Utility accommodation policy of the Iowa State Highway Commission, 1970

This policy covers initial placement, adjustment, relocation and replacement of utility facilities in, on, above or below all highway right of way over which the Iowa State Highway Commission exercises control of access. It embodies the basic specifications and standards needed, to insure the safety of the highway user and the integrity of the highway.

Utility accommodation policy of the Iowa State Highway Commission, 1973

This policy covers initial placement, adjustment, relocation and replacement of utility facilities in, on, above or below all highway right of way over which the Iowa State Highway Commission exercises control of access. It embodies the basic specifications and standards needed, to insure the safety of the highway user and the integrity of the highway. (1973 revision to 1970 policy.)

Policy of the Iowa Department of Transportation Highway Division For Accommodating Utilities on Primary Road System, 1990

This policy covers initial placement, adjustment, relocation and replacement of utility facilities in, on, above or below all highway right of way over which the Iowa Department of Transportation exercises control of access. It embodies the basic specifications and standards needed, to insure the safety of the highway user and the integrity of the highway. (1990 revision to 1985 policy.)

Policy for Accommodating and Adjustment of Utilities on the Primary Road System, 2012

This chapter covers initial placement, adjustment, and maintenance of utility facilities in, on, above or below the right-of-way of primary highways, including attachments to primary highway structures. It embodies the basic specifications and standards needed to ensure the safety of the highway user and the integrity of the highway. (2012 revision to 2005 policy.)

Policy of the Iowa Department of Transportation Highway Division For Accommodating Utilities on the Primary Road System, 1992

This chapter covers initial placement, adjustment, improvement, relocation, replacement and maintenance of utility facilities in, on, above or below the right-of-way over of primary highways, including attachments to primary highway structures. It embodies the basic specifications and standards needed, to ensure the safety of the highway user and the integrity of the highway. (1992 revision to 1990 policy.)

Policy for Accommodating and Adjustment of Utilities on the Primary Road System, 2005

This chapter covers initial placement, adjustment, and maintenance of utility facilities in, on, above or below the right-of-way of primary highways, including attachments to primary highway structures. It embodies the basic specifications and standards needed, to ensure the safety of the highway user and the integrity of the highway. (2005 revision to 1992 policy.)

Guidelines for Removal of Traffic Control Devices in Rural Areas, TR-527, 2005

It is commonly regarded that the overuse of traffic control devices desensitizes drivers and leads to disrespect, especially for low-volume secondary roads with limited enforcement. The maintenance of traffic signs is also a tort liability concern, exacerbated by unnecessary signs. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Traffic Control Devices Handbook provide guidance for the implementation of STOP signs based on expected compliance with right-of-way rules, provision of through traffic flow, context (proximity to other controlled intersections), speed, sight distance, and crash history. The approach(es) to stop is left to engineering judgment and is usually dependent on traffic volume or functional class/continuity of system. Although presently being considered by the National Committee on Traffic Control Devices, traffic volume itself is not given as a criterion for implementation in the MUTCD. STOP signs have been installed at many locations for various reasons which no longer (or perhaps never) met engineering needs. If in fact the presence of STOP signs does not increase safety, removal should be considered. To date, however, no guidance exists for the removal of STOP signs at two-way stop-controlled intersections. The scope of this research is ultra-low-volume (< 150 daily entering vehicles) unpaved intersections in rural agricultural areas of Iowa, where each of the 99 counties may have as many as 300 or more STOP sign pairs. Overall safety performance is examined as a function of a county excessive use factor, developed specifically for this study and based on various volume ranges and terrain as a proxy for sight distance. Four conclusions are supported: (1) there is no statistical difference in the safety performance of ultra-low-volume stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersections for all drivers or for younger and older drivers (although interestingly, older drivers are underrepresented at both types of intersections); (2) compliance with stop control (as indicated by crash performance) does not appear to be affected by the use or excessive use of STOP signs, even when adjusted for volume and a sight distance proxy; (3) crash performance does not appear to be improved by the liberal use of stop control; (4) safety performance of uncontrolled intersections appears to decline relative to stop-controlled intersections above about 150 daily entering vehicles. Subject to adequate sight distance, traffic professionals may wish to consider removal of control below this threshold. The report concludes with a section on methods and legal considerations for safe removal of stop control.

Residents' Rights

Resident rights are guaranteed by the federal Nursing Home Reform Law of 1987, which requires nursing facilities to promote and protect the rights of each resident and places a strong emphasis on individual dignity and self-determination. Residents’ rights include, but are not limited to: • Being treated with respect and dignity • Being free from abuse and chemical and physical restraints • Participating in one’s own care and treatment • Being ensured information is being kept confidential • Managing one’s own finances • Being free to voice grievances, without fear of retaliation • Being able to associate and communicate privately with any person • Being able to send and receive personal mail • Making independent choices • Being able to apply for state and federal assistance without discrimination • Being informed of rights, services available and all charges prior to admission • Being given advance notice of a transfer or discharge

Visitation and Powers of Attorney

Resident’s rights are guaranteed by the federal 1987 Nursing Home Reform Law. This law requires nursing facilities to promote and protect the rights of each resident and places a strong emphasis on individual dignity and self-determination. Iowa has incorporated these rights into state law for nursing facility residents, assisted living and elder group home tenants. The attorney-in-fact’s authority is over health care decisions and visitation and access to a resident is not a health care decision. The law does not specifically set out restrictions on visitation as a right that the attorney-in-fact can exercise. Therefore, it is the position of the Office of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman that the attorney-in-fact does not have authority to determine visitation. As such, that right remains with the resident.