rc flagman evaluation - the national work zone safety ... · rc flagman evaluation ... safety,...

RC Flagman Evaluation

Ohio Department of TransportationOffice of Highway Management

In cooperation with the Federal Highway AdministrationPriority Technology Program

By: Robert Jessberger, New Product Evaluation EngineerDate: 10/30/99

2

Index

Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Work and Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

FHWA Request for Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Work Plan and Traffic Control Standard Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Summary of ODOT User Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Summary of Traveling Public Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Summary of Cost and Maintenance History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Summary of accident Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Questionnaire fo RC Flagman Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Story Board for RC Flagman Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

AppendixA. Ontario Canada users evaluation letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21B. Photos of Typical Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29C. Photos of Rural Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36D. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3

Introduction and Background:

The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) National Priority Technologies Program supportsadvancement of innovative construction technologies, materials, and procedures that have thepotential to improve durability, environmental impact, safety, efficiency, or productivity. The PTP isthe newest of four elements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Section6005 program focused on the application and evaluation of new technologies. The 6005 programwas created to be the vehicle for a whole new way of delivering innovative technologies. Selectedtechnologies have a high potential for application and real benefits nationwide. Projects that advanceapplication of commercialized but underutilized technologies are especially good candidates forfunding. Priority is given to technology areas in which there is a clearly defined national need, and apotential for quick return-on-investment through widespread application.

Projects must meet the following criteria:1. The project meets the intent of ISTEA Section 6005 for leading edge technologies.2. Testing/evaluation will be completed within a short time, e.g. 2 years.3. The technology has application beyond the proposed project.4. The project leverages PTP funds beyond the normal 80-20 Federal-aid match.

The Ohio Department of Transportation had several innovative suggestions ready for submission andselected the RC Flagman based on the potential increased worker safety, clearer driverinterpretation, significant potential cost savings.

The RC Flagman Company is a small Ontario Canada based manufacturer. The Remote ControlFlagger was developed by the RC Flagman Company with the direct aid and cooperation of theOntario Ministry of Transportation. In April 1996 the RC Flagman portable flagging station wasintroduced to Ohio and also demonstrated in New York, Michigan. As part of the preliminaryevaluation, phone calls were made to the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Transportation to receivecomments on performance. No written reports were offered, but comments by the Ministry ofTransportation were favorable as to the performance and safety of workers. Typically the unit is usedto replace a human flagger at one end of a flagging operation, or to allow a human flagger to performflagging operations from a safe location off the side of the road. Significant cost, safety, and timebenefits may be realized over the conventional flagging methods utilizing “on the road” flaggers withno auxiliary lights.

ODOT submitted the portable remotely controlled flagging machine to FHWA for approval as aninnovative technology under the PTP program in December 1996. Concurrently, ODOT made aformal request for experimentation as per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).Both written approvals were granted by July 1997.

Three devices were purchased by ODOT in October 1997. ODOT delivered the RC Flagman trailersto three County garages in late October 1997. ODOT work forces used the devices in situationswhere a flagger would be replaced, and evaluated situations where a flagger could be supplemented.

4

Work Plan and Evaluation Methodology:The RC Flagman was evaluated for two construction seasons, starting in May 1998 and completingin November 1999. It was delayed approximately one year as compared to the dates shown inaccompanying documents due to the setbacks in getting approval and purchasing the units.

Four areas were researched in this performance and safety evaluation of the RC Flagman.1) A summary of user comments, including setup and teardown, pictures and video.2) A summary of visually monitoring traffic flow through the work zone, including pictures and

video.3) A summary of unit cost and maintenance history, including comparison to flagger cost.4) A summary of accident statistics.

Three RC Flagman units were purchased in October 1997. Delivery was made to three counties,Licking, Ottawa, and Athens. In July, 1998 the unit in Licking county was moved to Butler county

The evaluation will be distributed to all 50 States, AASHTO, FHWA, and Technology Transfercenters.

The work plan follows:

5

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONOFFICE OF HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT

PRIORITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

WORK PLAN - 1997

Experimental feature to be evaluated: RC Flagman, Remotely controlled flaggerManufacturer: RC Flagman, Inc. Proposed location: D-2, D-5, D-8 PID or Project No.: None Anticipated installation date: 5/1/97 Estimated Feature Cost: $36,000 Person responsible for evaluating the experimental feature and preparing the required reports: Robert Jessberger, New Products Engineer Is federal oversight required? Yes (for variance from MUTCD)

To what extent has this feature been used in Ohio? elsewhere?

Two units have been in demonstration in several Ohio counties in 1996. The units havealso been demonstrated in New York and in Michigan. Units are in current use in Ontario(Canada). See attached product literature, and photos.

What potential benefits can be derived from the installation of this experimental feature?

A unit is used to replace a human flagger at one end of a flagging operation, or to allow ahuman flagger to perform flagging operations from a safe location off the side of the road.Significant cost, safety, and time benefits may be realized by using only one humanflagger. See attached product literature.

How will the experimental feature be installed?

The Ohio Department of Transportation will purchase three units for experimental use inDistrict 8, District 5, and District 2. The units will be centrally maintained, but operatedregionally by District Maintenance Departments. See attached product price list, andtraffic control diagram..

Describe how the device will be used, and how will performance be evaluated? Will there be astandard or control against which performance can be judged?

The devices will be used by ODOT work forces on two lane highways, when closing onelane for repairs will be required. The units will be used both in situations where a flaggerwould be replaced, and in situations where a flagger would be supplemented. Performance will be monitored by recording user comments, documenting accidents,recording malfunctions, recording setup time, visually monitoring traffic flow through thework zone, a unit’s cost will be compared to current hourly rate + benefits of an ODOT

6

flagger, at least one work day of time lapse video will be included in a video summarydocumenting the use of the unit.The units will be evaluated for two construction seasons, with quarterly updates to FHWAand a final report generated of all results in the fall of 1998.

Show a detailed cost breakdown of project, including Ohio matching funds.

ODOT will purchase three (3) units with PTP funds = $9400 x 3 = $28,200ODOT will perform evaluation, create 60 videos, and reports = $7,800Total Project cost (PTP: $28,200, ODOT: $7,600) = $36,000

Show a detailed project schedule.

January-March 1997 Proposal Finalized, submission to FHWAApril-June 1997 Purchase three units, distribute to ODOT DistrictsJuly-September 1997 Use, and first evaluation of units in field, user surveyOctober-December 1997 Evaluation of units, accident data, surveys reviewedJanuary-March 1998 Prepare interim report to FHWAApril-June 1998 Use, and evaluation of units in field, user survey, videoJuly-September 1998 Use, and evaluation of units in field, time lapse videoOctober-December 1998 Summarize findings, Final report to FHWA, distribute

videos with final report.Quarterly updates will be forwarded to Jack Springer, Ohio Office FHWA

Explain how the device will be showcased / marketed.

A final report will be prepared that outlines all findings, and describes in detail the use andperformance of the device. A summarizing video will be prepared that includes adescription of the device, actual workzone setup and tear down, a segment ofrepresentative time lapse, and a voice over summarizing findings. The report and videowill be mailed to all 50 DOT’s, FHWA, AASHTO, HITEC, and the vendor. A summary ofthe device will be posted on ODOT’s WWW page, and forwarded to the FHWA’s SpecialProducts Evaluation Listing for posting.

Explain how workers and Unions may react to the use of the device.

From worker comments to date, a very favorable response is expected. Worker safety isgreatly enhanced by reducing worker exposure to on coming vehicles. This labor savingdevice, similar in many ways to the power broom, slip formers, or robotic welders isexpected to enhance worker productivity by reducing monotonous duties.

Prepared by: Robert Jessberger Office or District: ODOT Highway Management Date: 3/28/97

7

Ohio Department of Transportation25 S. Front Street, P.O. Box 899, Columbus, Ohio 43215-0899

April 25, 1997

Mr. Leonard E. BrownDivision AdministratorFederal Highway Administration 200 N. High Street, Room 328Columbus, OH 43215

Re: FY 1997 Priority Technology Program Submission

Dear Mr. Brown:

In response to your letter approving Ohio DOT’s request for experimentation on the referenced topic I offerthe following summary as confirmation of phone conversations with Jack Springer, FHWA Columbus, andMichael Robinson, FHWA Washington. The Ohio Department of Transportation is very interested inevaluating this device. We expect the system to greatly enhance worker safety and productivity. Included foryour reference is the approved Priority Technology Program (PTP) package.

In response to your specific questions:1) The flagger should always remain in a close, safe proximity to the device and remain visible to drivers.The device is to be a supplement to the flagger, not a substitute for a flagger.

As per the attached proposal, the flagger will not be any further away than 1500’, and ALWAYS inclear line of sight to the device and approaching cars. We believe this implementation is consistent with thetechnicalities of the MUTCD.

2) Please provide the typical application diagrams for the specific sites where the flagger and RCFlagman will be used.

As per the attached proposal, the signing layout, distances, flagger positions and device location areclearly provided. We have not selected test sites yet, but every location will be recorded as part of theevaluation. We will evaluate the device for daytime use by ODOT workers.

3) Will "before" and "after" accident data and traffic volumes be monitored at all sites?As per the attached proposal, ODOT forces will use the device during routine maintenance

procedures on rural, two lane, low volume (<4000 AADT) roads. The test sites are not known yet. We willgather accident data, and traffic volume data at a sample of test sites.

8

4) Safeguards shall be incorporated to avoid the display of conflicting signals at each end of thetemporary traffic control zone.

As per the operating instructions in the work plan attached, the RC Flagman operator will manuallycontrol the device and have a clear line of sight of its operations and the vehicles passing through the workzone. The device does not have pretimed/automatic operation ability. It is only operated manually.

5) Demonstrate that this device is crashworthy.The device is more crashworthy than other commonly used devices such as arrow boards, Portable

Changeable Message Signs and Portable Traffic Signal systems, because of its light weight construction,breakaway pole, remotely located power generator, and low center of gravity. The device can be delineatedwith extra cones/drums for this evaluation. If the evaluation proves the device is useful and full scale crashtesting is required of all construction zone traffic control devices, the device will be included in acomprehensive testing program.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this program.

Respectfully,

Jerry WrayDirector JW:rjDRC:KCS:VD:TMS:REJ

c: File

An Equal Opportunity Employer

9

Specific answers to MUTCD Section 1A-6 Request for Experimentation:

(a) A statement indicating the nature of problem.

Current flagger operations require a human flagger to be physically located in the traveled way inorder to stop approaching traffic traveling at high speeds. This presents a certain degree of dangerand the possibility for miscommunication with the driver.

(b) A description of the proposed change, how it was developed, the manner in which it deviates fromthe standard, and how it is expected to be an improvement over existing standards.

The proposed device was developed in Canada with the assistance of the Ontario Ministry ofTransportation to address worker safety issues. Two options exist and will be tested. The first optionwill use two human flaggers each controlling a RC Flagman from a safe location off the traveledway. This option would be used in very dangerous or night time flagging operation. The secondoption would be to use one human flagger and one RC Flagman. The human flagger would controlthe RC Flagman from the opposite end of the work zone. This option would be used on lowervolume, daytime lane closures.

(c) Any illustration which would be helpful to understand the experimental device or use of the device.

A picture of the device, and a drawing of a standard traffic control setup by the Ontario of Ministryof Transportation is enclosed for reference.

(d) Any supporting data explaining how the experimental device was developed, if it has been tried, inwhat ways it was found to be adequate or inadequate, and how this choice of device or applicationwas derived.

The device was developed with the cooperation of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation inresponse to several flagger accidents. The device was been modified several times to tailor it’sresponse from drivers. The device has been demonstrated to DOT personnel in Michigan, NewYork, Florida and Ohio. Ohio has had two units on trial use during the summer of 1996. Commentson Ohio’s 1996 field demonstration’s are included for reference.

(e) A detailed research or evaluation plan including the time period of the experiment. This plan mustalso provide for close monitoring of the experimentation, especially in the early stages of its fieldimplementation.

A detailed State of Ohio Experimental Material Work plan is attached for your reference. The WorkPlan includes monitoring traffic flow, setup, video time lapse photography, AADT and geometrydata, user comments etc. It is expected to evaluate the device over the 1997 construction seasonon various State of Ohio maintenance jobs. If the device is shown to be an acceptable alterativeto human flaggers, a change to the MUTCD to allow this device will be requested and a largerscale implementation will be initiated.

(f) An agreement to restore the experiment site to a state complying with the provisions of the Manualwithin 3 months following the end of the time period of the experiment. This agreement must also

10

provide that the agency sponsoring the experimentation will terminate the experimentation at any timethat it determines significant safety hazards are directly or indirectly attributable to theexperimentation. The Office of Traffic Operations may also terminate approval of the experimentationat any time if there is an indication of hazards. If, as a result of the experimentation, a request ismade that the Manual be changed to include the device or application being experimented with, thedevice or application may remain in place until an official rule making action has occurred.

Since these units are not permanent structures, these devices can be removed or their operationterminated immediately upon study completion or before as determined by the Office of TrafficOperations. The State of Ohio agrees to terminate the experiment under the provisions statedabove.

(g) Agreement to provide semiannual progress reports for the duration of the experimentation and to aprovide a copy of the final results of the experimentation to FHWA, HTO-20, within 3 months followingcompletion of the experimentation. The Office of Traffic Operations may terminate approval of theexperimentation if reports are not provided in accordance with this schedule.

The State of Ohio agrees to provide midyear and final reports on the devices under test. This wouldgenerally be in July and in December of 1997.

12

Summary of ODOT User CommentsAll of the users of the device were asked for comments, a few were recorded by video tape at thework zone site. Fifteen responses were received and are summarized as follows:

John Tansey, District 2 Ottawa County Superintendent:Easy to set up and use, No problems with unit mechanicals, Extended zone to over 1500' on oneoccasion, Drivers understood unit well, No accidents, Liked the idea of freeing up a flagger person,Used on SR 582.

Bob Kuhlker, District 2 Highway Worker:Batteries go out to quickly which causes erratic operation when button pushed, Used with 1200-2500' zones for pavement repair and berm work, Allowed extra person to help in work force, Usedon SR 590, SR 579, SR 163

Gary Tabbert, District 2, County Manager:One problem with the hand remote (unit fixed by ODOT forces), Toledo blade did news article onthe unit, Very few cars have run around unit, Named it “Robbie”, Some flagger teams wouldn’t useit, Best used on short sections, Most drivers seem familiar with it. Generator can be used for otherwork items.

Larry Burnette, District 10, Athens County Superintendent:Great for slip repair jobs, No break downs, Drivers understood unit well, No accidents, Liked theidea of freeing up a flagger person, Must have good sight distance which limits use in hillysouthern Ohio, No problems with remote, Named it “Mildred”, Used on at least 5 jobs.

Abell Fuller, Distirct 8, Highway Worker Some problems with the remote unit, Best used for short lane closures (Culvert replacement,pavement repair, etc), Useful for one flagger situations.

Distirct 8, Highway Worker Some problems with the remote unit

Distirct 8, Highway Worker Some problems with the remote unit

It was noted by two operators that the delay in operation from the time of pressing the button to thetime of signal change and gate arm movement was at times a concern. They would like to seequicker response. Also it was pointed out that the gate arm should be a more visible color, andpossibly a larger flag on the end. Some modifications to the standard traffic control setup were tried,but the standard seemed to work the best, must keep cones close.

It is noted that the “Keep Right Arrow” was NOT used at anytime during this evaluation. Traffic controlspecialists who reviewed the device felt that the limited lane space and past experiences with“between lane” signs and the associated sign support presented an unnecessary hazard to the driver.District Two in particular has had a motor cycle accident caused by devices placed on the lane linewhen traffic is driving on both sides. It is recommended to remove this sign from the standard setupfor the RC Flagman. No detrimental effects to the driving public were noted due to this change.

13

Summary of Traveling Public interviews, Public perceptionsThree interview sessions were performed at RC Flagman sites, one by Ken Linger, and two by BobJessberger.

The following report was given by Ken Linger, ODOT Safety Program & WZTC Manager and ArthurJ. Garrett, ODOT Regulations and Audio/Visual:

“Art and I went to Dist 10 (Southern Ohio) today (7/22/98), Athens - SR 550, to video the RCFlagman unit and get some motorists reactions. The county crew were doing some ditch cleaningwith a Gradall. The work zone kept expanding as the Gradall moved down the road. Traffic volumeswere very low. Since the traffic volumes were very low, only one flagger was used who controlledtraffic moving in both directions. At the time we left, the zone was approximately 650' long. Theremote unit is designed to work up to 1000'. I assume that they moved the unit once the work zoneexpanded a little more.

The RC Flagman worked just as designed. The flagger operating the remote had used the unit oncebefore with no problems. The crew foreman has worked with the unit numerous times and is verypleased. He said the men have grown to like the RC Flagman and call it either the “one arm flagger”or “Sylvia”. Who knows why... Anyway the workers really like the RC Flagman and would takeanother.

All the motorist responded properly to the RC Flagman. They stopped right in front of the unit. Italked to six motorists to get some comments. They are as follows:

1. All motorists said the unit was very visible.2. All thought that the unit presented a very clear message. STOP -- when the red light wason.3. All the motorists thought it was great that this unit freed a worker to do something else. Italso allowed us to do more with less. Two motorists commented that if the unit was going tocause someone to lose a job they were not as positive. 12% unemployment in Athens county.People are very sensitive about jobs.

4. Two motorists thought the crossbar could of been more visible. The crossbar wasalternating 6" bands of orange and black. One motorist suggested making the crossbarfluorescent orange like our new work zone signs and another opted for a white crossbar.Either way some improvement would be helpful. 5. Two motorists commented that they had seen this unit in another state while on vacationand they liked it. They thought it made work much safer for the flagman. 6. I did observe one negative incident. A motorist had stopped as directed. When the lightchanged to yellow and the crossbar went up they did not advance right away. The last vehiclecoming in the opposite direction was one of our dump trucks. The truck driver had turnedaround in the middle of the zone and backed into a drive. Apparently the motorist expectedthe truck driver to make another move. The truck was off the road (barely) but the motorist wasunclear as to whether or not to proceed. After about 30 seconds the motorist decided it wassafe and proceeded through the zone.”

14

The following report is given by Bob Jessberger:On 10/7/99 I visited the setup and usage of the RC Flagman on SR 748 in Butler County justnorth of the City of Shandon Ohio. The setup of the RC Flagman took about 5 minutes. Iinterviewed 13 drivers in a 15 minute period with the following results:Have you ever seen the Device before? Yes - 5, No - 8, OtherWhat do you think of the device in general? Like - 12, Dislike, Other - 1 (need flags)Do you understand what you are supposed to do and where to stop?

Yes - 13, No, OtherDoes the device need anything to be clearer? Yes - 1(flag on end of pole), No - 12, Other

General comments from the traffic control people operating the device were very favorable,most notably the person stated “It frees up a person to do the real work”. It is also noted thatthere was no flag attached to the end of the gate arm during this days operation. Theoperators said the flag is normally attached, but must have been torn loose in transit. The flagwould be re-attached before the next days operation. See photos in Appendix B

The following report is given by Bob Jessberger:On 11/4/99 I visited the setup and usage of the RC Flagman on SR 349 in Athens County justnorth of the City of Amesville, Ohio (a very low volume road, AADT 1100). The setup of theRC Flagman took about 5 minutes in advance of the closed lane. The ODOT Flagger statedthat normally the RC Flagman unit would be set up to close the open lane, but that the fieldsituation and driveway layout warranted the change. See photos in Appendix C

Two different cone setups were used, one with center line cones and one without. It was notedthat drivers approaching the RC Flagman would pull all the way up to the device when therewere no cones on the center line, but would hesitate at the beginning of the center line cones.Two drivers actually stopped at the end of the cones, and when the light changed and the armwent up, drove around the cones on the center line. In general driver reacted very well to theunit, stopping when needed and going when indicated.

The operator of the RC Flagman stated it was usually well understood, and easy to setup. Hestated that the hilly terrain and winding roads in this part of Ohio severely limited the numberof places you could use the device. The RC Flagman deployed in Athens County was actuallyused on at least a dozen occasions according to the District 10 personnel but NOT recordedas being used on the Equipment Management System due to a mixup in the equipmentnumber recording.

15

Summary of Cost and Maintenance HistoryThe units were purchased on 10/7/96 for a per unit cost of $9,800 which included the RC Flagman,a portable generator, battery charger, a special “Signal Ahead” symbol sign, and a handheld remotecontrol unit. Several contractors were contacted and asked to provide written evaluations as to theperformance of the device. The six responses are included in the Appendix A. In general thecomments received were very favorable as to the cost effectiveness of a single human flagger witha remote control flagger as compared to two human flaggers.

Cost effectiveness based on District 2 reported usage during one year of this evaluation:

RC Flagman Cost: $9,800.00

RC Flagman Expected Life in Years: 10

RC Flagman normal hours used per year: 61

RC Flagman number of uses per year: 11

RC Flagman fuel cost per hour: $2.50

Total RC Flagman cost per hour: $18.57

Human Flagger Wage + Fringes Rate per hour: $24.07

RC Flagman Usage History

WorkHoursEquipmentEndBeginPerformedUsedNumberLogLogRoutePrefixCountyDate

CULVERT BETTRERMENT 530700015.95.9590SROTT08/12/98CLEANING AND RESHAPING DITCHES 530700015.95.9590SROTT08/13/98CLEANING AND RESHAPING DITCHES 530700015.95.9590SROTT08/14/98FULL DEPTH REPAIR 630700016.86.7590SROTT09/09/98FULL DEPTH REPAIR 330700015.55.5590SROTT09/10/98BLADING-RESTORING UNPAVED BERM 330700016.55.5590SROTT09/10/98FULL DEPTH REPAIR 430700016.36.3590SROTT09/11/98BLADING-RESTORING UNPAVED BERM 1307000176590SROTT09/11/98SURFACE TREATMENT 5307000166163SROTT11/30/98FULL DEPTH REPAIR 5307000122163SROTT04/27/99POTHOLE PATCHING 630700011.51.5163SROTT04/28/99SURFACE REPAIRS 4307000120163SROTT07/16/99PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 3307000151.553SROTT08/02/99REAIRING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 330700013.23.2105SROTT08/11/99FULL DEPTH REPAIR 330700013.23.2105SROTT08/11/99BLADING-RESTORING UNPAVED BERM 130700017.86.619SROTT09/09/99SURFACE REPAIRS 6307000194.5590SROTT09/10/99SURFACE REPAIRS 0.5307000312.612.6127USBUT11/06/98SURFACE REPAIRS 430700037.57.5126SRBUT10/21/98REAIRING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 5307000310.910.9126SRBUT08/18/98REAIRING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 3307000310.910.9126SRBUT08/19/98REAIRING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 3307000310.910.9126SRBUT08/19/98REAIRING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES 6307000310.910.9126SRBUT08/20/98

89.5Total Hour Used:16Number of Projects:21Total Days reported:61Hours used for one year in D-2:

Note: Unit #2 not reported, recording system change in mid 1998 and no data between delivery in 1996 and July 1998

16

Summary of Accident Statistics:

There were no reported accidents near or involving the RC Flagman during the two year evaluationperiod.

Comments in general indicate that the RC Flagman was at least as safe for the driving public as ahuman flagger in normal flagging operations. It is noted that the “Keep Right Arrow” was NOT usedat anytime during this evaluation because it presented a hazard to the driver. Traffic specialistsreviewing the RC Flagman felt that the limited lane space and poor previous experiences with signsand the associated sign supports that were placed within the traveled way warranted removal of thesign. It is recommended to eliminate the “Keep Right Arrow” from the standard traffic control setup.

Conversations with Mike Chappel of the Ontario Ministry of Labor, and Peter Howes, of the OntarioMinistry of Transportation indicate Ontario is favoring the adoption of robotic flaggers due to pastaccidents with human flaggers. No reports are available at this time.

17

Summary of Findings and Conclusions:

This study found that using the RC Flagman can be a cost effective way to provide for a one lane closure.No accidents involving the unit were reported during the two year evaluation.

Interviews with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and current private users of the device indicate betterthan normal public perception, and beneficial cost effectiveness.

Two units experienced problems with battery life of the hand held remote control. When the battery weakensthe unit fails to operate when the button is pressed. Other parts of the unit including the generator, gate armmotor and mechanism did not have service problems.

The requirement for the “Keep Right Arrow” prior to the cones placed on the center line was waived at thediscretion of the local traffic specialists. No detrimental effects were noticed, and it is recommended toeliminate this sign from the standard setup for the RC Flagman. It is also noted that the optimal traffic planconsisted of placing the RC Flagman in the open lane just off the shoulder, the human flagger standing in theclosed lane ahead of the work zone, and the rest of the traffic control should be as shown on the standarddrawing.

Comments from the traveling public were very favorable, video analysis indicate the public readily acceptsthe device, stopping in the appropriate location, and proceeding with caution when the arm is raised andlight goes to yellow flash.

Comments from the flaggers and supervisors using the units were generally favorable as to the performanceand usability including quick setup and tear down, ease of use, etc. Problems were indicated with the handheld remote operation usually due to weak batteries or button contact problems. (Note that the vendor hasupgraded the hand held remote in current units to an all digital more powerful system)

In conclusion, the RC Flagman is a useful tool for saving money in traffic control while providing clearinstructions to the traveling public. With the proper setup and adjustments to the standard traffic plan asoutlined in this report, the device increases worker safety while saving money and reducing delay byallowing an extra worker to be performing work on the highway.

18

Questionnaire for RC flagman UsersPhone interview

Name: ___________________________________________TItle: ____________________________________________District: __________________________________________Date: ____________________________________________

How many days did you use the unit on the road? ____________________________Dates / or month _____________________________

On what type of highway job did you use the unit? 2 lane repair , berm work, bridge, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How did you use the device? With only one flagger, with flagger beside unit, etc.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please comment on the units effectiveness, any problems, and public reaction you observed:_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you feel your district should purchase these units, would they be cost beneficial?______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Other comments:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Form completed by : Robert Jessberger, New Product Evaluation EngineerDate: ____________, Time: _____________

19

Story Board for the Priority Technology Program evaluation of the RC Flagman Video/MPEG

12 Minute duration

Date: October 30, 1999

Introduction:ODOT Title with MusicOverlay ODOT Symbol, fade to FHWA/PTP logo,

The Ohio Department of Transportation, in participation with the Federal HighwayAdministration proudly presents a 1997 Priority Technology Program Special Evaluation ofthe RC Flagman.

Title Overlay: Priority Technology Program Fade in Title RC Flagman. Cut background to photo of unit,

Body:Field video of a sample days operation, background sounds of cars passing. Audio of threeinterviews during high mast wide angle view of unit in operation.Cut scenes to field video of comments of the three flaggers, drive through of work zone, worker onthe road and hand held remote.Closeup of unit in operation.Closeup of Flagger using remote.Closeup of work zone

Conclusion:Still photo of unit, remote, generator. Scroll credits and Contacts for Vendor, ODOT, and FHWA

FTB... static

22

Appendix A

Contractor responses to an ODOT request for a written performance review on the RC Flagman

23

Appendix A - continued


24



25



26



27



28



29



30

Appendix B Photos of the RC Flagman in District 8

Trailering the RC Flagman

Traffic control setup and work tools on one truck

31

Appendix B continued

The hand held remote control

Close-up of Remote Control

32


Initial setup of the RC Flagman

Generator on unit, Note: Traffic Control Diagram posted on the Unit!

33


On approach to the RC Flagman“One Lane Road Ahead”

On approach to the RC Flagman “Prepare to Stop”

34


On approach to the RC Flagman

Note: no “Keep Right” arrow on center line. RC Flagman situated in the open to traffic lane

Stopped at the RC Flagman Note: Flagger in distance

and no sign for “Stop here on Red”

35


Looking at the back of the Flagger

Note: hand held remote

Looking at the back of the RC Flagman

Note: Indicator light on back of signal head

36


The sample work zone on Butler County State Route 748, just outside Shandon Ohio: Average annual daily traffic : 1215, 8% trucksEquipment used for full depth shoulder repair:

Dump truck for Hot Mix AsphaltDump truck for towing air compressor for jackhammerDump truck for heated Asphalt cement for crack sealing and tack.Stake bed truck for Traffic control with RC Flagman.

Personnel used for full depth shoulder repair, repair time 1.5 hours:One Traffic control/flaggerOne laborer monitoring AC kettle, and tackingTwo laborers on Jack hammers, tampers, asphalt placement.

37

Appendix C Photos of the RC Flagman in District 10

On Approach to the Work Zone “Road Work Ahead” Sign Note: Rolling, winding terrain

“One Lane Road Ahead” Sign

38

Appendix C continued

“Flagger Ahead” Sign

Vendor supplied “Prepare toStop” sign

39


On approach to the RC Flagman Note: setup without Center line

cones and RC Flagman situated in the closed lane

Tim Brown, ODOT Flagger and RC FlagmanoperatorNote: Hand held remote, flagger positioned onside of road.

40


On approach to the RC Flagman Note: alternate setup with

Center line cones

Ohio, Athens County SR 329 just north of Amesville AADT 1100, 4 % Trucks

Work performed: Ditch cleaning using Backhoe, dumptrucks and RC Flagman

41

Appendix D Contacts

R.C. Flagman Inc.P.O Box 11132Peter VieveenStoney Creek, Ontario, CanadaL8E 5P9Phone: (877) 352-4626Fax: (905) 735-3794Email Address: [email protected] page: www.rcflagman.com

R.C. Flagman Inc.1402 Pine Street, Suite 108Niagara Falls, New York, USA14301Phone: (877) 352-4626Fax: (905) 735-3794

Ohio Department of TransportationOffice of Highway ManagementBob Jessberger1980 W. Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43223Phone: (614)752-5273

rc flagman evaluation - the national work zone safety ... · rc flagman evaluation ... safety,...

Documents