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.

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.

Iowa Traffic Control Devices and Pavement Markings: A Manual for Cities and Counties April 2001

Iowa Traffic Control Devices and Pavement Markings: A Manual for Cities and Counties has been developed to provide state and local transportation agencies with suggestions and examples related to traffic control devices and pavement markings. Both rural and urban applications are included. The primary source of information for this document is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), but many additional references have also been used. A complete listing of these is included in the appendix to this manual, and the reader is invited to consult these references for more in-depth information. The contents of this manual are not intended to represent standard practice or to imply legal requirements for installation in any particular manner. This document should be used as a supplement to the MUTCD, not as a substitute for any requirements contained therein. Engineering judgement should be applied to all decisions regarding traffic control devices and pavement markings. All references to the MUTCD in this manual apply to the millennium edition. The reader should be aware that many millennium revisions are allowed phase-in periods by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), ranging from two to ten years. These extended compliance periods should be considered when making decisions regarding traffic control devices and pavement markings. A new addition to the MUTCD, Part 5, “Traffic Control Devices for Low-Volume Roads,” also contains valuable recommendations for signing and marking low volume roads. This manual is presented in an easy to use threering format. Topics included in the complete guide manual may not apply to all jurisdictions and can easily be removed or modified as desired. Desired millennium MUTCD sections may be added for quick reference using the divider at the end of this document. Contents may also be available on CD-ROM in the future.

Development of a Traffic Control Devices and Pavement Markings Manual for Iowa's Cities and Counties with a Survery of Common Practices, April 2001

Transportation agencies in Iowa are responsible for a significant public investment with the installation and maintenance of traffic control devices and pavement markings. Included in this investment are thousands of signs and other inventory items, equipment, facilities, and staff. The proper application of traffic control devices and pavement markings is critical to public safety on streets and highways, and local governments have a prescribed responsibility under the Code of Iowa to properly manage these assets. This research report addresses current traffic control and pavement marking application, maintenance, and management in Iowa.

Integrated Risk Management for Improving Internal Traffic Control, Work-Zone Safety, and Mobility during Major Construction, TPF-5(081), 2012

Highway construction is among the most dangerous industries in the US. Internal traffic control design, along with how construction equipment and vehicles interact with the traveling public, have a significant effect on how safe a highway construction work zone can be. An integrated approach was taken to research work-zone safety issues and mobility, including input from many personnel, ranging from roadway designers to construction laborers and equipment operators. The research team analyzed crash data from Iowa work-zone incident reports and Occupational Safety and Health Administration data for the industry in conjunction with the results of personal interviews, a targeted work-zone ingress and egress survey, and a work-zone pilot project.

Liability and Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings, HR-218, 1981

The current shortage of highway funds precludes the immediate replacement of most of the bridges that have been evaluated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete or both. A low water stream crossing (LWSC) affords an economical alternative to the replacement of a bridge with another bridge in many instances. However, the potential liability that might be incurred from the use of LWSCs has served as a deterrent to their use. Nor have guidelines for traffic control devices been developed for specific application to LWSCs. This research addressed the problems of liability and traffic control associated with the use of LWSCs. Input to the findings from this research was provided by several persons contacted by telephone plus 189 persons who responded to a questionnaire concerning their experience with LWSCs. It was concluded from this research that a significant potential for accidents and liability claims could result from the use of LWSCs. However, it was also concluded that this liability could be reduced to within acceptable limits if adequate warning of the presence of an LWSC were afforded to road users. The potential for accidents and liability could further be reduced if vehicular passage over an LWSC were precluded during periods when the road was flooded. Under these conditions, it is believed, the potential for liability from the use of an LWSC on an unpaved, rural road would be even less than that resulting from the continuing use of an inadequate bridge. The signs recommended for use in advance of an LWSC include two warning signs and one regulatory sign with legends as follows: FLOOD AREA AHEAD, IMPASSABLE DURING HIGH WATER, DO NOT ENTER WHEN FLOODED. Use of the regulatory sign would require an appropriate resolution by the Board of Supervisors having responsibility for a county road. Other recommendations include the optional use of either a supple mental distance advisory plate or an advisory speed plate, or both, under circumstances where these may be needed. It was also recommended HR-218 Liability & Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings that LWSCs be used only on unpaved roads and that they not be used in locations where flooding of an LWSC would deprive dwelling places of emergency ground access.

Evaluation of Air Pollution Control Devices for Asphalt Pavement Recycling Operations, HR-188, Progress Report, 1977

This report discusses the asphalt pavement recycling project designated Project HR-188 in Kossuth County, Iowa. Specific objectives were: (a) to determine the effectiveness of drum mixing plant modifications designed to control air pollution within limits specified by the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality; (b) to assess the impact of varying the proportions of recycled and virgin aggregates, (c) to assess the impact of varying the production rate of the plant, and (d) to assess the impact of varying the mixing temperature. The discussion includes information on the proposed use of research funds, project location and description, the project planning conference, plan development, bid letting, asphalt plant configuration, actual plant operation, why this method is successful, probable process limitations, pollution results, recycled pavement test results, and the cost of virgin vs. recycled asphalt pavements.

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.

Traffic Control in Work Zones with Edge Drop-Offs, 2002

Pavement and shoulder edge drop-offs commonly occur in work zones as the result of overlays, pavement replacement, or shoulder construction. The depth of these elevation differentials can vary from approximately one inch when a flexible pavement overlay is applied to several feet where major reconstruction is undertaken. The potential hazards associated with pavement edge differentials depend on several factors including depth of the drop-off, shape of the pavement edge, distance from traveled way, vehicle speed, traffic mix, volume, and other factors. This research was undertaken to review current practices in other states for temporary traffic control strategies addressing lane edge differentials and to analyze crash data and resultant litigation related to edge drop-offs. An objective was to identify cost-effective practices that would minimize the potential for and impacts of edge drop crashes in work zones. Considerable variation in addressing temporary traffic control in work zones with edge drop-off exposure was found among the states surveyed. Crashes related to pavement edge drop-offs in work zones do not commonly occur in the state of Iowa, but some have resulted in significant tort claims and settlements. The use of benefit/cost analysis may provide guidance in selection of an appropriate mitigation and protection of edge drop-off conditions. Development and adoption of guidelines for design of appropriate traffic control for work zones that include edge drop-off exposure, particularly identifying effective use of temporary barrier rail, may be beneficial in Iowa.

Temporary Traffic Control Handbook, TR-694, 2016

This handbook provides a broad, easy to understand reference for temporary traffic control in work zones, addressing the safe and efficient accommodation of all road users: motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and those with special needs. When impacting a pedestrian facility, provide ten calendar days advance notification to the local jurisdiction and the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa (www.nfbi.org). The information presented is based on standards and guidance in the 2009 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). References to the MUTCD sign designations in this handbook are shown in parentheses, e.g. (W20-1). Not all the recommendations in this handbook will apply to every circumstance faced by local agencies, and each unique situation may not be addressed. Modifications of the typical applications in this handbook will be required to adapt to specific field conditions. Therefore, use engineering judgment, seeking the advice of experienced professionals and supervisors in difficult and complex interpretations. This handbook can be used as a reference for temporary traffic control in work zones on all city or county roadways. However, always check contract documents and local agency requirements for any pertinent modifications.

Iowa Construction and Maintenance Traffic Control Handbook, 1976

This Handbook has been prepared by the Iowa DOT as a guide and supplement to the MUTCD. It provides in one document a large number of illustrations which can be easily adapted to specific conditions by field personnel. It is intended to supersede all previous non-conforming standards now being used throughout the state and to provide uniform guidelines for all agencies, public and private, who must conduct construction and maintenance activities on the streets and highways of the state. The illustrations contained herein serve as a quick reference for field personnel to follow, however, no amount of detailed instructions can adequately cover every situation. For this reason, sound judgment is required in using these illustrations to cover actual field conditions.

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.

Portable School Stop Signs and Other Non-Uniform School Stop Control Devices, HR-190, 1978

Portable (roll-out) stop signs are used at school crossings in over 300 cities in Iowa. Their use conforms to the Code of Iowa, although it is not consistent with the provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted for nationwide application. A survey indicated that most users in Iowa believe that portable stop signs provide effective protection at school crossings, and favor their continued use. Other non-uniform signs that fold or rotate to display a STOP message only during certain hours are used at school crossings in over 60 cities in Iowa. Their use does not conform to either the Code of Iowa or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Users of these devices also tend to favor their continued use. A survey of other states indicated that use of temporary devices similar to those used in Iowa is not generally sanctioned. Some unsanctioned use apparently occurs in several states, however. A different type of portable stop sign for school crossings is authorized and widely used in one state. Portable stop signs similar to those used in Iowa are authorized in another state, although their use is quite limited. A few reports in the literature reviewed for this research discussed the use of portable stop signs. The authors of these reports uniformly recommended against the use of portable or temporary traffic control devices. Various reasons for this recommendation were given, although data to support the recommendation were not offered. As part of this research, field surveys were conducted at 54 locations in 33 communities where temporary stop control devices were in use at school crossings. Research personnel observed the obedience to stop control and measured the vehicular delay incurred. Stopped delay averaged 1.89 seconds/entering vehicle. Only 36.6 percent of the vehicles were observed to come to a complete stop at the study locations controlled by temporary stop control devices. However, this level of obedience does not differ from that observed at intersections controlled by permanent stop signs. Accident experience was compiled for 76 intersections in 33 communities in Iowa where temporary stop signs were used and, for comparative purposes, at 76 comparable intersections having other forms of control or operating without stop control. There were no significant differences in accident experience An economic analysis of vehicle operating costs, delay costs, and other costs indicated that temporary stop control generated costs only about 12 percent as great as permanent stop control for a street having a school crossing. Midblock pedestrian-actuated signals were shown to be cost effective in comparison with temporary stop signs under the conditions of use assumed. Such signals could be used effectively at a number of locations where temporary stop signs are being used. The results of this research do not provide a basis for recommending that use of portable stop signs be prohibited. However, erratic patterns of use of these devices and inadequate designs suggest that improved standards for their use are needed. Accordingly, nine recommendations are presented to enhance the efficiency of vehicular flow at school crossings, without causing a decline in the level of pedestrian protection being afforded.

Evaluation of Maturity and Pulse Velocity Measurements for PCC Traffic Opening Decisions, HR-380, 1998

Concrete paving is often at a disadvantage in terms of pavement type selection due to the time of curing required prior to opening the pavement to traffic. The State of Iowa has been able to reduce traffic delay constraints through material selection and construction methods to date. Methods for monitoring concrete strength gain and quality have not changed since the first concrete pavements were constructed in Iowa. In 1995, Lee County and the Iowa DOT cooperated in a research project, HR-380, to construct a 7.1 mile (11. 43 km) project to evaluate the use of maturity and pulse velocity nondestructive testing (NDT) methods in the estimation of concrete strength gain. The research identified the pros and cons of each method and suggested an instructional memorandum to utilize maturity measurements to meet traffic delay demands. Maturity was used to reduce the traffic delay opening time from 5-7 days to less than 2 days through the implementation of maturity measurements and special traffic control measures. Recommendations on the development of the maturity curve for each project and the location and monitoring of the maturity thermocouples are included. Examples of equipment that could easily be used by project personnel to estimate the concrete strength using the maturity methods is described.

Minimum Retroreflectivity of Traffic Signs and Pavement Markings, HR-562, 1995

This final report contains two separate reports which describe the retroreflectivity levels of various traffic signs and pavement markings on the Iowa primary road system. The data was collected in the fall/winter of 1994 and given to the Federal Highway Administration in March of 1995. This information is currently being combined with similar information from other jurisdictions across the country for the purpose of determining the impact of mandated minimum retroreflectivity levels. The FHWA will be releasing their report sometime in 1996. In October 1992, Congress mandated (Public Law 102-388) the Secretary of Transportation to revise the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to include a minimum level of retroreflectivity for pavement markings and traffic signs which shall apply to all roads open to public travel. In 1994, the FHWA initiated research studies to determine the retroreflectivity levels which currently exist for signs and markings in an attempt to develop standards which are reasonable to implement. The Iowa Department of Transportation participated in both of the studies and the final reports are included. After compilation and analysis of the collected retroreflectivity data, the FHWA will propose the new MUTCD standards through the federal rule making process. It is estimated that the actual MUTCD change will occur sometime in late 1997 or early 1998.