Work Zone Traffic Control Inspection Form
Word Version (50 kb) | PDF Version (12 kb)
| Project No. D: | |
|---|---|
| PIN: | |
| Region: | |
| Date: | |
| Fed Aid? | |
| Location: | |
| Weather/Lighting Conditions: | |
| Project Type: |
Construction Signing/Advance Warning
| Good | Fair | Poor | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantity of Signs: | Sign Condition: | ||||
| Good | Rigid sign | ||||
| Too many | Flexible sign | ||||
| Missing sign series | Reflectivity | ||||
| Missing specific sign | |||||
| Credibility of Text: | Arrowboard Use: | ||||
| Good | Placement | ||||
| Misleading sign text | Performance | ||||
| Unneeded signs visible | |||||
| Countdown but no work | |||||
| Sign Placement: | Non-standard signs: | ||||
| Good | Text | ||||
| Too low | Color | ||||
| Not readily visible | Shape | ||||
| Poor sign spacing | |||||
| Overall Advance Warning: | Excellent _____ Adequate _____ Inadequate _____ | ||||
Comments:
Channelization
| Devices Used/Condition: | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barricades | Unsafe ballasting | ||||
| Drums | Unsafe battery mount | ||||
| Cones | Inadequate spacing | ||||
| Vertical panels | Inadequate taper length | ||||
| Tubular markers | More devices needed | ||||
| Warning lights | Non-standard device | ||||
| Overall Channelization: | Excellent _____ Adequate _____ Inadequate _____ | ||||
Comments:
Pavement Markings
| No markings | Confusing markings | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Condition: | Good | Obscured | Faded | Damaged / Dislodged |
| Paint or Tape | ||||
| Raised Markers | ||||
| Overall Markings: | Excellent _____ Adequate _____ Inadequate _____ | |||
Comments:
Flagging
| Number/Effectiveness of Flaggers: | Flagger Signs: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Effective | Good | ||
| Ineffective | Too close | ||
| Poor coordination | Too far | ||
| Not enough flaggers | No flagger | ||
| Flagging Technique: | No sign | ||
| Good | Signal Device: | ||
| Fair | Flags | ||
| Poor | Paddles | ||
| Flagger Attire: | |||
| No hard hat | |||
| No vest | |||
| Overall Flagging: | Excellent _____ Adequate _____ Inadequate _____ | ||
Comments:
Roadside Safety
| Type of Barrier: | Concrete / Timber Curb / Guiderail / Other |
|---|---|
| Barrier Condition: | Fair / Poor |
| Flared end treatment needed? | Yes / No |
| Impact attenuator needed? | Yes / No |
| Barrier Delineation: | |
| Lights: | Good / Fair / Not working |
| Reflectors | Good / Fair / Poor / Too small |
| Inadequate drop-off delineation? | Yes / No |
| Inadequate clear zone? | Yes / No |
| Overall roadside safety: | Excellent / Adequate / Inadequate |
Comments:
Miscellaneous Traffic Control
| Unprotected operations or equipment in roadway | |
|---|---|
| Poor temporary traffic signal operation/installation | |
| Original signs/delineation in poor condition | |
| Speed limit: | _____ mph / Too Low / Appropriate |
| Pedestrian Safety: | Inadequate travel path / Inadequate protection from hazards |
| Access Control: | Good / Fair / Poor |
| Overall Misc. Traffic Control: | Excellent / Adequate / Inadequate |
Comments:
OVERALL RATING _____
Construction Project M&PT Survey Rating System
| 5 | Excellent design and implementation of M&PT. Controls provide adequate driver guidance for virtually all situations. No significant deficiencies encountered, and comments were limited to fine-tuning or other minor adjustment. All TCDs are in good condition, appropriate for the actual situation, and properly placed. |
|---|---|
| 4 | Good design and implementation of M&PT. Controls provide adequate driver input for most situations likely to be encountered. Some minor deficiencies may be present, such as less than optimum choice, condition or placement of individual device. |
| 3 | Design and implementation of M&PT is generally acceptable. There may be a number of specific points that can be improved or refined, and occasional points that may be only marginally effective. |
| 2 | Design and implementation of M&PT is only marginally effective. Many specific points need refinement or adjustment, or a number of individual points are marginally effective. Although drivers familiar with the work zone can be expected to traverse it safely, unfamiliar drivers may experience difficulty, especially during adverse conditions, such as heavy traffic, rain, or darkness. |
| 1 | Although some traffic controls have been provided, they are not adequate to provide guidance through the work zone. Drivers familiar with the site may not experience difficulty during favorable conditions, but unfamiliar drivers will probably have problems in traversing the site during all conditions, and even familiar drivers during adverse conditions. |
| 0 | Other than occasional signs or other devices which are not coordinated or effective, no traffic control is provided, and motorists are left on their own to traverse the work zone. Guidance provided to drivers may be misleading such that drivers are directed to make inappropriate or dangerous responses. |