Use of Uniformed Police Officers on Federal-Aid Highway Construction Projects

1. Use of Uniformed Police Officers on Federal-Aid Highway Construction Projects Executive Summary Presentation Prepared by Editor’s Ink Subcontractor to Henderson Assoc. June 8, 2000

2. Overview of Presentation • Background • Survey • Policies • Effectiveness • Summary • Recommendations

3. Background • TEA-21 required DOT to: “…conduct a study with States, State transportation departments, and law enforcement organizations, on the extent and effectiveness of use of uniformed police officers on Federal-aid highway construction projects.”

4. Background • Survey • Federal Register Notice • Federal Register Survey Questions • General Comments encouraged • AASHTO Survey • Analysis of Policies & Studies

5. Federal Register Respondentsby Category N = 95

6. State Transportation Agency Respondents Respondents

7. Law Enforcement Respondents Respondents

8. Survey

9. Survey Respondentsby Category N = 70

10. Survey Responses • The total number of survey respondents was 70. • Not all survey respondents answered all questions. • Therefore the number of respondents (N) is DIFFERENT for EACH QUESTION.

11. Size of Law EnforcementAgency • Only 25 Responses • Average = 1,123 • Range = 132 - 6,644 • Median = 3,388

12. Size of Jurisdiction • All > 100,000 population

13. Policies

14. Does Agency Have Policy?N = 61

15. Does Agency Have Policy? • Written policies generally provide for hiring off-duty police officers to work construction zones, although a few States use only on-duty officers • Funding from DOT, usually • Some “yes” responders said they had “unwritten” policies

16. What is the Source of Funding for UPO Program? N = 68

17. Extent of Use of UPOs • Survey Data • Analysis of Policies Submitted

18. Circumstances Where UPOsMost Often Used • Nighttime operations • Lane or road closures • High speed/ Hi volume traffic

19. Only a Few Agencies Use UPOs in All Projects • Arizona (unwritten policy) • Rhode Island • City of Boston

20. How is Number of Officers Determined? • Responses vary widely • Job site factors • location • traffic volume/speed • nighttime operations • complaints, problems, or special operations • Available funding • Procedural factors • Manpower factors

21. Off-duty Only, or On-Duty As Well? N = 57

22. Use of Off-Duty vs On-Duty UPOs (Based on Survey Data & Policies Submitted) Off Duty On Duty

23. 92% of Respondents said UPOs used Marked Vehicles at Construction Projects Yes 92% No 4% Varies 4% No response

24. Officer Positioning & Gear • 11% of survey respondents said they require officers to be outside vehicle • 33% require high-visibility clothing

25. 24% of Survey Respondents said their State Conducts a UPO Training Program

26. Who’s In Charge? • Who Developed the Policy? • Who Determines the Number of Officers? • Are UPOs included in the Planning Process?

27. Who Developed the Policy?N = 30

28. Who Determines Number of Officers? N = 63

29. Joint Effort Between Which Parties? N = 26

30. Are UPOs Included in Planning Process? N = 60

31. Effectiveness of Policies • Survey Data--Mostly Opinion, but Indicates Positive Effects • Hard “Real World” Data is Scarce • Academic Research also Scarce, but Generally Positive

32. Effects of Policies: Academic Studies • Generally Positive Results • Document that UPO Presence Reduces Speed as much as or more than other traffic control methods • Some guidelines available

33. Effects of Policies: Academic Studies Transafety Paper, Noel, et al, 1987 Compared: 1. MUTCD flagging procedure 2. MUTCD flagging procedure w/ add’l flagger hand motions 3. marked police car w/ lights & radar 4. UPOs standing to control traffic

34. Effects of Policies: Academic Studies Noel et al found: “The law enforcement methods demonstrated a stronger speed reduction capability; particularly when lane closures result in two or more lanes open.”

35. Effects of Policies: Academic Studies Transportation Research Board, Richards, et al, 1985 Findings: Flagging & law enforcement were best methods. Best flagging methods reduced speeds an average of 19% Best Law enforcement methods reduced speeds by an average of 18%.

36. Has Your Agency Conducted Studies on use of UPOs in Work Zones?N = 58

37. Studies by States • A few states track # of citations, # of collisions, injuries, etc. Generally do not provide conclusive data on effectiveness • Some law enforcement agencies provided info on budget, # of officers assigned, etc.

38. General Respondents by Category N - 25

39. General Comments Received • General comments were overwhelmingly supportive • AASHTO 1997 Policy Resolution supports use of Federal-aid funds for UPOs in work zones • 2 of 10 highway industry associations had methodology suggestions: • AHAS: encourages gathering more hard data • IIHS: recommends study of automated enforcement as supplement to UPOs

40. Summary Findings • Report documents widespread use, and support for, the use of UPOs in work zones. (extent) • Little hard data available on actual effects of policies. • Survey data show State policies and procedures vary widely.

41. Issues Summary • Policies vary Re: • Circumstances Where UPOs are Required • Number of Officers Required • Training, Procedures, & Supervision • Conflicting Missions (Traffic Control vs. Speed Enforcement)

42. States Served By FHWA Mobile Asphalt Laboratory 1993-2000 Asphalt Trailer Visited

43. Issues Summary • Funding and Personnel Availability • Payment of Officers • Rates (overtime vs straight pay) • Benefits & Retirement

44. Recommendations: Agencies should consider... • Developing written guidelines to address: • situations where UPOs recommended • work zone traffic control planning process • officer pay/benefits, work procedures, etc. • Training UPOs in proper MUTCD work zone signage and flagging procedures.

45. Recommendations: Agencies should consider... • Gathering better data on traffic safety incidents at Federally funded highway work zones in order to assess effectiveness of work zone traffic control techniques. • Using new technologies, such as automated enforcement and intrusion alarms, as well as UPOs.