DOCUMENT RESUME

04758 - [E3634867]

Highway Construction Ztne Safety: Not Yet Achievcd. CED-78-10;b-164457(3). December 23, 1977. 23 pp. + 2 appendices (9 pp.).

Report to Secretary, Department of Transportation; by HenryEschwege, Director, Community and Economic Development Div.

Issue Area: Transportation Systems and Policies: MotorVehicle-highway Transportation System (2408); Consumer andworker Protection: Death and Serious Disability Caused bywo.kplace Safety Hazards (910).

Contact: Community and Economic Development Div.Budget Function: Commerce and Transportation: Ground

Transportation (404).OrJanizaticn Concerned: Federal Highway Administration.Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Public Works and

Transportation; Senate Committee on Environment and PublicWorks.

Authority: Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280).Highway Safety Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 731).

The Federal Highway Administration has expressedconcern about construction zone safety for over 11 years, butthis ccncern has not always been reflected in the safetyprovisions made by State highway agencies.FiLdings/ConcluEions: Unsafe conditions existed at all of the 26construction sites visited in 7 States. Designs for worksitesafety varied widely from State to State and from project toproject. Although the Highwuy Administration has taken someactions to improve driving environments, these actions do notfully address the problems observed. By developing additionalguidance on how and when to use traffic control devices, byimproving field office inspection procedures, and by providingtraining, the Highway Administration and the States can greatlyimprove the safety of motorists, pedestrians, and work crews inhighway construction zones. Recommendations: The Secretary ofTransFcrtation should: direct the Administrator of the FederalHighway Administration to revise the Manual cn Uniform Tr'fficControl Devices tc include specific guidance on bow and when touse traffic control devices in construction zones; requiretraining to hell i sure -hat Federal and State officials aremade aware of the importance cf construction zone safety andhave the capability to plan for., implement, and inspect thesesafety measures; and establish field office inspectionprocedurE;s to identify hazardous conditions and insure *nat theyare corrected. (Author/SC)

-4-

UNI TED s TA TFSco * I all- GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFI(CE

Id IHighway Construction ZoneSafety--Not Yet Achieved

The Highway Administration has expressedconcern about construction /one safety forover 11 years, but this concern was not always reflected in the safety provisions madeby State highway agencies. At all of the 26construction sites GAO visited, unsafe conditions existed. GAO found that designs fo'worksite safety varied widely from State toState and project to project. Although theHighway Administration has taken somnie ations to mDrove driving ePvirorments, Lneseactions do not fully address the problemsGAO fouild.

Accordingly, the Federal Highway Administralion needs to develop additional prnogramguidance, provide atrd promote more training,and strengthen the i-lsp:actioi procedures (;its field offices.

CED 7810 DECEMBER 23, 1977

UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICEWASHINGTON, D.C. 20548

COMMUNITY AND ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT DIVISION

B-164497(3!

The HonorableThe Secretary of Transportation

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We have reviewed the efforts being made by t' FederalHighway Administration to increase safety in highway con-struction zones. This report presents the results of thatreview.

Our report contains several recommendations to you which,if implemented, will improve the safet', environment on futureFederal-aid highway projects. The report was discussed withFederal Highway Administration program officials, and theircomments were considered in preparing the report.

As you know, section 236 of the Legislative Reorganiza-tion Act of 1970 requires the head of a Federal agency to sub-mit a written statement on actions taken on our recommerndationsto the House Committee on Government Operations and the SenateCommittee on Governmental Affairs not later than 60 day. afterthe date of the report and to the House and Senate Committeeson Appropriations with the agency's first request foT- appro-priations made more than 60 days after the date of the report.

Copies of this repnrt are being sent to the House andSenate Committees on Appropriations; the House Committee onPublic Works and Transportation; the Senate Committce onEnvironment and Public Works; the House Committee on Govern-ment Operations; the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs;and the Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Sincerely yours,

Henry EschwegeDirector

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTiON ZONEREPORT TO THE SECRETARY SAFETY--NOT YET ACHIEVEDOF TRANSPORTATION

DIGEST

Because highway accident rates are higher inconstruction zones, it is important that Statestake special efforts at these worksites to pro-tect motorists, pedestrians, and work crews.(See p. 1.)

Tha Federal Highway Administration has beenemphasizing safety in 'iighway constructionzones since 1966. Howver, the hazards GAOfound indicated that in 11 years this emphasishas not always reached responsible projectlevel officials at Highway Administrationfield offices and State highway agencies.

When designing, implementing, and inspectinghighway worksites, these project officialshave not been devoting enough attention tosafety. GAO believes this occurred becausethey did not always know how to make work-sites safe, did not adequately appreciatethe need for safety in construction zones,or placed higher priority on other matters,such as construction quality.

Accordingly, the Federal Highway Administra-tion needs to develop additional programguidance, provide and promote more training,and strengthen the inspection procedures ofits field offices. (See p. 4.)

Since the early 1970s States have been usingincreasingly larger portions of their Federal-aid funds for rebuilding highways.

GAO's review of Construction zone safety i?seven States--Louisianla, Mississippi, Missouri,New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington--re-vealed widely varying safety deficiencies atthe 26 sites visited.

cIaaL5II.' Upon r moval. the rportcover date should be noted hereon.

CED-78-10

The following photograph shows one of the prob-lems found.

A series of 1-foot-deep pavement cutouts ex-tending across the centerline were markedby posi.ioning drums between the hazards in-stead of next to them. At night, a motoristmay riot notice the dropoff because his atten-tion is on the barrels. This could be langer-ous if he leaves the left lane and drivesbetween the barrels. Other safety hazardsare shown on pages 5 to 12.

Altiouoh the States or local jurisdiction,managing Federal-aid highway reconstructionare responsible, for assuring safety, the Fed-eral Government has an overview responsibility.

The Highway Administration has recognized prob-lems in achieving safe construction zones. Ithas proposed regulations to insure that Statesaddress the potential hazards at each worksite,has undertaken research, has develop&a andsponsored training programs, and is workirq to

ii

upgrade its manual of acceptable traffic con-trol devices. (See p. 1i.)

These actions, however, do not fully addressall the problems GAO found. (See p. 21.)

The Highway Administration's Manual on Uni-form Traffic Control Devices describes de-vices that can be used in construction zones.It does not contain enough information onhow and when these devices should be used.Until uniform standards for using these de-vices are established, State planners, projectofficials, and Federal inspectors will nothave sufficient guidelines for safe highwayworksites. (See p. 15.)

Highway Administration field offices havenot developed procedures describing the scopeand frequency of inspections, nor have Stateand Federal officials been adequately inspect-ing the safety of construction zones. Federalofficials attributed these failures to com-peting time requirements and lack of knowledge.They regard construction zone safety as acomparatively lower priority issue. (Seep. 19.)

Planners and State and Federal project in-spectors need training in construction zonesafety techniques. Little has been ac-complished by the Highway Administration tosatisfy these needs. (See p. 16.,

By developing additional guidance on how andwhen to use traffic control devices, by irm-provin~g field office inspection procedures,and by providing training, the Highway Ad-ministration and the States can greatly in-crease the safety of motorists, pedestrians,and work crews. (See p. 21.)

The Secretary of Transportation should directthe Administrator, Federal Highway Administra-tion, to:

---Revise the Manual on Uniform Traffic ControlDevices to include specific guidance on howand when to use traffic control devices in

TarLw het construction zones.

Tur Shcrt ~ ~ ~ ~ ii

-- Require training to help insure that Federaland State officials are made aware of theimportance of construction zone safety andhave the capability to plan for, implement,and inspect these safety measures.

--Establish field office inspection proceduresto identify hazardous conditions and insurethat they are corrected.

The Federal Highway Administration generallyagreed with the GAO recommendations. (Seep. 22.)

iv

C o t n t e

Page

DIGEST i

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION 1Importance of construction zone safety 1Federal-State responsibilities 2Scope of review 3

2 IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE CONSTRUCTIONZONE SAFETY 4Highway construction zones are not safe 5Recent actions to improve management 13Program guidance inadequate 15Increased training needed 16Construction plans need to be strength-

ened 17State supervision should be imprcved 19Highway Administration monitoring needs

to be improved 20Conclusions 21Recommendations 22Agency comments and our e;aluation 22

APPENDIX

I Sites visited during our review 24

II Our observations for three projectsvisited 25

ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials

GAO General Accounting Office

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 21 years, the Federal Government has givenStates about $85 billion for constructing and reconstructingInterstate and other Federal-aid highways. Recently, Stateshave been using increasingly larger portions of their Federal-aid funds to preserve and upgrade the initial investment. Forexample, between fiscal years 1970 and 1975, State obligationsof Federal-aid funds for reconstruction increased by 223 per-cent from about $560 million to $1.8 billion. More recentobligational data for fiscal year 1977 showed that almost$2.3 billion had been used for upgrading--an increase of27 percent since 1975.

In addition, the Congress has recognized the need tomaintain the quality of existing highways. Through theFederal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-280), theCongress provided $175 million annually for fiscal years 1978and 1979. These funds were specifically for reconstructing--rehabilitating, restoring, and resurfacing--Interstate high-ways in use over 5 years and not used as toll roads.

As State reconstruction activity increases, increasinglyhigher volumes of traffic will have to be routed throughor around active construction zones. Federal Highway Admin-istration records showed that during fiscal year 1977 about13,100 miles of existing Federal-aid highways had been underconstruction. Because these construction zones are poten-tially hazardous, adequate traffic management techniquesmust be employed to insure motorist, worker, and pedestriansafety. In addition, generally rising traffic volumes willcompound the problems associated with managing traffic inconstruction zones.

IMPORTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION ZONE SAFETY

Construction zone safety encompasses those activitiesthat provide for safe, expeditious movement of motoristsand pedestrians through construction and maintenance zonesand for the protection of the work force.

This matter has been a subject of concern in recentyears for the Congress, Federal Highway Administration, andorganizations concerned with highway safety, such as the Na-tional Advisory Committee on Uniform Traffic Control De-vices, the National Highway Safety Advisory Committee, theCenter for Auto Safety, and the American Association ofState Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A

1

common belief, supported by numerous reviews, is that mean-ingful action must be taken to make construction sites safer.

Since more hazards exist during construction, trafficaccidents are more likely to occur at that time. While nonational statistics are available, several studies supportthe contention that accident rates are higher in constructionzones. One study, based on 1965 statistics of constructionzones in California, showed that the overall accident rateincreased by 21 percent during construction, whereas thefatal accident rate increased 132 percent. In April 1977,a consulting firm prepared for the Department of Transporta-tion a report entitled "Accident and Speed Studies in Con-struction Zones." This study covered 79 projects and 20,000accidents in Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, NewYork, Ohio, and Washington. Higher accident rates occurredon 69 percent of the projects. Further, in 24 percent ofthe projects, accident rate increases of 50 percent or morewere experienced. Another study of a project in Virginiaindicated the overall frequency of accidents increased119 percent, with fatalities going up by 320 percent. Inan Illinois review of two toll roads under construction,researchers reported vehicle crashes increased 160 percent.

FEDERAL-STATE RESPONSIBILITIES

The Highway Safety Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 731) requireseach State to have a highway safety improvement program ap-proved by the Secretary of Transportation. The objective ofthe program is to reduce the deaths, injuries, and propertydamage caused by traffic accidents on the Nation's highways.

The overall effect of the act was to involve the FederalGovernment directly in the quality and quantity of State high-way safety operations by providing Federal funds and issuingstandards and guidelines. Our review focused on HighwayAdministration and State efforts to protect motorists andpedestrians in highway construction zones, as part of theoverall safety improvement program required by the 1966 act.

The Highway Administration is responsible for developingprogram guidance and approving State highway safety improve-ment plans and proposed construction projects. In addition,it monitors State performance to assure that Federal stand-ards are met.

The States and local jurisdictions, in designing andconstructing individual highway projects, are responsiblefor assuring that adequate advance warning, guidance, andregulation of traffic are given the motoring public around

2

these sites. To accomplish this, States are to use HighwayAdministration program guidance in designing project specifi-cations, inspecting construction sites, and initiating neededchanges.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the Highway Administration's guidance forinsuring safety in highway construction zones, Federal andState planning procedures and training activities, the ade-quacy of safety provisions at worksites and Federal andState inspection procedures. We reviewed construction zonesafety efforts at the Highway Administration headquarters,Washington, D.C., and at its regional offices in Atlanta,Georgia, and Fort Worth, Texas. We visited its divisionoffices, the respective State highway agencies' centraloffices and selected field offices in Louisiana, Mississippi,Missouri, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. We inter-,iewed Highway Administration, State highway, or local juris-diction officials at the 26 pLojects we visited in the sevenStates. In addition, we verified the severity of the safetyhazards we observed Aith a representative of a consultingfirm that had developed a construction zone safety trainingcourse for the Highway Administration.

3

CHAPTER 2

IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE

CONtRUCTION ZONE SAFETY

The Highway Administation is responsible for assuringthat State highway agencies provide adequate constructionzone safety on federally assisted reconstruction projects.Despite the Highway Administ-ation's expressed concern forconstruction zone safety from 1966 to as recent as September1976, hazardous conditions were evident at each of the proj-ect sites we visited. State and Highway Adiinistration fieldofficials were not giving construction zone safety enoughconsideration when designing, implementing, and inspectinghighway construction projects.

The varying deficiencies we found in State highway agen-cies' construction zone safety practices indicated that theHighway Administration's interest had not always reached theproject level. Ar a result, motorists, pedestrians, andworkers faced hazardous conditions at highway constructionprojects. In our view, failure to adequately deal with con-struction zone safety matters occurred because:

--State highway and Highway Administration field offi.-cials did not always approach highway construction ina manner that adequately addressed the afety problemsmotorists encounter in highway construction areas.

-- Some officials believed that other matters, such asconstruction requirements and environmental quality,had higher priority than construction zone safety.

-- Highway Administration guidance provided very limitedinformation on how and when to use appropriate traf-fic control devices.

-- State highway and Highway Administration field offi-cials were not adequately training their personnel.

Recently the Highway Administration has developed train-ing courses and initiated a large research effort in thisarea. It also proposed that the States be requi::ed to de-velop procedures to insure preparation of traffic controlplans for each reconstruction project.

4

These efforts should increase the Federal emphasis onconstruction zone safety. However, the Highway Administra-tion needs to take additional steps to insure that its em-phasis is reflected in safety provisions made by State high-way agencies to adequately design, implement, and inspectfor safety.

H:?GHWAY CONSTRUCTION ZONES ARE NOT SAFE

Using information gained during our participation in aHighway Administration-sponsored training course on con-struction zone safety, we inspected 26 construction sites inseven States and found unsafe and hazardous conditions ateach site. (See app. I for a list of the projects.) Althoughsome States had relatively safe projects, the overali fre-quency and seriousness of the conditions as illustratedin the following photographs show that the Highway Administra-tion has not been successful in achieving adequate safetyin construction zones.

-- Pavement dropoffs up to about 7 feet deep were notadequately marked for day or night visibility.

;·e·=._ A''

is~~~~~~~s

The following photo shows the motorist's view of theexcavation pictured on page 5. Red plastic streamers weretacked onto wooden construction forms to warn motorists ofthe hazard. However, the forms 4id not adequately mark thehazard because they did not show -p well, particularly atnight.

6i

-- Construction equipment and material were stored closeto traffic lanes.

This crane was left on the road shoulder overnight. Theequipment's proximity to traffic and poor reflectivity cre-ated an extremely hazardous condition. At night, motoristssurprised by its presence mad, erratic maneuvers into theleft traffic lane.

The fenced-in area contained various sizes of water and sewagepipes and was flush with the edge of the traffic lane. Lack ofreflective markings on the fence caused a hazardous conditionat night.

8

-- There were failures to provide for pedestrian traffic.

\ 13

!

Pedestrians were forced to walk in a traffic lane to crossthe street.

-- Large pieces of concrete, sandbags, heavy steel forms,and timbers 12 inches square and 5 or 6 feet longwere used to anchor or stabilize drums, barricades,or sign frames. These obstacles could become deadlymissiles if struck by a vehicle.

-v

Heavy steel forms were used extensively at one project toanchor metal drums in the manner shown above.

10

I~~~~~ILt L:T::X:

-·- , B ri__

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~h-

Three sandbags were placed on top of this drum for addedweight and stability.

11

A piece of concrete was used to stablize this drum.

--Barricades obstructed motorists' vision at intersec-tions.

The driver's view of the semitrailer approaching from theright was obstructed.

12

other conditions we observed included:

-- Traffic control devices were dirty and not properlymaintained.

--Traffic control devices did not provide for the safemovement of traffic from one lane to another.

-- Warning signs, preceding the construction site, weremissing on some projects and, on some others, were sowordy and numerous that they were confusing. Withinthe boundaries of the projects, signs were not used;.hen needed, aid not permit adequate response time,and were contradictory to other signs at the location.Unsafe conditions resulted from signs protruding intothe roadway or being mounted so low as to be nearlyinvisible. Signs applicable to day work only wereleft uncovered at night.

-- Temporary striping was not always used. It; absenceon some narrow roads bordered by pavement dropoffsand curves made driving hazardous. At some locations,existing striping should have been obliterated becauseit could mislead motorists.

-- Timber beams, used as positive barriers and for de-lineating traffic created unsafe conditions becausemost were pooriv maintained, nonreflective, and dis-connected, often causing them to protrude into the lanesof traffic.

-- Poor flagging procedures were widespread, includingfailure to give advance warning of the operation,provide for flagmen when needed, properly equip theflagmen in required attire, and remove flagging warn-ings when the operations ceased.

While the preceding safety defects shown by these pho-tographs may seem obvious, other problems, such as movingtraffic safely from one lane to another, are not.

RECENT ACTIONS TO IMPROVE MANAGEMENT

The Highway Administration has initiated several ac-tions to improve motorist, worker, and pedestrian safetyin construction zones. Its emphasis on this problem wasdesigned to strengthen procedures for assuring that Statesachieve safe construction zones. This emphasis, however,is not adequately addressing the problems noted during ourreview.

13

In May 1976, the Highway Administration said Statesneeded to give more attention to motorist safety in con-struction zones. It initiated action to provide nationalleadership for assuring proper attention to public safetyin construction zones. Specifically, it recommended thatStates (1) improve preliminary planning for safety, (2) as-sign responsibility for motorist safety to qualified person-nel, (3) provide training programs as needed, and (4) inspectsafety conditions at construction sites.

In implementing this, Highway haministration regionaloffices employed wide y varying techn.ques. For example,one office developed a specific program :'o determine thestatus and needed improvements to State-l' riteria for plan-ning and managing safety efforts in col icticon zones. An-other regional office did not issue an N jidance for imple-menting this emphasis.

Through its inspections of State practices, the High-way Administration is aware of existing problems. In 1976,its review of 18 States' practices showed that the qualityof traffic control procedures varied widely not only fromState to State but also from project to project. HighwayAdministration followup reviews in 1977 showed several areasof improvement; however, it concluded that continuing prob-lems were sufficiently serious to warrant further attention.

To further its emphasis, on August 25, 1977, the HighwayAdministration published a notice of proposed rulemaking forimproving construction zone safety in the Federal Register.The rule would require each State to (1) develop a ProcessManagement Plan for obtaining safe construction zones and(2) prepare detailed traffic control plans for each Federal-aid highway construction project. It would also requirecontracting agencies to designate a project level officialto be responsible for and have sufficient authority to im-plement project safety plans.

The Highway Administration has addressed training andresearch by

-- sponsoring a training course entitled "Traffic Con-trol for Street and Highway Construction and Mainte-nance Operations" t - States' use;

-- contracting for development of two additional courseson construction zone safety matters;

-- preparing slide presentations on barriers, barricades,and pavement markings in construction zones; and

14

-- initiating a multistudy research effort.

As discussed in the following five sections, more High-way Administration actions are needed.

PROGRAM GUIDANCE INADEQUATE

The Highway Administration has issued standards andother program guidance to assist States to design and imple-ment safe construction projects. The standards for construc-tion zone safety include the Manual on Uniform Traffic Con-trol Devices and the highway safety standards developed inresponse to the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The HighwayAdministration also considers the American Association ofState Highway and Transportation Officials' publicationentitled "Highway Design and Operational Practices Relatedto Highway Safety" as guidance. Combined with the AASHTOpublication, the standards and the manual provide some man-agement principles for construction zone safety. The manualdescribes what devices may be used to achieve safety.

This guidance, however, provides little information onhow, why, and when these devices are to be used. Instead,the Highway Administration relies on its field offices andState highway agencies to use general program guidance andprofessional engineering judgment as the bases for assuringthat its field offices and State highway agencies (1) developadequate construction zone safety plans, (2) critically in-spect the worksites, and (3) assess and satisfy Federal andState training needs.

Safety standards

The standards on highway design, construction, and main-tenance and traffic engineering services are regulations de-signed to protect motorists, pedestrians, and highway workers.The first standard points out that construction zones requirespecial attention because the accident potential is muchgreater than for normal highway conditions.

Together, the two standards cite several specific prin-ciples of work zone safety, including (1) need to shortenconstruction time, (2) limitation of construction operationsto "offpeak" hours on high-volume highways, and (3) appro--priate guarantees for safety within construction contractsand plans. Recognizing that poorly maintained traffic con-trol devices lose their effectiveness and can impair high-way safety, the Highway Administration recommended thatthe States periodically inspect all traffic control devicesand correct potentially hazardous conditions in constructionzones.

15

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

The manual prescribes the traffic control devices thatmay be used in construction and maintenance operations toregulate, warn, and guide traffic. But it fails to providesufficient detail on why, when, and how the approved devicesare to be used. As a result, the Highway Administration mustplace heavy reliance on the professional engineering judgmentof State and Federal officials.

Highway Administration officials acknowledged that themanual had deficiencies, including ambiguities in describ-ing how to achieve safe construction zones. While speakingbefore members of the Institute of Transportation Engineers,the Associate Administrator for Safety said, "Admittedly, themanual is vague on its requirements for construction zonesand should be improved.'

Other highway safety organizations and researchers havealso recognized the need for better program guidance. Onesaid that the manual should be redirected to provide optimummotorist guidance instead of an apparent overemphasis on oper-ating efficiencies and liability avoidance. A second saidthat, in the absence of standards mandated by regulation,safety is often sacrificed in the interest of speed andeconomy because safety procedures can be time-consuming andcostly.

The Highway Administration recognized major problems withits guidance for construction zones and in December 1976 ini-tiated a comprehensive review. It is currently revising themanual and estimates completion in July 1978. The revisedmanual, however, will not include information on how to applythese devices because Highway Administration officials con-sidered this information supplementary to manual provisionsand were fearful that including this criteria would increaseState legal liability. This rationale, however, is incon-sistent with current manual provisions which already includemandatory, advisory, and permissive conditions.

INCREASED TRAINING NEEDED

There is general agreement that insufficient knowledgeof and concern for construction zone safety can contributeto increased safety hazards. Project officials should notonly be aware of motorists' needs, but also have sufficientengineering knowledge to provide a safe driving environmentin construction zones. Several State and Federal officialswe interviewed expressed a need for additional educational

16

efforts at the project level. Others made comments assigningmuch of the responsibility for construction zone safety prob-lems to motorists' driving habits. According to the HighwayAdministration and some of its researchers, there is a needfor construction zone safety education at the project level.

-hway Administration field offices are responsible foruntifying and meeting their own construction zone safety

gaining nseeds and for advising the States on solutions totheir training requirements.

Most Highway Administration field offices we visitedhad not been actively working vith the State highway depart-ments in addressing State employee training needs. Only twofield offices had recommended that States establish formaltraining programs. Further, State highway agencies had notsatisfied their training needs. None had formal coursesdealing with construction zone safety and few State per-sonnel had attended the Highway Administration's comprehen-sive training course. While some Highway Administrationfield office personnel have attended safety slide presenta-tions (see p. 14), these presentations are not a sufficienthasis for overall management of construction zone safety. Wecould not identify any other training courses for construc-tion zone safety being used by the Highway Administrationfield offices we reviewed.

Several State and Federal officials indicated thatmotorists needed to exercise more caution through construc-tion zones. For example, one State official said the motor-ists are noe assuming enough responsibility when drivingthrough the construction zone and that construction zone safetypractices would never meet all Federal standards because theState's numher or-, priority was completing the project. Inanother instance, we called a project engineer's attentionto barricades which obscured motorists' vision. His responsewas, "If the motorist's view is obscured, he will be morecareful entering the roadway."

The need for training is demonstrated further in thefollowing sections on construction plans and inspections.

CONSTRUCTION PLANS NEED TO BE STRENGTHENED

AASHTO has stated that when traffic is maintained throughconstruction work zones, a well thought-out and executed traf-fic plan should be prepared during the design of the project.According to AASHTO, a carefully developed plan combined withconstant surveillance can produce safe and expeditious trafficflow through construction operations.

17

The Highway Administration has required States to pro-vide for motorist safety at highway worksites. However,thus far, it has not provided States with sufficient informa-tion on how to design and implement safe construction zones.

Other organizations concerned with highway safety haverecognized the importance of planning. For example, a re--search organization and the Center for Auto Safety have urgedthat such items as lane tapers, pavement marling, and bar-riers should be specifically considered when developing con-struction zone safety plans. According to the Center, ad-dressing such items more specifically for each project wouldassure timely consideration of features having a material ef-fect on construction zone safety.

Highway Administration field offices are responsible forreviewing project designs and specifications to help insurethat State highway agencies adequately consider constructionzone safety for each project. However, its field offices dtnot have specific procedures requiring thorough and systematicevaluation of such efforts. As a result, the extent of pro-visions in State project designs and specifications for work-site safety vary.

In discussing the variations, State and Federal offi-cials told us that the amount of detailed planning forconstruction zone safety practices was left to the judgmentof the responsible project personnel. According to a HighwayAdministration headquarters official, Federal and State offi-cials at the project level lack sufficient appreciation andknowledge to adequately address the problem primarily becauseof the low priority given to construction zone safety in thepast.

Designers often relied only on a set of standard plansdepicting typical situations. Although this may be a validapproach on projects where no unusual conditions exist, wefound that fewer hazardous conditions were present at thesites where designs and specifications were more detailed.This was particularly true in Ohio where designers were re-quired to prepare a detailed construction zone safety planfor all projects. In addition to the standard advance warningsigns, a typical plan included provisions for such items assign and arrow board placement, lane tapers, equipment storage,and temporary pavement markings.

In contrast, construction zone safety plans in Missouriand Texas contained little detail. In Missouri, four urban

18

projects characterized by high traffic densities and con-struction complexities hdd dangerous dropoffs and detours.However, project designers included only standard plans whichdid not address many of the unsafe conditions we observed.In Texas, an urban project had pavement dropoffs up to3 feet in depth and needed temporary lane striping throughoutthe project, but neither condition was addressed in thestandard plans used in the project design and specifications.

STATE SUPERVISION SHOULD BE IMPROVED

During construction, the State highway agencies are re-sponsible for supervising the construction zone safety prac-tices of their contractors. The need for diligent and con-tinual inspections of projects for hazardous conditions iswidely acknowledged. For example, AASHTO said that as aminimum, "drive-throughs" should be made at the beginningand end of each workday. It has also recommended that:

"Responsibilities must be assigned in order toassure proper supervision of the placement, relo-cation, and removal of traffic control devicesduring the progress of the work. Supervision mustbe constant and consistent from the first to thefinal day of the job."

Traffic safety measures are usually the responsibility of theState's project engineer or his designee.

Wa found that State construction zone safety inspectionsin sente cases were inadequate and in other cases were notperformed. On several projects we reviewed, project engi-neers said that completing projects within calendar and bud-get limitations was much more important than constructionzone safety. A Highway Administration official pointed outthat another competing priority at the State level was insur-ing construction quality. One State official said that, be-cause of these comp,.ting priorities, maximum constructionzone safety will probably never become a reality. Someproject engineers reviewed their projects only when theydrove to work in the morning and again as they returned homein the afternoon. Highway Administration officials told usthat more emphasis must be placed on education so that proj-ect engineers will know why such things as "proper signing"are essential and what must be done to insure that the proj-ect is adequately designed and maintained to routetraffic safely through it.

19

The Highway Administration's training course on con-struction zone safety suggests that more thorough inspec-tions be made through the use of checklists in evaluatingthe effectiveness and proper maintenance of such things astraffic control devices. For the 26 projects we visited,the only instance of a checklist being used was by a Stateproject engineer in Washington.

AASHTO said nighttime drive-throughs must be made toevaluate the adequacy of lighting and reflectorization, butofficials in five of the States we reviewed said they werenot required to make night inspections. We found that nightinspections were not regularly perfcrmed in any of the Stateswe visited. One project engineer said he had never made anight inspection on his project since its inception in thefall of 1976. Several of the hazardous conditions noted dur-ing our visits were found during nigh': observations.

HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION MONITORINGNEEDS TO BE IMPROVED

Highway Administration field offices are responsiblefor inspecting construction sites to insure that States areproperly signing and marking construction worksites. How-ever, there is no program guidance specifying how often theengineers should inspect traffic controls or what the extentand content of these inspections should be. Instead, thescope and frequency of inspections are left to the engineer-ing judgment of the field office director or the respectiveengineer.

Inspection reports are formal mechanisms for document-ing construction conditions and keeping State highway agencyofficials apprised of Highway Administration monitoringefforts. Inspect.on reports we reviewed were prepared aspart of overall construction project reviews to assess thestatus of construction, but they seldom identified construc-tion zone hazards. Although one Federal official said HighwayAdministration field officials would document deficienciesonly if they were unable to obtain corrective action, we notedthat there were unsafe conditions which existed at the timeof the inspections which were not documented and which hadnot been corrected. The safety problems noted at three proj-ects are discussed in detail in appendix II.

In addition, since the engineers were not required totour the sites at night, such inspections were usually notmade. Some engineers said they usually drove through theproject if they happened to remain in the vicinity over-night.

20

The reasons for poor inspections at the State level alsoexist at the Federal level. According to Federal officials,these include a lack of knowledge of how or what to inspect,a general lack of understanding about the level of effortneeded to insure safe conditions, and competing time demands,such as the time required to complete environmental impactstatements.

CONCLUSIONS

The Federal Highway Administration headquarters hasstrongly emphasized safety in construction zones. How-ever the many hazardous conditions we found at constructionworksites indicated that it has not been successful in estab-lishing this same level of concern in its fielc offices andState highway agencies. Compared with their responsibilitiesfor completing projects within scheduled time limits and in-suring construction quality, they perceived constructionzone safety as a lower priority.

The Highway Administration recognized many of the prob-lems associated with achieving safe construction zones. Itproposed regulations that, if implemented, should result inbetter traffic control and should address the potential haz-ards at each worksite. It has also initiated significantresearch efforts, developed and sponsored training programs,and is working to upgrade its manual of acceptable trafficcontrol devices.

These efforts, however, do not entirely address theproblems we identified. For example, although Federal offi-cials were not adequately inspecting worksites for trafficsafety matters, little effort had been directed toward improv-ing these Federal inspection procedures.

The Highway Administration has not provided sufficientguidance on the proper application of traffic control devicesin construction zones. Because of this lack of guidance andthe failure to fully satisfy training needs, we believe Stateand Federal officials did not always know how and when touse the control devices.

The Highway Administration places heavy reliance on itsfield offices and State highway agencies to protect motor-ists. To accomplish this objective, the Highway Administra-tion needs to provide specific application guidelines, developbetter inspection procedures, and promote additional trainingon construction zone safety. Training should also be required

21

so project level officials become aware of safety needs inconstruction zones and develop the ability to plan, implement,and inspect projects for these needs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation re-quire the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, to:

--Revise the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devicesto include specific guidance on how and when to usetraffic control devices in construction zones.

--Require training to help insure that Federal and Stateofficials are made aware of the importance of construc-tion zone safety and have the capability to plan, im-implement, and inspect these safety measures.

-- Establish field office inspection procedures to iden-tify hazardous conditions and insure that they arecorrected

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION

We discussed the above matters with Highway Administra-tion officials and considered their views in preparing thisreport. They acknowledged that the driving environments inconstruction zones sometimes contained safety problems andthat additional actions were needed to mitigate these dangers.The Highway Administration is relying on implementation ofthe proposed construction zone safety regulations and revi-sions to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices toaccomplish these needed improvements. It estimates the finalregulation will be issued in February 1978.

Highway Administration officials said that the Manualon Uniform Traffic Control Devices describes what devicesmay be ised but does not contain enough information on howand whei to use them. They told us that they were thinkingaLout developing a separate handbook that would contain suchguidance. However, we believe that it would be more appro-priate to include this information in the manual because itofficially sets forth the basic principles that govern thedesign and usage of such devices.

Highway Administration officials agreed that their fieldoffires were not frequently inspecting projects. Althoughthey objected to developing checklists as management tools,they oelieved their field offices should develop proceduresfor reviewing the effectiveness of provisions for constructionzone safety.

22

Highway officials acknowledged the need to train theirfield officials and State highway personnel on how to planand implement safe construction zones. They said that theproposed regulations would require States to provide infor-mation on training needs and that Highway Administrationfield offices would then determine the sufficiency of theproposed training to meet those needs. We believe that,in adopting this regulation, the Highway Administrationshould insure that training needs are fulfilled at theproject level, including an explanation of the importance ofand methods for achieving construction zone safety.

The Highway Administration has expressed concern aboutsafety problems in construction zones for over 11 years.Although it has taken some actions that should help improvesafety in construction areas, our recommended additionalactions are necessary to achieve construction zone safety.Since the field offices do not make detailed reviews of eachtraffic control plan, it is especially important that addi-tional guidance and training be provided to State officials.Further, tc maximize the effectiveness of its field offices,the Highway Administration should establish inspection pro-cedures to identify and correct safety hazards in constructionzones.

23

APPENDIX I APPENDIX I

SITES VISITED

DURING OUR REVIEW

Averagevehicledaily

States Project number Type Length traffic

(miles)

Louisiana 1-10-5-(176)233 Urban 1.Q 95,720Louisiana M-9391(002) Urban 1.4 26,200Mississippi ROS-008-I(28) Rural 0.3 12,000Mississippi RF-014-2(12) Rural 7.6 3,500Missouri TQF-66-6(4) Urban 3.0 39,930Missouri M-5575(601) Urban 1.5 13,000Missouri M-5575(602) Urban 0.5 13,000Missouri M-5575(603) Urban 0.4 83,700

I-TQFI-81-2(127)077/ UrbanNew York I-TQFI-690-3(36)214 8.6 78,000New York I-UI-690-3(35)208 Urban 7.0 23,100New York M-5055(1) Urban 1.5 57,900New York I-278-1(160) Urban 10.7 63,800Ohio I-IR-70-7(62)200 Rural 3.3 13,550

1-70(51)156/ RuralOhio RFI-UI-70-7(61)156 3.5 40,000Ohio I-IR-71-3(66)80 Rural 10.3 Not availableOhio I-IR-71-3(59)91 Rural 3.4 Not availableTexas MQ000(1) Urban 2.0 14,500Texas MQ021(1) Urban 1.0 28,200Texas 1-30-5(38'053 Urban 0.3 Not availableTexas 1-30-5(41)052 Urban 5.0 81,940Texas MS002(1) Urban 1.8 26,180Texas TQMS265(1) Urban 2.3 20,210Washington I-90-1(112)15 Rural 0.9 19,000Washington I-90-1(107)16 Rural 1.3 14,900Washingtcn I-5-1(112)35 Rural 1.5 28,000Washington I-5-1(114)39 Rural 1.3 24,300

24

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

OUR OBSERVATIONS FOR

THREE PROJECTS VISITED

PROJECT 1

Ocean ParkwayBrooklyn, New YorkDate started: 8/16/76Length: 1.5 milesNumber of Federal Highway Administration (FWHA) Inspec-tions: 1

FHWA inspection findings

Maintenance and protection of traffic was satisfactory.The inspection was performed in November 1976.

GAO Observations in May 1977

This project consisted of resurfacing a badly detteri-orated six-lane street through a heavily populated residentialarea. Traffic was maintained on two outside lanes in eachdirection, while the two middle lanes were under construction.The project was characterized by heavy pedestrian traffic,narrow traffic lanes, and numerous intersections.

The engineer-in-charge had previously withheld paymentsto the contractor and was considering assessing furtherpenalties for failure to comply with traffic safety measures.The engineer had cited some deficiencies noted during ourinspections just 2 days prior to our visit. He had suggestedthe contractor appoint someone fulltime to traffic control.

During our visit we noticed:

-- Timber curbs were not connected together and protrudedinto traffic lanes. The ends at intersections werenot tapered as required by project plans and, therefore,were blunt 12-inch obstacles to oncoming traffic. (Seephotograph, top p. 26.)

25

APPENDIX II APPENDIX lI

-- The lack of crosswalks at a number of intersections(as required by the project plans) forced pedestriansto use traffic lanes when crossing the street.

-- Unnecessary striping was not obliterated at inter-sections. This tended to contradict the direction inwhich timber curbs channeled trafric. Therefore,motorists were receiving conflicting guidance.

--Flagmen were not always used when needed. (See follow-ing photograph, top p. 27.) In instances where workerswere directing traffic, they did not wear reflectiveattire or comply with flagging procedures set forthin the manual.

-- Amber reflectors on top of metal bars were dirtyand not reflective at night. Many of the metal barswere bent and often projected into the traffic lane.

--Materials were stored in a fenced enclosure whichabutted the street curb and were not reflectorizedfor night visibility. (See photograph, p. 8.)

-- Traffic control devices were in poor condition.

26

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

-- Confusing and superfluous siqns were common at in-tersections.

-- Some signs were too wordy for quick comprehension.(See following photograph.)

27

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

PROJECT 2

Lindberg BoulevardSt. Louis, MissouriDate started: Fall 1976Length: 3 milesNurmber of FHWA Inspections: 0

GAO Observations in May 1977

This project consisted of widening a street and a bridgeand installing traffic signals. Traffic was sometimes con-gested and speeds varied from about 25 mph to 40 mph, depend-ing on the time of day.

The site engineer described the project as one of thetoughest he had supervised, with the worst set of construc-tion zone safety plans he had ever seen. Throughout theproject, there were deep excavations and shoulder dropoffswhich presented formidable hazards not addressed in theplans. He said the plans included no details for detours,and, for the most part, traffic control had been left tohis judgment. For instance, the plans originally specifiedonly four barricades for the entire project when, accordingto the engineer, that many could have been used at just oneintersection.

The site engineer's project inspections consisted ofa cursory review as he drove to and from work. He had notinspected the project at night. We observed the followingconditions.

-- Culvert excavation, ranging in depth from 3 to 7 feet,was inadequately delineated throughout the project.At one location, for example, a crane was used tomark the hazard by being parked on the road shoulderin front of the excavation. The equipment was dif-ficult to see at night and presented a hazard asgreat as the one it was marking. (See photograph,p. 7.)

-- Traffic control devices were extremely dirty and inpoor condition.

-- Pavement dropoffs were marked with cones which wereadequate during the day but were not readily visibleat night.

28

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

-- Excavated portions of the street were not completelyshut off to traffic. Poor lighting and improper maLk-ings made these locations hazardous.

-- "Open Trench" signs were difficult to see--too lowand in the excavation instead of preceding it. (Seefollowing photograph.)

X-- .. .'' -- .: "

-- At one intersection permanent and temporary stripinqgave motorists conflicting messages. The permanentstriping led directly into grading work adjacentto the street. This was particularly hazardous atnight since drivers had to make a sharp turn whilereceiving simultaneous but conflicting messaaes onwhich way to go.

29

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

PROJECT 3

Wurzbach RoadSan Antonio, TexasDate started: June 10, 1976Length: 2 milesNumber of FHWA inspections: 3

FHWA inspection findings

None.

GAO observations in March 1977

This project involved widening a two-lane road to fourlanes. Two lanes remained open at all times. Drivewaysto many small businesses along the road complicated theproject. Although the speed limit had been lowered temporar-ily to 20 mph, the :raffic normally flowed between 35 and40 mph. Grading operations were in progress adjacent tothe two lanes open to traffic, and dropoffs up to 10 inchesdeep were common.

The site engineer advised us that he inspected the proj-ect at night only if he happened to be in the area, and eventhen the inspection was only a cursory drive-through.

We observed the following conditions:

-- There was no temporary striping on the portion ofthe road open to traffic. This created a hazard sincethe two lanes were narrow and the motorists were oftenconfronted with a sekere dropoff. (See photographson the next two pages.)

30

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

-- Warning devices marking hazardous drops were locatedas much as 300 feet apart, as shown in the photographbelow.

3 1

31

kPPENDIX II APPENDIX II

-- Barricades used to mark access drives to a shoppingcenter obstructed the view of drivers entering thebusy roadway from the shopping center.

-- Temporary speed limit signs adjacent to normal speedlimit signs gave conflicting instructions to motor-ists.

--An arrow sign attached to a barricade was used to markan obstruction on the side of the road. The arrowsuggested a turn where there was no need to turn.

(34260)

32