4. Quality Assurance & Statewide Consistency  Design Standards & Practices making it to the field?  Standards being applied uniformly Region to Region?  Construction technologies consistent with TCP contents? Safety  Opportunity to improve upon safety concerns Networking & Teamwork  Opportunity to hear variety of input, comments, suggestions  Improve communications between discipline groups Improved Standards & Practices  Use feedback & scores to make improvements Speaking of scores……

5. 22 Different Reviewers – Representing:  ODOT Construction Project Management & Inspection  ODOT Traffic-Roadway Section  Region Tech Centers - Design  ODOT Employee Safety  Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners (OBDP) – Design, Construction Mgmt  ODOT Major Projects Branch  ODOT Research Unit & Oregon State University  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 30 Different traffic control-related “Measures” 25 Pages of comments 39,000 pieces of scoring data !!

7. 2002 71.7 73.5 71.3 70.5 74.5 77.2 75.6

9. 14 th Out of 14 14 th 12 th 14 th

10. Avg. = 7.59

12. Portable Changeable Message Signs (PCMS)  Overuse of “ROAD WORK AHEAD” and “(USE) CAUTION”  Using dependent message fragments  Must read both panels to get entire message  Misaligned PCMS makes them illegible  In need of repair – Burned out LEDs

13. Need more informative messages Ensure visibility

14. Avoid using message fragments on a single panel…

15. First message… …Second message… Use standard rigid sign, Or non-dependent messages: TRUCKS ENTERING 450 FT WORK VEHICLES AHEAD

16. First message… …Second message…

17.  Missing LEDs can render a PCMS illegible.

18. Bike/Ped/ADA Accommodation  No significant gains made in accommodation or design  Gravel surfaces not ADA-compliant nor bicycle-friendly  More guidance to keep bikes out of work area  More guidance for peds in urban work zones

19. Close bike lane completely, Redirect bicycles, Warn motorized traffic of bike presence

20. Close sidewalks w/ proper signing/devices Provide safe, efficient, signed, ADA alternate route Provide additional signing for motorists, as needed

21. Close sidewalks w/ proper signing/devices Provide safe, efficient, signed, ADA alternate route Provide additional signing for motorists, as needed If peds must use roadway, need ADA ramps from curb Need channelization devices between traffic and peds Could alternate route use existing pavement in front of local businesses?

22. Pavement Markings  Additional temp. markings needed until permanent can be applied  Faded striping in curvilinear sections  Reflective markers need better maintenance  Markings not matching Regulatory signing (“No Lane Changes”, “Do Not Pass”)

23. Channelization devices and/or temporary pavement markers should be used to substitute for permanent markings: Nighttime/Overnight Freeways or High ADT

24. Badly damaged/missing markers mean very poor nighttime visibility Contractors required to maintain/replace damaged markers/markings

25. With permanent markings in place… With poorly maintained temporary markings in place…

27. Double-solid striping begins at regulatory sign Signing and striping must match for enforceability

28. TEMPORARY SIGN DESIGN  Sign Legend, Color, Sizes  Wordy messages  Structurally questionable (crashworthy)  Complicates enforceability  Detour Signing  Recommend more detailed signing plans  Incorrect Application  Use correct design for corresponding message

29. TEMPORARY SIGN IMPLEMENTATION  Sign Spacing  Too close together (temp. & existing)  Blocking critical guide, service signing. See TM800  More Signs as per Specification  Additional “Abrupt Edge” and “No Center Stripe” signs  “Road Work Ahead” and “End Road Work” signs  In the middle of projects  Moved as work moves  Enforcement relies on these signs. Defines work zone limits.  “Clipped” Signs on Barrier Sign Supports  Phased out. Gone as of June-Nov ‘09, Standard Drawings  Repeated improper design and usage  Use 36”x36” sign from now on

31. …should have become…

32. …should look like…

34. Largely positive comments regarding traffic flow and delay through work zones Comments eluded to delays or slowed traffic stemming from:  “Gawk” effect  Tricky traffic merges or alignment shifts  Confusing detour (signing?)  Contractor operation oversights  Gravel staged surfacing created very slow traffic  Flagging operations

36. Temporary Signing  Quality was good – visibility, sheeting condition  Particularly high quality roll-up signs

38. Channelization Devices  Plastic Drums in excellent condition  Drum Tapers excellent (especially for freeway lane closures!)  Overall good device spacing  Barricades in good condition

40. Temporary Concrete Barrier  Good condition & alignment  Use of “screening” helps prevent “gawking” & improves speeds  Increased use of Reflective Barrier Panels helps delineate barrier

42. Pavement Markings  Most cases, striping was fresh, clear, well placed  Markers notable in freeway crossovers and on-site diversions  Reflective markers in good shape and alignment  Flexible markers need more attention

44. No unreasonable delays experienced through 60 projects. Average travel speed through majority of work zones was at or near the posted speed. For Flagging operations:  Statewide: Max. = 10 min. Average = 2.1 min. (for 16 projects)  By Region: For Temporary Signals:  Statewide: Average = 2.5 min. (for 7 projects)

46. Oregon Temp. Traffic Control Handbook for Operations of 3 Days or Less (OTTCH)  Currently Rewriting  ODOT, County, City participation  Changes to Structure & Organization  Deadline: End of September  To allow for OTC Review & Approval  Anticipated release: January, 2011

47. Part VI – Oregon Supplements  Currently developing supplements  ODOT, County, City participation  Deadline: End of September  Working simultaneously with OTTCH rewrite  Anticipated release: 2011  Can we start enforcing now? Not yet. Not until officially adopted by OTC

48. Tours slated for July & August  Assembling Project Lists from PM Offices in June  Recommendations? Let me know!  Interested in Participating?  Two, three & four-day trips available  Seating is extremely limited  Truly dedicated participants only!  The Van awaits!

49. Traffic Control Plans Design Workshop  Three-Day, Intense Design Class  From Intro to MUTCD, to Standard Drawings and Specification Writing  Complete with Final Exam  Three Opportunities per Year  Early March  May 11 – 13, 2010  October 5 – 7, 2010  Visit ODOT HR Training website for details and to register

50. TCP Unit Website  www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TS/traffic_control_plans.shtml www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TS/traffic_control_plans.shtml  TCP Design Manual  2009 Work Zone Tour Summary Report  Work Zone Traffic Analysis (WZTA) Tool & Manual  Oregon “Short Term” Temp. Traffic Control Handbook (OTTCH)  Transportation Management Plan info and Examples Scott M. McCanna, P.E. 503.986.3788 503.580.6095 503.986.4063 scott.m.mccanna@odot.state.or.us Scott M. McCanna, P.E. State Traffic Control Plans Engineer 355 Capitol St. NE – 5 th Floor Office: 503.986.3788 Cell: 503.580.6095 FAX: 503.986.4063 email: scott.m.mccanna@odot.state.or.us