Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 2014-2017: Sorted by MPO and RPA, 2013

Iowa’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) has been developed in conformance with the guidelines prescribed by 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. The STIP is generated to provide the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration a listing of all projects that are candidates for federal aid from the FHWA and FTA for four federal fiscal years (FFY). The 2015-2018 STIP was approved by FHWA and FTA on September 16, 2014. Preceding the listings of federal-aid candidates are general comments concerning Iowa’s public participation process for selection of federal-aid projects and the basis for funding the proposed projects. Documents evidencing the Iowa Department of Transportation’s authority to act concerning matters related to transportation, federal-aid expenditures and approvals of metropolitan planning organizations’ (MPOs), transportation improvements programs (TIPs) have been provided in past STIPs and can be provided again upon request.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 2013-2016: Sorted by MPO and RPA, 2012

Iowa’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) has been developed in conformance with the guidelines prescribed by 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. The STIP is generated to provide the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration a listing of all projects that are candidates for federal aid from the FHWA and FTA for four federal fiscal years (FFY). Preceding the listings of federal-aid candidates are general comments concerning Iowa’s public participation process for selection of federal-aid projects and the basis for funding the proposed projects. Documents evidencing the Iowa Department of Transportation’s authority to act concerning matters related to transportation, federal-aid expenditures and approvals of metropolitan planning organizations’ (MPOs), transportation improvements programs (TIPs) have been provided in past STIPs and can be provided again upon request.

Mission-Oriented Dust Control and Surface Improvement Processes for Unpaved Roads, HR-194, 1981

Six subject areas prompted the broad field of inquiry of this mission-oriented dust control and surface improvement project for unpaved roads: • DUST--Hundreds of thousands of tons of dust are created annually by vehicles on Iowa's 70,000 miles of unpaved roads and streets. Such dust is often regarded as a nuisance by Iowa's highway engineers. • REGULATIONS--Establishment of "fugitive dust" regulations by the Iowa DEQ in 1971 has created debates, conferences, legal opinions, financial responsibilities, and limited compromises regarding "reasonable precaution" and "ordinary travel," both terms being undefined judgment factors. • THE PUBLIC--Increased awareness by the public that regulations regarding dust do in fact exist creates a discord of telephone calls, petitions, and increasing numbers of legal citations. Both engineers and politicians are frustrated into allowing either the courts or regulatory agencies to resolve what is basically a professional engineering responsibility. • COST--Economics seldom appear as a tenet of regulatory strategies, and in the case of "fugitive dust," four-way struggles often occur between the highway professions, political bodies, regulatory agencies, and the general public as to who is responsible, what can be done, how much it will cost, or why it wasn't done yesterday. • CONFUSION--The engineer lacks authority, and guidelines and specifications to design and construct a low-cost surf acing system are nebulous, i.e., construct something between the present crushed stone/gravel surface and a high-type pavement. • SOLUTION--The engineer must demonstrate that dust control and surface improvement may be engineered at a reasonable cost to the public, so that a higher degree of regulatory responsibility can be vested in engineering solutions.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 2016-2019: Sorted by MPO and RPA, 2015

Iowa’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) has been developed in conformance with the guidelines prescribed by 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. The STIP is generated to provide the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration a listing of all projects that are candidates for federal aid from the FHWA and FTA for the four federal fiscal years (FFY) 2016-2019. The 2016-2019 STIP was approved by FHWA and FTA on September 29, 2015. Preceding the listings of federal-aid candidates are general comments concerning Iowa’s public participation process for selection of federal-aid projects and the basis for funding the proposed projects. Documents evidencing the Iowa Department of Transportation’s authority to act concerning matters related to transportation, federal-aid expenditures, and approvals of metropolitan planning organizations’ (MPOs) transportation improvements programs (TIPs) have been provided in past STIPs and can be provided again upon request.

2011 Annual Report for Appropriations from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund and Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund to the Watershed Improvement Fund

The Watershed Improvement Fund and the Watershed Improvement Review Board (WIRB) were created in 2005. This statute is now codified in Iowa Code Chapter 466A. The pmpose of the Watershed Improvement Fund is to enhance the water quality and flood prevention efforts in the state through a variety of impairment-based, locally­ directed watershed improvement projects. These projects are awarded grants through a competitive application process directed by the WIRB. Appropriations to the Fund do not revert. Interest earned on the moneys on the Fund are also retained in the Fund and are used to fund projects or pay per diem and expenses of the WIRB members. In state fiscal years 2009 (SFY2009) and 2010 (SFY2010), the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $5,000,000 from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF). In SFY2011, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $2,000,000 from the Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund (RBC2).

2012 Annual Report for Appropriations from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund and Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund to the Watershed Improvement Fund

The Watershed Improvement Fund and the Watershed Improvement Review Board (WIRB) were created in 2005. This statute is now codified in Iowa Code Chapter 466A. The purpose of the Watershed Improvement Fund is to enlmnce the water quality and flood prevention efforts in the state through a variety of impairment-based, locally­ directed watershed improvement projects. These projects are awarded grants through a competitive application process directed by the WIRB. Appropriations to the Fund do not revert except for the Capital Revenue Bonds II (RCB2) appropriation. Interest eamed on the moneys on the Fund are also retained in the Fund and are used to fund projects or pay per diem and expenses of the WIRB members. Starting July 1, 2012, the Fund is also receiving Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund Penalties. In state fiscal years 2009 (SFY2009) and 2010 (SFY2010), the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $5,000,000 from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF). In SFY2011, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $2,000,000 from the Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund (RBC2). No appropriation was received in fiscal year 2012. In SFY 2013, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $1,000,000 from the RIIF.

2013 Annual Report for Appropriations from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund and Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund to the Watershed Improvement Fund

The Watershed Improvement Fund and the Watershed Improvement Review Board (WIRB) were created in 2005. This statute is now codified in Iowa Code Chapter 466A. The purpose of the Watershed Improvement Fund is to enhance the water quality in the state through a variety of impairment-based, locally-directed watershed improvement projects. These projects are awarded grants through a competitive application process directed by the WIRB. Appropriations to the Fund do not revert except for the Capital Revenue Bonds II (RCB2) appropriation. Interest earned on the moneys on the Fund are also retained in the Fund and are used to fund projects or pay per diem and expenses of the WIRB members. Starting July 1, 2012, the Fund is also receiving Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund Penalties. In state fiscal years 2009 (SFY2009) and 2010 (SFY2010), the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $5,000,000 from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF). In SFY2011, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $2,000,000 from the Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund (RBC2). No appropriation was received in fiscal year 2012. In SFY 2013, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $1,000,000 from the RIIF.

2014 Annual Report for Appropriations from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund and Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund to the Watershed Improvement Fund

The Watershed Improvement Fund and the Watershed Improvement Review Board (WIRB) were created in 2005. This statute is now codified in Iowa Code Chapter 466A. The purpose of the Watershed Improvement Fund is to enhance the water quality in the state through a variety of impairment-based, locally-directed watershed improvement projects. These projects are awarded grants through a competitive application process directed by the WIRB. Appropriations to the Fund do not revert except for the Capital Revenue Bonds II (RCB2) appropriation. Interest earned on the moneys on the Fund are also retained in the Fund and are used to fund projects or pay per diem and expenses of the WIRB members. Starting July 1, 2012, the Fund is also receiving Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund Penalties. In state fiscal years 2009 (SFY2009) and 2010 (SFY2010), the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $5,000,000 from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF). In SFY2011, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $2,000,000 from the Revenue Bonds Capitals II Fund (RBC2). No appropriation was received in fiscal year 2012. In SFY 2013, the Watershed Improvement Fund was appropriated $1,000,000 from the RIIF.

Evaluation of Iowa's Driver Improvement Program, 2009

This study examines the effectiveness of Iowa’s Driver Improvement Program (DIP), measured as the reduction in the number of driver convictions subsequent to the DIP. The analysis involved a random sample of 9,055 drivers who had been instructed to attend DIP and corresponding data on driver convictions, crashes, and driver education training history that were provided by the Iowa Motor Vehicle Division. The sample was divided into two groups based on DIP outcome: satisfactory or unsatisfactory completion. Two evaluation periods were considered: one year after the DIP date (probation period) and the period from the 13th to 18th month after the DIP date. The evaluation of Iowa’s DIP showed that there is evidence of effectiveness in terms of reducing driver convictions subsequent to attending the DIP. Among the 6,790 (75%) drivers who completed the course satisfactorily, 73% of drivers had no actions and 93% were not involved in a crash during the probation period. Statistical tests confirmed these numbers. However, the positive effect of satisfactory completion of DIP on survival time (that is, the time until the first conviction) was not statistically significant 13 months after the DIP date. Econometric model estimation results showed that, regardless of the DIP outcome, the likelihood of conviction occurrence and frequency of subsequent convictions depends on other factors, such as age, driver history, and DIP location, and interaction effects among these factors. Low-cost, early intervention measures are suggested to enhance the effectiveness of Iowa’s DIP. These measures can include advisory and warning letters (customized based on the driver’s age) sent within the first year after the DIP date and soon after the end of the probation period, as well as a closer examination of DIP instruction across the 17 community colleges that host the program. Given the large number of suspended drivers who continued to drive, consideration should also be given to measures to reduce driving while suspended offenses.

07008-002 Yellow River Watershed Improvement Project Final Report

Two sections of the Yellow River have been named to the State of Iowa’s 303d list of impaired waters. The listing reflects streams with pollution problems linked to habitat alterations, in addition to those with potential disease causing bacteria, viruses and parasites. This fact, combined with local knowledge of water quality problems, shows the need for land treatment practices and habitat improvement measures. This project would target the Yellow River watershed, which totals approximately 49,800 acres. Areas that drain directly into the Yellow River mainstream will be targeted. Individually, these areas are too small to be considered sub-watersheds. This project will assess the drainage areas for active gullies and prioritize grade stabilization structures based upon severity and impact on the fishery. Funding would be utilized to target high priority grade stabilization structure sites and provide cost-share for those projects. A prerequisite for cost-share allocation is 75% of the land contributing to the drainage area must have some form of treatment in place. The Allamakee SWCD has received an EPA Region 7 Grant toward grade stabilization structures in the same area. Landowners have indicated that 75% cost-share is necessary to implement practices. To meet this request, the EPA funding would be used at a 15% cost-share rate if matched with 60% cost-share from WIRB funding. If matched with Federal EQIP funds, 25% of funds obtained from WIRB would be used. If other funds were depleted, WIRB funds would be utilized for the entire 75% cost-share.

05037-014 Elk River Watershed Final Report

The Watershed Improvement Review Board (WIRB) Grant will be used to enhance an on-going water quality project in Elk River Watershed. A targeted, locally controlled project has been active in the watershed since 2001. Current funding is being received primarily from the EPA-319 program, administrated by IDNR and the Watershed Protection Fund (WSPF) administrated by IDALS-DSC. Substantial funding is also obtained from the yearly county allocation of the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) administrated by the USDA-NRCS. The overall objective of the Elk River Water Quality Project is to improve and restore the water quality in this water body by keying in on the potential sources of the identified impairments, and forging a working partnership between the local residents and the conservation agencies and organizations involved in the project. The major potential sources of the known surface water quality problems were identified during the assessment process and pointed to feedlot runoff and sediment delivery from within priority sub-watersheds. WIRB Funds will be used to cost share the application of Best Management Practices, thus reducing the projects dependency on federal funds. Funds will also be used to overcome a project’s limiting factor associated with insufficient technical assistance.

Corridor Management Pilot Projects, 2004

Managing existing and newly constructed highway corridors has recently become a significant concern in many states, including Iowa. As urban land and land on the urban fringe develops, there is pressure to add features such as commercial driveways, at-grade public road intersections, and traffic signals to arterial highway routes that should primarily serve high-speed traffic. This diminishes the speed and traffic capacity of such roadways and can also cause significant safety issues. if mobility and safety are diminished, the value of the highway investment is diminished. Since a major highway corridor improvement may cost tens of millions of dollars or more, corridor management is as critical to preserving that investment as is more "hard side" management practices such as pavement or bridge management. Corridor management is a process that applies access management principles to highway corridors in an attempt to balance the competing needs of traffic service, safety, and support for land development. This project helped to identify routes that should be given high priority for corridor management. The pilot study in the form of two corridor management case studies provides an analytical process that can be replicated along the other Iowa commuting corridors using commonly available transportation and land use data resources. It also offers a general set of guidelines for the Iowa Department of Transportation to use in the development of its own comprehensive corridor management program.

Low Cost Fly Ash - Sand Stabilization Roadway, Construction Report, HR-259, 1986

Fly ash, a by-product of coal-fired electricity generating plants, has for years been promoted as a material suitable for highway construction. Disposal of the large quantities of fly ash produced is expensive and creates environmental concerns. The pozzolanic properties make it promotable as a partial Portland cement replacement in pc concrete, a stabilizer for soil and aggregate in embankments and road bases, and a filler material in grout. Stabilizing soils and aggregates for road construction has the potential of using large quantities of fly ash. Iowa Highway Research Board Project HR-194, "Mission-Oriented Dust Control and Surface Improvement Processes for Unpaved Roads", included short test sections of cement, fly ash, and salvaged granular road material mixed for a base in western Iowa. The research showed that cement fly ash aggregate (CFA) has promise as a stabilizing agent in Iowa. There are several sources of sand that when mixed with fly ash may attain strengths much greater than fly ash mixed with salvaged granular road material at little additional cost

U.S. Highway 20 Corridor Development Study, Report B: Improvement Alternatives, Costs and Traffic, 1992

In February the U.S. 20 Corridor Development Study's Steering Committee met to review Report A. At that meeting the Committee selected seven alternatives to be evaluated from a cost and traffic perspective. This report, Report B, presents the cost and traffic evaluation of these seven alternatives. This Report B and its cost and traffic estimates will be reviewed at the next Steering Committee meeting. At that time it is possible that, based on the traffic and cost estimates, one or more of the alternatives will be eliminated from further consideration. After that meeting the Consultant will initiate the more in-depth analyses, including the economic feasibility