4.6 Article

Developing a Decision-Making Framework to Select Safety Technologies for Highway Construction

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001466

关键词

-

资金

  1. Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT)
  2. Federal Highway Administration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highway construction has consistently reported relatively high fatality rates largely because of the considerable exposure of workers to live traffic. To address this anomaly, traffic control planners are tasked with making decisions geared toward reducing hazardous situations caused by transiting vehicles and construction equipment. The growing application of technologies to enhance worker safety should be considered during the traffic control planning process. In certain cases, decisions such as choosing among technology options are made using experiential individual knowledge without the application of scientific and systematic decision-making methods. Use of experience-based decision making in this context is largely the result of sparse literature on scientific methods of selecting between alternatives in highway construction work zones. By applying the Choosing by Advantages (CBA) decision-making method, a process that achieves sound and effective decisions, the current study aims to fill the gap in practice by proposing a decision-making framework that could enhance the value-cost selection process of safety technologies in highway construction work zones. A situation that applied work zone intrusion alert technologies (WZIATs) was selected as a case study. Using a focus group session and case projects as an evaluation study process, the proposed framework based on the CBA decision-making process was applied to evaluate three WZIATs. Findings from the current study will benefit safety professionals and practitioners by providing a step-by-step approach to make sound decisions that can enhance the level of safety in highway construction work zones.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据