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.

Evaluation of U.S. and European Concrete Pavement Noise Reduction Methods, July 2006

Highway noise is one of the most pressing of the surface characteristics issues facing the concrete paving industry. This is particularly true in urban areas, where not only is there a higher population density near major thoroughfares, but also a greater volume of commuter traffic (Sandberg and Ejsmont 2002; van Keulen 2004). To help address this issue, the National Concrete Pavement Technology Center (CP Tech Center) at Iowa State University (ISU), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), and other organizations have partnered to conduct a multi-part, seven-year Concrete Pavement Surface Characteristics Project. This document contains the results of Part 1, Task 2, of the ISU-FHWA project, addressing the noise issue by evaluating conventional and innovative concrete pavement noise reduction methods. The first objective of this task was to determine what if any concrete surface textures currently constructed in the United States or Europe were considered quiet, had long-term friction characteristics, could be consistently built, and were cost effective. Any specifications of such concrete textures would be included in this report. The second objective was to determine whether any promising new concrete pavement surfaces to control tire-pavement noise and friction were in the development stage and, if so, what further research was necessary. The final objective was to identify measurement techniques used in the evaluation.

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.

Embankment Quality and Assessment of Moisture Control Implementation, TR-677, 2016

A specification for contractor moisture quality control (QC) in roadway embankment construction has been in use for approximately 10 years in Iowa on about 190 projects. The use of this QC specification and the development of the soils certification program for the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) originated from Iowa Highway Research Board (IHRB) embankment quality research projects. Since this research, the Iowa DOT has applied compaction with moisture control on most embankment work under pavements. This study set out to independently evaluate the actual quality of compaction using the current specifications. Results show that Proctor tests conducted by Iowa State University (ISU) using representative material obtained from each test section where field testing was conducted had optimum moisture contents and maximum dry densities that are different from what was selected by the Iowa DOT for QC/quality assurance (QA) testing. Comparisons between the measured and selected values showed a standard error of 2.9 lb/ft3 for maximum dry density and 2.1% for optimum moisture content. The difference in optimum moisture content was as high as 4% and the difference in maximum dry density was as high as 6.5 lb/ft3 . The difference at most test locations, however, were within the allowable variation suggested in AASHTO T 99 for test results between different laboratories. The ISU testing results showed higher rates of data outside of the target limits specified based on the available contractor QC data for cohesive materials. Also, during construction observations, wet fill materials were often observed. Several test points indicated that materials were placed and accepted at wet of the target moisture contents. The statistical analysis results indicate that the results obtained from this study showed improvements over results from previous embankment quality research projects (TR-401 Phases I through III and TR-492) in terms of the percentage of data that fell within the specification limits. Although there was evidence of improvement, QC/QA results are not consistently meeting the target limits/values. Recommendations are provided in this report for Iowa DOT consideration with three proposed options for improvements to the current specifications. Option 1 provides enhancements to current specifications in terms of material-dependent control limits, training, sampling, and process control. Option 2 addresses development of alternative specifications that incorporate dynamic cone penetrometer or light weight deflectometer testing into QC/QA. Option 3 addresses incorporating calibrated intelligent compaction measurements into QC/QA.