Survey on Roadway Worker Protection Warning Device in Sacramento Shows 83 Percent of Rail Transit Agency Employees Felt Safer with the Device.

Respondents Give Feedback on the Roadway Worker Protection Warning Device’s Alert Reliability, Efficiency, Volume and Timing.

Date Posted

Roadway Worker Protection Secondary Warning Device and Employee in Charge Software System (EICSS)

Summary Information

Through partnership with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) conducted a demonstration test of a secondary warning device for roadway workers in 2018. The commercially available secondary warning system consists of a roadway worker protection (RWP) system mounted in a rail vehicle and a personal alert device (PAD) worn by a roadway workers. This secondary RWP system design provides a visual and audible advance warning alert to train operators of workers ahead and a visual and audible advance warning to alert wayside track workers of approaching trains. A second phase of the project implemented the Employee in Charge Software System (EICSS) that uses smartphone technology to validate and authorize roadway worker access to specific sections of track. 



System effectiveness, including unusual occurrences or comments and system acceptance, was measured in terms of work zone intrusion rates and employee survey responses. Unusual occurrences or comments are based on SacRT's daily control log and related dispatcher or roadway worker reports. A total of 19 EICSS and PAD survey responses were collected.


Based on the system effectiveness evaluation, the warning system demonstrated notable positive system perceptions and acceptance of use by train operators, right-of-way workers, and other stakeholders:

  • Eighty-three percent of the surveyed workers perceived PAD made it safer for roadway workers.
  • Half  of the surveyed wayside workers (53 percent) thought PAD was effective in providing secondary roadway warning.
  • Sixty-five percent of the surveyed workers believed the device did not provide a false sense of security.
  • Sixty-six percent of the surveyed workers were satisfied with the volume of the alerts.
  • Eighty-nine percent of the surveyed workers confirmed that PAD was able to activate alert when a train was approaching, and 11 percent experienced at least one occasion when PAD failed to activate alert.
  • The system was found to react as designed without any issues reported when being used outside the Central Business District (CBD) area.
  • Mix feedback were provided on the warning time and false activation of the alert.


Results Type