1

THE WORK ZONE DATA INITIATIVE: SMARTER WORK ZONES

AND WORK ZONE DATA MANAGEMENT

Peer Exchange and Demonstration Site Visit – Meeting Summary

Massachusetts DOT | Headquarter Building, 2nd Floor Boardroom

10 Park Plaza | Boston, MA 02116

Monday, March 2nd (8:30 AM to 4:30 PM) through Tuesday, March 3rd (8:30 AM to Noon)

This document is a meeting summary for the Work Zone Data Initiative (WZDI): Smarter Work Zones

(SWZ) and Work Zone Data Management Peer Exchange and Demonstration Site Visit and includes

notes of the discussion from each of the following topics of the peer exchange:

• National Work Zone Data Management Refresh

• Identifying Needs and Prioritizing Work Zone Use Cases

• Becoming a Steward of the Work Zone Data Specification (WZDx)

• MassDOT’s Story

• Leveraging Roadside Technology for Enhanced Work Zone Event Data Collection

• Connected Work Zones

• Work Zone Performance Reporting & Making the Case for SWZ Technology

• Efforts to Standardize Work Zone Data in Texas

• WZDI in Action – Pennsylvania’s Work Zone Reservation and Traveler Information System

• Gaining Agency Leadership Buy-In and Support

• WZDI Implementation Panel Discussion

• Site Visit

The Peer Exchange and Demonstration Site Visit Agenda and Peer Exchange Participants are also

included as an attachment to this document.

National Work Zone Data Management Refresh

Todd Peterson (FHWA Work Zone Management Team) provided a national overview of work

zone data management. He described the Work Zone Data Initiative (WZDI) purpose to develop a

recommended practice for managing work zone event data (WZED) and to create a consistent

language, through the development of a data dictionary and supporting implementation documents,

for communicating information on work zone events across jurisdictional and organizational

boundaries. The effort promotes a stakeholder- and systems-driven perspective for WZED that allows

for a better understanding of user needs from the practitioners' perspective and a better approach to

collecting national WZED. Figure 1 provides a graphical overview of the conceptual architecture for

the WZDI, highlighting various use cases, interfaces, and agency systems that contribute and use

WZED.

2

Figure 1. Comprehensive system view of users, tools, and interactions of agency Work Zone Event Data

3

WZDI resources, including the draft Needs and Opportunities Report, Framework, and Data

Dictionary, can be found on the WZDI Collaboration website. Updated versions of these documents

will be posted on this website as they become available.

Todd also highlighted how the WZDI interacts with related efforts, such as the Work Zone Data

Exchange (WZDx) specification. The WZDx is maintained by the Work Zone Data Working Group,

which supports efforts to iteratively and openly develop the WZDx specification using a consensus-

drive, collaborative approach. The WZDx specification version 2.0 was released in January 2020 and is

available at: https://github.com/usdot-jpo-ode/jpo-wzdx; version 3 of the WZDx specification is

currently in development. Applications for WZDx Demonstration Grants are expected to be available

soon; this funding opportunity is expected to offer up to 12 awards of up to $200,000 each.

Identifying Needs and Prioritizing Work Zone Use Cases

Neil Boudreau (Massachusetts DOT) presented about the history of using SWZs in Massachusetts.

He noted the informal use of the 12-minute rule that is used to minimize work zone mobility impacts

to 12 minutes for travelers. Massachusetts has a long history with using a variety of SWZ strategies

and leveraging data to inform travelers, encourage selection of alternate routes, reduce lane-drop

congestion, detect and clear incidents faster, and address speed limit restrictions. Massachusetts has

not yet employed variable speed limits as the state legislature has not yet passed supporting

statutes, although other technologies like smart arrow boards are expected to be deployed soon.

Neil highlighted the importance of stakeholder and community engagement, noting how data

reports and camera images support these efforts. He also described the value of the FHWA Work

Zone Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Implementation Guide that Massachusetts DOT adapted

into an 8-step approach that supports SWZ deployments. Neil highlighted an application of this

approach for a project on the I-91 Springfield Viaduct. He showed the use of the scoring tool and

Work Zone ITS Wizard that respectively showed there was a need for work zone ITS and provided

recommendations for a travel time system, back-of-queue warning system, and dynamic merge

system.

Neil noted that sensors are placed in the work zones to help identify congested conditions faster. He

also noted that MassDOT does spot travel time runs to verify the data that is being collected and

processed for traveler information. A stakeholder project group included MassDOT and ITS vendor

staff.

Becoming a Steward of the Work Zone Data Specification (WZDx)

Nate Deshmukh-Towery (Volpe) described how the WZDx specification is being advanced and

expanded, with an eye on forward and backward compatibility. Specifically, he highlighted some of

the changes included in the WZDx version 2 specification that was released in January 2020 and

incorporates a greater GIS focus requiring GeoJSON formatting and a relational data model with

road event tables that feature new geometry-specific data elements, for example.

4

Nate highlighted two case studies of agencies

using the WZDx specification: Maricopa County

DOT and Iowa DOT. Published case studies for

both of these locations are available on the

WZDI Collaboration site. USDOT maintains a

WZDx Feed Registry that is a directory of WZDx

feeds that are published and hosted by state and

local jurisdictions. These feeds are currently

automatically archived at USDOT. As part of

development of WZDx specification version 3,

there are subgroups for technical assistance and

worker presence. These groups are open to

anyone interested in contributing input and

feedback to this effort.

MassDOT’s Story

Neil Boudreau (Massachusetts DOT) described some history of projects in Massachusetts that used

SWZs, including the first in 2009 for bridges on US 6 and the larger-scale FAST14 SWZ on I-93 in

2011. MassDOT purchased SWZ equipment in 2012 and 2013 to deploy as needed. As part of their

commitment to SWZs, MassDOT developed standardized specifications and adopted design

standards for SWZs.

These efforts led to a recent SWZ Manager Application Project that developed an easy-to-use, real-

time overview of SWZ conditions to better coordinate construction, operations, and maintenance of

work activities. The application pulls in information from SWZ sensors and equipment in the field.

The data is provided to a data warehouse, 511 traveler information, a SWZ mobile application, and

an XML feed for third-party developers.

Michelle Boucher (IBI Group) described the user interfaces and vendor feed for the SWZ Manager

Application, including how it incorporates and expands on the WZDx specification. The application

initially did not conform to the WZDx, but modifications were made during the project to make it

compliant with WZDx version 1.1, and additional modifications are now being made to make it

conform to WZDx version 2.0. The vendor API considers the WZDI framework as a basis for the new

data exchange definition and was revised to be compliant with WZDx version 2.0. Software

development should conclude in Spring 2020, followed by training and statewide deployment of the

application. MassDOT is interested in working with other state agencies to potentially use as a

broader standard with vendors for the SWZ data. The application is available to the public, but not

open source.

MassDOT expects to add this system into the local Traffic Management Center (TMC) for TMC staff

to use. A future goal is to digitally map a wider variety of smaller work zones to incorporate into this

system for mapping providers to grab, and to incorporate additional levels of detail for travelers.

MassDOT does not yet have a data retention policy for data that goes into the data warehouse.

Nate Deshmukh-Towery, Volpe provides an

overview of the USDOT’s Work Zone Data

Exchange Efforts.

5

MassDOT has additional data that could be provided via the third-party API feed. However, it is

currently only providing data from the WZDx specification. There are some data elements that the

general public does not understand or would not find useful.

Leveraging Roadside Technology for Enhanced Work Zone Event Data Collection

Skylar Knickerbocker (Iowa State University) described reasons to collect and provide better

WZED, both for when work zones are present but also when they are not active, while not increasing

burden for field staff. Iowa DOT is currently examining a variety of technologies to collect simple

information about the location and activation of devices that are used in work zones to generate

data that will increase DOT situational awareness. This includes existing connected temporary traffic

control devices like smart arrow boards; new devices like connected pins from iCone or Ver-Mac

panels; and automatic vehicle location (AVL) data.

Iowa DOT developed a protocol for smart devices that allows flexibility for Iowa DOT to pull data

directly from devices in the field or from a vendor-hosted server. Iowa DOT has included

requirements to account for reliance on software that could be impacted by updates. It is also

currently generating a qualified products list for independently tested smart devices that contractors

may use on Iowa DOT projects. The goal is for Iowa DOT to have smart arrow boards deployed on all

relevant projects by 2022 and included on all interstate projects let as of October 2020.

Skylar described the testing activities that are taking place to help automatically associate devices

with existing work zone events and roadways, and also minimize redundant information on the user

interface.

Finally, Iowa DOT maintenance trucks are already equipped with AVL capabilities, so this information

is being leveraged to generate information about maintenance events. This data is envisioned to

reduce the field staff workload by eliminating the need to call in to the TMC about when work has

started and concluded.

Available resources regarding these efforts include:

• Smart Arrow Board Protocol (SABP) (content of interest begins on page 15):

https://iowadot.gov/workzonereferencelibrary/docs/Smart-Arrow-Board-Deployment-Plan.pdf.

• Draft Specification: https://iowadot.gov/workzonereferencelibrary/docs/Smart-arrow-board-

update.pdf.

Connected Work Zones

Steve Kite (North Carolina DOT) described connected work zone efforts in North Carolina. He

noted the smart arrow board technology as being ideal for these efforts since an arrow board is

always present at the beginning of a taper and is always required for lane closures. He described the

software and user interface, for these technologies, and how this increased automation will likely

increase compliance that is sometimes lacking with required forms. Lessons learned from these

efforts have demonstrated that writing specifications is only the first step, and it’s important to

communicate with installers, TMC staff, contractors, and inspectors about the smart arrow board

6

technology. It is important for everyone to understand the importance of these devices and how they

work.

Work Zone Performance Reporting & Making the Case for SWZ Technology

Russell Holt (Rhode Island DOT) described the current process for tracking work zones in Rhode

Island. Rhode Island DOT requires forms to be completed for planned lane closures. Rhode Island

DOT began manually entering information from these forms into a work zone database in 2016. The

online entry form is then submitted to the DOT and TMC. This data is not compliant with the WZDx

but contains similar information and is a good next step. The work zone database is archived and

available to generate some high-level summary measures.

Sudhir Murthy (TrafInfo) presented on the development of two performance measures for TSMO

and the congestion management process in Rhode Island that are focused reliability and delay

through work zones. These efforts are being done to help make the case for RIDOT that more data

collection and dissemination is needed.

Efforts to Standardize Work Zone Data in Texas

Joe Hunt (Texas DOT) described the current

TxDOT software systems for reporting lane

closures and noted that they need to be

updated. An effort is currently underway to

consolidate the process for capturing incident

and event information to enter and share road

conditions. A central datahub will capture and

store a single version of each event to share

with all traffic systems. This effort is planned

for completion by the end of 2020.

Jerry Ullman (Texas A&M Transportation

Institute) talked about the major I-35 corridor

projects that have been underway over the

past ten years and have resulted in a variety of

tools to measure and disseminate information about predicted and real-time work zone impacts, as

well as performance reporting.

Joe Hunt, TxDOT presents on the agency’s efforts

to standardize WZ data and data systems.

7

WZDI in Action – Pennsylvania’s Work Zone Reservation and Traveler Information

System

Mike Davidson (Pennsylvania Turnpike) described an ongoing Advanced Transportation and

Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) grant project that was initiated in

March 2018. The ATCMTD project includes the Pennsylvania DOT, Pennsylvania Turnpike, and Ohio

DOT, who have a draft agreement in place for this effort. This project began by looking at the

existing agency systems and processes. Ohio DOT and PennDOT are currently updating their

systems, while the Pennsylvania Turnpike still uses a spreadsheet that is filled out by contractors. He

described common themes, best practices that were identified through this effort from other states,

and findings from the needs assessment and Concept of Operations that were developed.

This project intends to use a phased approach for implementation with lessons learned from prior

phase, recognizing the new system will be a culture shift. Additionally, the Pennsylvania DOT notes

that legislation may be needed for utility companies and contractors to adhere to the system once it

is built and implemented. Pennsylvania is going through a certification program for all work zone

workers, and this system may tie into that. Additionally, this project will likely interface with the

recently awarded Pennsylvania Automated Driving System (ADS) Demonstration grant.

Gaining Agency Leadership Buy-In and Support

Ali Ragan (Wyoming DOT) discussed the construction management system at Wyoming DOT. She

described the data feed that goes to the TMC where it is entered into a console system for traveler

information and dissemination to third parties. This is one-time planned data, and the TMC is to be

called when conditions change in the field, but in reality, is typically the TMC contacting the field for

updates. While there are benefits of this system in how it integrates with other DOT reporting

systems, there are a number of drawbacks, including inaccurate information and the time-intensive

manual processes to enter and update information.

As a result, the ITS construction staff initiated an effort to update this process, which requires buy-in

from both field construction staff and executive staff. Construction staff recognized WZDI and WZDx

as a good opportunity to improve existing tools to get better information to drivers to make better

decisions. They also recognized the value of having consistent language across roads and

jurisdictional boundaries. Ali described the process for gaining support and the resulting

perspectives.

Ali noted that an important point for executive staff is understanding whether DOT staff have the

bandwidth to implement a change, how an initiative will be funded, and whether there will be

ongoing maintenance costs. Wyoming DOT requires some coordination with the DOT IT and ITS

groups, as well as the external state Department of Enterprise Technology Services (ETS) that all

oversee IT infrastructure. Given the rural nature of Wyoming, executive staff also examine whether

limited connectivity will be an issue.

The WZDI effort in Wyoming was bottom-up from ITS construction staff to executive staff, but for

implementation will be top-down from executive staff to field construction staff. Field staff will have

to understand how this effort supports them. Wyoming DOT is interested in making the case to field

8

staff that capturing WZED will help to improve worker safety by highlighting active work zones in the

mapping applications used for in-vehicle navigation.

WZDI Implementation Panel Discussion

Discussion with the panelists was segmented into a series of questions and topic areas.

Work zone data needs and uses at your agency?

• For Arizona DOT getting more and more data is important. Arizona DOT seeks to make more

direct correlations with safety, and more data is needed for that.

• In Utah, a lot of work is being done with connected and automated vehicles, and work zones are

an area where more data is needed.

• Colorado DOT has issues with making sure data is accurate and timely to maintain credibility.

Colorado has recently revamped speed reduction policy and is also interested in transitioning

manual data collection processes to more automatic processes.

• Illinois Tollway is focused on user fee and controlled access. It is important for the agency to first

collect the needed information and use it to create a useful report.

• The Massachusetts lane closure system is very rudimentary, requiring manual entry from

handwritten documentation. MassDOT District 6 conducts in-person meetings that requires

contractors to show up to ask permission for lane closures.

• Washington State has been developing a system that is now being rolled out that includes

planned lane closure information. Having good data is a critical for preparing for a future with

connected and automated vehicles.

• Wisconsin DOT has a successful lane closure system that goes to permitting office for oversize-

overweight issues. Utility contractors are becoming more compliant with entering planned lane

closure information. Wisconsin is looking to use smart arrow boards that will integrate with the

lane closure system, which will be revamped to also have an app.

Data collection and uses?

• Arizona just completed a standard SWZ specification that is now being implemented on some

construction projects. Maintenance projects occur within a different “silo” and are not leveraging

the SWZ specification or using data.

• Colorado’s process goes through the public information office to 511 and COTrip traveler

information map. Colorado purchased a number of iPins but has to develop a process for

effectively using them; maintenance staff integrated them with their processes, and they have

been working well for that use case. With other SWZ, Colorado has used variable speed limits

and truck entering/exiting strategies, but these are implemented on a project-by-project basis.

• Illinois collects and archives a lot of data from various work zone devices but does not

meaningfully use it after the work zone for future projects. Generally, lanes are maintained for

work zone activities.

• Utah developed an app but struggled to get field staff to use it; some staff preferred calling in

information via radio. Utah provides alerts for weather, planned special events, and construction

that can be activated to provide a PDF with maps, route information, or other information to

9

support travelers. Data in Utah comes in many forms. Additionally, Utah is lucky to have a very

strong and trusted relationship with the media. It is hard to figure out how to format this data

and provide it in real time.

• Washington State is currently doing a pilot project with iCone to test smart arrow boards. This

information appears in Waze, and users have provided a lot of “likes” but it is hard to gauge the

effectiveness of this or understand whether travelers are merging earlier than they need to which

could have additional impacts.

• Wisconsin is implementing a number of queue warning systems. The data being collected from

these systems is archived, but it has not yet been determined to how to use this data to generate

useful performance measures.

Groups that collect and use the data

• Arizona Districts have seen some benefits to providing data into a centralized system.

• Colorado is de-centralized in this area. Data is collected from the project and shared with District

Public Information Officers (PIOs).

• Illinois data is collected and entered manually, but toll collection and sensors automatically bring

in a variety of data to support travel times and information on Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) in

work zones. The Illinois Tollway generates a yearly traffic report with performance measures.

• Massachusetts DOT has been working to break down the silos to facilitate sharing data.

• Utah is working on a project with Panasonic to try to build an architecture to understand how to

bring in and organize the data to more effectively disseminate it to who needs it.

• Washington State has fairly centralized data. Current efforts facilitate data being collected and

stored in a central location for use.

• Wisconsin DOT assembles traffic data at headquarters and makes it available to Districts and

others who want past data.

Data warehouse and applications

• Utah has three different systems: the traffic safety division has crash data, traffic flow analysis

uses Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data, and real-time and traveler information

component comes through the advanced traffic management system (ATMS).

• Washington State is fine-tuning processes by examining historic data to better understand

capacity and modify what is allowable for contractors.

• Wisconsin data is stored by the University of Wisconsin. A work zone capacity tool uses data

from automatic traffic recorder (ATR) stations to support lane closure analysis.

Enhancing data collection and sharing processes

• Arizona has made great advances in consolidating work zone data from multiple local agencies

in the Phoenix metro area and providing it in a consistent format.

• Colorado is currently struggling with integrating data for an API feed. Getting iCone data into

applications other than Waze is another challenge.

10

• Illinois Tollway partnered with Waze to both push and receive information that supports work

zone information, this includes information from maintenance fleets when they are on the

roadway.

• Utah has used Bluetooth data in work zones to identify delays. A challenge has been working

with third parties to understand the accuracy. Utah has used variable speed limits, but there is

not a lot of data generated from this.

• The Washington State planned work zone database will receive information regarding issues with

oversize-overweight vehicles, which will hopefully be automated into those related systems. This

will also be connected to the coordination website. A goal is to reduce operator input with this

new system.

• Wisconsin uses automated processes for Transportation Management Plans (TMPs) and is

looking for real-time accuracy for lane closures and hopes to learn more with smart arrow

boards.

Programmatic benefits of SWZ deployments

• Arizona considers the SWZ technologies like queue warning systems to be proven and does not

need to generate an evaluation to justify it.

• Massachusetts understands the need for SWZ given capacity reductions in work zones, and some

projects require significant diversions to work so SWZ systems greatly help. Massachusetts has

also been modeling bigger projects with Freeval software to understand the impacts and

examine how to be aggressive with SWZs.

• North Carolina had a long-term project with several fatalities in a short period and implemented

a zipper merge solution. Looking at the numbers before and after demonstrated a mobility

benefit also.

• Wisconsin did initial vetting on some pilot projects but is not examining benefits on an ongoing

basis.

Status of WZDx specification implementation

• Arizona plans to update information for future projects to follow the WZDx specification. Arizona

sees the biggest benefit of using the WZDx specification as increasing visibility for the work

zones.

• Colorado is having some issues in making headway in the WZDI as people have varying priorities.

As a result, Colorado is advancing on a more project-by-project basis to try to generate a WZDx

feed for certain projects.

• Illinois Tollway has dealt with IT challenges in implementing WZDI and getting buy-in from

executive groups who have concerns about changing existing systems.

• Nothing significant from Utah other than monitoring the progress of the initiatives.

• Washington State has every intention to someday adopt the WZDx, but limited staff and high

turnover is impacting the ability to implement the WZDx in the near future.

• Wisconsin’s updated lane closure system and tools will use the WZDx and devices will soon after

use the WZDx specification.

11

Making the business case

• Arizona has benefited from the increased Federal share for innovation to increase deployments.

• Colorado has had some executive leadership turnover, and this is an opportunity to make a case

for the WZDI.

• Illinois Tollway is a small piece of the larger Illinois DOT network, and likely follows the DOT lead.

Illinois DOT is considering applying for a WZDx grant.

• Utah tries to identify where different pieces fit in. Given some of the larger ongoing projects and

CAV emphasis, executives would likely be supportive, but it is hard to squeeze it in.

Challenges to implementation

• Arizona sees a need to educate everyone. There was not buy-in to use a scoring methodology to

identify projects that would benefit from SWZ systems, so this is done on a project-by-project

basis.

• Colorado struggles to get the API to advance through the ITS division, who has other priorities.

Colorado is looking to convert static elements to more dynamic elements, such as the Wisconsin

automated lane closure system that ties to the permitting office.

• Illinois Tollway notes the challenges with administration changes and contractor changes.

Getting buy-in from upper management and staying consistent in that is a challenge. Another

challenge is that sometimes new technologies have become out of date by the time they are able

to be procured. Illinois DOT has buy-in from the central headquarters ITS group to advance the

WZDI but lacks the staffing resources and funding to proceed.

• Massachusetts has a major challenge with design build since those projects are sometimes so

flexible that it is challenging to accommodate supporting SWZs, which have a specification that is

known to work.

• Utah has a number of big projects on the freeway system that were let as design-build and

include specifications written several years in advance that requires continuous, regular

communication for coordination. Utah has had success by engaging contractors sooner so that

they can provide input in advance of letting the contract.

• Washington State is a progressive DOT but has to compete with a variety of other initiatives in

the agency while also facing budget cuts. Additionally, staff turnover has created challenges.

• Wisconsin has gotten support to test smart arrow boards and been working on the lane closure

systems. Adding a new initiative to that workload is challenging with current staff resources.

Site Visit

The second day centered around a site visit to a work zone on the Tobin Bridge and Chelsea Viaduct,

which is northeast of downtown Boston. Neil Boudreau (Massachusetts DOT) and Alexandra Siu

(HNTB) first provided an overview of the project. He described the challenges with limiting capacity

and identifying diversion routes when the alternate routes themselves are already at capacity. He

described the alternate routes and the impact analyses that were conducted, including a Freeval

model analysis and queue analysis. Next, the SWZ travel time system was described, which includes a

network of sensors, INRIX probe data, and portable dynamic message signs (PDMS) around the

12

region that display travel times for alternate routes to assist drivers in making route decisions.

Additionally, PDMS on the affected route serve as a dynamic merge/queue warning system.

Mike Sutton (Northeast Traffic Control) presented a

live demonstration of the system using the online Ver-

Mac web tool that shows the current status of the

equipment. One challenge with the deployment is that

operators need to update what lanes are closed or

open as conditions change in the field. Otherwise, the

travel time system sensors report the closed lane as

“free flow” during times when the open lanes are

heavily congested, which consequently results in

inaccurate travel times being calculated and displayed

on the PDMS.

The queue warning system displays “stopped traffic” at

speeds of 25 mph and below. This value for queue

warning systems varies depending on the roadway

characteristics. Additionally, for this project, queues are

detected for ¼-mile segments, but other projects

sometimes use ½-mile segments for sensors. Data

shows that MassDOT has been successful at diverting

traffic from the impacted route.

Neil noted the importance of having the opportunity to

try something once. A successful demonstration of

SWZ technology makes it easier to proceed with similar

or expanded technologies on future projects. Leadership at MassDOT and the governor in

Massachusetts is very data-driven, so that is also helpful given the data and tools available to analyze

work zone impacts.

Peer exchange participants asked a variety of questions resulting in the following insights:

• A challenge is getting the work zone travel time data into the vehicle to influence traveler

decisions. A requirement in the specification is for data to be available in an XML format that

third parties can ingest, however MassDOT does not know how third-parties use the data.

• MassDOT has a statewide license to use INRIX data and now has the origin-destination (O-D)

package from INRIX as well. One planned activity is to use this O-D data to examine diversion

rates using data from before and during the project. Iowa has also used this data and found it to

be very detailed to individual exits. Maryland has been using O-D data for planning purposes.

• The Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has planning staff the MassDOT works

with to understand mode shift. MassDOT’s travel demand model uses input from the MPO for

various work zone projects in the Boston area.

• A major limitation in the WZDx specification for some agencies, like Rhode Island, is that it does

not include bikes and pedestrians. This has been discussed by the Work Zone Data Working

Neil Boudreau, MassDOT provides a guided

tour of the work zone along the Tobin Bridge

and Chelsea Viaduct northeast of downtown

Boston.

13

Group, and there is interest in this. Whether or not this is included in WZDx version 3 is

somewhat dependent on the stakeholders who participate in the discussion. Future versions of

the WZDx specification will be forward and backward compatible, so agencies are encouraged to

initiate work now since future changes will be incremental and more consistent.

Peer Exchange and Demonstration Site Visit Agenda

DAY 1 - PEER EXCHANGE (Monday, March 2nd)

8:15 – 8:30 AM Sign-In

8:30 – 8:45 AM Welcome and Introductions

• Welcome

o Jeff McEwen, Massachusetts Division Administrator, FHWA

o Neil Boudreau, Assistant Administrator for Traffic & Safety Engineering,

MassDOT

• Meeting Objectives

o Todd Peterson, WZDI Project Manager, FHWA

• Introductions and Ice Breakers, All

8:45 – 9:00AM National Work Zone Data Management Refresh

Presenter – Todd Peterson, FHWA

• Federal Work Zone Data Management Efforts Overview

o Work Zone Data Initiative (WZDI)

o Work Zone Data Exchange (WZDx)

• Deployment Opportunities – Funding and Technical Assistance

9:00 – 9:30 AM Identifying Needs and Prioritizing Work Zone Use Cases

Presenter –Neil Boudreau, MassDOT

The first step towards effective implementation is identifying agency needs and data

uses. This session includes lessons learned from MassDOT in planning and designing a

smarter work zone. Discussion includes experiences working with internal and external

stakeholders including the challenges and key takeaways.

9:30 – 10:10 AM Becoming a Steward of the Work Zone Data Specification (WZDx)

Presenter – Nate Deshmukh-Towery, Technology Policy Analyst, Volpe

With the WZDx now publicly available, how does an agency establish a process for

implementing and enhancing the specification to support their work zone data needs?

10:10 – 10:25 AM BREAK

10:25 – 11:00 AM MassDOT’s Story

• MassDOT’s Work Zone History

o Neil Boudreau, MassDOT

• SWZM Application Project - Utilizing an API in compliance with the WZDx

o Michelle Boucher, ITS Manager, IBI Group

14

11:00 – 11:30 AM Leveraging Roadside Technology for Enhanced Work Zone Event Data Collection

Presenter –Skylar Knickerbocker, Iowa State

Data quality is a key concern for many agencies. With the increasing availability of

roadside technologies, agencies are looking towards these hardware solutions to

improve the quality of information collected in the field. This session discusses Iowa’s

experiences using smart arrows boards to generate field data.

11:30 – 12:00 PM Connected Work Zones – North Carolina’s Lane Closure System

Presenter –Steve Kite, State Work Zone Engineer, NCDOT

North Carolina’s 1st step into “Connected” Work zones is through the “Connected Lane

Closure System” initiative. This approach is an effort to identify all active Lane Closures

and provide immediate notification to the State Transportation Operation Center as well

as provide a feed to Navigational App providers in an effort to push lane closure

information to the driver. This session provides an overview of the effort including the

major components of the Specification and lessons learned during initial deployments.

12:00 – 1:00 PM LUNCH (on your own)

1:00 – 1:30 PM Work Zone Performance Reporting & Making the Case for Smarter Work Zone

Technology

Presenters – Russell Holt, RIDOT, Sudhir Murthy, TrafInfo

This session discusses Rhode Island’s experiences in utilizing data and metrics from work

zones to report on the impact of work zones across the State and to make the case for

the use of smarter work zone technology. The technology will be used to improve

current processes and better manage work zones in real-time. Additionally, it supports

the need for continued TSMO funding/support.

1:30 – 2:00 PM Efforts to Standardize Work Zone Data in Texas

Presenters – Joe Hunt, Traffic Management Section Director-TxDOT and Jerry Ullman, TTI

Since 2010 TxDOT has been utilizing work zone event data to manage an extensive

expansion project along its I-35 corridor. In addition, efforts are underway to enhance

and standardize work zone data statewide. This session will discuss the tools and

strategies previously applied and currently under development for collecting, analyzing,

and using work zone event data to manage work zone impacts.

2:00 – 2:15 PM WZDI In Action – Pennsylvania’s Work Zone Reservation and Traveler Information

System

Presenter – Mike Davidson, Senior Traffic Operations Project Manager, PA Turnpike

Pennsylvania was recently awarded $2.7 million under the Advanced Transportation and

Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) grant for a Work Zone

Reservation and Traveler Information System (WZRTIS). The system will provide

standard, real-time work zone information across 41,000 miles of roadway between

Pennsylvania and Ohio. This session will include discussion on how the system is

planning to utilize the WZDx specification to enable the system and support improved

safety and mobility.

15

2:15 – 2:45 PM Gaining Agency Leadership Buy-In and Support

Presenter – Ali Ragan, Project Manager, WYDOT

Successful implementation requires agency buy-in, from operators up to agency

leadership. This session explores the importance of this fundamental step via Wyoming’s

experience, including the challenges and lessons learned.

2:45 – 3:00 PM BREAK

3:00 – 4:30 PM WZDI Implementation Panel Discussion

Moderator – Neil Boudreau, MassDOT

• Arizona (Adam Carreon)

• Colorado (Thomas DiNardo)

• Illinois (Steve Mednis)

• Utah (Chris Siavrakas)

• Washington (Tony Leingang)

• Wisconsin (Erin Schoon)

This panel includes a diverse set of agencies in varying stages of planning and

implementation. Discussion topics will include agency plans to move forward with the

initiative including ag needs, priorities, roadblocks, and opportunities.

4:30 – 4:45 PM Wrap-Up

DAY 2 – DEMONSTRATION SITE VISIT (Tuesday, March 3rd)

8:30 AM Sign-In

8:30 – 8:45 AM Welcome and Overview of Day

• Opening Remarks

o Jonathan Gulliver, MassDOT Highway Administrator)

• Overview of the Demo Site Visit

o Neil Boudreau, MassDOT

8:45 – 9:45 AM Local Project Overview – Route 1 Chelsea Viaduct/Tobin Bridge

Presenters – Neil Boudreau, MassDOT; Mike Sutton, NE Traffic; and Alex Siu, HNTB

This project overview discusses the project location, challenges, traffic demands and how

MassDOT developed a Smart Work Zone solution to mitigate the impacts on the public during

this construction project. It also includes a look at how the data captured assists MassDOT in

managing this project and how it is used to define the traffic management approach on other

big projects.

9:45 – 10:00

AM

BREAK

10:00 – 11:00

AM

Demonstration Site Visit (Route 1 Chelsea Viaduct/Tobin Bridge)

Guides – Neil Boudreau, MassDOT, Mike Sutton, NE Traffic, Alex Siu, HNTB

11:00 – 12:00

PM

Discussion and Wrap-Up

16

Peer Exchange Participants

Name Organization Email 3/2 3/3

MassDOT and MassDOT Support Contractors

Craig Barnard Liddell Brothers craig@liddellbrothers.com X

Michelle Boucher KCUS/IBI Group mboucher@kcus.org X X

Neil Boudreau MassDOT neil.boudreau@state.ma.us X X

Jacob Brady KCUS/IBI Group jacob.brady@ibigroup.com X

Kathleen Martin Howard Stein Hudson X X

Chris Chaffee AECOM chris.chaffee@aecom.com X

Sudhir Murthy TrafInfo sudhir.murthy@trafinfo.com X

Deanna Peabody TrafInfo deanna.peabody@trafinfo.com X

Alexandra Siu HNTB Asiu@HNTB.com X X

David Soares MassDOT david.soares@state.ma.us X X

Mike Sutton Northeast Traffic Control msutton@netraffic.net X X

Andrew Wilkins MassDOT andrew.wilkins@state.ma.us X X

State DOT Peers

Adam Carreon Arizona DOT ACarreon@azdot.gov

X X

Thomas Di Nardo Colorado DOT thomas.dinardo@state.co.us X X

Mike Davidson Pennsylvania Turnpike mdavidson@paturnpike.com

X X

Emily Dwyer Georgia DOT EDwyer@dot.ga.gov

X X

Steve Gent Iowa DOT Steve.Gent@iowadot.us X X

Paul Gurklys Illinois DOT Paul.Gurklys@Illinois.gov X X

Russell Holt Rhode Island DOT russell.holt@dot.ri.gov

X X

Joe Hunt Texas DOT Joseph.Hunt@txdot.gov X X

Steve Kite North Carolina DOT skite@ncdot.gov

X X

Skylar Knickerbocker Iowa State sknick@iastate.edu

X X

Tony Leingang Washington State DOT LeingaA@wsdot.wa.gov

X X

Subrat Mahapatra Maryland DOT SHA smahapatra@sha.state.md.us

X X

Steve Mednis Illinois Tollway SMednis@getipass.com

X X

Jason Quicksall Tennessee DOT Jason.Quicksall@tn.gov

X X

Ali Ragan Wyoming DOT ali.ragan@wyo.gov

X X

David Rush Virginia DOT David.Rush@VDOT.Virginia.gov

X X

David Rush Wyoming DOT (Contractor) david.rush@wyo.gov

X X

Erin Schoon Wisconsin DOT erin.schoon@dot.wi.gov

X X

Chris Siavrakas Utah DOT csiavrakas@utah.gov X X

Federal

Andrew Berthaume Volpe Center andrew.berthaume@dot.gov X

17

Name Organization Email 3/2 3/3

Daniel Grate FHWA RC Daniel.Grate@dot.gov X X

Promise Otaluka FHWA DO - Massachusetts Promise.Otaluka@dot.gov X X

USDOT Work Zone Team

Wesley Alford Volpe Center Wesley.Alford.CTR@dot.gov X

Nate Deshmukh-Towery Volpe Center nate.deshmukh-towery@dot.gov X X

Mark Mockett Volpe Center Mark.Mockett.CTR@dot.gov X X

Polly Okunieff ICF Polly.Okunieff@icf.com X

Rachel Ostroff ICF rachel.ostroff@icf.com X X

Todd Peterson FHWA todd.peterson@dot.gov X

Jeremy Schroeder Athey Creek schroeder@acconsultants.org X X

Jerry Ullman TTI g-Ullman@tamu.edu X X