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.

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.

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.

Mission-Oriented Dust Control and Surface Improvement Processes for Unpaved Roads, HR-194, 1981

Six subject areas prompted the broad field of inquiry of this mission-oriented dust control and surface improvement project for unpaved roads: • DUST--Hundreds of thousands of tons of dust are created annually by vehicles on Iowa's 70,000 miles of unpaved roads and streets. Such dust is often regarded as a nuisance by Iowa's highway engineers. • REGULATIONS--Establishment of "fugitive dust" regulations by the Iowa DEQ in 1971 has created debates, conferences, legal opinions, financial responsibilities, and limited compromises regarding "reasonable precaution" and "ordinary travel," both terms being undefined judgment factors. • THE PUBLIC--Increased awareness by the public that regulations regarding dust do in fact exist creates a discord of telephone calls, petitions, and increasing numbers of legal citations. Both engineers and politicians are frustrated into allowing either the courts or regulatory agencies to resolve what is basically a professional engineering responsibility. • COST--Economics seldom appear as a tenet of regulatory strategies, and in the case of "fugitive dust," four-way struggles often occur between the highway professions, political bodies, regulatory agencies, and the general public as to who is responsible, what can be done, how much it will cost, or why it wasn't done yesterday. • CONFUSION--The engineer lacks authority, and guidelines and specifications to design and construct a low-cost surf acing system are nebulous, i.e., construct something between the present crushed stone/gravel surface and a high-type pavement. • SOLUTION--The engineer must demonstrate that dust control and surface improvement may be engineered at a reasonable cost to the public, so that a higher degree of regulatory responsibility can be vested in engineering solutions.

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.