Audit report on the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance program of Louisa – Des Moines County Drainage District #4 in Des Moines County and Louisa County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2010

Audit report on the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance program of Louisa – Des Moines County Drainage District #4 in Des Moines County and Louisa County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2010

Archaeology on the Road, July 2011

Not only are we excited that Team Archaeology is back for our third ride, we are energized to be part of a “Human and Natural History” partnership that allows us expanded opportunities to share the story of Iowa’s amazing past. Once again there will be archaeologists along for the ride, as well as at Expo and this year at roadside locations Day One, Five and Six. Don’t hesitate to ask about the history of the first people to travel this landscape as well as the stories of each generation that has contributed to what we know of ourselves today. We will also feature information about the landscape and natural resources of Iowa you will encounter along the route through our partnering colleagues specializing in geology, hydrology, and other earth sciences. Enjoy using this booklet as your guide to the week’s activities and please help yourself to free materials from our outreach booth about our shared past and the natural world we depend on. Ride smart, be safe, and when you get home, be sure to tell your friends and neighbors about Iowa archaeology!

Tree and Brush Control For County Road Right-of-Way, Ocotober 2002

This manual summarizes the roadside tree and brush control methods used by all of Iowa's 99 counties. It is based on interviews conducted in Spring 2002 with county engineers, roadside managers and others. The target audience of this manual is the novice county engineer or roadside manager. Iowa law is nearly silent on roadside tree and brush control, so individual counties have been left to decide on the level of control they want to achieve and maintain. Different solutions have been developed but the goal of every county remains the same: to provide safe roads for the traveling public. Counties in eastern and southern Iowa appear to face the greatest brush control challenge. Most control efforts can be divided into two categories: mechanical and chemical. Mechanical control includes cutting tools and supporting equipment. A chain saw is the most widely used cutting tool. Tractor mounted boom mowers and brush cutters are used to prune miles of brush but have significant safety and aesthetic limitations and boom mowers are easily broken by inexperienced operators. The advent of tree shears and hydraulic thumbs offer unprecedented versatility. Bulldozers are often considered a method of last resort since they reduce large areas to bare ground. Any chipper that violently grabs brush should not be used. Chemical control is the application of herbicide to different parts of a plant: foliar spray is applied to leaves; basal bark spray is applied to the tree trunk; a cut stump treatment is applied to the cambium ring of a cut surface. There is reluctance by many to apply herbicide into the air due to drift concerns. One-third of Iowa counties do not use foliar spray. By contrast, several accepted control methods are directed toward the ground. Freshly cut stumps should be treated to prevent resprouting. Basal bark spray is highly effective in sensitive areas such as near houses. Interest in chemical control is slowly increasing as herbicides and application methods are refined. Fall burning, a third, distinctly separate technique is underused as a brush control method and can be effective if timed correctly. In all, control methods tend to reflect agricultural patterns in a county. The use of chain saws and foliar sprays tends to increase in counties where row crops predominate, and boom mowing tends to increase in counties where grassland predominates. For counties with light to moderate roadside brush, rotational maintenance is the key to effective control. The most comprehensive approach to control is to implement an integrated roadside vegetation management (IRVM) program. An IRVM program is usually directed by a Roadside Manager whose duties may be shared with another position. Funding for control programs comes from the Rural Services Basic portion of a county's budget. The average annual county brush control budget is about $76,000. That figure is thought not to include shared expenses such as fuel and buildings. Start up costs for an IRVM program are less if an existing control program is converted. In addition, IRVM budgets from three different northeastern Iowa counties are offered for comparison in this manual. The manual also includes a chapter on temporary traffic control in rural work zones, a summary of the Iowa Code as it relates to brush control, and rules on avoiding seasonal disturbance of the endangered Indiana bat. Appendices summarize survey and forest cover data, an equipment inventory, sample forms for record keeping, a sample brush control policy, a few legal opinions, a literature search, and a glossary.

Impacts of Rural Development on Iowa’s Secondary Road Systems, TR-548, September 2010

Today, many of Iowa’s counties are experiencing an increase in rural development. Two specific types of development were focused on for this research: rural residential subdivisions and livestock production operations. Rural residential developments are primarily year round single-family homes, though some are vacation homes. Livestock production in Iowa includes hog, beef, and poultry facilities. These two types of rural development, while obviously very different in nature and incompatible with each other, share one important characteristic: They each generate substantial amounts of new traffic for Iowa’s extensive secondary road system. This research brings together economic, spatial, and legal analysis methods to address the impacts of rural development on the secondary road system and provide county engineers, county supervisors, and state legislators with guidance in addressing the challenges associated with this development.

Temporary Traffic Control and Enforcement of Traffic Laws in Closed Road Sections, June 2007

Public travel by motor vehicles is often necessary in road and street sections that have been officially closed for construction, repair, and/or other reasons. This authorization is permitted in order to provide access to homes and businesses located beyond the point of closure. The MUTCD does address appropriate use of specific regulatory signs at the entrance to closed sections; however, direct guidance for temporary traffic control measures within these areas is not included but may be needed. Interpretation and enforcement of common practices may vary among transportation agencies. For example, some law enforcement officers in Iowa have indicated a concern regarding enforcement and jurisdiction of traffic laws in these areas because the Code of Iowa only appears to address violations on roadways open to “public travel.” Enforcement of traffic laws in closed road sections is desirable to maintain safety for workers and for specifically authorized road users. In addition, occasional unauthorized entry by motor vehicles is experienced in closed road areas causing property damage. Citations beyond simple trespass may be advisable to provide better security for construction sites, reduce economic losses from damage to completed work, and create safer work zones.

Use of Railroad Flat Cars for Low-Volume Road Bridges, August 1999

In an attempt to solve the bridge problem faced by many county engineers, this investigation focused on a low cost bridge alternative that consists of using railroad flatcars (RRFC) as the bridge superstructure. The intent of this study was to determine whether these types of bridges are structurally adequate and potentially feasible for use on low volume roads. A questionnaire was sent to the Bridge Committee members of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to determine their use of RRFC bridges and to assess the pros and cons of these bridges based on others’ experiences. It was found that these types of bridges are widely used in many states with large rural populations and they are reported to be a viable bridge alternative due to their low cost, quick and easy installation, and low maintenance. A main focus of this investigation was to study an existing RRFC bridge that is located in Tama County, IA. This bridge was analyzed using computer modeling and field load testing. The dimensions of the major structural members of the flatcars in this bridge were measured and their properties calculated and used in an analytical grillage model. The analytical results were compared with those obtained in the field tests, which involved instrumenting the bridge and loading it with a fully loaded rear tandem-axle truck. Both sets of data (experimental and theoretical) show that the Tama County Bridge (TCB) experienced very low strains and deflections when loaded and the RRFCs appeared to be structurally adequate to serve as a bridge superstructure. A calculated load rating of the TCB agrees with this conclusion. Because many different types of flatcars exist, other flatcars were modeled and analyzed. It was very difficult to obtain the structural plans of RRFCs; thus, only two additional flatcars were analyzed. The results of these analyses also yielded very low strains and displacements. Taking into account the experiences of other states, the inspection of several RRFC bridges in Oklahoma, the field test and computer analysis of the TCB, and the computer analysis of two additional flatcars, RRFC bridges appear to provide a safe and feasible bridge alternative for low volume roads.

2011 Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF) Study A report to the Iowa Legislature, per 2011 Iowa Code Section 307.31

The transportation system is in demand 24/7 and 365 days a year irrespective of neither the weather nor the conditions. Iowa’s transportation system is an integral and essential part of society serving commerce and daily functions of all Iowans across the state. A high quality transportation system serves as the artery for economic activity and, the condition of the infrastructure is a key element for our future growth opportunities. A key component of Iowa’s transportation system is the public roadway system owned and maintained by the state, cities and counties. In order to regularly re-evaluate the conditions of Iowa’s public roadway infrastructure and assess the ability of existing revenues to meet the needs of the system, the Iowa Department of Transportation’s 2006 Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF) report to the legislature included a recommendation that a study be conducted every five years. That recommendation was included in legislation adopted in 2007 and signed into law. The law specifically requires the following (2011 Iowa Code Section 307.31): •“The department shall periodically review the current revenue levels of the road use tax fund and the sufficiency of those revenues for the projected construction and maintenance needs of city, county, and state governments in the future. The department shall submit a written report to the general assembly regarding its findings by December 31 every five years, beginning in 2011. The report may include recommendations concerning funding levels needed to support the future mobility and accessibility for users of Iowa's public road system.” •“The department shall evaluate alternative funding sources for road maintenance and construction and report to the general assembly at least every five years on the advantages and disadvantages and the viability of alternative funding mechanisms.” Consistent with this requirement, the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) has prepared this study. Recognizing the importance of actively engaging with the public and transportation stakeholders in any discussion of public roadway conditions and needs, Governor Terry E. Branstad announced on March 8, 2011, the creation of, and appointments to, the Governor’s Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission (CAC). The CAC was tasked with assisting the Iowa DOT as they assess the condition of Iowa’s roadway system and evaluate current and future funding available to best address system needs. In particular the CAC was directed to gather input from the public and stakeholders regarding the condition of Iowa’s public roadway system, the impact of that system, whether additional funding is needed to maintain/improve the system, and, if so, what funding mechanisms ought to be considered. With this input, the CAC prepared a report and recommendations that were presented to Governor Branstad and the Iowa DOT in November 2011 for use in the development of this study. The CAC’s report is available at www.iowadot.gov/transportation2020/pdfs/CAC%20REPORT%20FINAL%20110211.pdf. The CAC’s report was developed utilizing analysis and information from the Iowa DOT. Therefore, the report forms the basis for this study and the two documents are very similar. Iowa is fortunate to have an extensive public roadway system that provides access to all areas of the state and facilitates the efficient movement of goods and people. However, it is also a tremendous challenge for the state, cities and counties to maintain and improve this system given flattening revenue, lost buying power, changing demands on the system, severe weather, and an aging system. This challenge didn’t appear overnight and for the last decade many studies have been completed to look into the situation and the legislature has taken significant action to begin addressing the situation. In addition, the Iowa DOT and Iowa’s cities and counties have worked jointly and independently to increase efficiency and streamline operations. All of these actions have been successful and resulted in significant changes; however, it is apparent much more needs to be done. A well-maintained, high-quality transportation system reduces transportation costs and provides consistent and reliable service. These are all factors that are critical in the evaluation companies undertake when deciding where to expand or locate new developments. The CAC and Iowa DOT heard from many Iowans that additional investment in Iowa’s roadway system is vital to support existing jobs and continued job creation in the state of Iowa. Beginning June 2011, the CAC met regularly to review material and discuss potential recommendations to address Iowa’s roadway funding challenges. This effort included extensive public outreach with meetings held in seven locations across Iowa and through a Transportation 2020 website hosted by the Iowa DOT (www.iowadot.gov/transportation2020). Over 500 people attended the public meetings held through the months of August and September, with 198 providing verbal or written comment at the meetings or through the website. Comments were received from a wide array of individuals. The public comments demonstrated overwhelming support for increased funding for Iowa’s roads. Through the public input process, several guiding principles were established to guide the development of recommendations. Those guiding principles are: • Additional revenues are restricted for road and bridge improvements only, like 95 percent of the current state road revenue is currently. This includes the fuel tax and registration fees. • State and local governments continue to streamline and become more efficient, both individually and by looking for ways to do things collectively. • User fee concept is preserved, where those who use the roads pay for them, including non¬residents. • Revenue-generating methods equitable across users. • Increase revenue generating mechanisms that are viable now but begin to implement and set the stage for longer-term solutions that bring equity and stability to road funding. • Continue Iowa’s long standing tradition of state roadway financing coming from pay-as-you-go financing. Iowa must not fall into the situation that other states are currently facing where the majority of their new program dollars are utilized to pay the debt service of past bonding. Based on the analysis of Iowa’s public roadway needs and revenue and the extensive work of the Governor’s Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission, the Iowa DOT has identified specific recommendations. The recommendations follow very closely the recommendations of the CAC (CAC recommendations from their report are repeated in Appendix B). Following is a summary of the recommendations which are fully documented beginning on page 21. 1. Through a combination of efficiency savings and increased revenue, a minimum of $215 million of revenue per year should be generated to meet Iowa’s critical roadway needs. 2. The Code of Iowa should be changed to require the study of the sufficiency of the state’s road funds to meet the road system’s needs every two years instead of every five years to coincide with the biennial legislative budget appropriation schedule. 3.Modify the current registration fee for electric vehicles to be based on weight and value using the same formula that applies to most passenger vehicles. 4.Consistent with existing Code of Iowa requirements, new funding should go to the TIME-21 Fund up to the cap ($225 million) and remaining new funding should be distributed consistent with the Road Use Tax Fund distribution formula. 5.The CAC recommended the Iowa DOT at least annually convene meetings with cities and counties to review the operation, maintenance and improvement of Iowa’s public roadway system to identify ways to jointly increase efficiency. In direct response to this recommendation, Governor Branstad directed the Iowa DOT to begin this effort immediately with a target of identifying $50 million of efficiency savings that can be captured from the over $1 billion of state revenue already provided to the Iowa DOT and Iowa’s cities and counties to administer, maintain and improve Iowa’s public roadway system. This would build upon past joint and individual actions that have reduced administrative costs and resulted in increased funding for improvement of Iowa’s public roadway system. Efficiency actions should be quantified, measured and reported to the public on a regular basis. 6.By June 30, 2012, Iowa DOT should complete a study of vehicles and equipment that use Iowa’s public roadway system but pay no user fees or substantially lower user fees than other vehicles and equipment.

Road Use Tax Fund Efficiency Report, January 2012

In the November 2011 report issued by the Governor’s Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission (CAC), the commission recommended the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), at least annually, convene meetings with the cities and counties to review the operation, maintenance and improvement of Iowa’s public roadway system to identify ways to jointly increase efficiency. In response to this recommendation, Gov. Branstad directed the Iowa DOT to begin this effort immediately with a target of identifying $50 million of efficiency savings that can be captured from the $1.2 billion of Road Use Tax Funds (RUTF) provided to the Iowa DOT, cities and counties to administer, maintain and improve the public roadway system. This would build upon past joint and individual actions that have reduced administrative costs and resulted in increased funding for system improvements. Efficiency actions should be quantified, measured and reported to the public on a regular basis. Beyond the discussion of identifying funding solutions to our road and bridge needs, it is critical that all jurisdictions that own, maintain and improve the nation’s road and bridge systems demonstrate to the public these funds are utilized in the most efficient and effective manner. This requires continual innovation in all aspects of transportation planning, design, construction and maintenance - done in a transparent manner to clearly demonstrate to the public how their funds are being utilized. The Iowa DOT has identified 13 efficiency measures separated into two distinct categories – Program Efficiencies and Partnership Efficiencies. The total value of the efficiency measures is $50 million. Many of the efficiency items will need input, refinement and partnership from cities, counties, other local jurisdictions, and stakeholder interest groups. The Iowa DOT has begun meetings with many of these groups to help identify potential efficiency measures and strategies for moving forward. These partnerships and discussions will continue through implementation of the efficiency measures. Dependent on the measures identified, additional action may be required by the legislature, Iowa Transportation Commission, and/or other bodies to implement the action. In addition, a formal process will be developed to quantify, measure and report the results of actions taken on a regular basis.

Drainage Basins of Iowa, March 1, 2000

Map of Drainage Basins of Iowa produced by the Iowa Department of Transportation.

Drainage Basins of Iowa, September 1, 2008

Map of Drainage Basins of Iowa produced by the Iowa Department of Transportation.

Drainage Basins of Iowa, March 1, 2000

Map of Drainage Basins of Iowa produced by the Iowa Department of Transportation.

Archaeology on the Road, July 2012

The University of Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) is delighted to welcome RAGBRAI riders to Iowa and we’re pleased to share a few details of our fascinating past as you ride across the state. We hope this booklet enhances your enjoyment and helps you learn something new each day of your ride, from the ancient site at Cherokee to the late 1800s lost town site of Bowen’s Prairie.

CP Road MAP Brief 4-1, October 2009

Describing promising technologies that can be used now to enhance concrete paving practices.

CP Road MAP Brief 7-1, May 2009

Describing promising technologies that can be used now to enhance concrete paving practices.

CP Road MAP Brief 8-1, September 2010

Describing promising technologies that can be used now to enhance concrete paving practices.