Assessment of Channelizing Device Effectiveness on High Speed/High Volume Roadways, 2007

Part 6 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) describes several types of channelizing devices that can be used to warn road users and guide them through work zones; these devices include cones, tubular markers, vertical panels, drums, barricades, and temporary raised islands. On higher speed/volume roadways, drums and/or vertical panels have been popular choices in many states, due to their formidable appearance and the enhanced visibility they provide when compared to standard cones. However, due to their larger size, drums also require more effort and storage space to transport, deploy and retrieve. Recent editions of the MUTCD have introduced new devices for channelizing; specifically of interest for this study is a taller (>36 inches) but thinner cone. While this new device does not offer a comparable target value to that of drums, the new devices are significantly larger than standard cones and they offer improved stability as well. In addition, these devices are more easily deployed and stored than drums and they cost less. Further, for applications previously using both drums and tall cones, the use of tall cones only provides the ability for delivery and setup by a single vehicle. An investigation of the effectiveness of the new channelizing devices provides a reference for states to use in selecting appropriate traffic control for high speed, high volume applications, especially for short term or limited duration exposures. This study includes a synthesis of common practices by state DOTs, as well as daytime and nighttime field observations of driver reactions using video detection equipment. The results of this study are promising for the day and night performance of the new tall cones, comparing favorably to the performance of drums when used for channelizing in tapers. The evaluation showed no statistical difference in merge distance and location, shy distance, or operating speed in either daytime or nighttime conditions. The study should provide a valuable resource for state DOTs to utilize in selecting the most effective channelizing device for use on high speed/high volume roadways where timely merging by drivers is critical to safety and mobility.

Traffic Control in Work Zones with Edge Drop-Offs, 2002

Pavement and shoulder edge drop-offs commonly occur in work zones as the result of overlays, pavement replacement, or shoulder construction. The depth of these elevation differentials can vary from approximately one inch when a flexible pavement overlay is applied to several feet where major reconstruction is undertaken. The potential hazards associated with pavement edge differentials depend on several factors including depth of the drop-off, shape of the pavement edge, distance from traveled way, vehicle speed, traffic mix, volume, and other factors. This research was undertaken to review current practices in other states for temporary traffic control strategies addressing lane edge differentials and to analyze crash data and resultant litigation related to edge drop-offs. An objective was to identify cost-effective practices that would minimize the potential for and impacts of edge drop crashes in work zones. Considerable variation in addressing temporary traffic control in work zones with edge drop-off exposure was found among the states surveyed. Crashes related to pavement edge drop-offs in work zones do not commonly occur in the state of Iowa, but some have resulted in significant tort claims and settlements. The use of benefit/cost analysis may provide guidance in selection of an appropriate mitigation and protection of edge drop-off conditions. Development and adoption of guidelines for design of appropriate traffic control for work zones that include edge drop-off exposure, particularly identifying effective use of temporary barrier rail, may be beneficial in Iowa.

Fast Track and Fast Track II - Cedar Rapids, Iowa, HR-544, Construction Report, 1989

Two lanes of a major four lane arterial street needed to be reconstructed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The traffic volumes and difficulty of detouring the traffic necessitated closure for construction be held to an absolute minimum. Closure of the intersections, even for one day, was not politically feasible. Therefore, Fast Track and Fast Track II was specified for the project. Fast Track concrete paving has been used successfully in Iowa since 1986. The mainline portion of the project was specified to be Fast Track and achieved the opening strength of 400 psi in less than twelve hours. The intersections were allowed to be closed between 6 PM and 6 AM. This could occur twice - once to remove the old pavement and place the base and temporary surface and the second time to pave and cure the new concrete. The contractor was able to meet these restrictions. The Fast Track II used in the intersections achieved the opening strength of 350 psi in six to seven hours. Two test sections were selected in the mainline Fast Track and two intersections were chosen to test the Fast Tract II. Both flexural and compression specimens were tested. Pulse velocity tests were conducted on the pavement and test specimens. Maturity curves were developed through monitoring of the temperatures. Correlations were performed between the maturity and pulse velocity and the flexural strengths. The project was successful in establishing the feasibility of construction at night, with no disruption of traffic in the daytime, using fast Track II. Both the Fast Track II pavements were performing well four years after construction.