Impact of Left-Turn Phasing on Older and Younger Drivers at High-Speed Signalized Intersections, 2004

Several recent studies have demonstrated differences in safety between different types of left-turn phasing—protected, permitted, and protected/permitted phasing. The issue in question is whether older and younger drivers are more affected by a particular type of left-turn phasing at high-speed signalized intersections and whether they are more likely to contribute to a left-turn related crash under a specific type of left-turn phasing. This study evaluated the impact of different types of left-turn phasing on older and younger drivers at high-speed signalized intersections in Iowa. High-speed signalized intersections were of interest since oncoming speeds and appropriate gaps may be more difficult to judge for older drivers and those with less experience. A total of 101 intersections from various urban locations in Iowa with at least one intersecting roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 mph or higher were evaluated. Left-turn related crashes from 2001 to 2003 were evaluated. Left-turn crash rate and severity for young drivers (14- to 24-year-old), middle-age drivers (25- to 64-year-old), and older drivers (65 years and older) were calculated. Poisson regression was used to analyze left-turn crash rates by age group and type of phasing. Overall, left-turn crash rates indicated that protected phasing is much safer than protected/permitted and permitted phasing. Protected/permitted phasing had the highest left-turn crash rates overall.

Temporary Speed Hump Impact Evaluation, 2002

The main objective of this research was to evaluate the impact of temporary speed humps and speed tables on vehicle speeds, vehicle speed profiles, and traffic volumes along local and/or collector streets in several rural Iowa cities. A 25 mile per hour (mph) temporary speed hump and a 30 mph temporary speed table, both made of recycled rubber, were purchased to test the impact of temporary devices. Two cities volunteered and the speed hump/table was installed on two test streets in the city of Atlantic (Roosevelt Drive and Redwood Drive) and one test street in the city of Le Claire (Canal Shore Drive). The speed hump was installed first and then converted to a speed table. Each device was installed for a period of at least two weeks at the same location. Speed, volume, and resident opinion data were then collected and evaluated.

Evaluation of Work Zone Speed Reduction Measures, 2000

The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) has made improving work zone (WZ) safety a high priority. Managing vehicle speeds through work zones is perceived to be an important factor in achieving this goal. A number of speed reduction techniques are currently used by transportation agencies throughout the country to control speeds and reduce speed variation at work zones. The purpose of this project is to study these and other applicable work zone speed reduction strategies. Furthermore, this research explores transportation agencies' policies regarding managing speeds in long-term, short-term, and moving work zones. This report consists of three chapters. The first chapter, a literature review, examines the current speed reduction practices at work zones and provides a review of the relevant literature. The speed control strategies reviewed in this chapter range from posting regulatory and advisory speed limit signs to using the latest radar technologies to reduce speeds at work zones. The second chapter includes a short write-up for each identified speed control technique. The write-up includes a description, the results of any field tests, the benefits and the costs of the technology or technique. To learn more about other state policies regarding work zone speed reduction and management, the Center for Transportation Research and Education conducted a survey. The survey consists of six multipart questions. The third chapter provides summaries of the response to each question.

Assessment of Channelizing Device Effectiveness on High Speed/High Volume Roadways, 2007

Part 6 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) describes several types of channelizing devices that can be used to warn road users and guide them through work zones; these devices include cones, tubular markers, vertical panels, drums, barricades, and temporary raised islands. On higher speed/volume roadways, drums and/or vertical panels have been popular choices in many states, due to their formidable appearance and the enhanced visibility they provide when compared to standard cones. However, due to their larger size, drums also require more effort and storage space to transport, deploy and retrieve. Recent editions of the MUTCD have introduced new devices for channelizing; specifically of interest for this study is a taller (>36 inches) but thinner cone. While this new device does not offer a comparable target value to that of drums, the new devices are significantly larger than standard cones and they offer improved stability as well. In addition, these devices are more easily deployed and stored than drums and they cost less. Further, for applications previously using both drums and tall cones, the use of tall cones only provides the ability for delivery and setup by a single vehicle. An investigation of the effectiveness of the new channelizing devices provides a reference for states to use in selecting appropriate traffic control for high speed, high volume applications, especially for short term or limited duration exposures. This study includes a synthesis of common practices by state DOTs, as well as daytime and nighttime field observations of driver reactions using video detection equipment. The results of this study are promising for the day and night performance of the new tall cones, comparing favorably to the performance of drums when used for channelizing in tapers. The evaluation showed no statistical difference in merge distance and location, shy distance, or operating speed in either daytime or nighttime conditions. The study should provide a valuable resource for state DOTs to utilize in selecting the most effective channelizing device for use on high speed/high volume roadways where timely merging by drivers is critical to safety and mobility.