects were on Interstate 5 in Oregon and the other
two were on Interstate 84, also in Oregon. For the purpose of this research paper, only
three case studies are included and described here. The posted regulatory speed on the
roadways at all of the case study project locations is 65 mph. During the duration of
the research studies, a 50 mph enforceable speed limit was used.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Although each of the construction projects for these studies is unique, the
construction processes of the projects were similar. The daily operation typically
started at 19:00 depending on the location of the project. The traffic control crew
placed temporary traffic control measures on the road and closed the paving lane to
live traffic using barrels and cones. After the lane was closed to traffic, the contractor
started to move construction equipment to the working location. Grinding of the old
pavement (Figure 1 upper left) was started once the grinder was deployed to the
roadway, usually at approximately 20:00. The grinder was used to remove the top
few inches of the existing pavement, and the ground pavement was loaded directly
into an asphalt truck adjacent to the grinder. A grinder is usually narrower than the
full lane width, so two grinders are typically employed for an efficient operation.

Figure 1. Paving operation equipment: grinder, paver, roller, and asphalt truck
(Zhang 2013 & Zhang 2014)

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2875

Behind the grinders was the sweeper which picked up debris on the ground to
leave a clean trench for the paver to place new asphalt. After the grinders progressed
up the roadway approximately one mile, the paver (Figure 1 upper right) work started.
A tack truck made a pass before the paver to spray adhesive on the bare asphalt
surface. Then, asphalt trucks (Figure 1 lower right) delivered hot mix asphalt in front
of the paver. The paver takes the full lane and moves slowly to place the new layer of
asphalt. Three or four rollers (Figure 1 lower left) worked behind the paver to bring
the newly paved surface to the desired level of compaction. After the rollers, quality
control personnel took asphalt samples and tested the level of compaction. Long after
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the paving equipment, a construction worker placed temporary reflective tape on the
new pavement to direct traffic. The entire operation typically was halted in the early
morning of the next day and the roadway cleared for daytime traffic. The traffic
control personnel removed all traffic control measures from the travel lanes, and
moved the barrels and cones out of the roadway.
To help passing vehicles merge safely and drivers become aware of the
construction equipment and workers, temporary traffic control measures are usually
deployed. A controlled work zone consists of four areas: advance warning area,
transition area, activity area, and termination area. On interstate highways, in the
advance warning area, a set of Road Work Ahead signs are placed approximately one
mile upstream of the lane closure. Other warning signs, like Merge Left/Right and
Reduce Speed Ahead signs, are placed after the Road Work Ahead signs and before
the closure taper to provide drivers enough warning to make the needed lane change.
The line of barrels directing traffic to merge creates the taper to close the lane over a
prescribed distance. The beginning of the taper is the location where the first barrel is
placed, and the end of taper is the location where the working lane is fully closed to
public traffic.
Traffic control plans are designed for both fixed and mobile operations.
Paving operations on high speed roadways are a moving operation, and the operation
as well as the lane closure usually extends for at least 2-3 miles for one night. Over
the long lane closure, drivers tend to speed up if they do not see any construction
operation taking place, and slow down sharply when they approach the paving
machine. Depending on the volume of traffic, this behavior can cause a “shock wave”
effect within the traffic and create a potential safety risk for vehicles upstream.
Therefore, additional traffic warning signs and other traffic control measures are
necessary to remind drivers of the presence of construction equipment and workers.
The aim of the overall research was to evaluate the effects of different traffic
control measures. To meet this goal, the researchers placed multiple traffic speed
sensors at different locations within the work zone to determine driver behavior in the
presence of all traffic control measures. Two speed sensors were placed in the travel
lanes at the Road Work Ahead signs, two at the beginning of the taper, one at the end
of the taper, and 2 to 5 sensors in the work zone, approximately half a mile apart. The
location of the sensors was selected to capture vehicle speeds before the presence of
the work zone (free flow speeds), at the beginning of the work zone after the merge
(at end of taper) and periodically at regular spacing within the work zone. These
locations permitted analysis of vehicle speeds in the work zone compared to free flow
speeds and also at multiple locations in relation to the work equipment. The traffic

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2876

speed sensors record the vehicle speed, length, and time when a vehicle passes
directly above the sensor. The accuracy of the sensors used for the study is +/- 4 mph
for 90% of the time. The researchers placed the sensors in the middle of the travel
lanes before the construction operations began each day, and removed the sensors
after the operation finished the next morning. The raw data were downloaded from
the sensors to a spreadsheet for analysis.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The initial purpose of gathering speed data was to determine the impact that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

each traffic control measure has on traffic speed. After downloading and reviewing
the data from the speed sensors, the researchers found that the data had a particular
trend. Figure 2 illustrates that trend. In Figure 2, each line represents the 85th
percentile speed of each hour for different days at different locations for case study
project #5. The data from Days 2 and 6 are omitted here because the site conditions
and operations for those days were different from that on the other days. The upper
left figure shows the speed at the first work zone sensor location which was
approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the beginning of the work. Similarly, the
upper right figure represents the speeds at the second work zone sensor location
which was approximately one mile from the beginning of the work and 0.5 miles
downstream of the first work zone sensor. Figure 2 shows that for all days, the lowest
speed at the first work zone sensor location occurred between approximately 21:00
and 22:00, and the lowest speed at the second work zone sensor location occurred
between approximately 22:00 and 23:00. The data reveals that the lowest speed at the
same location may occur at different times for different days.

Figure 2. 85th Percentile speeds from work zone (WZ) sensors (Case Study #5)

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2877

This trend cannot be explained by the different traffic control measures

because the traffic control measures remained consistent for the same day. The
researchers noticed that the lowest vehicle speed recorded by a sensor usually
occurred during the time when the paver was near the sensor location (i.e., when the
paver and passing vehicle passed by the sensor at the same time); this means that the
paver had a major impact on vehicle speed and vehicles reached their lowest speed
when they passed by the paver. To quantify the impact of construction equipment on
traffic speed, two analyses were developed as described below.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Longitudinal Distance vs. Speed

While on the project sites, the researchers observed that motorists would slow
down when they approached the paver and speed up after they passed the paver. This
change in speed was also observed when vehicles passed the grinder. As part of the
construction operations, a construction worker (ticket taker) is assigned to take
asphalt volume amounts directly from the asphalt truck drivers. The ticket taker also
records the time in which the asphalt truck dumps its load in front of the paver and
the location of the truck when it dumps its load. Using this information, the
researchers know the approximate location of the paver from the ticket taker’s forms
(a few feet behind the dumping point) and the time in which it was at the location.
The locations of the speed sensors on the roadway are also recorded prior to the start
of the paving work. As a result, the distance between the paver and speed sensors can
be calculated at any time, which is also the distance between vehicles and the paver.
Figure 3 provides an illustration of the 85th percentile vehicle speeds according to
how far the vehicles were both upstream and downstream of the paver.

Figure 3. Illustration of Distance to Paver Graphs with Vehicle (1) Downstream,

(2) At, and (3) Upstream of the Paver

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2878

The data in Figure 3 is from case study project #1 when an Oregon State
Police (OSP) car was parked at the end of the taper during the paving operation. At
the beginning of the paving work, the paver was upstream of the first work zone
sensor (subfigure #1). Hence, the vehicle speed recorded at that time was the speed
after the vehicle passed the paver. As the paver moved along, it would reach a point
when the paver and first work zone sensor were at the same location (subfigure #2).
The speed recorded at that time was the speed when the distance between the vehicle
and paver was zero. The paver then continues up the roadway and away from the first
work zone sensor, and the speed recorded by the sensor is the speed before the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vehicle passes the paver (subfigure #3). For the upper graph in Figure 3, a negative
distance represents the situation when the vehicle has not yet reached the paver. On
the other hand, a positive distance means that the vehicle has passed the paver and the
paver has not yet reached the sensor on the ground.
Given the large volume of traffic, the researchers used an approximate
approach to calculate vehicle speeds relative to the paver. Table 1 shows the data
used to construct the distance to paver graph in Figure 3. The first column in the table
shows the location of the first work zone sensor, which is stationary at milepoint
95.12 on the roadway. The second and third columns show the location of the paver
and the time at that location, respectively. The fourth column is the calculated
distance between the paver and the sensor. In order to determine the 85th percentile
speed for all of the vehicles passing the paver at that location, a time period of ±15
minutes (total 30 minutes) from the time the paver was at a certain location was
chosen (shown in the fifth column), and the 85th percentile speed during that 30-
minute period is calculated and shown in the sixth column. The fourth and sixth
columns are used to construction the upper graph shown in Figure 3.

Table 1. Data Used for Distance to Paver Graph in Figure 3

st
1 work Time Distance 85th
zone Paver when from percentile
sensor location paver was sensor to Time period speed during
location (milepoint) at sensor paver time period
(milepoint) location (miles) (mph)
95.12 94.72 21:45 0.4 21:30 - 22:00 45.0
95.12 94.92 22:30 0.2 22:15 - 22:45 48.0
95.12 95.12 23:05 0 22:50 - 23:20 40.2
95.12 95.32 23:35 -0.2 23:20 - 23:50 41.0
95.12 95.52 0:10 -0.4 23:55 - 00:25 47.0
95.12 95.72 0:45 -0.6 00:30 - 1:00 51.9
95.12 95.92 1:20 -0.8 1:05 - 1:35 53.8
95.12 96.12 1:55 -1 1:40 - 2:10 50.0
95.12 96.32 2:25 -1.2 2:10 - 2:40 54.9
95.12 96.52 2:50 -1.4 2:40 - 3:10 56.7
95.12 96.72 3:15 -1.6 3:10 - 3:40 55.3

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2879

Similar methods are used to construct Figure 4, which shows the data from the
third work zone sensor for six days for case study project #5. The figure shows that
for most of the days, the lowest speeds occurred when the vehicles were closest to the
paver. The speeds started increasing after passing the paver, and then slightly
decreased approximately 0.5 miles after passing the paver, which is the approximate
location of the grinders and other equipment near the grinders. Vehicles tended to
begin to slow down from about 0.6 miles before the paver, and the speed decrease
was between 5-25 mph. The sharp deceleration could result in a large variation in
adjacent vehicle speeds and create a dangerous situation for the vehicles upstream.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4. Distance to paver graph for each day based on third WZ sensor

Lateral Distance vs. Speed

Most of the preservation projects on 4-lane highways include resurfacing both
the fast (A) lane and slow (B) lane. The shoulder may be repaved as well depending
on the extent of deterioration of the shoulder pavement. One of the case study
projects (#3) included fast lane, slow lane, and shoulder paving. For slow lane and
shoulder paving, the width of lane closure is the same (i.e., both the shoulder and
slow lane are closed to passing traffic). However, the equipment is located further
from the passing traffic when paving the shoulder and closer to the traffic when
paving the slow lane. This situation presents a unique opportunity for the researchers
to exam the impact of lateral distance on vehicle speed. Table 2 shows the mean
speed differences between slow lane paving days and shoulder paving days at all
sensor locations.

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2880

Table 2. Speed Comparison between Slow Lane and Shoulder Paving

Mean Mean
Difference
speed for speed for 95%
in mean
Sensor location slow lane shoulder p-value confidence
speed
paving paving interval
(mph)
(mph) (mph)
Beginning of taper 54.1 58.9 -4.8 <2.2e-16 (-5.5, -4.0)
End of taper 51.5 54.5 -3.0 2.6e-12 (-3.8, -2.2)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

st
1 WZ sensor 39.6 44.8 -5.2 <2.2e-16 (-6.1, -4.4)
2nd WZ sensor 34.3 36.7 -2.4 <2.2e-16 (-2.9, -1.8)

The data for Table 2 is from Day 2 (slow lane paving) and Day 3 (shoulder
paving) of case study project #3, and both days involve a paving operation on the
roadway section from milepoint 81.4 to milepoint 78.4 on the southbound lanes of
Interstate 5 in Oregon. The sensors were placed at the same four locations for both
days. There is convincing evidence that at all four locations, the mean speeds for the
shoulder paving day are higher than the speeds for the slow lane paving day. It can be
concluded that the extra few feet of lateral distance between the equipment and travel
lane leads to motorists driving faster.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The research findings provide useful information that can benefit those
planning and designing construction operations in work zones. The presence of
construction equipment has an impact on vehicle speeds on highway construction
work zones. For preservation projects, when vehicles approach the paver and grinders
their speed decreases (the speed starts dropping approximately 0.6 miles before
reaching the paver and the amount of decrease is from 5 to 25 mph), and increases
after passing the equipment. The lateral distance between the travel lane and
construction equipment has an impact on vehicle speed; the speed difference ranges
from 2.4 mph to 5.2 mph, depending on the location.
Contractors may utilize the presence of equipment and strategically-planned
operations to benefit safety. To keep a large, illuminated piece of equipment close to
workers may help to get motorist’s attention and make them travel slower. Also,
while the findings are applicable to mobile construction operations on high-speed
roadways, it is expected that equipment could be used and operations planned
strategically on other types of projects, such as building projects, to benefit safety in a
similar manner.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was sponsored by the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as part of the State Planning
and Research (SPR) program. The researchers would like to acknowledge and thank
ODOT, FHWA, and those individuals who provided input to the research. The
researchers appreciate the time, effort, resources, and funding contributed to the
research from all involved.

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2881

REFERENCES
Benekohal R.F., Wang, M., Chitturi, M.V., Hajbabaie, A., and Medina, J.C. (2009).
“Speed Photo–Radar Enforcement and Its Effects on Speed in Work Zones.”
Transportation Research Record, No. 2096, pp 80-97.
Fontaine, M.D., Carlson, P.J., and Hawkins, H.G. Jr. (2000). “Eval. of Traffic Control
Devices for Rural High-Speed Maint. Work Zones: Second Year Activities
and Final Recommendations.” Texas Transp. Inst. (TTI), Report 1879-2.
Gambatese, J.A., Zhang, F., and Vahed, A.M. (2013). “Implementing Speed
Reductions at Specific Interstate Work Zones from 65 mph to 35 mph.” Final
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Report, SPR 751, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and U.S.

Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin. (FHWA), Feb. 2013.
Gambatese, J.A. and Zhang, F. (2014). “Safe and Effective Speed Reductions for
Freeway Work Zones Phase 2.” Final Report, SPR 769, Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), Sept. 2014.
Gambatese, J.A. and Zhang, F. (2015). “Safe and Effective Speed Reductions for
Freeway Work Zones Phase 3.” Final Report, Implementation Research.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Feb. 2015.
Garber, N.J., and Fontaine, M.D. (1996). “Controlling Vehicle Speeds in Work
Zones: Effectiveness of Changeable Message Signs with Radar.” Mid-
Atlantic Universities Transportation Center, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, and
Virginia Department of Transportation, Report UVA-529242/CE96-102.
Garber, N.J. and Srinivasan, S. (1998). “Effectiveness of Changeable Message Signs
in Controlling Vehicle Speeds in Work Zones Phase II,” Final Report.
Virginia Transportation Research Council and U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), VTRC 98-R10.
Hildebrand, E.D. and Mason, D.D. (2014). “Effectiveness of countermeasures to
reduce vehicle speeds in freeway work zones.” Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 41(8), 686-694, 10.1139/cjce-2014-0046.
Lee, B.H.Y., Neely, S., and Azaria, D. (2014). “Work Zones and Travel Speeds: The
Effects of Uniform Traffic Officers & Other Speed Management Measures.”
UVM Transportation Research Center, Report No. 2014-05.
Mahoney, K.M., Porter R.J., Taylor, D.R., Kulakowski, B.T. and Ullman, G.L.
(2007). “Design of Construction Work Zones on High-Speed Highways.”
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Report 581.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Maze, T., Kamyab, A., and Schrock, S. (2000). “Evaluation of Work Zone Speed
Reduction Measures.” Center for Transp. Research and Education, Iowa State
Univ. and Iowa Dept. of Transportation, CTRE Management Project 99-44.
McCoy, P.T., Bonneson, J.A., and J.A. Kollbaum. (1995). “Speed Reduction Effects
of Speed Monitoring Displays with Radar in Work Zones on Interstate
Highways.” Transportation Research Record, No. 1509, pp. 65–72.
Pigman, J.G., Agent, K.R., and Green, E.R. (2006). “Evaluation of Work Zone Safety
Operations and Issues.” Research Report KTC-06-08/SPR287-05-IF,
Kentucky Transportation Center.

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2882

Wertjes, J.M. (1996). “Use of Speed Monitoring and Communication Display for
Traffic Control, Final Report.” Office of Research, S. Dakota Dept. of Transp.
Report SD-95-10F prepared by Benshoof & Associates, Inc., Edina, MN.
Zhang, F. (2013). “Grinder and Paver.” JPG file.
Zhang, F. (2014). “Roller and Asphalt Truck.” JPG file.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 06/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016