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

Executive Summary PresentationPrepared by Editor’s InkSubcontractor to Henderson Assoc.June 8, 2000

Overview of Presentation

• Background• Survey• Policies• Effectiveness• Summary• Recommendations

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.”

Background

• Survey– Federal Register Notice

• Federal Register Survey Questions• General Comments encouraged

– AASHTO Survey

• Analysis of Policies & Studies

Federal Register Respondentsby Category N = 95

State Trans-portation Agencies

46(48%)

Law Enforce-ment

Agencies16

(17%)

Law Enforce-ment Assoc.

8(8%)

Highway Industry Assoc.

13(14%)

Individuals1

(1%)

State Legislators

3 (3%)

Contractors & Suppliers

8(9%)

State Transportation Agency Respondents

Respondents

Law Enforcement Respondents

Respondents

Survey

Survey Respondentsby Category N = 70

State Transporta-

tion Agencies

46(66%)

Law Enforcement

Agencies15

(21%)

Law Enforcement

Assoc.6

(9%)

Highway Industry Assoc.

3(4%)

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.

Size of Law EnforcementAgency

•Only 25 Responses•Average = 1,123•Range = 132 - 6,644•Median = 3,388

Size of Jurisdiction

•All > 100,000 population

Policies

Does Agency Have Policy?N = 61

No27

(44%)

Yes34

(56%)

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

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

Highway Construc-tion Funds

49 (72%)

Hwy Admin. Funds

5(7%)

Law Enforce. Approp.

6(9%)

Other8

(12%)

Extent of Use of UPOs

• Survey Data• Analysis of Policies Submitted

Circumstances Where UPOsMost Often Used

•Nighttime operations

•Lane or road closures

•High speed/ Hi volume traffic

Only a Few Agencies Use UPOs in All Projects

•Arizona (unwritten policy)

•Rhode Island•City of Boston

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

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

Off-Duty Only

22(39%)

On Duty Only

7(12%)

On-Duty As Well28

(49%)

Use of Off-Duty vs On-Duty UPOs

(Based on Survey Data & Policies Submitted)

On Duty

Off Duty

92% of Respondents said UPOs used Marked Vehicles at

Construction Projects

No response

Yes 92%

No 4%

Varies 4%

Officer Positioning & Gear

• 11% of survey respondents said they require officers to be outside vehicle

• 33% require high-visibility clothing

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

4 4 62 2

29

30

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes No Other

Hwy Assoc.

State Trans.AgenciesLaw Enf. Assoc.

State Police

Who’s In Charge?

• Who Developed the Policy?• Who Determines the

Number of Officers?• Are UPOs included in the

Planning Process?

Who Developed the Policy?N = 30

Law Enforce-ment Agency

& Other3

(10%)

DOT17

(57%)

Law Enforce-

ment Agency &

DOT7

(23%)

Law Enforce-

ment Agency

3(10%)

Who Determines Number of Officers? N = 63

Law Enforcement

Agency8

(13%)

Highway Agency

27(42%)

Joint Effort26

(41%)

Contractor1

(2%)

Other1

(2%)

Joint Effort Between Which Parties? N = 26

19

1 24

02468

101214161820

DOT & LawEnforcement

Agency (73% )

Contractor &Law

EnforcementAgency (4% )

DOT &Contractor

(8% )

Parties NotSpecified(15% )

Are UPOs Included in Planning Process? N = 60

No24

(40%)

Yes16

(27%)

Some-times

20(33%)

Effectiveness of Policies

•Survey Data--Mostly Opinion, but Indicates Positive Effects

•Hard “Real World” Data is Scarce

•Academic Research also Scarce, but Generally Positive

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

Effects of Policies: Academic Studies

Transafety Paper, Noel, et al, 1987Compared:

1. MUTCD flagging procedure2. MUTCD flagging procedure w/ add’l flagger hand motions3. marked police car w/ lights & radar

4. UPOs standing to control traffic

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.”

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%.

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

16

42

05

1015

2025

3035

4045

Yes (28% ) No (72% )

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.

General Respondents by Category N - 25

State Legislators

3(12%)

Contractors & Suppliers

8(32%)

Individuals1

(4%)

Highway Industry Assoc.

10(40%)

Law Enforce. Agencies

1(4%)

Law Enforcement

Assoc.2

(8%)

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

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.

Issues Summary

• Policies vary Re:– Circumstances Where UPOs are

Required– Number of Officers Required– Training, Procedures, & Supervision

• Conflicting Missions (Traffic Control vs. Speed Enforcement)

States Served By FHWA Mobile Asphalt Laboratory 1993-2000

Asphalt Trailer Visited

Issues Summary

• Funding and Personnel Availability

• Payment of Officers– Rates (overtime vs straight pay)– Benefits & Retirement

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.

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.