Iowa Department of Public Safety Annual Report, 2002

Annual report for Iowa Department of Public Safety

Annual Report 2003, Iowa Department of Public Safety, 2003

Annual report for Iowa Department of Public Safety

Financial Safety Planning for Older Women, 2000 Edition

Financial Safety Planning for Older Women

Report of Recommendations to the Iowa Department of Public Safety, June 30, 2002

State Agency Audit Report

Annual Report for the Iowa Highway Safety Program, Federal Fiscal Year 2003

Annual Highway Safety Evaluation Report for the Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau, Iowa Department of Public Safety

Annual Report for the Iowa Highway Safety Program, 2000

Annual Highway Safety Evaluation Report for the Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau, Iowa Department of Public Safety

Iowa Highway Safety Plan, 2004

Annual Highway Safety Plan for the Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau, Iowa Department of Public Safety

Report of Recommendations to the Iowa Department of Public Safety, June 30, 2003

State Agency Audit Report

Iowa Department of Public Safety 2004 Annual Report

Annual Report

Report of Recommendations to the Iowa Department of Public Safety, June 30, 2004

State Audit Reports

How Much “Safety” Is Available under the U.S. Proposal to the WTO?, November 2005

Critics of the U.S. proposal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) made in October 2005 are correct when they argue that adoption of the proposal would significantly reduce available support under the current farm program structure. Using historical prices and yields from 1980 to 2004, we estimate that loan rates would have to drop by 9 percent and target prices would have to drop by 10 percent in order to meet the proposed aggregate Amber Box and Blue Box limits. While this finding should cheer those who think that reform of U.S. farm programs is long overdue, it alarms those who want to maintain a strong safety net for U.S. agriculture. The dilemma of needing to reform farm programs while maintaining a strong safety net could be resolved by redesigning programs so that they target revenue rather than price. Building on a base of 70 percent Green Box income insurance, a program that provides a crop-specific revenue guarantee equal to 98 percent of the product of the current effective target price and expected county yield would fit into the proposed aggregate Amber and Blue Box limits. Payments would be triggered whenever the product of the season-average price and county average yield fell below this 98 percent revenue guarantee. Adding the proposed crop-specific constraints lowers the coverage level to 95 percent. Moving from programs that target price to ones that target revenue would eliminate the rationale for ad hoc disaster payments. Program payments would automatically arrive whenever significant crop losses or economic losses caused by low prices occurred. Also, much of the need for the complicated mechanism (the Standard Reinsurance Agreement) that transfers most risk of the U.S. crop insurance to the federal government would be eliminated because the federal government would directly assume the risk through farm programs. Changing the focus of federal farm programs from price targeting to revenue targeting would not be easy. Farmers have long relied on price supports and the knowledge that crop losses are often adequately covered by heavily subsidized crop insurance or by ad hoc disaster payments. Farmers and their leaders would only be willing to support a change to revenue targeting if they see that the current system is untenable in an era of tight federal budgets and WTO limits.

Iowa Department of Public Safety Performance Report, FY 2004

Agency Performance Report

Safety Effectiveness of High-Speed Expressway Signals, 2005

The safety benefit of signalizing intersections of high-speed divided expressways is considered. Analyses were conducted on 50 and 55 mph and on 55 mph only intersections, comparing unsignalized and signalized intersections. Results of the 55 mph analysis are included in this report. Matched-pair analysis indicates that generally, signalized intersections have higher crash rate but lower costs per crash. On the other hand, before-and-after analysis (intersections signalized between 1994 and 2001) indicates lower crash rates (~30 percent) and total costs (~10 percent) after signalization. Empirical Bayes (EB) adjusted before-and-after analysis reduces estimates of safety benefit (crash rate) to about 20 percent. The study shows how commonly used analyses can differ in their results, and that there is great variability in the safety performance of individual signalized locations. This variability and the effect of EB adjustment are demonstrated through the use of innovative graphics.

Guidleines for Removal of Traffic Control Devices in Rural Areas, October 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.

Report of Recommendations to the Iowa Department of Public Safety, June 30, 2005

State Audit Reports