Minnesota Work Zone Speed Management Study 2022

Work Zone Speed Management Study
February 2022
Work Zone Speed Management Study 1

Prepared by:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
1601 Utica Avenue South, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55416-3636
Prepared for:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Boulevard
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899
Phone: 651-296-3000
Toll-Free: 1-800-657-3774
TTY, Voice or ASCII: 1-800-627-3529
To request this document in an alternative format, call 651-366-4718 or 1-800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota).
You may also send an email to [email protected]

Table of Contents
Legislative Request .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Background............................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Traffic Control Design Practices ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Driver Behavior; Speeding ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Crashes in Minnesota Work Zones ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Regulating Speeds in Work Zones ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Enforcement of Safe Speeds ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Speed Safety Cameras ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
Review of Existing Legal Authority..................................................................................................................................... 25
Foundational Regulations ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
Establishment of Regulations in Work Zones ........................................................................................................................ 25
Enforcement of Regulations in Work Zones .......................................................................................................................... 26
Speed Safety Cameras ........................................................................................................................................................... 27
Process for Requesting Modifications to a Traffic Control Plan.......................................................................................... 30
Existing Informal Process....................................................................................................................................................... 30
Proposed Formal Process ...................................................................................................................................................... 30
Development of Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 32
Recommendations for Changing Policies and Procedures .................................................................................................... 35
Recommendations Related to Changing to State Law .......................................................................................................... 37
Proposed Ideas Not Recommended as Part of This Study .................................................................................................... 38
Agency Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 40
Speed Safety Camera Demonstration Project ....................................................................................................................... 43
Administrative Versus Criminal Citations .............................................................................................................................. 44
Appendix A: Task Force Members and Staff ...................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix B: Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix C: Brainstorming Session Summaries ................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix D: Mentimeter ................................................................................................................................................... 64
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................................. 72

Legislative Request
This report is issued to comply with 2021 Laws of Minn., 1st SS, Ch. 5, Art. 4, Sec. 140.
Sec. 140. WORK ZONE SPEED MANAGEMENT STUDY.
(a) The commissioners of transportation and public safety must perform a work zone speed management study.
At a minimum, the study must:
(1) evaluate existing legal authority for strategies, practices, and methods to reduce vehicle speeds
and enhance worker safety in work zones, which may include but is not limited to use of traffic
control devices, use of barriers, traffic control design modifications, and speed enforcement actions;
(2) propose a process for contractors operating in a work zone that allows contractors to request
modifications to a project's traffic control plan, in order to reduce vehicle speeds or improve worker
safety in a work zone;
(3) make recommendations on changes to current policies and procedures related to work zone
safety; and
(4) make recommendations on changes to state law to improve work zone safety.
(b) By February 1, 2022, the commissioners must complete the study and submit it to the chairs and ranking
minority members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over transportation policy and finance.
The cost of preparing this report is less than $85,000.

Executive Summary
Work zones place workers in an inherently dangerous environment. However, when workers are placed next to
traffic, the risk of injury or death increases. Changes to the roadway environment, driver behavior, and high
levels of traffic volumes and/or speeds each contribute to the dangers faced by road workers.
The most effective method to protect workers is to close the road to vehicular traffic. However, this may not be
feasible due to a lack of acceptable detour routes or limited access to businesses and residences. Therefore,
each year millions of vehicles travel through Minnesota’s work zones. Work zones introduce changes to the
roadway that present a more complex environment for drivers to adapt to and maneuver through. Typically,
these environments include lane shifts and lane reductions, narrower lanes and reduced shoulders. These
conditions reduce the margin for driver error.
Average statewide speeds have marginally increased since the COVID-19 stay-at-home order. However, higher
speeds, defined as greater than 15 mph over the posted speed limit, has substantially increased. Research has
shown that simply lowering the posted speeds will not change driver behavior, because drivers will reduce
speeds only if they perceive a need to do so. Furthermore, effective enforcement of traffic laws in work zones is
limited by the number of available resources, a constrained roadway environment, and a desire to not create
additional safety risks during the enforcement process.
On June 26, 2021, 2021 Laws of Minn., 1st SS, Chap. 5, Art. 4, Sec. 139 was passed requiring the Commissioners
of Transportation and Public Safety to perform a work zone speed management study. While the law refers to a
work zone speed management study, the scope of the study indicates much more than the management of
speeds in work zones. The language suggests that the overarching goal of the study is to improve worker safety,
with the management of speeds being one of many methods to do so.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation and Minnesota Department of Public Safety collaborated to
convene a task force to respond to this request. The Work Zone Speed Management Task Force (Task Force) is
composed of representatives from MnDOT, DPS, road building contractors, traffic control contractors,
Minnesota State Patrol, Minnesota Safety Council, Minnesota County Engineers Association, League of
Minnesota Cities, and the Associated General Contractors. HDR Engineering, Inc. was contracted to conduct
research, facilitate the evaluations of potential improvements summarize recommendations proposed by the
Task Force and prepare the study.
The scope of this study included four main elements, which are noted below. Findings associated with each
element are listed below the element description.
(1) Evaluate existing legal authority for strategies, practices, and methods to reduce vehicle speeds and
enhance worker safety in work zones, which may include, but is not limited to, use of traffic control
devices, use of barriers, traffic control design modifications, and speed enforcement actions;
The study generally found that the current strategies, practices and methods, and laws (statutes) used to design,
implement, establish and enforce regulations in work zones represent a typical approach that balances worker
safety with mobility. The design of work zones, procedures by contractors within the work zone and

enforcement of regulations each follow industry standards. Even so, traffic speeds remain much higher than
intended through work zones, placing workers at risk of injury or death - an experience not limited to
Minnesota.
(2) Propose a process for contractors operating in a work zone that allows contractors to request
modifications to a project's traffic control plan, in order to reduce vehicle speeds or improve worker
safety in a work zone;
The proposed formal process for contractor-initiated changes prior to project letting is listed below:
1. The contractor, during the advertisement period, may propose an alternate method of construction
staging via comment to the MnDOT project manager for possible contract change
2. MnDOT would be responsible for modifying the contract documents, including potentially issuing
updated plans
3. An amendment would be issued and open to all bidders.
The proposed formal process for contractor-initiated changes after project letting is listed below:
1. The contractor proposes a change to the temporary traffic control plan to the project engineer
2. The project engineer and/or resident engineer reviews the proposed change and consults with district
traffic staff
3. If the proposed change includes work zone speed limits, the methodology from the Speed Limits in
Work Zones Guidelines is followed
4. The project engineer assesses the proposed change based on a balance between:
a. Worker safety
b. Technical merit
c. Effect on the traveling public and stakeholders
d. How the design and cost of the proposed change compares with that proposed by contractors
not selected for this contract
5. The resident engineer approves, approves with conditions, or does not approve the proposed changes
6. The contractor requests a discussion with district management if there is a disagreement
This study proposes that this language be placed within the MnDOT special provision boilerplates for use on all
MnDOT construction contracts.
(3) Make recommendations on changes to current policies and procedures related to work zone safety.
The Task Force jointly evaluated 34 potential improvements to worker safety. Sixteen of the potential
improvements were determined to be either:
• Likely to Significantly Influence Work Zone Safety, or
• Likely to Have Some Positive Effect on Work Zone Safety AND have an adequate score as defined in the
screening process
MnDOT and DPS convened to discuss how the Task Force’s recommendations may be implemented. A key
clarification emerged from these discussions: It is not advised that the recommendations be indiscriminately
applied to all projects. The agencies will develop criteria for the use of each recommendation so that they may

be applied in the proper context to maximize effectiveness. Through this discussion, three recommendations
were eliminated and the terminology of a fourth was significantly changed.
Nine of the 16 recommendations will be implemented by MnDOT. Development of criteria will occur in 2022.
However, many construction design plans for projects to be constructed in 2022 have already been completed.
While it is expected that some recommendations will be used on projects in 2022 on a per-project basis, these
changes are more likely to be seen in 2023 work zones.
1. Include speed monitoring equipment and/or traffic monitoring cameras on select construction contracts
2. Use contractor Speed Control Vehicles on a set frequency to control speed on select construction
contracts
3. Encourage more detours and additional limited/full-time closures
4. Engage MnDOT construction staff earlier in the design process
5. Use Intelligent Work Zone strategies, such as Stopped Traffic Ahead systems for end of queue
notification within the work area, in addition to in advance of the work area
6. Greater use of end of queue warning systems, in general
7. Greater use of advisory speeds with vehicle speed feedback displays
8. Greater use of Electronic Workers Present Speed Limit signs
9. If using static Workers Present Speed Limit signs, assign responsibility of daily set up and take down in
the construction contract
Two recommendations require MnDOT and DPS collaboration for Implementation
10. Use camera/radar technology upstream of law enforcement as identified in the Enhanced Speed
Compliance for Work Zones (ESC4WZ) study such that it meets current legal requirements; develop
equivalent VAST (Visual, Audio, Speed and Targeted) methodology that meets statutory requirements to
admit output as evidence
11. Conduct a pilot project to evaluate effectiveness of stationary presence versus moving enforcement
strategies
Two additional recommendations require changes to statute and are discussed in the following section.
(4) Make recommendations on changes to state law to improve work zone safety.
Two of the Task Force’s recommendations are related to implementation of a Speed Safety Camera program to
manage speeds in work zones. The first recommendation was for an SSC pilot project, and the second
recommendation was related to a permanent program. Later, these recommendations were combined because
the pilot project must precede a permanent program. Research has indicated public support in Minnesota for
the use of Speed Safety Cameras to reduce speeds in work zones or school zones. Research has also found that
SSC is effective in reducing speeding behavior; the Federal Highway Administration considers SSC as a proven
safety countermeasure in improving safety through speed management.
MnDOT and DPS reviewed the Task Force recommendations for the SSC pilot project and refined it to the
agencies’ recommendations as listed below. The goal of the SSC pilot project is to validate the parameters and
evaluate the effectiveness of the program. This recommendation requires action by the legislature. If the pilot

project yielded a successful proof of concept, a permanent SSC program may be pursued. The agencies believe
that SSC would be one of the most effective methods to manage speeds in work zones discussed in this study.
• Deploy at two (2) work zones on the state highway system. One (1) in MnDOT’s Metro District and one
(1) in Greater Minnesota. It is also suggested to have one deployment on a freeway and another
deployment on a non-freeway road
• Target the deployments to occur during the 2023 construction season
• Use owner-liability (no driver photo) to minimize resources needed to manage the SSC program
• Allow the owner/lessee to identify the driver of the vehicle to transfer the citation to the actual driver of
the vehicle
• Allow the owner/lessee to request a hearing to challenge the citation
• Fund the demonstration project with a direct appropriation. DPS would require additional staff for the
demonstration project and has concerns with recruitment.
• Fine revenue should not be tied to administering the SSC program
• Use an SSC system vendor with experience in proven, accepted technology and procedures
• The SSC system vendor is paid a flat rate (not based on number of violations)
• Require that SSC equipment is set up under the supervision of a licensed peace officer
• Require that a licensed peace officer review the evidence before a citation is issued
• Provide locations of SSC equipment on the program’s website
• Provide signing that informs drivers of downstream SSC equipment
• Publicize the SSC program ahead of deployment
• No recommendation is included in this document relating to the type of violation (administrative vs.
criminal) issued by the demonstration project
Changes to the current laws listed below are recommended to successfully deploy an SSC program in Minnesota.
• Minn. Stat. 169.04 (a) (2), Local Authority
• Minn. Stat. 169.14, Subd. 10, Radar; speed measuring device; standards of evidence
• Minn. Stat. 169.99, Subd. 1 Uniform Traffic Ticket
• Minn. Stat. 169.999, Subd. 1, Administrative Citations, should the legislature opt to utilize administrative
citations
In addition to these changes, the following new legislation is recommended.
• Legislation is needed to explicitly authorize owner-liability for speeding violations documented and cited
through the use of SSC, and should address any data practices concerns
• Legislation is needed to impose owner-liability for speeding violations documented by the SSC
equipment

Introduction
Purpose
Work zones place workers in an inherently dangerous environment. When workers are placed next to traffic, the
risk of injury or death increases. Changes to the roadway environment, driver behavior and high levels of traffic
volumes and/or speeds each contribute to the dangers faced by road workers.
According to trends identified by the State of Minnesota’s Work Zone Crash Report, 2018-2020, the total
number of work zone crashes and the number of severe (fatal and serious injury) work zone crashes are
increasing. 1 This report states that 7,403 crashes occurred in work zones in this three-year period. Of these, 122
of these crashes involved fatal and serious injuries and 19 crashes involved workers (5 of which involved either a
fatality or serious injury). This information, shown in Table 1, indicates that 96 percent of all fatal and serious
injury crashes occurring in work zones during this period involved the traveling public while 4 percent involved
workers.
Table 1: Crashes in Minnesota, 2018-2020
Work Zone Work Zone
Work Zone Fatal and Work Zone Worker Fatal and
Period Total Crashes
Crashes Serious Injury Worker Crashes Serious Injury
Crashes Crashes
2018-2020 240,655 7,403 122 19 5
Another report commissioned by MnDOT, COVID-19 Impacts on Speed and Safety for Rural Roads and Work
Zones, indicates that the amount of traffic traveling at speeds greater than 15 miles over the speed limit has also
increased.2 This report noted that average speeds in the work zones included in this study increased between
1.7 miles per hour (mph) and 4.7 mph from 2019 to 2020. 3
On June 26, 2021, 2021 Laws of Minn., 1st SS, Chap. 5, Art. 4, Sec. 140 was signed into law. The law requires
Commissioners of Transportation and Public Safety to perform a work zone speed management study. The
scope of this study must:
(1) evaluate existing legal authority for strategies, practices, and methods to reduce vehicle speeds
and enhance worker safety in work zones, which may include, but is not limited to, use of traffic
control devices, use of barriers, traffic control design modifications, and speed enforcement
actions;
1
Moreland and Foldesi, “State of Minnesota's Work Zone Crash Report, 2018-2020,” 2021.
2 Shauna Hallmark and Neal Hawkins, “COVID-19 Impacts on Speed and Safety for Minnesota Roads and Work Zones” (Minnesota Department of
Transportation, 2021).
3 Ibid.

(2) propose a process for contractors operating in a work zone that allows contractors to request
modifications to a project's traffic control plan, in order to reduce vehicle speeds or improve
worker safety in a work zone;
(3) make recommendations on changes to current policies and procedures related to work zone
safety; and
(4) make recommendations on changes to state law to improve work zone safety.
While the law refers to a work zone speed management study, the scope of the study discusses much more than
the management of speeds in work zones. The study provides ways to improve worker and traveler safety, with
speed management being one of many methods to do so.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation and Minnesota Department of Public Safety collaborated to
convene a task force to respond to this request. The Work Zone Speed Management Task Force (Task Force) is
composed of representatives from MnDOT, DPS, road building contractors, traffic control contractors,
Minnesota State Patrol, Minnesota Safety Council, Minnesota County Engineers Association, League of
Minnesota Cities, and the Associated General Contractors. The Task Force met at least monthly between July
and November 2021. HDR Engineering, Inc. was contracted to conduct research, facilitate the evaluations of
potential improvements, summarize proposed recommendations by the Task Force and prepare the report. A
project management team consisting of the Assistant State Traffic Engineer, the State Work Zone Engineer and
HDR’s technical lead met 1-2 times per month outside of the Task Force to discuss project development.
Background
The most effective method to protect workers is to close the road to vehicular traffic. This may not be feasible
because of a lack of acceptable detour routes or limited access to businesses/residences. Therefore, each year
millions of vehicles travel through Minnesota’s work zones. Work zones introduce changes to the roadway that
present a more complex environment for drivers to adapt to and maneuver through. Typically, these
environments include lane shifts and lane reductions, narrower lanes and shoulders, uneven lanes, changes to
speed limits and nearby workers and equipment. These conditions reduce the margin for driver error before a
crash occurs.
During the busiest times of the day, traffic volumes may reach or exceed the capacity of the roadway. The
resulting congestion typically leads to slower speeds. As congestion dissipates, speeds return to free flow levels,
with some drivers exceeding the speed limit. This increases the variance between slower and faster moving
vehicles, which is referred to as the speed differential. A large speed differential can be hazardous at any speed
range. However, at higher speeds, drivers have less time to react to changing conditions ahead of them, and
crashes are more likely to result in severe injuries and death. When greater speed differentials occur in work
zones, the likelihood of errant vehicles entering the work zones increases, either as a result of near misses or
crashes. This concept is referred to as work zone intrusions and poses the greatest risk of injuries and fatalities
to construction workers.
While almost all work zones contain devices that separate traffic from workers, these devices vary from work
zone to work zone depending on traffic levels, duration of construction operations, the type of work and space

available to accommodate traffic and the work zone. In many cases, workers are separated from traffic by
reflective barrels or cones. The main purpose of these devices is to deter traffic from entering the work zone, by
channelizing it into the desired lane. Barrels, cones and similar devices are not designed to provide positive
protection to workers in the work zone. Although temporary barrier provides significant protection to workers,
the barrier is designed to deflect when hit, absorbing some of the energy from impact. When a barrier strikes a
worker, it can lead to significant injury and/or death.
Traffic Control Design Practices

MnDOT has developed substantial guidance to assist engineers and traffic control contractors with the selection
and placement of traffic control devices in work zones. A few of the more commonly used tools are identified in
Figure 1. Traffic control and detour plans that rely on a configuration lasting greater than three days are
required to be developed by a professional engineer licensed in Minnesota. The plans are also reviewed and
approved by the local road authority. The following sections discuss strategies that can be used by traffic control
designers, including closures and detours, intelligent work zone applications and barriers with positive
protection.
Figure 1: Commonly Used Traffic Control Design Tools
• MN MUTCD, including Part 6K: Minnesota Traffic Control Field Manual

Commonly Used Tools by Engineers • Chapter 8 of the Traffic Engineering Manual
• MnDOT's Long-Term Typical Applications
• Minnesota Traffic Control Field Manual
Commonly Used Tools by Contractors • Standard Plans
• Standard Plates
• Temporary traffic control typical details
The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) has been deemed by FHWA to be in
conformance with the Federal MUTCD. 4 The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the
supplemental design guidance provided in Minnesota is consistent with those in other states.
Closures and Detours

If determined to be in the best interest of the public, a roadway may be closed with traffic detoured onto other
roadways. Work zone speed limits and higher fines for speeding in construction zones are not applicable since
the detoured roadway is not under construction. Under these situations, authorization from the Commissioner
of Transportation is required for a temporary speed limit. The MnDOT district traffic engineer performs a traffic
investigation on the detour and submits a recommendation to the MnDOT Office of Traffic Engineering. 5
4 “Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD),” Traffic Engineering (Minnesota Department of Transportation, September 2020),
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mutcd/.
5 “Speed Limits in Work Zones Guidelines.” Office of Traffic, Safety & Technology, Office of Construction & Innovative Contracting, October 2014.

Intelligent Work Zone Applications
MnDOT has developed processes and guidelines for the use of Intelligent Work Zone (IWZ) tools that use
technology to address undesirable issues in existing work zones and mitigate anticipated issues on scheduled
projects. Several items in the IWZ Toolbox are specifically used to collect and communicate information related
to speeds in and approaching work zones, including: 6
• Advisory Speed Information: Informs drivers of their speed compared to the advised speed
• Downstream Speed Notification: Warns drivers of slower traffic ahead
• End of Queue Warning: Warns drivers of stopped traffic ahead
• Active and Passive Zipper Merges: Guides drivers to use both lanes until the merge point of a lane drop
• Excessive Speed Warnings, including Vehicle Speed Feedback Displays: Warns drivers that their speed is
unsafe for navigating a downstream curve or rough road surfaces
• Electronic Workers Present Speed Limit Signs: Informs drivers of a change in the regulatory speed limit
due to the presence of workers near travel lanes
Positive Protection
6F.85 of the MN MUTCD lists the five primary functions of temporary traffic barriers:
1. To keep vehicular traffic from entering work areas, such as excavations or material storage sites
2. To separate workers, bicyclists, and pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic
3. To separate opposing directions of vehicular traffic
4. To separate vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians from the work area such as false work for
bridges and other exposed objects
5. To protect drop-offs of greater than 12 inches on longer term projects when a suitable buffer lane
cannot be provided
Temporary traffic barriers can be, and often are, used to protect workers. However, the placement and removal
of temporary traffic barriers adds exposure and risk to both the traveling public and the workers placing and
removing the barriers.
6 “Minnesota Intelligent Work Zone Toolbox.” Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Traffic Engineering, 2020.

Driver Behavior; Speeding
Driver speed can be based on a wide variety of behavioral factors. Most
drivers base their traveling speed on the overall road environment and Some Task Force members
context, as well as the prevailing speed of other vehicles. Some drivers base reported that they feel
their speeds on the posted speed limit, intentionally setting their speed at unsafe when traveling at the
or above it. Other driver behaviors that negatively impact work zone safety posted speed limit in work
include inattention, social pressure, being in a hurry, lack of congestion, zones when the prevailing
speed is much higher.
comfort level driving at higher speeds, and perceived ability to not be
caught by law enforcement.
COVID-19 Effect on Speeds
A study conducted for MnDOT compared statistics before and after the COVID-19 stay-at-home order, which
was in place from March 2020 to December 2020. Results indicated that while the average statewide speeds
marginally increased, the number of drivers traveling at higher speeds substantially increased. Higher speeds are
defined as greater than 15 mph over the posted speed limit. Comparing 2020 to 2019, 69% of sites surveyed
state-wide showed an increase in the number of high-speed vehicles and 88% of these sites showed an increase
in the percent of vehicles traveling at higher speeds. 7 MnDOT statistics indicate that the number of drivers
traveling over 99 mph doubled from 2019 to 2020. 8
I-94 Work Zone in Maple Grove

Even with careful planning, ongoing placement and maintenance of traffic control devices, and enforcement of
regulations, individual and collective vehicle speeds remained much higher than desired. For example, speed
data for westbound traffic was collected in three different locations along the I-94 work zone in Maple Grove
continuously during November 1-7, 2020. The speed limit in this work zone has been clearly posted at 60 mph.
The number of vehicles passing through this work zone during the seven-day period totaled between 291,000
and 346,470. Table 2 shows that between 7,356 and 13,568 individual vehicles traveled through the work zone
at higher speeds in this one-week period. 9
Table 2: Westbound Speeds in the I-94 Maple Grove Work Zone, November 1-7, 2020
Location Elm Creek Rest Area Weaver Lake Road West of I-94
# vehicles % of traffic # vehicles % of traffic # vehicles % of traffic
76+ mph 13,568 4% 8,587 3% 7,356 2%
61-75 mph 199,417 60% 236,292 81% 225,504 65%
< 60 mph 120,039 36% 46,263 16% 113,610 33%
Total Vehicles 333,024 100% 291,142 100% 346,470 100%
7
Shauna Hallmark and Neal Hawkins, “COVID-19 Impacts on Speed and Safety for Minnesota Roads and Work Zones” (Minnesota Department of
Transportation, 2021).
8 “Work Zone Speeds,” Work Zone Speeds, November 2, 2021.
9 “I-94 Work Zone Speeds,” I-94 Work Zone Speeds, November 2, 2021.

The number of crashes in this work zone were tracked and compared to numbers prior to construction. Table 3
shows that the number of crashes during the 2020 and 2021 construction years were lower than those
documented in 2019, the year prior to construction. 10
Table 3: Crashes in I-94 Maple Grove Work Zone, Before and During Construction
Year Condition Total Crashes

2019 No Work Zone 422
2020 Work Zone 374
2021 Work Zone 353*
*Preliminary data
Crashes in Minnesota Work Zones

MnDOT regularly completes Work Zone Crash Reports that analyze the condition of crashes that occurred in
work zones. The most current report, which focused on data between 2018 and 2020, revealed several
interesting trends over the past decade. 11 First, the total number of work zone crashes increased, as had the
number of severe crashes in work zones. The number of fatal crashes (labeled as “K” in Figure 2 and Figure 3,
below) in work zones held somewhat steady over the same time period. These statistics represent the number
or crashes, not the number of individuals involved or affected by these crashes.
On January 1, 2016, DPS transitioned to its new crash reporting system, MnCRASH. While this upgrade improved
the crash data system in many ways, a sizeable increase in the number of reported crashes was observed in the
first year with this new system. The Work Zone Crash Report remarks that this new system may have helped
document crashes that may have gone under-reported in the previous system. In addition, two injury severity
definitions were changed to align with national standard definitions:
• A – Incapacitating Injury → A – Suspected Serious Injury
• B – Non-Incapacitating Injury → B – Suspected Minor Injury
As a result of these two changes, in particular the addition of the term “suspected” to the state’s crash reports,
Minnesota experienced a dramatic increase in A and B severity crash rates from 2015 to 2016.
10 Ibid.
11 Moreland and Foldesi, “State of Minnesota's Work Zone Crash Report, 2018-2020,” 2021.

Figure 2: Total and Severe Work Zone Crashes, Statewide, 2011-2020
3000 50
2800 45
40
2600
35
2400
30
2200
25
2000 20
1800 15
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Work Zone Crashes Severe (K+A) Work Zone Crashes
Figure 3: Fatal Work Zones Crashes, Statewide, 2011-2020
15
13
11
5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Fatal (K) Work Zone Crashes
This study also analyzed the type of work zone in which these crashes occurred. Crashes were sorted into five
categories:
• Intermittent/Moving
• Lane Closure
• Lane Shift/Crossover
• Work on Shoulder/Median
• Other/not Found

Figure 4: Areas of a Work Zone
The overwhelming majority of both total crashes and fatal crashes
occurred in work zones that contained lane closures. This was almost triple
the amount of any other type of work zone. Lane closures require merging
two through lanes into one, which has proven to be a challenging
maneuver. Similar patterns for total crashes and injury and fatal crashes
emerged for crash data collected between 2016 and 2018.
The Work Zone Crash Reports also analyzed the location of crashes. This
study also analyzed the type of work zone in which these crashes occurred.
Crashes were sorted into five categories:
• Intermittent/Moving
• Lane Closure
• Lane Shift/Crossover
• Work on Shoulder/Median
• Other/not Found
Figure 4 shows the four primary areas that make up a work zone. Officers
documenting work zone crash location have the option of coding two
areas in addition to those shown in Figure 4:
• Before the First Work Zone Warning Sign: Crashes in this area are typically rear end crashes resulting
from slow or stopped queues approaching the work zone.
• Other/Not Found: Crashes associated with this description usually involve vehicles that were cleared
prior to the office arriving on the scene.
The data showed that 54.7% of all work zone crashes and 54.1% of severe work zone crashes occurred in the
activity area of the work zone. This coincides with the area where workers are most lost likely to be present.
Regulating Speeds in Work Zones

Minnesota uses similar tools as other states to establish
work zone speed limits. These include statutory speed MN MUTCD Section 6C-1
limits and those based on engineering studies
“Reduced speed zoning (lowering the regulatory
(investigations). Wisconsin also uses written policy
speed limit) should be avoided as much as
criteria to provide guidance for reducing speed limits in practical because drivers will reduce speeds only
work zones. This guidance is based on the type of if they clearly perceive a need to do so.”
roadway, characteristics of the work zone and must be
supplemented with engineering judgment. 12
12“Traffic Engineering, Operations & Safety Manual” (State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation, August 2021),
https://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/13-05.pdf.

Reducing speed limits in work zones requires careful consideration of the risk to workers, complexity of the
travel path through the work zone and proximity of conditions which may require drivers to slow or stop. The
MN MUTCD provides guidance relating to when, and how much speed limits should be reduced in work zones.
Section 6C-1 states that “Reduced speed zoning (lowering the regulatory speed limit) should be avoided as much
as practical because drivers will reduce speeds only if they clearly perceive a need to do so.” 13 The ITE Traffic
Engineering Handbook explains the reasoning: “reliance on static work zone speed signing is not an effective
method of reducing travel speeds in work zones”. It further recommends that work zones be designed to
maintain the normal speed of traffic flow. 14
The MN MUTCD further states in Section 6H-1 that, “Research has demonstrated that large reductions in the
regulatory speed limit… can increase speed variance (differential) and the potential for crashes... A reduction in
the regulatory speed limit of up to 10 mph has been shown to be effective in minimizing speed variance and the
potential for increased crashes.” 15 Therefore, MnDOT and local authorities must balance several factors before
deciding to lower a speed limit in a work zone. Figure 5 lists some of the more common factors.
Figure 5: Factors Contributing to Reducing Speed Limits in Work Zones
Complexity of the Path Conditions Requiring Drivers to

Risk to Workers
Through the Work Zone Slow or Stop
•Proximity to traffic •Adjacent head-to-head traffic •Stop signs or traffic signals
•Speed limit prior to work zone •Isolated changes in alignment, •Flaggers
such as crossovers
•Use of positive protection, such as •Congestion related queues
temporary barrier •Narrow Lanes
•Merging traffic due to lane
closures or entrance ramps
MnDOT uses several tools to regulate speeds through work zones, including advisory speed signs, 24/7
construction speed limits, and workers present speed limits. Each of these tools requires different levels of
authorization. They are designed to reduce speeds within the work zone, giving drivers more time to react to
changing roadway conditions and decreasing the likelihood of near misses and crashes.
Advisory speed signs inform drivers of the recommended maximum travel speed if that speed is lower than the
posted speed limit. Advisory speeds are not regulatory speed limits. They help drivers identify a safer speed for a
specific location and are usually placed in advance of hazards, such as areas with reduced visibility or on
horizontal curves. An advisory speed sign must be placed in conjunction with a warning sign that communicates
the reason behind the advisory speed. Typically, the engineers who are responsible for developing the
construction staging and roadway alignments in the work zone coordinate with the engineers who are
responsible for placing the temporary traffic control devices to recommend locations where advisory speeds
13
“Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) Part 6. Temporary Traffic Control” (Minnesota Department of Transportation,
2021).
14 ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2016
15 Ibid.

may be beneficial. The MnDOT district traffic office reviews and approves the work zone traffic control plans.
The MN MUTCD guidance for the use of advisory speeds is consistent with that provided in the federal MUTCD.
24/7 Construction Speed Limits are statutorily authorized regulatory speed limits used over consecutive 24-
hour periods when a physical feature of the temporary roadway conditions requires a lower speed primarily for
traveler safety. These are not recommended for worker safety as there will be significant periods of time when
workers are not present, and drivers will not perceive a need to reduce speeds – leading to a disregard of the
posted 24/7 Construction Speed Limit.
Speed Limits in Work Zones When Workers Present, referred to by MnDOT as Workers Present Speed Limits,
are statutorily authorized regulatory speed limits used specifically to improve worker safety.
Additional discussion on the two Minnesota regulatory speed limits used in work zones can be found later in this
document, in the section entitled Review of State Statutes.
Enforcement of Safe Speeds

Law enforcement is commonly requested to change driver behavior in a work zone. In Minnesota, this is
achieved either by routine patrols or through the Extraordinary Enforcement interagency program between
MnDOT and Minnesota State Patrol. More information on EE can be found below. When performing speed
enforcement in work zones, agencies choose between two industry-wide strategies, active enforcement and
presence-only. Active enforcement strategy identifies, pursues and cites traffic law violators. Presence-only
strategy aims to increase driver attention, reduce speed and generally calm traffic in the vicinity of the
enforcement vehicle. 16
Over the 5-year period between 2016 and 2020, nearly 2,250 drivers were ticketed in Minnesota for speeding in
work zones. 17 It is not clear how many of these tickets were issued as part of routine patrols or EE and how
many were issued as a result of crashes where speeding was determined to be a factor.
Minnesota State Patrol Policy for Speed Enforcement

MSP follows a procedure known as VAST (Visual, Audio, Speed, and Targeted) when performing speed
enforcement. The procedure is described below:
1. Trooper visually identifies a vehicle that is believed to be traveling above the speed limit
2. Trooper listens to the audio provided by the radar unit for the strongest signal to verify that the
visually sighted approaching vehicle is the fastest moving vehicle
3. Trooper activates the radar unit that displays a speed value in mph assigned to the approaching
speeding vehicle
16
“Traffic Enforcement Strategies for Work Zones,” National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (The National Academies Press, May 19,
2013), https://doi.org/10.17226/22576.
17 Tim Harlow, “More than 700 Crashes in Two Years of Work on Stretch of I-94,” Star Tribune (Star Tribune, November 7, 2021),
https://www.startribune.com/drivers-wonder-if-motorists-speeding-in-work-zones-ever-get-caught/600113987/.

4. Trooper confirms the visually identified speeding vehicle has been targeted from the beginning
point of visual detection through the point of passing the trooper on the roadway. The trooper then
determines to enforce the speed limit 18
Extraordinary Enforcement
The threat of increased speed limit fines and routine patrol activity has not been effective in changing driver
behavior through a work zone. For these conditions, MnDOT and DPS have partnered on a program to provide
EE on construction projects and maintenance activities where worker safety is at greater risk. MnDOT currently
employs Minnesota State Patrol for EE on roadways under MnDOT jurisdiction. EE is staffed by state troopers
requesting overtime and is typically placed at the beginning of a work zone as a deterrent to undesirable driver
behavior. 19
Methods and Challenges of Enforcement in Work Zones
Work zones create unique challenges in law enforcement’s efforts to regulate speeds. Primary among them is
the constrained driving area caused from balancing the number and width of travels lanes against the space
required for construction operations. Two MSP lieutenants were interviewed for this study and provided
valuable insight to the challenges faced by troopers in work zones. This input is summarized below.
Troopers engaged in enforcement activities will commonly follow a vehicle suspected of speeding through the
end of the work zone. This is in part to avoid creating gawker effects, which can create additional safety
concerns, and in part to locate a wide enough shoulder to safely pull the vehicle over.
Troopers stationed at work zones will often place themselves at the beginning of the work zone to act as a
deterrent to drivers exceeding the speed limit as they approach the work zone. This practice can be effective but
is tempered by the trooper’s ability to safely find a suitable gap to enter the flow of traffic and accelerate to
speed – and by a driver’s perception of the trooper’s ability to do so. Troopers stationed at the beginning of a
work zone may use their vehicle’s air horn or siren as a warning to a particular driver. They have also
experimented with having their flashing lights on and off. The perception is that having their lights off is more
effective because drivers interpret a vehicle with lights off as “available” to pull them over. Troopers must be
selective in their decision to leave their position to engage in enforcement, because doing so removes the
deterrent effect they had been providing. National Cooperative Highway Research Program 746 research
confirmed that a stationary enforcement vehicle will typically create greater speed reduction than circulating
patrols, but the effect will be localized. Specifically, speeds will be reduced from just before the enforcement
vehicle to approximately one mile beyond that point. Typical speed reductions are between 5 and 7 mph. 20
Both NCHRP 746 and the MSP lieutenants agreed that the combined use of two or more troopers is the most
safe and effective way approach to enforcement. This practice allows an upstream trooper to identify a violation
and maintain the deterrent presence at the beginning of the work zone. The downstream trooper(s) engage in
enforcement. This strategy requires the use of additional resources, which are not always available.
18 Daniel M. Nelson, “Implementation and Evaluation of the Enhanced Speed Compliance for Work Zones (ESC4WZ) System” (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota
Department of Transportation Research Services & Library, 2017).

19 “Speed Limits in Work Zones Guidelines.” Office of Traffic, Safety & Technology, Office of Construction & Innovative Contracting, October 2014.
20 “Traffic Enforcement Strategies for Work Zones,” National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (The National Academies Press, May 19,
2013), https://doi.org/10.17226/22576.

Enhanced Speed Compliance for Work Zone System
Enhanced Speed Compliance for Work Zones was a pilot project conducted in 2017. 21 The project evaluated a
mobile system that enabled MSP to safely conduct manual on-site speed enforcement in work zones. The
project used a detection and monitoring system previously developed for MnDOT and MSP. The system was
placed within the work zone to identify vehicle speeds so that officers would have advance notice of speeding
vehicles. This data from the mobile system would send the information to the mobile computers inside the MSP
vehicles, which were downstream of the system. The data from the mobile system could not be admitted as
evidence of a speeding violation. The officer still needed to use the VAST process and the in-vehicle radar to
independently confirm the vehicle identified by the system was in violation of the speed limit.
The pilot project showed a positive impact on speed reduction. MSP indicated that the system enhanced the
safety and efficiency of speed enforcement. However, there are several factors that must be resolved for this
system to be more effective:
• Advance planning for placement of system elements:
o Placement of the detection and monitoring system element behind temporary barrier
o Placement of the officer such that the vehicle is perpendicular to the roadway, including a flat,
stable surface
o An area downstream of the officer where enforcement activities may safety take place. This
includes a wide shoulder on the right side of the roadway and adequate sightlines for oncoming
vehicles to see the MSP vehicle and move out of the outside driving lane
• Detection and monitoring system enhancements:
o Ability to function over a longer period of time utilizing a solar power regulator
o Use a 4G (or better) modem to increase the resolution of the camera and transit data at high
speeds
o Upgrade the software interface used by MSP to observe vehicles in the work zone to present a
near real-time summary of violations and allow MSP the ability to schedule shifts when
enforcement would be most effective
Speed Safety Cameras

The Federal Highway Administration deems Speed Safety Cameras, also referred to as Automated Speed
Enforcement and Photo-Radar Speed Enforcement, as effective when the speed limit is 45 mph or greater,
workers are exposed, there are motorist hazards, the work zone will remain active for a long period of time, and
there are no obstructions to the speed camera’s line of sight. FHWA advises placing advance notice of the SSC
system, placing equipment behind barrier, and most importantly, that legislation authorizes the use of SSC
systems. 22
21 Daniel M. Nelson, “Implementation and Evaluation of the Enhanced Speed Compliance for Work Zones (ESC4WZ) System” (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota
Department of Transportation Research Services & Library, 2017).

22 Kayode Adenaiya, Priscilla Tobias, and Steve Haapala, “Work Zone Automated Speed Enforcement Program,” (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, 2017).

FHWA’s Office of Safety lists Speed Safety Cameras as a proven safety countermeasure effective in reducing
roadway fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation’s highways. There are three types of devices:
• Fixed units – Stationary devices targeting one location
• Point-to-Point units – Multiple devices placed to capture average speed over a certain distance
• Mobile units – Portable devices, generally mounted in a vehicle or on a trailer
FHWA’s research shows that fixed units can reduce crashes on urban principal arterials by up to 54% for all
crashes and 47% for injury crashes. Point-to-point and mobile units are also shown to provide reductions in
crashes, though not quite at the same level as fixed units. 23
As of January 2022, SSC programs are used in 19 states, the District of Columbia and over a hundred
communities across country, including one pilot study in work zones in Pennsylvania 24. Two additional states will
begin pilot studies in work zones during the 2022 construction season. Eight states have enacted some form of
prohibition of SSC programs. Minnesota has no law regarding the use of SSC and is not currently using SSC. 25
States using SSC, such as Maryland and Oregon, have reported a reduction in violations. 26, 27 A crash
modification factor for implementing SSC programs on state highways is 0.863, which means crashes are
predicted to be reduced by 13.7%. 28, 29
Public Perception
The University of Minnesota’s Center for Transportation Studies and Humphrey School of Public Affairs have
been studying this topic for several years. The following bullets, taken from Identifying and Reconciling
Stakeholder Perspectives in Deploying Automated Speed Enforcement, summarize public perceptions on SSC:
• SSC are more about government revenue generation than safety improvement
• SSC represent an invasion of privacy and “Big Brother” style of law enforcement
• Drivers dislike the delay between the violation and receiving the ticket
• Drivers prefer to have in-person contact with a ticketing police officer
• Machines should not do police work
• SSC equipment can make ticketing mistakes that are costly and time consuming for individuals to correct
Table 4 on the following page lists the states which currently have a permanent SSC program or plan to
implement a pilot study in 2022.
23 “Speed Safety Cameras,” Safety (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, October 28, 2021),
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/speed-safety-cameras.cfm.
24 “Automated Enforcement Laws,” Insurance Institute of Highway Safety; Highway Loss Data Institute, January 2022
https://www.iihs.org/topics/red-light-running/automated-enforcement-laws
25 Colleen Peterson, Frank Douma, and Nichole Morris, “Identifying and Reconciling Stakeholder Perspectives in Deploying Automated Speed
Enforcement,” 2017.
26
“Maryland Work Zone Fatalities at Lowest Level in More Than a Decade,” MDOT State Highway Administration, August 29, 2021,
https://roads.maryland.gov/mdotsha/pages/pressreleasedetails.aspx?PageId=818&newsId=1240.
27 Mark Joerger, “Photo Radar Speed Enforcement in a State Highway Work Zone: Yeon Avenue Demonstration Project” (Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Transportation Research Section, 2010).

28
Joseph E. Hummer, Christopher M. Cunningham, and Jae-Pil Moon, “Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras in Charlotte, North Carolina,”
SAGE Journals (Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, June 1, 2008),
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2078-17.
29 “Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse,” 2021, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/.

Table 4 Speed Safety Camera Programs, 2022
Pilot/ Violation on
State Location Fine value
Permanent Driving Record
Alabama Permanent Specified Jurisdictions $60 - $100 Generally not
Arizona Permanent Statewide; not on State Highways Mirrors traditional Yes
penalty amounts
Colorado Permanent Work Zones, School Zones, $40+ No
Neighborhoods, Adjacent to Parks
Connecticut Pilot Work Zones $75 - $150 No
Delaware Pilot Work Zones $74.50 No
D.C. Permanent District-wide Varies No
Georgia Permanent School Zones $75 - $125 plus No
processing fees;
issued when 11+ mph
over Speed Limit
Illinois Permanent Work Zones when Workers are $375 in Work Zones No
Present, School Zones, Adjacent to
Parks, Large Cities
Iowa Permanent Specified Jurisdictions Varies; Fines Double in No
Work Zones
Louisiana Permanent Specified Jurisdictions Varies No
Maryland Permanent Specified Jurisdictions $40; issued when 12+ No
mph over Speed Limit
New Mexico Permanent Specified Jurisdictions; not on State $100 No
Highways
New York Permanent Work Zones; Specified Jurisdictions $50 - $100 No
Ohio Permanent Statewide, Except on Interstates Mirrors traditional No
Operated by Townships penalty amounts
Oregon Permanent Statewide, including in Work Zones Mirrors traditional Yes
when Workers are Present penalty amounts
Pennsylvania Pilot Work Zones when Workers are $75 - $150; issued No
Present; Philadelphia when 11+ mph over
Speed Limit
Rhode Island Permanent School Zones $50 - $95 No
Tennessee Permanent Statewide $50 No
Virginia Permanent Work Zones; School Zones Not to Exceed $100; No
issued when 10+ mph
over Speed Limit
Washington Permanent School Zones Equal to a Parking No
Violation

Public Perception
The University of Minnesota’s Center for Transportation Studies and Humphrey School of Public Affairs have
been studying this topic for several years. The following bullets, taken from Identifying and Reconciling
Stakeholder Perspectives in Deploying Automated Speed Enforcement, summarize public perceptions on SSC: 30
• SSC are more about government revenue generation than safety improvement
• SSC represent an invasion of privacy and “Big Brother” style of law enforcement
• Drivers dislike the delay between the violation and receiving the ticket
• Drivers prefer to have in-person contact with a ticketing police officer
• Machines should not do police work
• SSC equipment can make ticketing mistakes that are costly and time consuming for individuals to correct
Despite these perceptions, national public opinion surveys have generally shown a majority of Americans
support SSC programs in certain conditions. A 2012 survey of Minnesotans generally reflected the national
survey:
• 83% support SSC programs in construction zones where workers are endangered
• 82% support SSC programs on roads near schools
• 77% support SSC programs on roads where many people have died
• 69% support SSC programs on roads where many people violate the speed limits
However, only 48% support SSC programs on all roads.
Variables that made it more likely for Minnesotans to support SSC programs
The following text summarizes variables that may make it more likely for Minnesotans to support an SSC
program: 31
• Using revenue from speeding tickets to improve road safety
• Issuing citations only to those driving at extreme speeds
• Only issuing citations if the SSC equipment also took a facial photograph verifying the driver of the
vehicle
• Widely publicizing locations and reason for use of SSC equipment ahead of time
A variable that made it less likely for Minnesotans to support an SSC program was if a portion of the money
raised from speeding tickets would go to a private company hired to operate the system.
Benefits Seen in U.S. SSC Programs
A review of benefits seen in SSC programs in Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and Oregon was conducted.
Key benefits and findings from this review are summarized below.
Pennsylvania 32
30 Colleen Peterson, Frank Douma, and Nichole Morris, “Identifying and Reconciling Stakeholder Perspectives in Deploying Automated Speed
Enforcement,” 2017.
31
Frank Douma et al., “Identifying Issues Related to Deployment of Automated Speed Enforcement” (Minneapolis, MN: Intelligent Transportation Systems
Institute, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2021).
32 Paul Van Osdol, “Records Show 500,000 Violations from Work Zone Speed Cameras,” WTAE, October 28, 2021, https://www.wtae.com/article/work-
zone-speed-cameras-records-show-500000-violations/38096194.

• The number of monthly violations this year peaked at 72,000 in March 2021 and was down to 34,000 in
September 2021.
• "We are steadily seeing the number of violations go down as the year goes on. That's showing me that
the program is effective."
• “The goal is not to make money. If the program works at a deficit and the number of speeders continue
to be reduced, I think everyone will consider that a huge success."
New York 33
• New York’s program is currently limited to school zones, will deploy systems in work zones starting in
2022.
• New cameras placed in 2020 saw average weekly violations drop from 68 after the first week to 37 after
week 18.
• New cameras placed in 2019 saw an average of 455 weekly violations in the first week, compared to an
average of 68 violations in the first week for cameras placed in 2020. This likely reflects two main
factors. First, the general deterrent effect speed cameras have citywide. Second, the order in which
cameras have been installed reflects the severity of the local speeding problem, therefore locations of
cameras placed in 2020 had relatively lower levels of speeding than those installed in 2019.
• Of the over 7.5 million Notices of Liability (citations) issued as a result of speed camera violations
between 2014 and 2020, 2.3% requested a hearing. At the hearing, over 95% of the citations were
upheld.
Maryland 34
• The percent of vehicles exceeding the enforcement speed (defined as 12+ mph over the posted speed)
has dropped from 7% to 1% between July 2010 and January 2021.
Oregon 35
• During photo radar enforcement periods (using mobile units), speeding was reduced by an average of
23.7% at the traffic sensor site within the work zone. This reduction in speeding was observed even
though vehicles passing the sensor from one direction had not yet seen the enforcement activity.
• The observed speeding reduction did not persist after the departure of the photo radar van. Other
activities such as work zone signing and the presence of active work in the work zone did not produce an
observable effect on speeding compared to the pre-construction monitoring period.
33 “New York City Automated Speed Enforcement Program: 2014–2020 Report” (City of New York), accessed December 1, 2021,
https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/speed-camera-report.pdf.
34
“The Facts about Maryland’s SafeZones Program: Summer 2021” (Maryland Safe Zones, 2021),
https://www.safezones.maryland.gov/images/Maryland%20SafeZones%20Fact%20Sheet%202021%20Summer.pdf.
35 Mark Joerger, “Photo Radar Speed Enforcement in a State Highway Work Zone: Yeon Avenue Demonstration Project” (Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Transportation Research Section, 2010).

Review of Existing Legal Authority
This section discusses the current legal authority to establish and enforce speeds and enhance worker safety in
work zones. The review is for strategies, practices and methods used to reduce vehicle speeds and enhance
worker safety in work zones. This assessment is based on a review of Minnesota’s 2021 state statutes from an
engineering perspective with influence from Frank Douma whose legal background is in Acknowledgments
Section later in this document. Further assessment from a legal perspective is recommended.
Foundational Regulations
The following state statutes are foundational regulations related to work zones.
Minn. Stat. 164.14, Subd. 1. Duty to Drive with Due Care
No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the
conditions.
Minn. Stat. 169.011, Subd. 95. Work Zone
Statutory definition of a work zone.
Establishment of Regulations in Work Zones

The following state statutes establish regulations in work zones.
Minn. Stat. 169.04(a)(2) Local Authority
Local authorities and Commissioner of Transportation are authorized to regulate traffic by means of police
officers and traffic signals.
Minn. Stat. 169.06 Signs, Signals, Markings
Subd. 1: The Commissioner of Transportation shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of
traffic control devices. In the case of Minnesota, this is the MN MUTCD.
Subd. 2. The Commissioner shall place traffic control devices consistent with Subd. 1. on state trunk highways.
Subd. 3. Local authorities shall place traffic control devices consistent with Subd. 1. In their respective
jurisdictions.
Subd. 4a. A driver shall obey the instruction of a traffic control device unless otherwise directed by a police
officer or flagger. A flagger in a work zone may stop, hold in place, and direct vehicles to proceed when it is safe.
Minn. Stat. 169.14, Subd. 4. Establishment of Zones by Commissioner
The commissioner of transportation may erect signs designating a reasonable and safe speed limit on the basis
of a traffic investigation. This affects speed limits intended for a 24-hour continuous posting, which includes
permanent speed limits as well as 24/7 Construction Speed Limits.

A 24/7 Construction Speed limit is used when a physical feature of the temporary roadway conditions requires a
lower speed, such as a bypass or a 4-lane highway that is reduced to two lanes.
On state trunk highways, a request should be made to the MnDOT District Traffic Office. The request should
include a work zone traffic control plan and relevant data to support a temporary reduction in speed. The
District Traffic Office will conduct a traffic investigation to determine a safe speed. The results of the
investigation will be submitted to the Office of Traffic Engineering. If approved, an authorization to erect
regulatory speed limit signs will be issued by the Office of Traffic Engineering. The speed limit goes into effect
when the signs are posted.
Minn. Stat. 169.14, Subd. 5d. Speed Limit in Work Zone When Workers Present
Workers Present Speed Limits are regulatory speed limits specifically established to improve worker safety. They
are intended for use along a segment of road where workers are working directly adjacent to the traveled lanes.
There are two conditions where this is used:
1. A Workers Present Speed Limit of 45 mph is required by statute when the regulatory speed limit is 50
mph or higher. No higher authorization or traffic investigation is needed, as long as there is at least a
portion of a lane of traffic closed in either direction and workers are present.
a. This requirement is not applicable if positive barriers are placed between workers and the
traveled roadway, the work zone is in place less than 24 hours, and/or a different speed limit for
the work zone is determined by the roadway authority.
2. The local road authority may establish a Workers Present Speed Limit when workers are present
adjacent to travel lanes open to vehicular traffic. The speed limit may only be reduced up to 20 mph on
a roadway with a 55 mph or greater regulatory speed limit and reduced up to 15 mph on a roadway with
a 50 mph or less regulatory speed limit.
A speed limit established under this statute goes into effect when the signs are posted. These signs must be
covered or removed when they do not meet the conditions identified in the statute.
Enforcement of Regulations in Work Zones

The following state statutes are related to enforcement of regulations in work zones.
Minn. Stat. 169.14, Subd. 6a, Work Zone Speed Limit Violations
A person convicted of operating a motor vehicle in violation of a speed limit in work zone shall be required to
pay a fine of $300 in addition to the surcharge under 357.021, Subd. 6.
Minn. Stat. 169.14, Subd. 9, Standards of Evidence
The speed indicated on speedometer of a vehicle regularly used in law enforcement is admissible.

Minn. Stat. 169.14, Subd. 10, Radar, Speed measuring device, standard of evidence
This statute states that a speed measuring device used in prosecution must meet the following conditions:
1. The officer operating the device has sufficient training to properly operate the equipment;
2. The officer testifies as to the manner in which the device was set up and operated;
3. The device was operated with minimal distortion or interference from outside sources; and
4. The device was tested by an accurate and reliable external mechanism, method, or system at the time it
was set up
Speed Safety Cameras

This section reviews at a high-level current Minnesota law as it pertains to implementing different SSC programs.
Owner vs. Driver Liability
The Legislature is in the best position to decide whether penalties for SSC speeding violations should incur
owner or driver liability. Existing Minnesota law does not require either approach. Driver liability would require
that the SSC program identify the person operating the vehicle at the time of the violation, which would involve
taking a photo of the driver to compare with the photo in the driver’s license database. Owner liability would
hold the owner of a vehicle responsible for the violation, which would not require driver photos to be taken or
stored. License plates linked with driver information databases would allow for tickets to be given to vehicle
owners, not unlike existing owner liability assigned for the following traffic violations:
• Flagger orders (Minn. Stat. 169.06, Subd. 4a)
• Passing parked authorized vehicles (Minn. Stat. 169.18, Subd. 11(e))
• Passing a school bus with gate arm extended (Minn. Stat. 169.444, Subd. 6)
In either strategy, data practices implications will need to be addressed. MSP echoed concerns about the
resources needed to manage SSC. Experience in states with SSC suggests that programs with driver-liability have
lower citation rates than those with owner liability.
Constitutional Due Process Considerations in MN

While SSC programs often raise constitutional concerns, many other states have designed systems that
effectively address and mitigate those concerns. Due process can be provided through the courts using the
criminal citation process for driver liability systems; but a noncriminal administrative penalty system may be
used for owner-liability systems. Owner liability systems can address due process concerns about liability
without evidence that the owner was the one actually operating the vehicle at the time of the violation through
the following system design elements:
• Making speeding violations given under SSC as civil penalties (limited to fines) rather than criminal
penalties (violation is recorded on the owner’s driving record) and by creating procedures for contesting
violations.
• Including a process that allows the owner of the vehicle to swear or affirm that they were not driving
the vehicle. The statement could include corroborating evidence that the owner was not driving the

vehicle at the time of offense. This evidence could include identification of the person who was driving
the vehicle.
Claims that SSC programs violate Equal Protection (Fifth Amendment) have failed in other states. No published
court cases have addressed whether SSC programs violate a constitutional right to privacy. U.S. Supreme Court
precedents state that a person travelling in a vehicle has no constitutionally protected privacy right on public
streets, and agencies may collect license plate numbers that are in plain view.36
Impact of the Invalidation of Minneapolis’ Red Light Camera Program
In September 2004, The City of Minneapolis enacted an ordinance that authorized photo enforcement of traffic
control signals. Minneapolis police began enforcing the ordinance in July 2005. Cameras took photos of the
vehicle, not the driver. The Minnesota Supreme Court invalidated the city ordinance 37 because it was preempted
by state law, meaning that the ordinance was not authorized by state law and it conflicted with state law by
imposing owner-liability for some red-light violations. The Minnesota Supreme Court did not reject the use of
automated enforcement, nor the use of owner-liability to enforce traffic violations on constitutional grounds.
This decision means that in order to implement an SSC program with owner-liability, the legislature must
expressly authorize the owner-liability for identified offenses.
Standard of Evidence
Minn. Stat. 169.14, Subd. 10 discusses standards of evidence for ticketing from SSC. This statute states that a
speed measuring device used in prosecution must meet the following conditions:
1. The officer operating the device has sufficient training to properly operate the equipment;
2. The officer testifies as to the manner in which the device was set up and operated;
3. The device was operated with minimal distortion or interference from outside sources; and
4. The device was tested by an accurate and reliable external mechanism, method, or system at the time it
was set up
An SSC program would need to be defined in statute as a speed measuring device.
Uniform Traffic Ticket
The Uniform Traffic Ticket statute (Minn. Stat. 169.99, Subd. 1) states that all tickets must be uniform
throughout the state, as detailed by the commissioner of public safety. 38 Citations issued using SSC would need
to be designed to meet the statute requirements, or legislation must be enacted to create an alternate ticket
that is consistent with the information contained on the Uniform Traffic Ticket.
36
Frank Douma et al., “Identifying Issues Related to Deployment of Automated Speed Enforcement” (Minneapolis, MN: Intelligent Transportation Systems
Institute, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2021).
37 State V. Kuhlman, 729 N.W.2d 577 (2007)
38 Minn. Stat. §169.99, Subd. 1, 2, & 3(n.d.)

Administrative Citations
Administrative citations are civil fines issued in response to certain listed violations. Minn. Stat. 169.999, Subd. 1
states that peace officers employed by the Minnesota State Patrol may issue administrative citations. The
statute allows peace officers from local units of government to issue administrative citations if their governing
body passes a resolution that:
1. Authorizes issuance of administrative citations
2. Obligates the local unit of government to provide a neutral third party to hear and rule on challenges to
administrative citations; and
3. Bars peace officers from issuing administrative citations in violation of this section
To the extent that SSC do not involve a peace officer issuing administrative citations for the few violations
identified in this section, legislation would be needed to allow an SSC program to issue administrative citations.

Process for Requesting Modifications to a Traffic
Control Plan
A formal process for contractor-initiated changes to work zones had not been documented prior to the
development of this study. Through the course of this study, the informal process currently in use was
documented and presented to MnDOT Resident Engineers, MnDOT Traffic Engineers, members of the road and
traffic control contracting community and a representative from the AGC for review and comment. Feedback
from these groups was assessed and incorporated into the formal process described below.
Existing Informal Process

2. The project engineer reviews the proposed change and may or may not consult with district traffic staff
a. If it includes work zone speed limits, the methodology from the Speed Limits in Work Zones
Guidelines is followed
3. The project engineer approves or does not approve the proposed changes
4. The contractor could request a discussion with the resident engineer if there is a disagreement
5. Costs and fairness with the bidding process must be considered
Proposed Formal Process

The proposed formal process for contractor-initiated changes prior to project letting is listed below:
1. The contractor, during the advertisement period, may propose an alternate method of construction
staging via comment to the MnDOT project manager for possible contract change
2. MnDOT would be responsible for modifying the contract documents, including potentially issuing
updated plans
3. An amendment would be issued and open to all bidders
The proposed formal process for contractor-initiated changes after project letting is listed below:
2. The project engineer and/or resident engineer reviews the proposed change and consults with district
traffic staff
3. If the proposed change includes work zone speed limits, the methodology from the Speed Limits in
Work Zones Guidelines is followed
4. The project engineer assesses the proposed change based on a balance between:
a. Worker safety
b. Technical merit
c. Effect on the traveling public and stakeholders

d. How the design and cost of the proposed change compares with that proposed by contractors
not selected for this contract
5. The Resident Engineer approves, approves with conditions, or does not approve the proposed changes
6. The contractor requests a discussion with District Management if there is a disagreement
This study proposes that this language be placed within the MnDOT special provision boilerplates for use on all
state roadway construction contracts.

Development of Recommendations
Several brainstorming sessions were held to better understand the safety risks facing road workers and
maintenance staff, and to brainstorm potential improvements to mitigate these risks. The following groups
provided input:
• Work Zone Speed Management Task Force • Minnesota Citizens for Safe Work Zones
• Minnesota State Patrol • Insurance Federation of Minnesota
• Roadbuilding Contractors • AAA's Insurance and Auto Club branches
• Traffic Control Contractors • Associated General Contractors
• MnDOT Resident Engineers • HDR’s National Maintenance of Traffic Practice
• MnDOT Traffic Engineers Group
Summaries of each brainstorming session can be found in Appendix C. The complete Task Force roster can be
found in Appendix A.
In addition, Frank Douma, State and Local Policy Program Director at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs,
shared a presentation with the Task Force entitled, “Identifying Issues Related to Deploying Automatic
Enforcement” in Minnesota and hosted a question-and-answer session following the presentation.
The project management team developed a process by which suggestions gathered from the task force and
brainstorming sessions could be validated, evaluated, and ultimately carried forward into recommendations that
may be implemented. The recommendations in Table 6 and
Table 7 are not intended to be used on every project but can be strategies to improve safety depending on the
conditions of the project. The process for developing the recommendations is shown graphically in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Process for Developing Recommendations
Brainstorming Potential
Recommendations
Suggestions Improvements
Independent Task Force Evaluation;

Research Screening
Suggestions identified at these brainstorming sessions were verified by HDR with independent research. Those
that involved misperceptions or misinterpretations of current strategies, practices, methods and laws (statutes)
were eliminated. The remaining suggestions were assembled to create a list of 34 different potential
improvements aimed at creating a safer work zone. These potential improvements were jointly evaluated by the
Task Force using the Mentimeter voting platform and applying the five criteria and scoring system shown in
Table 5. The evaluation criteria were developed by HDR and accepted by the project management team before
being presented to the Task Force for concurrence.

Table 5: Evaluation Criteria and Scoring
Under $1 million 3 Points

Relative Cost Between $1 and $5 million 2 Points
Greater than $5 million 1 Points
Can be implemented by MnDOT 3 Points
Complexity of
Requires Collaboration Between MnDOT and other State Departments 2 Points
Implementation
Requires Collaboration with other Industry and/or Change in Legislation 1 Points
Less than 6 Months 3 Points
Administrative
Between 6 and 18 Months 2 Points
Implementation Timeline
Greater than 18 Months 1 Points
Existing Public Consent 3 Points
Effort to Achieve
Mixed Public Opinions 2 Points
Stakeholder Consent
Existing Public Resistance 1 Points
Likely to Significantly Influence Work Zone Safety 3 Points
Anticipated Effectiveness Likely to have some Positive Effect on Work Zone Safety 2 Points
Unlikely to Significantly Influence Work Zone Safety 1 Points
Likely to have a Negative Effect on Work Zone Safety 0 Points
If an evaluation category was tied in votes, half points were assigned. For example, if Administrative
Implementation Timeline received an equal number of Task Force votes for “Less than 6 months” which is worth
3 points and “Between 6 and 18 months” which is worth 2 points, the scoring for that potential improvement
would be 2.5 points.
After each potential improvement was evaluated by the Task Force, it became clear to the project management
team that several achieved a high overall score even though its anticipated effectiveness received a low score. In
order to focus on potential improvements with a likelihood of positively improving work zone safety, the
screening process described in the following bullets was applied.
• Potential Improvements where the Anticipated Effectiveness was Likely to Significantly Influence Work
Zone Safety (3 points) are recommended for implementation.
• Potential Improvements where the Anticipated Effectiveness was Likely to Have Some Positive Effect on
Work Zone Safety (2 points) are recommended for implementation if the total evaluation score was
greater than 10 (out of 15) points.
• Potential Improvements where the Anticipated Effectiveness was either Unlikely to Significantly
Influence Work Zone Safety (1 point) or were Likely to Have a Negative Effect on Work Zone Safety (0
points) are not recommended for implementation as part of this study.
Figure 7 shows this process graphically.

Figure 7: Screening Process of Potential Improvements
Recommendations
Anticipated
Anticipated Effectiveness
Effect. = 2; =3
Total Score Potential
> 10 Improvements
Not Recommended
Anticipated
Effectiveness
≤2
Recommendations that passed the screening process were separated into those that may be implemented by
MnDOT (listed in Table 6) and those that require MnDOT to collaborate with outside entities (listed in Table 7).
Additional information related to the Task Force’s assessment of the evaluation criteria for each listed above can
be found in Appendix D.

Recommendations for Changing Policies and Procedures
Table 6 : Recommendations that MnDOT Can Implement
Total
Recommendation Evaluation Context
Points
- Collect data to determine baseline for speeds across the state
Include speed monitoring and help with future research on decreasing work zone speeds
equipment and/or traffic - Used to assess effectiveness of implemented
14.5
monitoring cameras on select recommendations
construction contracts. - Used to determine when to use Extraordinary Enforcement
- Would be written into construction contract
Use contractor pilot cars
- Expected to be highly effective in reducing speeds and
(speed control vehicles) on a
15 improving worker safety
set frequency to control
speed.
- Separates traffic from the work zone
Encourage more detours and - Would shorten construction time frame but depends on
additional limited/full-time 13 capacity of alternate routes
closures. - MnDOT needs to reassess criteria for doing so as this is already
encouraged
Make constructability reviews - Requires additional resources to implement
12
part of all design contracts. - May not be needed for all projects
Use IWZ Stopped Traffic - Potential decrease in rear end crashes caused by increased
Ahead systems for end of driver awareness
queue notification within the 14
- Integrate with the Work Zone Data Initiative and 511 to
work area, in addition to in
provide audible notification
advance of the work area.
Greater use of Dynamic - Potential decrease in rear end crashes caused by increased
Message Signs to alert traffic 14
driver awareness
of end of queue locations.
- Expected to be highly effective for alerting drivers of short-
Greater use of advisory
term geometry changes
speeds with vehicle speed 14
- Not as effective for long term use
feedback displays.
- Perceived to be ignored by a segment of the population
- Would reduce the number of resources needed compared to
Greater use of electronic
14 the static sign equivalent
Workers Present Speed Limits.
If using static Workers Present - More consistent placement/takedown would increase driver
Speed Limit signs, assign confidence that workers are actually present, which could
responsibility of daily set up 14
decrease drivers’ speed
and take down. - Would be written into construction contract

Table 7 : Recommendations for Implementation That Require Collaboration with Other Agencies/Industries
Total
Recommendation Evaluation Context
Points
Use camera/radar technology
upstream of law enforcement
(as identified in the ESC4WZ
study) such that it meets - This is a good alternative to SSC
11
current legislation. Modify - This should be tied to a public awareness plan
VAST methodology to include
citations issued through this
process.
- This would clear up misconceptions about revenue distribution
- Current interagency agreement explicitly references MnDOT
Clarify language enabling and DPS/State Patrol
MnDOT to contract with law - The formulas for General Allocation of Base Fines for Traffic
13
enforcement when MSP is not Violations are split between the State General Fund and local
available. Political Subdivision
- Payment for staffing EE requests is made by MnDOT to the
officer performing the service
Clarify placement and
expectations of law - Current guidance exists; however, better awareness and
14
enforcement prior to bringing execution is needed
them on the job.
- This study would improve effectiveness of extraordinary
Pilot project to evaluate enforcement
effectiveness of stationary - The likelihood of consequences is more compelling than the
14
presence versus moving
severity of consequences because drivers have to believe they
enforcement strategies.
will get a ticket for speeding
Before and after study to - This could help inform decision makers of the biggest impact(s)
measure effect of proposed 14
to improving safety and provide data to back it up
changes.

Recommendations Related to Changing to State Law
Two of the Task Force’s recommendations were related to implementation of SSC as a means to manage speeds
in work zones. The first recommendation was related to a pilot project, and the second recommendation was
related to a permanent program. Later, these recommendations were combined with the thought that the pilot
project must precede a permanent program.
The goal of the pilot project is to validate the parameters and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. This
recommendation requires action by the legislature. If the pilot project yielded a successful proof of concept, a
permanent SSC program may be pursued.
Details of the proposed SSC program are found in the Agency Recommendations section of this report.

Proposed Ideas Not Recommended as Part of This Study
Recommendations noted in Table 8 may contain merit and may be effective in improving safety in work zones
but were deemed less likely by the Task Force to significantly influence work zone safety. Many also scored low
in other evaluation criteria categories.
Table 8 : Proposed Ideas Not Recommended for Implementation
Total
Proposal Evaluation Basis for Not Moving Forward
Points
- Younger drivers are most likely to be influenced by education
Public education through driver - This does not have enough anticipated effectiveness
8
education to change culture.
compared to effort, time, and cost of completing it
Authorize insurance surcharge - Not many $300 work zone fines are handed out since most
for particular violations such as 8 extraordinary enforcement efforts are about deterrence, not
speeding in a work zone. ticketing; therefore, this would not have much of an impact
- This is a good Idea; however, it would take massive effort
Require some level of training
6 requiring legislation and an organization willing to develop
to renew driver’s licenses.
and administer the program
- More research is needed on this; it could have adverse safety
Use of additional lane closures
13.5 impacts by increasing rear end crashes and potential increase
or chicanes to slow traffic.
work zone length and duration
- This could improve maintenance of work zone, which could
More formal inspection
13.5 improve drivers’ respect for the work zone, but issues with
policies, including video. (13.5)
reviewing videos would likely occur
Partner with Waze and other - This is unlikely to change driver speed or behavior
mapping apps to communicate - MnDOT is already currently working on this
to drivers approaching the - The benefits of this information need to be balanced with the
11.5
work zone of the reduced
amount of information provided to the driver given that their
speed, worker’s present, and
attention should primarily be on the road
end of queue locations.
Offer driver improvement class - This could have a positive impact by having offenders pay
(possibly online) for work zone with their time rather than money
7.5 - This does not have enough anticipated effectiveness
violations in to reduce penalty
for 1st citation in work zone. compared to effort, time, and cost of completing it
Utilize narrow lane widths, but - More research is needed on this; it could reduce speed but
don’t decrease overall available 13
might increase crashes
pavement.
- More research is needed on this; it could increase workers
Decrease spacing between
13 interaction with traffic because of potential increase in
channeling devices.
channeling devices being knocked over

Total
Proposal Evaluation Basis for Not Moving Forward
Points
- This would increase the ability for police to pull over violators
Increase use of emergency pull
13 but would increase construction time and workers interaction
off areas on projects.
with traffic. The cost could be greater than potential benefits.
Provide temporary transverse - This could startle drivers and cause crashes
rumble strips in > 45 mph - Someone in the task force has driven these in Illinois and
13
speed zones approaching a didn’t see any reduction in speed or behavior
change in traffic pattern. - May be most effective in small work zones
Replace amber lights with - Changing to colors associated with law enforcement could
different lights on construction diminish compliance to those as well
vehicles. Drivers are used to 12
- The real issue about drivers not moving over is likely caused
amber lights and don’t move
by congestion
over for them.
- This could actually increase speed differentials if work zone
Streamline authorization for
10 speed limits are too low. Currently 24/7 WZ Speed limits are
24/7 speed limits.
set the same ways as permanent speed limits.
Allow self-paced, webinar-style
learning as a more equitable - While this is a good option to improve equity, do not expect
9
way to provide driver this to improve workers’ safety
education.
More funding to Work Zone
Safety Public Awareness - This would be expensive to develop and implement with
7.5
campaigns aimed at the questionable effectiveness
general public.
Change state law to remove
the Dimler Amendment,
171.12, Subd. 6, to have all - Education and outreach will be needed
speeding citations issued in 9 - Consider revisiting when SSC become permanent program
work zones go on a driver’s
record.
- Depending on the changes, this would require legislative
Update the driver's education input
curriculum to include - Current curriculum is limited in content and is at capacity.
9
additional content on driving in
Adding more specialized topics will require reducing detail in
work areas.
other areas deemed important for new drivers.
Coordinate with insurance
companies to create incentives - Requires collaboration with legislature and insurance industry
8.5
for ongoing driver's education, - Anticipated effects on work zone safety are questionable
similar to the Alive 55 program.

Agency Recommendations
MnDOT and DPS met to discuss how the Task Force’s recommendations may be implemented. A key clarification
emerged from these discussions that these recommendations should not be indiscriminately applied to all
projects. Rather, the agencies will develop criteria for the use of each recommendation so that they may be
applied in the proper context to maximize effectiveness.
The discussions between MnDOT and DPS also led to additional refinements to the recommendation
descriptions. It also included four significant changes to Task Force recommendations:
1. The following recommendation was eliminated: “Clarify language enabling MnDOT to contract with local law
enforcement when MSP is not available for Extraordinary Enforcement”.
The basis for removal is that contracting with local agencies involves the development of individual
interagency contracts with each agency. It would also require that the local law enforcement officers
undergo training used by MSP. This may still occur on a case-by-case basis where the need arises.
2. The following recommendation was eliminated: “Clarify placement and expectations of law enforcement
prior to bringing them on the job”.
The basis for removal is that there is an existing process for doing so identified on the Extraordinary
Enforcement request form and includes contact information. No further changes to the process or form are
recommended.
3. The following recommendation was eliminated: “Before and after study to measure effect of proposed
changes”.
The basis for removal is that this was determined to be a generic process, not a specific recommendation to
manage speeds in work zones or improve worker safety.
4. Terminology of the following recommendation was changed: “Make constructability reviews part of all
design contracts”.
The basis for this change is that the term “constructability reviews” is used by MnDOT to signify one-on-one
meetings with contractors to discuss complex staging and constructability issues on a project. The
recommendation was changed to “Engage MnDOT construction staff earlier in the design process to identify
staging configurations where speed management tools may be effective” to describe the intended
suggestion more accurately.
Table 9 on the following page describes the nine recommendations that can be implemented by MnDOT.
Development of criteria will occur in 2022. However, many construction plans programmed for 2022 have
already been completed. While it is expected that some recommendations will be used on projects in 2022 on a
per-project basis, these changes are more likely to be seen in 2023 work zones.
Table 10 describes three additional recommendations that require collaboration between MnDOT and DPS.

Table 9 : Agency Recommendations that MnDOT Can Implement
Recommendation Context
- Collect data to determine baseline for speeds

across the state and help with future research on
decreasing work zone speeds
Include speed monitoring equipment and/or traffic - Used to determine when to use Extraordinary
monitoring cameras on select construction Enforcement
contracts. Contractor would be responsible for - Criteria may include Length of work zone, project
providing a summary to the Engineer. duration, Average Daily Traffic, among others.
- May be incorporated into the Transportation
Management Plan process
Use contractor Speed Control Vehicles on a set - Expected to be most valuable when workers are
frequency to control speed on select construction present during uncongested traffic conditions.
contracts. - Would be written into construction contract
- Separates traffic from the work zone
Encourage more detours and additional - Would shorten construction time frame but
limited/full-time closures. depends on capacity of alternate routes
- Reassess criteria as this is already encouraged
Greater utilization of Electronic Workers Present
- May be incorporated into the TMP process
Speed Limits.
Engage MnDOT construction staff earlier in the
- Requires additional resources to implement
design process to identify staging configurations
where speed management tools may be effective.
- Potential decrease in rear end crashes caused by
Use IWZ Stopped Traffic Ahead systems for end of increased driver awareness
queue notification within the work area, in addition - Integrate with the Work Zone Data Initiative (WZDI)
to in advance of the work area. and 511 to provide audible notification
Greater use of end of queue warning systems. - May be incorporated into the TMP process
- MnDOT Temporary Traffic Control committee will
Greater use of advisory speeds with vehicle speed
consider adding these as a standard rather than an
feedback displays.
option in certain conditions.
If using static Workers Present Speed Limit signs,
assign responsibility of daily set up and take down - Will encourage use of electronic system
in the construction contract. - Would be written into construction contract

Table 10 : Agency Recommendations That Require Collaboration for Implementation
Recommendation Context
- This may improve the ability to enforce speed

limits in work zones as vehicles would be pulled
over past the constrained work zone area
- Modifications are needed due to weaknesses in
Use camera/radar technology upstream of law electronic communication protocols identified in
enforcement (as identified in the ESC4WZ study) the study
such that it meets current legislation. - This should be tied to a public awareness plan
- Would still need signing in advance of the system
- Develop equivalent VAST methodology that meets
current statutory requirements to admit output as
evidence
Research project to evaluate effectiveness of
- Identify funding/method for evaluation.
stationary presence versus moving enforcement
- NCHRP 746 report includes alternatives
strategies.

Speed Safety Camera Demonstration Project
As mentioned earlier, the Work Zone Speed Management Task Force recommended a pilot project for Speed
Safety Cameras to assess the effectiveness within work zones on Minnesota’s state highway system. MnDOT and
DPS agree that the proposed demonstration project would be a worthwhile endeavor. The Minnesota State
Patrol is open to the idea, depending on the parameters and support for the endeavor. Furthermore, the
Minnesota State Patrol recognizes that work zones create extraordinary challenges to traditional enforcement
methods for a variety of reasons. The agencies believe that SSC would be one of the most effective methods to
manage speeds in work zones discussed in this study.
While Speed Safety Cameras have been shown to be effective in many other states, there are a variety of
methods of implementation. The agencies have taken the recommendations of the Task Force and research
conducted by the Center for Transportation Studies at the University of Minnesota into consideration to develop
the following suggested criteria for the demonstration project:
• Deploy at two (2) work zones on the state highway system. One (1) in MnDOT’s Metro District and one
(1) in Greater Minnesota. It is also suggested to have one deployment on a freeway and another
deployment on a non-freeway road
• Target the deployments to occur during the 2023 construction season
• Use owner-liability (no driver photo) to minimize resources needed to manage the SSC program
• Allow the owner/lessee to identify the driver of the vehicle to transfer the citation
• Allow the owner/lessee to request a hearing to challenge the citation
• Fund the demonstration project with a direct appropriation. DPS would require additional staff for the
demonstration project and has concerns with recruitment.
• Fine revenue should not be tied to administering the SSC program
• Use an SSC system vendor with experience in proven, accepted technology and procedures
• The SSC system vendor is paid a flat rate (not based on number of violations)
• Require that SSC equipment is set up under the supervision of a licensed peace officer
• Require that a licensed peace officer review the evidence before a citation is issued
• Provide locations of SSC equipment on the program’s website
• Provide signing that informs drivers of downstream SSC equipment
• Publicize the SSC program ahead of deployment
• No recommendation is included in this document relating to the type of violation (administrative vs.
criminal) issued by the SSC demonstration project.
Changes to the current laws listed below are also recommended to successfully deploy an SSC program in
Minnesota.
• Minn. Stat. 169.04 (a) (2), Local Authority
• Minn. Stat. 169.14, Subd. 10, Radar; speed measuring device; standards of evidence
• Minn. Stat. 169.99, Subd. 1 Uniform Traffic Ticket
• Minn. Stat. 169.999, Subd. 1, Administrative Citations, should the legislature opt to utilize administrative
citations
In addition to these changes, the following new legislation is recommended.

• Legislation is needed to explicitly authorize owner-liability for speeding violations documented and cited
through the use of SSC
• Legislation is needed to impose owner-liability for speeding violations documented by the SSC
equipment
Administrative Versus Criminal Citations

As mentioned above, the agencies make no recommendation related to the type of violation (administrative vs.
criminal) issued by the demonstration project. The vast majority of SSC programs in the United States use
administrative citations. Following are some elements to consider when evaluating which method to use:
Administrative citations
Administrative citations are similar in legal nature to those for non-moving violations, such as a parking ticket.
Violations are not recorded against the owner’s driving record; because of this, unless another tracking system is
created, the ability to track repeat offenders is not available. Administrative citations have no court costs.
Criminal citations
The e-citation system, the processing system and the administrative process to appeal already exists for criminal
citations. Upon conviction, the citation goes on the drivers’ record – this allows the ability to identify habitual
offenders. Criminal citations generally have court fees, which will raise the amount that the offender will need
to pay.

Appendix A: Task Force Members and Staff
Name Agency
Paul Aasen MN Safety Council
Rashmi Brewer MnDOT State Aid
Brent Carron Valley Paving
Nancy Daubenberger MnDOT Chief Engineer
Ericca Erhard MnDOT Chief Counsel’s Office
Major Chris Erickson State Patrol
JP Gillach MnDOT Communications
Joe Gustafson Washington County
Mike Hanson DPS Traffic Safety
Ken Johnson MnDOT Traffic
Kevin Kosobud MnDOT Construction
Greg Laine MnDOT Maintenance
Reed Leidle Safety Signs
Tim Lewis Warning Lites of MN
Mike Martinez HDR
Michelle Moser MnDOT Traffic
Ron Rauchle MnDOT Metro Traffic
Tom Ravn MnDOT Construction
Reid Romer Egan Company
Paul Sandy City of Brainerd
Matt Semerad AGC
Brian Sorenson MnDOT Traffic
Ted Ulven MnDOT Construction
Bob Vasek MnDOT Maintenance
Tracey Von Bargen Grant County
Brent Wilber Mathy Construction & Rochester Sand and Gravel
Jennifer Witt MnDOT Government Affairs
Andrew Witter Sherburne County
Laura Ziegler AGC

Appendix B: Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym Meaning
AGC Associated General Contractors (of Minnesota)
ASE Automated Speed Enforcement/Speed Safety Camera
DMS Dynamic Message Sign
DPS Department of Public Safety
EE Extraordinary Enforcement
ESC4WZ Enhanced Speed Compliance for Work Zones
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HDR HDR Engineering, Inc.
IWZ Intelligent/Smart Work Zone
MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation
mph miles per hour
MSP Minnesota State Patrol
MN MUTCD Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NCHRP
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
SSC Speed Safety Camera/Automated Speed Enforcement
Task Force Work Zone Speed Management Task Force
VAST Visual, Audio, Speed and Targeted
WZDI Work Zone Data Initiative

Appendix C: Brainstorming Session Summaries
Meeting Summary
Project: Work Zone Speed Management Study
Subject: Brainstorming Interview
Date: Friday, September 17, 2021
Location: WebEx
Attendees: Sherry Munyon, MN Citizens for Safe Work Zones
Mike Martinez, HDR Engineering, Inc.
• MNCSWZ represents contractors, unions and family members of deceased workers.
• Sherry was the one that forwarded the legislation to create this study. Is upset that she hasn’t been
able to speak at the task force meetings. Feels she is being excluded.
• Feels the task force is moving too slow. Once a month is not enough.
• Feels task force has not spent enough time on ASE
• Practices or polices she feels are not effective:
o Previous ASE legislation was too general
o Telling people what they should do with signs has not been effective
o Using channelizers has not been effective
o Lack of enforcement is the biggest issue
o Passive enforcement, i.e., presence, provides only spot improvements, often entering the work
zone. Drivers will speed up once they are past enforcement
o If MSP leaves, drivers will immediately speed up
o She feels that doubled fines are not helpful
• Suggestions
o Need more live enforcement
o ASE or more use of troopers to achieve more compliance/enforcement
o MD, PA, IL each have ASE that’s making a difference.
o Include signs that advise drivers that ASE is in use
o Have a web page that graphically shows which work zones have ASE
o Feels that ASE eliminates the possibility of racial profiling
o Use a system of increasing penalties, where citations for excessive speeding in work zones thru the
use of ASE could start with a warning and lead to increasing fines.

o Would support either financial penalties or impacts to driving records and insurance rates.
 The more punitive the fines, the harder it will be to gain support.
o Need to meet more, including after the recommendations are sent to the legislature.
o The American Road Builders Transportation Association has also started to look at this.
• Barriers to implementation
o Lack of awareness by DPS, policy makers and specifically MnDOT, who makes decisions on whether
or not to improve a specific work zone from behind a desk
 MnDOT has been invited to job sites to witness site conditions and have turned down suggestions to
modify the work zone. No specific instances were provided.
o Red light enforcement overstepped what was allowable by state law. Need to make changes in state
law and address data privacy concerns.
o Need to have an open conversation in the task force meetings
o Lack of leadership. Other DOTs are taking the lead in ASE use.
o Lack of data. Don’t have the equipment deployed to track volumes and speeds.
o Feels that MnDOT is worried about slowing the traveling public
 Why is MnDOT not more active in advocacy of enforcement?
 Need to post data on traffic speeds
 Use technology
o Need ASE and law enforcement to use consistent fines
 Feels that $300 work zone fine is not being imposed. Is open to lowering the fine to equalize
the amounts issued through ASE and police.
Meeting Summary
Location: WebEx
Attendees: Lt. Robert Zak, MN State Patrol
• Work zone sensing systems (Rashmi’s project) was a good start.
o Technology was sound
o Challenge was using it to testify. Unable to confirm that the calibration process before
deployment was legally valid.
o Signs were placed prior to the work zone stating (approx.), Actively Enforced by Radar and
Law Enforcement. This appeared to have an impact.

• Presence of a squad car is effective
o Trooper placement and activity can sometimes create more problems, like gawker effects.
o Have tried various positioning in work zones, but the beginning is best as it provides
deterrence. Mid-project can be a challenge due to finding gaps and accelerating to speed.
o Can use air horn or siren to get people’s attention without leaving post to slow people
down.
o Experimented with and w/o lights. W/o lights seemed to be more effective b/c drivers
interpreted that the trooper was “available” to pull someone over as opposed to “being
busy” with someone else, allowing them to continue to speed.
o Troopers have to wait to pull people over until after the work zone, where there is a wide
enough shoulder to do so.
 Additional emergency pull-off areas (typically once every 2 miles in longer work
zones), may be helpful.
• The trooper will have to know that there is a nearby pull off area, which
isn’t always the case.
• Drivers can do unpredictable things like stop in a travel lane, so troopers
may still wait until the end of the work zone to pull people over.
o Most effective to have two or more troopers in the same direction. This is commonly done
for enhanced enforcement. One at the start of the work zone to identify the speeder and
the second at the far end to provide enforcement.
o In work zones, two troopers will be used, but most often on bigger projects, but one in each
direction to provide deterrence. Did not think that using two troopers in 1 direction and
zero in the other would be a better option
o Troopers may request OT to work on construction projects, though in 2020 there was a
decrease in this as they were needed elsewhere in response to public unrest. Starting to
see more troopers request to work on construction projects again.
He has seen Vehicle Speed Feedback Displays to be effective because they target individuals
Meeting Summary
Location: WebEx
Attendees: MOT Contractors
• Construction speed limits
o Dynamic speed displays don’t work.

o Diminishing effect over time
o Keeps honest people honest
o People may try to see how fast they can get it to display
o Advisory speeds are not effective at all.
o Perception of using construction speed limits is important in that it lowers the top speed people
may drive
• Enforcement is effective, but is a spot effect
o Most common location is at the start of work zones.
 Few other places for them to sit in the work zone.
 When there are many lane closures, it limits opportunities for troopers to sit in a particular
spot in the work zone.
o Having trouble getting enforcement onto the I-94 job in Maple Grove
o If state patrol is not available to staff work zones, can local law enforcement?
o Group has not witnessed multiple troopers paring up; one at the start of the work zone and a
second one at the end, where there is space to pull people over.
o Troopers are too busy to catch everyone and often only go after those traveling well over the speed
limit
• No one moves over for construction vehicles
o If they are placed too close to the traveled lanes, they become exposed to adjacent traffic
o People are getting used to seeing amber lights.
o Can other strobe colors be used on construction vehicles?
• On I-94, having barrier on both side of traffic (12’ lanes +2’ shoulders) seemed to have an effect on
slowing traffic
o Even if this couldn’t be done for the entire work zone, using barrier to occasionally pinch people
down into this configuration could help.
o If using PPCB is not an option due to cost and time to deploy, tube delineators could be an
alternative. However, when they are hit, they become a maintenance/exposure issue. Anchoring is
an option if not in new pavement.
o The group was not reduced lanes during off peak hours to artificially reduce roadway
capacity/increase congestions.
 If off peak lane reductions are used, it’s to increase the work zone.
 Lane restrictions/rentals some into play.
• Introducing additional lane shifts in advance of the work zone was not perceived to effectively reduce
speeds, especially in single lane configurations
o It extends the work zone
o Minimum spacing requirements between consecutive lane closures.

• Use pace vehicles on a recurring basis
• No consistent process to change MOT configurations in the field.
o Some inspectors and resident engineers are more open to contractor requested changes.
o Very difficult to get construction speed limits.
o Some RE’s do not have the authority to change the plans.
o Sometimes RE’s are on a different page with MnDOT engineers.
• No standard for moving crossovers
• Group was not familiar with using thermoplastic rumble strips on high-speed roadways
o Removal could be an issue if placed on new pavement
o Issue for motorcycles?
• Partner with Waze or other mapping apps to communicate to drivers approaching the work zone
o Reduced speeds ahead
o End of queue notices
• Declutter work zone. There are too many signs
Meeting Summary
Location: WebEx
Attendees: Road and MOT Contractors, MnDOT Staff
• Extraordinary Enforcement
o Some perceive that EE is not effective and can cause more issues
o Only is effective in the immediate area around the parked trooper.
o Requests go through Ted’s office for approval.
o In most cases, only a single trooper is assigned to a job.
• D2 reduced speeds with speed trailers. Hard to get enforcement due to limited number of troopers
available, much less willing to request OT to work EE.
• If speed data were to be collected, it could be used to determine if and when there is a speeding
problem.
o (How do we get this to be more prevalent in contracts?)

o Resources become an issue. It’s one more thing that requires someone to look at and follow up.
o The TPI project had lots of resources and a bigger budget for things like EE. Other projects do not
have any resources
o (Do we need to write something into construction contracts to require contractors to collect this
data?)
• RTMC collects aggregated average speeds to let people know when to expect traffic ahead.
o Is this conveyed to the public through DMSs? In-vehicle navigation equipment?
o How often do the conditions trigger a notification?
• Prime contractors are often hesitant to scrutinize MOT set ups.
• Contractor initiated change process:
o If MnDOT thinks the speeds should be lowered, then that’s what should be enforced.
o District Traffic Engineer must be consulted
o “Bidding” term needs to be reviewed since this process happens well after bidding
• Pilot cars are not practical due to logistics and cost.
• Using barrier on both sides of a lane(s) to create a “chute” lane
o Best thing we can do
o Effective, but expensive.
o MnDOT does a good job of spec’ing barrier when it is needed.
o Consider design vehicles, including ag equipment and OSOW.
o Difficult for first responders to maneuver through. MUTCD states that barrier should not be used
o Can be simulated using barrels tucked closer to the edge line. Has a similar effect until trucks push
them back. (Use for speeds below a certain threshold – 45 MPH???)
o Much easier/quicker to deploy barrels (hour/mile) than barrier (day/mile)
o Barrier can create a hazard and false sense of security for motorists. It’s present 24/7, even when
construction is not active.
• (Follow up with Ken on his statement that Worker’s Present Speed Limits are required in certain
conditions
o How often does provision (a) happen without (b) overriding it? No study is required and this
appears to give people other than the commissioner and DTE’s the ability to change a speed limit
from 70 to 45 mph)

Meeting Summary
Martinez, Michael J.
From: Hauser, Tiffany

Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:19 AM
To: Martinez, Michael J.
Cc: Christine Zimmer, Mitts, Meredith, Morgan, Karen
Subject: RE: Speed in Construction Zones Follow Up
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mike,
Feedback on your insurance-related questions are below in RED.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our expertise and information, Tiffany
From: Martinez, Michael J.

Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 6:39 PM
To: Hauser, Tiffany
Cc: Christine Zimmer, Mitts, Meredith, Morgan Karen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Speed in Construction Zones
Follow Up
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Company. Do not click links, open
attachments, orforward unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please report any suspicious attachments, links, or requests for sensitive information.
Good afternoon Tiffany,

I really appreciate our conversation this morning and for the information you provided below. There were a few
additional topics we discussed that I want to make sure I captured accurately given my inability to take notes
while I driving. If I misunderstood or read too much into the discussion, I won’t be offended by your editing.
Likewise, if I missed a key point in our conversation please feel free to add it.
• AAA has two branches, Insurance and Auto Club. One of the initiatives of the Auto Club is education, which
is especially important for new drivers. Programs for older drivers and driver improvement are also

available. It’s unlikely that the MN legislature would have the appetite to mandate programs for driver
improvement. Older driver education is currently incentivized with lower insurance rates.
• An educational ad campaign would be an effective way change overall driver behavior, including to control
speeds in work zones. (I’m not sure I’ll be involved in the details of an educational ad campaign, but I’ll
recommend that you be included in that conversation).
• We’ve seen a generational change in the desire to get a driver’s license as soon as possible after turning
16. A greater percentage of the population is waiting longer to get a driver’s license (can you please
elaborate on the impact this has on young drivers? I recall some interesting points, but my memory failed
me on the details).
• Access to new driver education in Minnesota has challenges because participants must attend in-class
sessions. This can exclude families without the financial means to attend these classes. It can also force
families to choose between driving a child to these classes and other conflicting responsibilities. Allowing
self-paced, webinar-style learning could provide an equitable way to provide driver education training. This
would not change the current behind-the-wheel and testing requirements. This needs legislative support
to happen.
I also have a few questions that are more on the insurance side. If you aren’t the most appropriate person to
respond, I would appreciate your help by connecting me to the right person.
• While the MN legislature does not currently mandate programs for driver improvement, could this be
required by insurance companies for drivers with bad driving records? No, I do not see this being
mandated by insurance companies. This would be something the state legislature would have to require.
• Are motor vehicle violations that occur in work zones treated any differently by insurance companies? If
not, could they be? We look at the violation points the state assigns. We do not treat work zones
differently. The state would need to assign higher violation points in work zones.
• How are successive speeding violations viewed from an insurance premium perspective, regardless of
where they occur? Our curve for surcharging for an accident or violation gets steeper with each accident or
violation within 5 years.
• Are there other ways that the auto insurance industry can change driver behavior? For instance, how
widespread is the use of devices that monitor driving habits? In what way(s) are they currently used?
• The primary way in which the auto insurance industry can influence driver behavior is through
Usage Based Insurance (UBI) programs. These programs are increasingly mainstream, and shape
driving behavior through providing feedback and incentivizing safer driving. It is estimated that the
percentage of US auto policies enrolled in a UBI program grew from 2% in 2014 to 26% in 2020. The
Auto Club Group is in line with this figure, with 26.6% of New Business policies in the first half of
2021 enrolling in the AAADrive program.
• AAADrive and other UBI programs monitor driving behavior and provide feedback to the user.
Different factors are used by different programs and companies, but common factors include hard
braking and acceleration, distraction, cornering, speeding, and time of day. Speeding is most
commonly scored based on whether the speed can be safely maintained (referred to as contextual
speeding) rather than by comparison to the speed limit due to the difficulty of finding and
consistently updating legal speed limits.

I believe I mentioned that we are nearing the end of our data collection/interview stage and will soon be using
the information gathered to generate recommendations. It would be very helpful to receive your feedback in
the next week.
Thanks again for your insight. You added a few dimensions to this conversation we hadn’t heard before. Mike
Mike Martinez, PE*
MN/WI Traffic Section Manager North Central Regional Traffic Lead
HDR
1601 Utica Avenue South, Suite 600 St. Louis Park, MN 55416-3400
From: Hauser, Tiffany

Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:09 AM
Cc: Christine Zimmer; Mitts, Meredith;
Morgan, Karen
Subject: Speed in Construction Zones Follow Up
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachmentsunless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Mike,
Thanks for a great call this morning. Below you will find AAA’s policy statement on speed in construction zones,
the main concepts we cover in driver education on driving in construction zones, a link to AAA Foundation
research on speed and an IIHS link on speed. I have also attached the one pager we have used in Minnesota on
the online driver education issue.
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to schedule a time to chat some more. Thanks,
Tiffany
Speed Management in Construction Zones
Roadway construction and maintenance operations present serious hazards for both workers and road users.
Authorities should adopt an integrated and uniform approach to speed and safety management in construction
and maintenance zones which complies with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and includes:
— criteria for setting speed limits specific to the site in question and the type of work involved;
— an awareness and education campaign including educational signs at the site; and
— signage to indicate the distance under construction and speed limits.

Driver Education Concepts
• Stay alert
• Obey posted speed limits
• Conditions change quickly, so be ready to respond
• Minimize distractions
• Honor work zone signs
• Actively search for workers, pedestrians, and bicyclists
• Merge with caution, maintain extra space in front of you, and do not change lanes
• Follow the directions of flaggers
• Be patient
AAA Foundation Research
Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-
pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/
IIHS Speed Information

https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#overview
Tiffany Hauser
The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and or privileged material and should be treated as a confidential The Auto Club Group
communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that your
access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message including any
attachments is strictly prohibited.
Meeting Summary
Location: WebEx
Attendees: Lt. Andrew Martinek, MN State Patrol
• Believes the Vehicle speed feedback displays are effective since they target individual vehicles

• MSP is generally used as a visual deterrent
• Some uncertainty of a trooper’s role in work zones. Is it speed reduction, worker protection (placing
themselves in front of exposed workers), congestion relief (flagging in intersections) or first responders?
Probably all to some extent.
• To change behavior, need to cite enough people in order to make a difference
o Enforcement in work zones present a challenge because MSP doesn’t want to create incidents.
Although troopers do a good job of clearing incidents.
o If additional pull off areas could be added to work zones (not just in head-to-head
configurations), it would help enforcement as they could be used as opportunities to pull people
over or for troopers to monitor traffic. Suggestion is for designers to add more emergency pull of
areas to projects where possible.
• Advertising helps, though it needs to catch people’s attention. CO DOT invested a lot of resources into an
ad campaign that clarified that it’s illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana.
• Troopers working in tandem is common and very effective.
o Stationing one as a deterrent at the start of a work zone and a second one at the end of the work
zone would be an effective way to cite drivers that speed up after they pass the first trooper.
o Having troopers regularly drive through the work zone would be more effective because drivers
are more likely to change their behavior for a longer period of time when they see a patrol in
motion as opposed to one that’s parked.
• Feels that ASE is a highly effective deterrent but is worried about the resources needed to run (manage)
that program. Don’t want it to take away from the effectiveness of troopers. (I responded that there are
many variables to implementing ASE, including methods that require less back end work by troopers)
• Need to focus ASE in certain areas like work and school zones.
• We already have cameras mounted on school buses activated with the gate arms. Bus drivers can report
the image and if the license is clear, MSP will follow up on the offense.
o This process is somewhat similar to ASE in that a trooper does not need to be on site in order to
cite people.
o It could be applied now with regards to hit and runs in work zones
Meeting Summary
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 2021
Location: MS Teams
Attendees: MnDOT Resident and Traffic Engineers

• Group’s thoughts Informal process:
o Generally accurate
o Need a PE to sign off on a contractor proposed change
o Some concern regarding the use of the term “bidding” in the last sentence since
modifying an inplace work zone happens well past the bidding process.
 Ken clarified that the intent was to be aware that MOT subcontractors operate in
a low bid environment. Substantial changes to the traffic control (i.e., changing
work under traffic to a detour) could lead to challenges from a losing contractor
saying they could have done the detour cheaper than the contractorreceiving the
change order.
• Contractors are constantly asking for reduced speed limits.
• Need to better understand the design speed of the work zone.
o Don’t unnecessarily lower design speed
o Don’t artificially lower the speed limits
o Differentiate between speed limits and advisory speeds.
• Need an educational component
• Human factors tactics:
o Use narrower lane widths.
o Reduce spacing between devices
o Need to balance this with the risk of more devices being hit, causing contractor staff to
be exposed while placing the devices back in place.
• Use of troopers placed at the front of the work zone is not effective
• 24/7 speed limits must be authorized by Commissioner. Is that necessary (could it be done at
the district level?)
• Driver feedback signs help a small percentage of people.
o Use on bridge maintenance/inspection projects in metro.
• ClearGuide technology was used. (I don’t get the sense this is common on project)
o Could be used to better predict when patrols could be more effectively used (so they
aren’t there during recurring congestion periods).
• Some confusion regarding role of law enforcement in work zones: enforcement, deterrent, first
response.
o Need to be on the same page regarding expectations.
o Some hesitancy by troopers to pull people over in work zones. There is a risk that theact of
pulling people over causes secondary incidents
o In Metro, enforcement is not intended to catch speeders and is used as more of
adeterrent.
o Look at the special provisions for extra enforcement. Changes needed here???
o MSP is often willing to come out on short notice before they are officially under
contract. In these cases, they will stick around until they get a call to do something
else.
o When using zipper merges, it is important to update troopers on where they should
beas the end of queue locations shifts.
o Perception that local law enforcement won’t write tickets because proceeds go to
stateor county.

 Idea of pilot/pace cars was well received. May need to write this into the specs/contract.
o Paving trains have a similar effect.
 Use of troopers in tandem was effective when used, though this might be rare.
o One successful example on a Lowry tunnel project had two troopers stationed at the
beginning of the work zone. One used radar and the other chased offenders down.
Thisproject also had troopers roll through the zone, did not notice a reduction in
speeds.
o No one had experienced them set up with one at the beginning of the work zone
andone at the end.
o (How about a study/pilot project that places troopers working in tandem in different
configurations to see which is most effective at lowering speeds and facilitates
pullingpeople over while minimizing the risk of secondary incidents?)
 How can we get commercial trucks to slow down? Trucking association? What’s the best way
toreach/influence them?
 Use of electronic speed limit displays (not vehicle speed feedback displays) are a more
reliablemethod of using workers present speed limits.
o Use of static signs don’t reliably get put up/taken down.
o Electronic devices have had good results in D6. They have been built into the design,
notadded via change order, though that is an option.
 How do crash rates in MN compare with other states in 2020/2021
 Use of additional lane closures or chicanes to slow traffic:
o No one had actually tried this
o A few people thought it would be counterproductive in that it increases the length of
the work zone, number of devices to maintain and increases the potential for
incidents.
 Have constructability reviews be part of the design review process.
o This is already done in many districts.
o How do we make this standard practice? Write it into scopes? State’s PM
responsibility?Based on TMP recommendations?
 The Work Zone Speed Limit guide is being updated. Won’t include substantial changes, but
best to take the date off.
• (What does the pilot project look like (Includes ASE, design improvements, MSP, educational
campaign?)
Meeting Summary
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021
Location: WebEx

Attendees: Mark Kulda, Insurance Federation of MN
• IFMN represents insurers and have two distinct areas of interest
o Worker’s compensation injuries
o Drivers
• Insurance companies attempt to change behavior by adversely underwriting drivers’ policies (increased
premiums)
• The law could be made clearer by authorizing a surcharge for particular offenses, such as those in work
zones
o Currently, each insurance company has their own strategy to modify premiums.
o This is regulated to some extent by the Mn Department of Commerce, which provides ranges for
rates depending on factors contributing to the risk they take on to provide insurance. Companies
compete within these ranges to underbid the competition.
• When premiums increase, drivers shop around for lower rates.
o Some companies offer Accident Forgiveness discounts, which can substantially underbid those
that don’t offer it.
• Need a better path to verify that people have insurance. MnDRIVE requires that insurance be entered
when renewing tabs.
o Dirty little secret is that no one is actively verifying this information. DVS eliminated the group
that was supposed to provide this verification 15 years ago!!!
o Some estimates state that uninsured rates are around 8%
o Other estimates based on claims suggest the rates could be above 15%
• Repeat violations could lead to not renewing insurance – dropping coverage.
• In MN, if someone can’t find a company to insure them, the MN Auto Insurance Program state law
provides a requirement to provide a plan at very high rates.
• Incentive programs available, though ironically neither is based on driving record.
o Alive 55 discount is gained through 8 hours of webinars
o Student discounts are gained through “straight A’s” on a report card.
• Could be support in theory for a mandate for a safe driving/driving improvement class.
o Would need to figure out who develops the program and offers the class (AAA, individual
insurers? Same entities that offer the Alive 55 program?)
o How would it work? Surcharge for a violation removed/lowered if class is taken within a certain
period after the violation?
• Telematics (devices that monitor driving habits) is a growing industry
o Use of these devices to establish insurance rates is voluntary. People who use them
can decide to submit info if they think the data will reflect well on them or opt to take

the standard rate.
o Insurers are increasingly using this data.
o Newer model cars have technology built in to help people understand circumstances
that contributing to crashes (black box). Will take a decade for the vehicle fleet to
turnover to a point where it is the norm.
o Some devices beep when a poor habit is detected. For instance, a hard break
indicatestailgating or speeding.
o This technology could be used to institute a Pay by Mile program which is a trend
gaining momentum that assesses how much people drive actually drive more.
Currentpractice is to use the honor system by asking individuals to estimate this.
Someone could say that they only drive 9000 miles per year when in reality, they
drive 15000.
o Navigation queues
 Congestion and location of work zones are already communicated.
 Might support additional alerts such as upcoming end of queue locations but need to be
careful to not give people too much information.
o ASE
 Industry supports this
 Need to be clear that owner is responsible in the same manner that school
busviolations are handled.
 Need to carefully assess support in the legislature. For the hands free law, the
house supported the proposal, senate did not. Took turning a key senator
using first-hand stories from families that lost a loved one. Senator went from
strong opponent to authoring the bill that eventually passed.
o Mn is a No-fault insurance state
 Finding fault in a crash is not required for the first $20,000 of a claim.
Eachinsurance company automatically covers this amount.
 If the driver is not insured, then the vehicle owner’s insurance steps in. If that person is
not insured, the insurance of ANYONE in the vehicle would step in tocover the claim
Meeting Summary
From: Laura Ziegler
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 4:23 PM
To: Kenneth Johnson (DOT); Martinez, Michael J.
Cc: Kosobud, Kevin (MN Dept of Transportation); Michelle Moser (DOT)
Subject:Feedback from AGC of MN – Contractor Process item for Work Zone Speed Management Report

Ken and Mike,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, particularly with the tight timelines associated with drafting
the report. First – and this is a very common correction for us- our association name is Associated General
Contractors of Minnesota. (AssociatED not Association)
We solicited comments from our contractors on the formalized “Process for Modifying Inplace Work Zone Traffic
Control Configurations.” Based on my reading of the draft report, there appears to been some additions since
the last communication Ken sent us on the proposed process that I sent out to some of our folks. (One item I’m
seeing are actions prior to letting and actions after the letting.) Here is our primary take, along with some direct
feedback collected based on the six steps initially proposed. I also want to explicitly say that it’s clear they
(contractors) are looking for enforcement, which is outside the scope of our directed comments for this portion
of the report, but interrelated to overall safety and speed management.
Overall Position: Worker safety should be a top priority in any proposed process. When it comes to safety in
active work zones, the convenience of the traveling public currently holds a lot of weight. Contractors
acknowledge that MnDOT has to consider many factors when determining work zone configurations – traffic
backups, cost, staging, timing, etc. The formal processes presented within the six steps identified will not
necessarily create effectual change – perhaps marginal- because it’s essentially formalizing the current informal
process. That said, we support having benchmarks and a process written down for reference. Contractors
appreciate when changes to traffic control after a project starts based on new information is discussed in a
collaborative way.
A Recommendation: We propose that MnDOT develop a threshold for a work zone safety review prior to the
project being advertised. A work zone safety review could include average daily traffic, speed limit posted,
actual speeds, lane constraints, etc.. This would not have to be done on every project nor are we recommending
full constructability reviews on every project. We are supportive of a flexible, documented approach that allows
for MnDOT to have some criteria or threshold to conduct a work zone safety review and integrate that into the
project prior to advertisement of higher risk project. This levels the playing field in a predominantly low-bid
environment. If the proposed process occurs after it’s advertised/let, time is limited to get substantial change.
Additionally, we understand requests after a project is awarded have to be balanced in a low bid environment.
We agree that MnDOT should standardize an approach to have a benchmark with worker safety as a top
consideration for these work zone reviews.
Specific Feedback
There was no feedback specifically for Steps 1 and 2.
Step 3: If it includes work zone speed limits, the methodology from the Speed Limits in Work Zones Guidelines,
October 2014 is followed
Most always get denied or allowed but provisional and not enforceable. The traveling public rules all over the
safety of the workers.
Step 4: The Project Engineer assesses the proposed change based on:
a) Technical Merit

b) Effect on the traveling public and stakeholders
c) How the design and cost of the proposed change…
Predominant Feedback: Safety of the worker should be A).
Step 5: The Project Engineer approves, approves with conditions, or does not approve the proposed changes
The safety of the worker even though said is of the utmost importance but is rarely an accepted reason for a
change, especially in a speed reduction request.
Step 6: The contractor could request a discussion with the Resident Engineer if there is a disagreement
Usually, the discussions happen through email for the Resident Engineer.
Overall thoughts toward this process.
From a contractor's perspective, if the speed is too high for a work zone, the last thing we would want to worry
about is if we're inconveniencing someone for the work we are doing. To apply safety principles to this, our
system is flawed in that we put production way ahead of safety. Production in this case is the convenience of
others.
Another reality is that we have a low bid system and the traffic control specifications and plans we are given to
bid on are the bare minimum. Any contractor who would want to improve the traffic control of a site is at a
disadvantage to being awarded the job or, if they get the work, upgraded traffic control comes at the
contractor's expense. This is a challenging subject because the true solutions of using actual barriers (not cones)
between the workers, complete road closures, and simply reducing work zone speeds further are not standard
practice, cost money, and are inconvenient so the system works around the edges to put band aids on the issue
instead of actually fixing it.
This process is used informally on every job already. There are very few times where the "danger" in the work
zone is prioritized higher than the other factors and speed zones are rarely used as a tool. Changing the traffic
control and staging is already used on projects and has been a very successful and collaborative process.
I don't really see a change here, this is the process we use now. But the safety of the worker has no weight to
this. It’s always the traveling public with the power. Make traffic changes SAFER and ENFORCEABLE. People with
change their habits or find a new route if they don't like the traffic control. But right now the habit to know
orange signs are enforceable and that there are real human beings working in these areas is unforeseen by the
traveling public until someone gets hurt.
Thank you for your work on this report and we are readily available for any follow up questions and discussions.
We understand that this proposed process are not recommendations for changes in state statute, but rather at
the agency level.
Best,
Laura
LAURA ZIEGLER
Director of Highway/Heavy and Government Affairs

Appendix D: Mentimeter

Administrative
Complexity of Effort to Achieve Anticipated
Cost Implementation
Implementation Stakeholder Consent Effectiveness
Recommendation (3: Low, Timeline Total Mentimeter open answers
(3: MnDOT, (3: Low, (3: Very Likely,
1: High) (3: < 6 Months,
1: Legislative) 1: High) 1: Unlikely)
1: > 18 Months)
- MnDOT could implement pretty easily. As sad as it may be to make sure people follow the speed limit, this
may result in some road rage...
Use pilot cars on a set - Safety of pilot vehicle drivers is a key factor
frequency to control speed - Answers depend on how this is done and how frequently this is done.
3 3 3 3 3 15
(contractor needs to be - Seems that this would be limited to certain types of projects and that the public might find the delays
written into the contract unjustified.
- Consider a phased approach to influence driver behavior
- Pilot projects for a year with high transparency and adequate (a lot) communications
- Implementation would be different between construction projects and maintenance.

Required inclusion of speed
- Ongoing and widely held support for protecting work zones is very helpful.
monitoring equipment and/or
- Doing this consistently with work zones across the state would be important for providing a baseline for
traffic monitoring cameras in
3 2.5 3 3 3 14.5 speeds that would help us understand how changes affect behaviors.
work zones. Contractor to
- Does this technology exist and is it readily available?
provide a summary to the
- Need to consider how to obtain legislative support, due to the resistance in previous demonstrations of red
Engineer
light running or automated enforcement
- MnDOT currently does this, is there more opportunity to do so?

- This could actually save cost in getting lower bids from contractors that now do not have to work in traffic.
- County Engineers would like to see more revenue from MnDOT when detouring traffic on to their roads.
Encourage more detours and
- If we’re already doing this “as much as possible” then be mindful that this may not have a new or additional
limited/full-time closures.
3 2 3 2 3 13 impact.
Revenue offsets operational
- Provide information on website and coordinate with RTMC to include on 511
costs.
- Metro currently tries to implement this strategy as much as possible. However, there are impacts that need
to be considered on detoured routes!
- Public communication of full road closures, as with a FDR, takes a lot of effort to do well.
- Pilot will require much of same work as a permanent roll out to get it right.
- A clear understanding of where the revenue goes is required
- Fair amount of work needed to draft legislation that addresses the main challenges with legislative approval.
PILOT ASE program in work
- Pilot would likely have less issues with public or legislature but limited initial impact on safety unless fairly
zones with Owner-liability,
widespread
administrative citations, In- 2 1 2 2 3 10
- Clear messaging for both legislative and public purposes
vehicle equipment. Revenue
- Agreed - the target of improving safety in work zones should not blur lines with revenue generation. It may
offsets operational costs.
be an added bonus, but this should be viewed as making and industry and public safer on the road
- Need to have risk mitigation plan for potential unforeseen issues that may arise.
- I think many folks are ready to make an exception for work zones only!
PERMANENT ASE program in

- this has been successful in other states with reducing speeds in work zones as well as reducing crashes
work zones with Owner-
- Implementation ease changes based on effectiveness and issues identified as part of A Pilot project.
liability, Administrative/civil 1 1 2 2 3 9
- Contract terms and duration.
citations, In-vehicle
- I think A temporary ASE will be easier to pursue rather than permanent
equipment

Administrative
Cost Implementation
1: > 18 Months)
- May not capture all seasonal variations but that’s ok.

- Related to time scale is it realistic to think we can get statistically significant results from a short term
evaluation.
Before and after study to
- This would serve as a way to use data to support (hopefully) to continue with ASE beyond a pilot program
measure effect of proposed 3 3 3 3 2 14
- Studies to see if things work are always a good idea.
changes
- Include opportunity to obtain before and after feedback from IWZ vendor, MSP, etc.
- Objective data will be important to support proposed and implemented changes. Especially at the political
level
- Measure speeds for a couple of days and then work with enforcement for most effective use of
extraordinary enforcement
Monitor speed data to - Civil versus criminal penalties will greatly influence any data privacy discussions.
determine best use of - Important in assessing effectiveness. We should be doing this already.
3 3 3 3 2 14
extraordinary enforcement - I suspect this would show that speeding doesn't occur when it's congested. And when it's not congested,
resources speeding occurs independently of time of day.
- Establish a backup plan for extraordinary enforcement. If enforcement is pulled to address an immediate
safety concern, this may present an issue.
- Need to consider 24/7 potential against active shift only especially if WZ crashes without active work are a
concern for a specific site.
Pilot project to evaluate
- Likelihood of consequences is usually more compelling than severity of consequences. Whether moving or
Stationary vs. moving 3 3 3 3 2 14
stationary, drivers have to believe that they WILL get a ticket for speeding.
enforcement presence
- Timing should be considered during a 24/7 period to improve driver behavior
- Tandem vs Pacer vs static car placement
- MnDOT OCIC has developed a one pager giving some guidance on this.
Clarify placement and - Necessary step for sure.
expectations of law - Consider obtaining enforcement's perspective on placement, based on their technology, line of sight, safety,
3 3 3 3 2 14
enforcement prior to bringing etc., understanding each work zone is unique. Eventually, develop a placement consideration process or
them on the job resource
- Enforcement, speed reduction, worker protection, first response? OCIC has a 1 pager
- Needs to be done for appropriate projects. Short term or mobile operations may not be the best application
- Medium effectiveness at best. Not sure about pinger term value.
- Elec WPSL would be better than static but I’m doubtful it will result in a different outcome, without
enforcement.
Greater utilization of
- Potentially less physical effort to implement the WPSL. Same level of mental/administrative effort by the
Electronic Workers Present 3 3 3 3 2 14
contractor/inspector.
Speed Limits
- Need to establish improved credibility of system use based on when workers are actually present.
- Dynamic “this is your speed” signs have been shown to have some effect in slowing folks down while they
are up in spot locations, or so I’ve heard from some TZD folks.
- Need to assign as a primary responsibility in the contract

Administrative
Cost Implementation
1: > 18 Months)
- Workers present speed limits are more effective when drivers can see why they need to follow a certain
speed limit - the fact that workers are there.
- Perhaps signs could be left “up” and used for general speed messaging when workers aren’t present.
- Would likely require concerted effort from MnDOT to make sure sign is managed appropriately
If using static workers present
- Need enforcement
speed limit signs, assign
- Potential inefficiencies of having a traffic control supervisor hang around into the evening just to take a sign
responsibility of daily set up 3 3 3 3 2 14
down. But subs may not want to get involved in the traffic control setup/takedown, or to accept liability of
and take down in the
messing with traffic control.
contractor's contract
- Safety of set up crew
- This will improve the consistency and proper use of the static signing but without enforcement it will be no
different than it is now.
- Need to assign as a primary responsibility in the contract
- These have been shown to be effective when used; however, long term use at the same location degrades
Greater use of Advisory the effectiveness
Speed Limit with Vehicle 3 3 3 3 2 14 - Good idea. Seems to help in similar situations.
Speed Feedback Signs - Speed limit signs are often not adhered to. Advisory speeds even less.
- Compliance may be an issue
- Not sure DMS locations are proximal enough.

- Seems like this doesn’t pertain to speeding… more about warnings for slow / stopped traffic.
Increased use of DMS to alert
- End of queue is definitely a location of major concern especially if workers are in that same area. Difficult
traffic of end of queue 3 3 3 3 2 14
part is making the DMS signs accurate and credible.
locations
- Consideration of coordination with DMS and 511 audible notifications
- Reprogramming needed to make this a reality due to capital costs
Use IWZ Stopped traffic

- Just difficult to know where the queue will be on any given day and having a warning at that location.
Ahead devices for end of
- Integrate with WZDI & 511 to provide audible notification
queue notification within the 3 3 3 3 2 14
- Consider on a per project basis as space allows. Need to be able to anticipate where to place devices during
work area (as opposed to in
design. Most effective in high speed environments
advance of the work area)
- Good idea to allow any LE agency to participate.

Clarify language enabling
- Isn't overall availability of enforcement officers the main issue here? Are more officers even available?
MnDOT to contract with law
- Flexibility is good. Though I've learned that enforcement agencies sometimes have "turf" concerns so be
enforcement when state 3 3 2 3 2 13
cautious.
patrol is not available. OCIC
- Remember to allow for appropriate time for posting and scheduling, per enforcement process
has been able to fill requests.
- MnDOT pays the enforcement agency to perform the OT. The officer benefits.

Administrative
Cost Implementation
1: > 18 Months)
- Some of these answers depend on the size and complexity of the projects themselves.
- There are many projects that seem very simple where traffic disruptions are not anticipated. It is hard to
predict where we will have issues on some projects.
Make constructability reviews
2 3 3 2 2 12 - Coordination with all project phases is key.
part of all design contracts
- This is a somewhat complex but essential element. There are a number of representatives that need to be
part of this effort.
- Additional MnDOT Staffing would be required.
Utilize camera/radar
technology upstream of law
enforcement (as identified in - Good ASE alternative.
the ESC4WZ study) such that - For full effectiveness, would need to be tied to a communications plan to make the public aware this is being
it meets current legislation; 3 2 2 2 2 11 done.
Modify VAST description to - Effort would be high due to misconception that this is ASE by the motorist.
include citations issued - I like the idea of coupling this with ASE
through this process. This is
NOT ASE.
I think most motorists are unaware of Dimler.
Need to establish an understanding of what Dimler is and why amend current state law. If changed,
Change state law to remove
education and outreach will be needed.
the Dimler Amendment for
3 1 2 1 2 9 It might surprise you how well know it is.
citations that occurs in work
Consider re-visiting to remove the Dimler Amendment when ASE becomes a permanent program.
zones
I don't believe most people understand the Dimler amendment. Its perceived fairness may be tied to how
enforcement is fined (ASE or not).
Definite Benefits here, but they would be long term.
Update the driver's education
Would be more effective if people renewing their licenses had some exposure to it but since we don't retest
curriculum to include
3 1 1 2 2 9 here, we would only reach people who are taking driver's ed classes or the odd people who looks up the
additional content on driving
driver's manual on their own accord.
in work areas.
Would need to add more time to accommodate learning.
Coordinate with insurance
companies to create Not bad, but possible equity issues. People who spend a larger share of their income on insurance will be
incentives for ongoing driver's 1.5 2 1 2 2 8.5 likely to want to save money on it.
education, similar to the Alive Good Idea but unsure what the state's role would be here
55 program
Public education effort (effect - Considering potential benefit vs cost, we should definitely increase this in coming construction seasons.
of high speeds, ASE, Worker’s - Education can’t hurt / is important but it’s in vain without enforcement.
1 1 2 2 2 8
safety) through driver - Start Education even in elementary school.
education to change culture - I think it would help to stress this topic, perhaps even shifting focus of the current program.
- Could this be modified to remove the Deming amendment for speed limit violations in work zones?
- Violation points are needed to create economic consequences.
Authorize insurance - Were insurance companies specific as to what would need to change in statute?
surcharge for particular - Are there many “$300 tickets” written. (Can it be shared how many in the last 2 years?) If not many than
violations through violation 3 1 1 1 2 8 what’s the impact?
points, such as those in work - Seems like a lot of potential for abuse and/or public pushback, since lots of areas might be considered "work
zones. zones" which are far from workers.
- The folks that have $ to spend, may continue on as their normal and not improve driver behaviors/speeding
- Need to have public awareness campaign

Administrative
Cost Implementation
1: > 18 Months)
- Good idea. Massive lift. WZ part of a larger conversation. Think aging drivers etc.
- This would be hard, but there are a lot of potential safety benefits, so we should start the discussion.
- Education is one component of making drivers aware and changing their behavior. Even if aware the
Require some level of training attitude is what we want to change.
1 1 1 1 2 6
to renew driver's licenses - Might help a lot with traffic safety, not just in work zones. New laws happen, so do new devices. Also, could
be useful to help train drivers regarding rights/responsibilities/interactions with law enforcement if they are
stopped for an infraction.
- May want to fold into continuing education for businesses to promote for their employees
- really depends on the work. For projects that have a major backup, could increase rear end crashes.
- Could add to rear end crashes. Also, would come with increased public frustration in many cases.
Would likely require additional public messaging efforts.
Use of additional lane
- Additional lane closures could cause diversion of traffic to local roads which will cause a different set of
closures or chicanes to slow 3 3 3 3 1.5 13.5
problems.
traffic.
- Can be challenging on Projects where multiple lanes are open to traffic.
- Coordination with RTMC to display on DMS, 511, project information page on MnDOT website
- This may help to some degree, but may be less effective during low demand or nighttime setups
- Seems like a quite a bit of discussion is needed on this to obtain the desired result.
- I'd rather see this inspection be done by agency staff rather than the contractor. Either one can document,
More formal inspection
but I think it's important for the agency inspector to set good expectations.
policies, including video via
- Video needs to be reviewed in a timely manner, in order to make improvements. Consideration of weekly,
special provision or contract 3 3 3 3 1.5 13.5
and reviewed at weekly project meetings to discuss, learn and improve collaboratively. May need to be less
language. Video supplement
frequent, based on project changes
to daily log form
- Device maintenance is important to helping drivers navigate through the WZ. Contractor responsibility.
MnDOT could do QA on the video
- This may allow drivers to avoid work zones, which could benefit work zone safety. I wouldn't expect any
operating speed changes.
- Real time driver intel would be great for WZ and other road conditions. Drivers need to be educated or
Partner with Waze and other acclimated to using it.
mapping apps to - Our industry needs to head this direction. We should start pushing.
communicate to drivers - Effectiveness limited by those with devices/vehicles with apps and enabled.
approaching the work zone of 3 2 2 3 1.5 11.5 - Seems like this could be the next big effort to tackle, after ASE.
the reduced speed, worker - Mapping apps already do this to some degree, but I don't think it makes much difference in driver speed or
presence and end of queue behavior (except to maybe have them seek an alternate route if delays are large). If an app suggests 30 mph
locations but everyone's going 50, then what?
- Need to coordinate with the WZDI effort, with FHWA & MnDOT RTMC
- ITS devices are capable to speak to IRIS (smartphones) and in-vehicle technology, such as adaptive cruise
Offer driver improvement

class (could be online) for - Like this approach. Many people could be more affected by having to pay with their time vs money.
violations in work zones to 2 1 1 2 1.5 7.5 - A reduction in consequences would have the effect of reducing effectiveness
reduce penalty for 1st citation - I think many may just go thru the motions to merely lower their fine
in work zone

Administrative
Cost Implementation
1: > 18 Months)
- there is a documented crash modification factor related to lane width - depending on width reduction, could
increase crashes. would need to carefully consider
- Could slightly reduce speeds, but likely not enough to change incidence of crashes. Proximity of work or
barriers would have greater effect but could also increase crashes.
Utilize narrow lane widths, - Narrowing lanes could cause an increase in traffic accidents.
but don't decrease overall 3 3 3 3 1 13 - unless a more direct correlation to speed and safety with narrower lanes it could cause more issues.
available pavement - Speeding is currently an issue of Projects where this strategy is being implemented.
- I am not a fan of narrower lanes in work zones.
- MnDOT Metro often narrows lanes to 11' with 1' left reaction and 2' right. This has little effect on driver
speed. Would need to narrow lanes even more, but need to consider trailers and freight
- With 6-lane road, the center lane at 11' may cause some line straddling
- could be strategically placed - perhaps not for the entire length, but where workers are?
- Are there studies on this? Concerned about the potential to increase crashes.
- Need to consider that the cost is across industry and includes replacing when hit.
Decrease spacing between
3 3 3 3 1 13 - How would this change driver behavior? Is there any experience that more devices impact speeds?
channeling devices
- Need more information to support this. The visual impact to the driver may be an issue.
- Don't think this will have much effect
- Might be good thing to test/study/pilot.
- Don't think this will have an impact on improving worker or driver safety. For specific projects, it could be
beneficial - but not overall
Increase use of emergency - Additional pull off lane requirements could increase the total construction time and increase exposure to
3 3 3 3 1 13
pull off areas on projects traveling public.
- Effectiveness is contingent on associated enforcement.
- I’ve driven through work zones where these are used in Illinois and didn’t see any reduction in speed or change
in behavior
Temporary transverse rumble

- Love this. It’s a “pay attention” alarm clock.
strips in > 45 mph areas,
- Anticipate little/no effect in speeds.
Change in traffic control.
3 3 3 3 1 13 - Had some initial concern about drivers avoiding them so placement is important.
Make people aware that a
- Can these be left unattended / will they move over time? Do workers have to place, maintain and remove
work zone is coming up in
these “under traffic”?
small work zones.
- Long standing debate between transportation and law enforcement agencies.

Replace amber lights with - Anticipate little/no effect on driver behavior. Most drivers have no idea what different colors mean.
different lights on - Concern that all changing to colors that are associated with law enforcement would diminish compliance
construction vehicles. Drivers 3 2 3 3 1 12 there as well.
are used to amber lights and - I don't foresee this making much difference in driver behavior. And if the lights were replaced with red/blue
don't move over for them. police style lights, that might just make police lights less effective.
- The various colors of lights and their meaning can be difficult to remember/understand.
- if a speed limit is set for worker safety is there for 24 hours where a driver doesn't see a need to reduce
speeds, they will tend to ignore it when we want them to slow down
- Changing speed limits or the process to determine speed limits would have little to no effect on safety unless
enforcement changes with them (ASE).
Streamline authorization for
3 1 2 3 1 10 - ASE seems like it will result in drivers complying with the posted speed limit. 24/7s may not be needed as
24/7 speed limits
much with a culture/behavior change around complying with Work Zone speeds.
- Consideration of workers present and driver behavior impacts
- Merely getting a lower speed needs to be coupled with increased enforcement
- Study needed to authorize a 24/7 by statute. May increase speed differential

Administrative
Cost Implementatio
Implementation Stakeholder Effectiveness
Recommendation (3: Low, nTimeline Tota Mentimeter open answers
(3: MnDOT, Consent(3: Low, (3: Very Likely,
1: High) (3: < 6 Months, l
1: > 18
Months)
Allow Self-paced, webinar- - worth considering, but don't see how this will improve work zone safety
style learning as a more - It is important to consider evaluating to ensure the learning meets overall purpose. May need to adjust to
2 1 2 3 1 9
equitable way to provide ever-changing needs
early driver education. - I think there are some things that may be more impactful if taught in-person
- Very hard to target people now with all the various ways for people to take in information. YouTube, TikTok,
Billboards, News, reddit, etc...
More funding to Work Zone - Going through the process of requesting funding through the legislature could create awareness in and of
Safety Public Awareness itself.
1.5 1 2 2 1 7.5
campaigns aimed at the - Awareness campaigns are good (only) if coupled with enforcement.
general public - Many strategies can be built on existing efforts to reduce speeds and distracted driving more generally.
- Consider starting education segments in elementary school and continue through high school.
- Cost - We're at $0 cash cost now. A lot could be done with $1-5M.

Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as part of a contract entitled
Traffic Safety Evaluation that was led by HDR Engineering, Inc.
The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful efforts of the Work Zone Speed Management Study Task Force,
consisting of representatives from the Minnesota Citizens for Safe Work Zones, Minnesota Safety Council,
MnDOT, DPS, Minnesota State Patrol, Associated General Contractors of Minnesota, Washington County, Grant
County, Sherburne County, and the City of Brainard.
The authors also acknowledge the Automated Speed Enforcement history, guidance and insight shared by Frank
Douma, Director of the State and Local Policy Program at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of
Public Affairs.
Lastly, the authors offer a special thanks to Ken Johnson, Assistant State Traffic Engineer and Michelle Moser,
State Work Zone Engineer for their valuable and collaborative guidance throughout the development of this
study.

Minnesota Work Zone Speed Management Study 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minnesota Work Zone Speed Management Study 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minnesota Work Zone Speed Management Study 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Work Zone Speed Management Study

Work Zone Speed Management Study 1

Work Zone Speed Management Study 2

Work Zone Speed Management Study 3

The cost of preparing this report is less than $85,000.

Work Zone Speed Management Study 4

Work Zone Speed Management Study 5

Work Zone Speed Management Study 6

Work Zone Speed Management Study 7

Work Zone Speed Management Study 8

Work Zone Speed Management Study 9

Work Zone Speed Management Study 10

Traffic Control Design Practices

• MN MUTCD, including Part 6K: Minnesota Traffic Control Field Manual

Closures and Detours

Work Zone Speed Management Study 11

Work Zone Speed Management Study 12

I-94 Work Zone in Maple Grove

Work Zone Speed Management Study 13

Year Condition Total Crashes

Crashes in Minnesota Work Zones

Work Zone Speed Management Study 14

Work Zone Crashes Severe (K+A) Work Zone Crashes

Figure 3: Fatal Work Zones Crashes, Statewide, 2011-2020

Fatal (K) Work Zone Crashes

Work Zone Speed Management Study 15

Regulating Speeds in Work Zones

Work Zone Speed Management Study 16

Complexity of the Path Conditions Requiring Drivers to

Work Zone Speed Management Study 17

Enforcement of Safe Speeds

Minnesota State Patrol Policy for Speed Enforcement

Work Zone Speed Management Study 18

Department of Transportation Research Services & Library, 2017).

Work Zone Speed Management Study 19

Speed Safety Cameras

Department of Transportation Research Services & Library, 2017).

Work Zone Speed Management Study 20

Transportation Research Section, 2010).

Work Zone Speed Management Study 21

Work Zone Speed Management Study 22

Work Zone Speed Management Study 23

Transportation Research Section, 2010).

Work Zone Speed Management Study 24

Establishment of Regulations in Work Zones

Work Zone Speed Management Study 25

Enforcement of Regulations in Work Zones

Work Zone Speed Management Study 26

Speed Safety Cameras

Constitutional Due Process Considerations in MN

Work Zone Speed Management Study 27

Work Zone Speed Management Study 28

Work Zone Speed Management Study 29

Existing Informal Process

Proposed Formal Process

Work Zone Speed Management Study 30

Work Zone Speed Management Study 31

Independent Task Force Evaluation;

Work Zone Speed Management Study 32