Clear Zone – A Synthesis of Practice and an Evaluation of the Benefi ts of Meeting the 10-ft Clear Zone Goal on Urban Streets, November 2008

In urban communities, there are often limited amounts of right-of-way available for establishing a large setback distance from the curb for fixed objects. Urban communities must constantly weigh the cost of purchasing additional right-of-way for clear zones against the risk of fixed object crashes. From 2004 to 2006, this type of crash on curbed roads represented 15% of all fatal crashes and 3% of all crashes in the state of Iowa. Many states have kept the current minimum AASHTO recommendations as their minimum clear zone standards; however, other states have decided that these recommendations are insufficient and have increased the required minimum clear zone distance to better suit the judgment of local designers. This report presents research on the effects of the clear zone on urban curbed streets. The research was conducted in two phases. The first phase involved a synthesis of practice that included a literature review and a survey of practices in jurisdictions that have developmental and historical patterns similar to those of Iowa. The second phase involved investigating the benefits of a 10 ft clear zone, which included examining urban corridors in Iowa that meet or do not meet the 10 ft clear zone goal. The results of this study indicate that a consistent fixed object offset results in a reduction in the number of fixed object crashes, a 5 ft clear zone is most effective when the goal is to minimize the number of fixed object c ashes, and a 3 ft clear zone is most effective when the goal is to minimize the cost of fixed object crashes.

Durable, Cost-Effective Pavement Markings Phase I: Synthesis of Current Research, June 2001

Pavement marking technology is a continually evolving subject. There are numerous types of materials used in the field today, including (but not limited to) paint, epoxy, tape, and thermoplastic. Each material has its own set of unique characteristics related to durability, retro reflectivity, installation cost, and life-cycle cost. The Iowa Highway Research Board was interested in investigating the possibility of developing an ongoing program to evaluate the various products used in pavement marking. This potential program would maintain a database of performance and cost information to assist state and local agencies in determining which materials and placement methods are most appropriate for their use. The Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University has completed Phase I of this research: to identify the current practice and experiences from around the United States to recommend a further course of action for the State of Iowa. There has been a significant amount of research completed in the last several years. Research from Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Ohio, and Alaska all had some common findings: white markings are more retro reflective than yellow markings; paint is by-and-large the least expensive material; paint tends to degrade faster than other materials; thermoplastic and tapes had higher retro reflective characteristics. Perhaps the most significant program going on in the area of pavement markings is the National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP). This is an ongoing research program jointly conducted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and its member states. Field and lab tests on numerous types of pavement marking materials are being conducted at sites representing four climatological areas. These results are published periodically for use by any jurisdiction interested in pavement marking materials performance.At this time, it is recommended that the State of Iowa not embark on a test deck evaluation program. Instead, close attention should be paid to the ongoing evaluations of the NTPEP program. Materials that fare well on the NTPEP test de cks should be considered for further field studies in Iowa.

Durable, Cost-Effective Pavement Markings Phase I: Synthesis of Current Reseaech, June 2001

Pavement marking technology is a continually evolving subject. There are numerous types of materials used in the field today, including (but not limited to) paint, epoxy, tape, and thermoplastic. Each material has its own set of unique characteristics related to durability, retroreflectivity, installation cost, and life-cycle cost. The Iowa Highway Research Board was interested in investigating the possibility of developing an ongoing program to evaluate the various products used in pavement marking. This potential program would maintain a database of performance and cost information to assist state and local agencies in determining which materials and placement methods are most appropriate for their use. The Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University has completed Phase I of this research: to identify the current practice and experiences from around the United States to recommend a further course of action for the State of Iowa. There has been a significant amount of research completed in the last several years. Research from Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Ohio, and Alaska all had some common findings: white markings are more retroreflective than yellow markings; paint is by-and-large the least expensive material; paint tends to degrade faster than other materials; thermoplastic and tapes had higher retroreflective characteristics. Perhaps the most significant program going on in the area of pavement markings is the National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP). This is an ongoing research program jointly conducted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and its member states. Field and lab tests on numerous types of pavement marking materials are being conducted at sites representing four climatological areas. These results are published periodically for use by any jurisdiction interested in pavement marking materials performance. At this time, it is recommended that the State of Iowa not embark on a test deck evaluation program. Instead, close attention should be paid to the ongoing evaluations of the NTPEP program. Materials that fare well on the NTPEP test de cks should be considered for further field studies in Iowa.

Long-Life Concrete: How Long Will My Concrete Last? A Synthesis of Knowledge of Potential Durability of Concrete, TPF-5(159), 2013

There is an ongoing discussion about moving toward performance-based specifications for concrete pavements. This document seeks to move the discussion forward by outlining the needs and the challenges, and proposing some immediate actions. However, this approach may increase risk for all parties until performance requirements are agreed upon and, more importantly, how the requirements can be measured. A fundamental issue behind pavement construction activities is that the owner/designer needs to be assured that the concrete in place will survive for the intended period (assuming there are no changes in the environment or loading) and, therefore, that full payment should be made. At the same time, each party along the supply chain needs to be assured that the material being supplied to them is able to meet the required performance, as is the product/system they are delivering. The focus of this document is a discussion of the issues behind this need, and the technologies that are available, or still needed, to meet this need, particularly from the point of view of potential durability

Synthesis Study: Effectiveness of Safety Corridor Programs, Report on Tasks 1-3, 2008

This report synthesizes the safety corridor programs of 13 states that currently have some type of program: Alaska, California, Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. This synthesis can help Midwestern states implement their own safety corridor programs and select pilot corridors or enhance existing corridors. Survey and interview information about the states’ programs was gathered from members of each state department of transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) division office. Topics discussed included definitions of a safety corridor; length and number of corridors in the program; criteria for selection of a corridor; measures of effectiveness of an implemented safety corridor; organizational structure of the program; funding and legislation issues; and engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service strategies. Safety corridor programs with successful results were then examined in more detail, and field visits were made to Kansas, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington for first-hand observations. With the survey and field visit information, several characteristics of successful safety corridor programs were identified, including multidisciplinary (3E and 4E) efforts; selection, evaluation, and decommissioning strategies; organization structure, champions, and funding; task forces and Corridor Safety Action Plans; road safety audits; and legislation and other safety issues. Based on the synthesis, the report makes recommendations for establishing and maintaining a successful safety corridor program.

Synthesis of Traffic Calming Techniques in Work Zones, 2009

Nationwide, over 1,000 fatalities and 40,000 injuries occur annually in work zones, which include both construction zones and areas where maintenance is performed. The majority (85%) of work zone accidents result from unsafe driver behavior, and vehicle speed is often a factor in work zone crashes. In order to address speed and driver behavior near work zones, roadway agencies have developed different traffic calming measures. The objective of this research is to summarize the effectiveness of different traffic calming treatments for reducing speeds in work zones. This project 1. identified work zone traffic calming treatments for which information has not been well summarized, 2. identified state of the art and new technologies for work zone traffic calming, and 3. synthesized research related to items 1 and 2