Development and Evaluation of Speed-Activated Sign to Reduce Speeds in Work Zones

Abstract

Excessive speed is one of the most significant factors contributing to work zone crashes, which, along with work zone fatalities, have increased substantially in the past decade. From the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2003, the number of work zone crashes in South Carolina nearly tripled. In 2005, the South Carolina Department of Transportation initiated a research project to evaluate speed reduction measures in work zones. Through an in-depth literature review of speed control techniques for work zones, it was found that innovative technologies are often too expensive and thus impractical for large-scale implementation. There is a need for less-expensive technologies that are effective in reducing speeds in work zones. Development and evaluation of a speed-activated sign are discussed. Data were collected in work zones on two-lane primary and secondary highways in South Carolina, and the effectiveness of the speed-activated sign was evaluated on the basis of changes in mean speeds, 85th-percentile speeds, and percentages of vehicles exceeding the speed limit. Mean speed reductions ranged from 2 to 6 mph (3.2 to 9.7 km/h) with an average reduction of 3.3 mph (5.3 km/h). This average reduction improved to 4.1 mph (6.6 km/h) at sites where more than 50% of the vehicles were speeding before a sign was introduced. Further research was conducted with two speed-activated signs on a multilane divided highway and an Interstate freeway where similar speed reductions were experienced. From this study, researchers recommend that the speed-activated sign be used in short-term work zones.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

South Carolina Work Zone Crashes, 1998–2003. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia. www.scdot.org/events/pdfs/WZFactSheet.pdf. Accessed Aug. 25, 2005.

Arnold

E. D.

Use of Police in Work Zones on Highways in Virginia. Final Report. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, 2003. www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/04-r9.pdf. Accessed Oct. 6, 2005.

Solar Technology, Inc., Allentown, Pa. www.solartechnology.com. Accessed Nov. 2006.

American Signal Company, Atlanta, Ga. www.amsig.com. Accessed Nov. 2006.

Dixon

and Ogle

. Evaluating Speed Reduction Strategies for Highway Work Zones: A Draft Literature Review. GDOT Project 2031, GIT Project E-20-J40. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, March 2004.

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Millennium Edition. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.

McCoy

P. T.

Bonneson

J. A.

and Kollbaum

J. A.

. Speed Reduction Effects of Speed Monitoring Displays with Radar in Work Zones on Interstate Highways. In Transportation Research Record 1509, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 65–72.

Midwest Smart Work Zone Deployment Initiative (MWSWZDI). Technology Evaluations: Year One, 2000. www.matc.unl.edu/project. Accessed July 25, 2006.

Pesti

and McCoy

P. T.

. Long-Term Effectiveness of Speed Monitoring Displays in Work Zones on Rural Interstate Highways. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1754, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 21–30.

10.

Richards

S. H.

Wunderlich

R. C.

and Dudek

C. L.

. Field Evaluation of Work Zone Speed Control Techniques. In Transportation Research Record 1035, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 66–78.

11.

Garber

and Patel

. Effectiveness of Changeable Message Signs in Controlling Vehicle Speeds in Work Zones. Report FHWA/VA-95-R4. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, 1994.

12.

Dixon

and Wang

. Development of Speed Reduction Strategies for Highway Work Zones. Final report. Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, 2000.

13.

Winnett

M. A.

and Wheeler

A. H.

. Vehicle-Activated Signs: A Large-Scale Evaluation. Road Safety Division, Department for Transport. TRL Report 548. Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham, United Kingdom, 2002.

14.

Fambro

D. B.

Parham

A. H.

and Carroll

R. W.

. Enhanced Sign Systems at Passive Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings. Texas Transportation Researcher, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1999. tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-1881-S.pdf. Accessed Sept. 5, 2005.

15.

Maze

Kamyab

and Schrock

. Evaluation of Work Zone Speed Reduction Measures. Report No. 99–44. Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, 2000.

16.

Carlson

Fontaine

and Hawkins

. Evaluation of Traffic Control Devices for Rural High-Speed Maintenance Work Zones. Report FHWA/TX-00/1879–1. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 2000.

17.

Robertson

H. D.

Spot Speed Studies, Chapter 3. In ITE Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies ( Robertson

H. D.

Hummer

J. E.

and Nelson

D. C.

, eds.), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1994, pp. 33–51.

18.

Roess

R. P.

Prassas

E. S.

and McShane

W. R.

. Traffic Engineering, 3rd ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2004.

19.

Ross

H. E.

Jr. Sicking

D. L.

Zimmer

R. A.

and Michie

J. D.

. NCHRP Report 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993.